Jinnah, the Realist v. Gandhi, the Delusional Megalomaniac

When a fist fight breaks out between two people, the first step is to immediately separate the two combatants. Bystanders quickly pull the fighters apart and effectively stop the escalation of violence. This action is prompted by intuition and basic common sense. If two people can’t ever get along, it makes no sense in forcing them to be in each other’s faces. This idea that people who cannot get along should be separate is not exactly quantum mechanics. But somehow it seems that the great celebrated Mr Mohandas Gandhi could not — or would not — understand it. His one-time friend and fellow Congress leader, and later the leader of the All India Muslim League, Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah, understood that idea very well. Clearly Jinnah was intellectually superior to Gandhi (which, I hasten to add, does not elevate Jinnah’s intelligence very much) and certainly more rational.

Below is an excerpt from a speech that Jinnah: Presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League, Lahore, 1940.

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.

When Jinnah says, “our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism”, he is referring to Gandhi and other Congress leaders. Gandhi was a delusional megalomaniac. He believed that since he wanted “Hindu-Muslim” unity, the universe will bend to his desire because he was sincere. Hindus and Muslims of India will continue to pay the price of Gandhi’s idiocy for decades to come. I hope the next Muhammad Ali Jinnah is more successful in separating the two and building a decent wall between the two.

Good fences make good neighbors.

Author: Atanu Dey


6 thoughts on “Jinnah, the Realist v. Gandhi, the Delusional Megalomaniac”

  1. To elevate Jinna over Mahatma Gandhi on the basis of a speech is unfortunate. I do not understand the statement, “Hindus and Muslims of India will continue to pay the price of Gandhi’s idiocy for decades to come” either. What did the Father of the Nation of India do to deserve such blame? Mahatma was considered the man of the 2nd millinnium by so many across the globe in the internet poll at the turn of the century.

    The tragedy of Partition was not that two groups of people separating into two nations. When India was divided into two, the ruling power went into the hands of radicals in Pakistan with extreme hatred and disregard for India and its people that continues till today. On the other hand no body can blame Nehru, the first PM of independent India for harboring hatred towards the same neighbor.

    I am constantly reminded of the U.S. and Canada, when the British left two friendly neighbors emgerged. If there was any acrimony, it was kept below the radar.


  2. Jinnah’s message may be pseudo-rational. If two groups cannot tolerate each other and separate, that may merely be the first step. The sequence of separation can proceed further.

    India did not become Hindu nation. However Pakistan did become Islamic republic. Then the Islamic brothers learnt that Bengali-pride runs stronger than religion and Bangladesh happened. It did not stop there. Sunni muslims dropped Ahmedis from radar. Now trying to annihilate Shias. Even if they manage to terminate them, I am sure some or other division will crop up. May be mohajirs will go next. The habit of not tolerating difference can become pronounced with every separation.

    I may be becoming a bit theoretical here. However, I am not as convinced as you(Atanu) that partition was the most common-sense thing to do.

    Of course the Hindu-Muslim Bhai-Bhai idiocy needs to be stopped. First there has to be honest acknowledgment that there is this deep rooted hatred. My hero is your villain and vice-versa. I will consider Aurganzeb as an evil, and you my Muslim friend, will not be able to go ga-ga over Shivaji’s victories. HOWEVER, once we acknowledge this openly, a mature truce can be worked out. A mature working truce, without the partition.

    Gandhi may have been a megalomaniac. However, partition was possibly a wrong solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem.


    1. “Gandhi may have been a megalomaniac. However, partition was possibly a wrong solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem.”

      I recommend you merge your family (presumably a non-Muslim family) with a Muslim family in your neighborhood, and then report on how much you enjoy living cheek and jowl with them.

      Try imagining that. And let me know how that works. OK?


  3. Dear Mr. Dey:

    On a separate note, have you noticed how most Hindu politicians across the political spectrum fall over themselves to host iftar parties, wear skullcaps, offer namaz, and otherwise abase themselves before the RIP (Religion of Peace)?

    Muslim politicians, on the other hand, are quite uniform in their refusal to adorn any symbols of Hinduism, participate in Hindu rituals, and even talk about the oneness of religions. They only talk about the rights of their inevitably-to-become-a-majority minority.

    Thus, my assessment is that Hindu politicians continue to be in the mold of the delusional Gandhi and Muslim politicians in that of the Muslim-imperialist Jinnah.

    Thank you.


    1. Most “Hindu” politicians are dhimmies by and large. Why? Because of the “democratic” system that the British instituted. Winning elections is the goal. Why can’t you win an election by appealing to the “majority”? Because of the problem of collective action that Mancur Olson identified.

      I put the words Hindu and democratic in quotes because their connotations are quite different from their denotations.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: