History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

After the bitter partition in 1947, predominant opinion in India is that Jinnah was the sole culprit and thinks of him as a religious person. In fact, the patriarch of the ruling party (BJP) L.K Advani was stripped of his post as party president when on a trip to Lahore he called Jinnah secular. (http://www.economist.com/node/4069498)

However, Jinnah in his address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan said

In course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.


You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. BBC World News

Is it possible to arrive at a definite conclusion keeping emotions/bias at bay?

share|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by Mark C. Wallace, Tyler Durden, Pieter Geerkens, Comintern, choster Aug 17 '14 at 19:29

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

There are numerous sources which point to Jinnah being a secular person. They seem to suggest that political considerations (and some even say personal disgruntlement/greed/whatever) drove him to call for a divided nation. I would expect the answer to be a very complex set of interpretations. One thing though- there is not much that can point at him being religious. Everybody seems to say he was guided by western liberal ideas. – Rajib Aug 9 '14 at 13:01
Your quotations certainly paint him as following Western liberal ideology, but what do you mean by "communal person"? Does that mean "driven by religion" to an Indian? – Mike Aug 11 '14 at 6:04
Yes @Mike. Driven by religion is the correct interpretation. – R11G Aug 11 '14 at 6:37
Do you mean this person? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._K._Advani He was born in 1927 - what trip are you talking about? – Felix Goldberg Aug 14 '14 at 8:41
Without a clear definition of "secular" and "religious", it is not possible to arrive at a definite conclusion. I don't think the terms are defined, nor do I think they are exclusive. – Mark C. Wallace Aug 14 '14 at 11:11

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was never Islamic extremist. He was in political exile for many years. But when he returned, he got leadership of Indian Muslims and when he got a chance to became Prime Minister, a fight started between Nehru and Jinnah. Gandhi had told Nehru, let us make Jinnah PM for few days (he was seriously ill and died few months after partition). After his death you will be PM but keep the nation integrated. Nehru refused his offer. That's why the partition happened in the name of religion but it was totally useless.

share|improve this answer
-1, sorry. There were much deeper differences between the two communities, leading to the tragedy-laden partition, than just who would be PM, as your answer implies. This is not to say that finer political technique and more generosity of spirit on the part of all involved (including the British) would not have made a difference. But, to stress again, the conflict was deep and serious, not just over a job. – Felix Goldberg Aug 14 '14 at 8:41
I know that it was deep. But it would have been controlled if these leaders would have acted wisely. Partition could have been avoided but the leadership was reluctant to fight for some more time. They were eager to rule and their will to keep nation integral had vanished meanwhile. – Shreemay Panhalkar Aug 14 '14 at 8:44
This answer would be improved by sources. The current answer is just a set of assertions; if there were evidence to back up those assertions, I could upvote. – Mark C. Wallace Aug 14 '14 at 11:07
This answer is too simplistic, and also does not directly address the question of the OP. Moreover, Gandhi's role as described here (request/ask Nehru) sounds childish in the context of a populous nation about to attain freedom. In fact, I would ask what Gandhi's role was in the entire episode- a spectator or an active decision maker? But that's a different question. – Rajib Aug 14 '14 at 18:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.