Jinnah Secular, Osama Saint

Prince Harry would have made a good advisor to Lal Krishna Advani. Harry would have told him how a mere Nazi costume almost got him lynched. That's Europe! In India, you can get away after uttering any nonsense. Advani knows this from experience. Even as several people seem to be shocked and bewildered by his secularisation of Jinnah, there are dozens who are telling us that Jinnah was not a bad guy, afterall.

I have by now read dozens of so-called intellectual pieces which failed to clearly tell us why Jinnah was secular. Well, I know a single reason why he is not. Whatever be the cause that he and his present day apologists give as reasons for he epousing the cause of a Muslim nation, he should be held accountable for his actions. Be it the British policy, or the attitude of some national leaders, one doesn't screw up the nation if one's ambition is not met.

When he knew that he would not be the top leader of the Congress, and by logic of the free nation, he disappeared to practise law in Britain. He returned only after realising that there was an opportunity for him under the British divide and rule game. For achieving his ends, he whipped up communal passions that led to riots. He had several communal counterparts, whose believers are still threatening Indian nationhood, but Jinnah was no less an evil.

Whatever he may have said to the Pakistan constituent assembly, the real Jinnah in my opinion is the man who failed to express regret, the one who failed to repent for the deaths of millions in riots he caused. And that too me is not a secular man.

After Richard Attenborough's Gandhi made waves world-wide, some people in Pakistan wanted to make a Hollywood movie on Jinnah. Guess who they shortlisted? Not Alique Padamsee. It was Christopher Lee. Yes, you guessed it right! The man who played Dracula. If Advani knew the howls of laughter that invited in this part of the world, he would not have embarked on his secular Jinnah adventure.