Rating: 
Summary: A must read!! Anybody who is interested in Indo-Pak history.
Review: Once in a million years people like Jinnah are born. And often they go unappreciated. Jinnah was one of them, perhaps the greatest in the recent Indian history after the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. He brought the Muslims of Indo-Pak together and gave them a sense of direction. Akbar S. Ahmed did a marvelous job, shedding light on Jinnah's life and cleared the misinformation and propaganda generated by Western and Indian writers. It is a fine piece of research and a must read for anybody interested in Indo-Pak history.
Rating: 
Summary: Jinnah's vision is relevant
Review: The author asks two basic questions: (1) was Jinnah justified in demanding a 2-state solution (India and Pakistan as separate nations) upon the demise of British imperial control? (2) in view of chaotic conditions in Pakistan, including ethnic rivalries, corruption, periodic resort to military rule, and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism--is Jinnah relevant today (other than as a George Washington-type national icon)?The author answers "yes" on both counts, i.e. that in demanding the establishment of Pakistan, Jinnah responded to the legitimate needs and aspirations of Muslims on the Indian subcontinent; and, secondly, that Jinnah's vision for Pakistan is relevant today. While not quite a "secular Moslem", Jinnah nonetheless definitely rejected the idea of theocracy or the overly zealous imposition of Islam on others. As a constitutional lawyer trained in Britain, he argued for a broad interpretation of community, in which the rights and interest of minorities and non-Muslims would be respected within the framework of a Moslem Pakistan. The author laments that Jinnah died shortly after the foundation of Pakistan, and was not able to lead his nation through its formative years, but feels nonetheless that Pakistanis today could see the way to solutions to their many problems if they adhered to Jinnah's sense of moderation, tolerance, and wisdom. While definitely sympathetic to Jinnah and Pakistan, the author's treatment of his subject is generally even-handed and fair-minded.
Rating:
Summary: A very humane and honest view of a man who was a man...
Review: The book is clearly wonderful as noted through the interest of the other readers. However I would like to point somethings out. Jinnah a)Never wished bloodshed b)Wanted a secular state. Pakistan's history maybe chaotic and others may regret it's existence but I for one feel, as do many others(Ihope), that Pakistan is not a failed state...it is a new state; still emerging...and Jinnah, as Akbar Ahmed points out in his book...for all his eccentricities..was and still is the greatest player of the great game that British India ever produced. He was not a god, he was not a villain, he was not wrong. He was just a human being doing what he felt was right and who are we to judge him wrong on that.
Rating: 
Summary: It could have been better
Review: The title of the book definitely gives the impression that it is one of the best attempts to reveal a lot of details about the life and times of Jinnah. The methodology used to present Jinnah and the idea of Pakistan is to some extent shameful. The use of derogatory tendencies towards some Indian leaders such as the Nehru and Edwina episode (no one knows if it is true) are quite typical of socio political writings emerging from Pakistan. These things were not warranted at least to portray the legal luminary and his notion of Pakistan. It throws an impression about the author trying to use the theory of self justification to portray such an important personality in the history of the Indian subcontinent. The portrayal of Muslims as tyrants towards Hindus and vice versa is not quite appropriate and once again seems typical of the socio political atmosphere there. A lot of facts (many of which are not accurate) about the political environment of the time is used to come to a conclusion about Jinnah. This does not surprise me considering the fact that so little has officially been documented about Jinnah by the Pakistani government itself. The book begins by trying to clear the air about various misconceptions about Jinnah's life. It would have been better off if the author could have done much research and laid down facts about the life and times of Jinnah rather than trying to drive to conclusions clearing the air and misconceptions. The author has definitely drawn a lot from personal interviews with Jinnahs close family members. However these have not been portrayed properly giving an impression that the author is trying to hide facts especially about Jinnah's true notions about Pakistan and the Islamic identity. One thing very cleverly hidden is Jinnah's personal and professional attachment with the city of Bombay. A lot many other literary works that have emerged about Jinnah have portrayed this angle very well and this book curiously seems to miss them. The attempt of gratification of the Quaid-e-Azam could have been handled in a much better way. The impression one gets is that the author has written the book keeping in mind the Pakistani audience.
Rating:
Summary: SUPERB ANALYSIS OF JINNAH AND THE BIRTH OF PAKISTAN
Review: There appears to be a great deal of angst attached to the cult of personality and the legend of Jinnah. He is an enigmatic figure portrayed by historians as both pragmatic and erratic. Prof. Ahmed seems to have decided to discuss Jinnah as the main driving force behind the formation of Pakistan. The reasons for the creation of this state are mixed and can be argued from many perspectives. As a reviewer noted below much of Pakistan's population is not Indian at all, but speaks Iranian languages and was separated by the British from Afghanistan and Iran during the late 19th and early 20th century. The western Panjab and Sind were both predominantly Muslim regions along the periphery of Indian civilization, but Sind and parts of the Panjab have had divergent histories from that of most of India. The invasions of Cyrus and Darius' Persian empire annexed the area that is now Pakistan and then Alexander the Great did the same. The empires of India's golden age, the Mauryans and the Guptas did not directly rule the area of Pakistan, but did exact tribute. Buddhism gained a major foothold in Pakistan before Islam and a large minority of Zoroastrians can be traced through the many ruins found mostly in the Afghani province of the Northwest Frontier and other areas. Kashmir is also part of this divergent region and analysis of the past helps to better understand why Muslim leaders of British India chose to band together and call for a Muslim state in the northwest. Many appear to have been Panjabis, while Muslims throughout thought it a good idea to establish a homeland for all the Muslims of British India. This was not a very realistic goal since Hindus were and are the majority in areas outside of Pakistan and Kashmir. Bangladesh is the one unusual exception as most of its inhabitants were converts to Islam. Political reality seems to have shaped the actions of Jinnah, who indeed played all the big players against each other. He sided with the British when it suited his purpose and then sided with Gandhi when necessary. All of it was done for a movement spearheaded by Mr. Jinnah, but not exclusively his. Prof. Ahmed points out that the actions of Muslims outside of Pakistan were major contributing factors to the formation of Pakistan. This appears to have been an example of Muslim solidarity that projected unrealistic goals and promises. Prof. Ahmed examines the many varied dimensions of Islam's role in Panjab, Sind, Kashmir, the Northwest Frontier, and Baluchistan and delineates the many varied factions and ethnic groups that have continued to argue amongst themselves in-spite of a common religion (that can be sub-divided into Sunni and Shi'i sects). The residue of Indian resentment is pervasive. Indian historical views favor an equally unrealistic vision of British India as being reborn into a new Indian juggernaut with a population greater than China's. Unfortunately Indian acknowledgement of facts and figures about Pakistan aren't always accurate. Few know about Pakistan's varied ethnic mosaic or its contensious religious factions. Old claims by Afghanistan that western Pakistan should be returned to Afghan sovreignity are also absent in the minds of Indians, who seem to view Pakistan as an Urdu-speaking Indo-Muslim breakaway region that has left a legacy of war and hatred. Without a full view of Pakistan's origins all that can be understood is that it is time to look to the future rather than to a past that cannot be changed.
Rating:
Summary: Icing On A Mud Cake
Review: This book has been written after fifty years of Pakistan and India's creation. At a time when Pakistan is struggling to exist, burdened by sectarian feud, international sanctions, failing economy, poverty, corruption and a sense of national failure amongst it's people.
It's arch rival,India,on the other hand has a strong economy, strong military, advanced space avaition program, rapidly progressing IT industry and an emerging super power.
It is difficult for any patriotic pakistani to digest this. This book has been written in the same vein. This book tries to give Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, a new face, one which nine out of ten authors failed to see. Sensing a lack of national leaders whom pakistanis can feel proud of and identify with, this book tries to revive Jinnah's image.
Trying to portray Jinnah as a hero the author on numerous occasions tries to belittle and berate the other great leaders of the Indian independence movement, namely Nehru, Gandhi, Maulana Azad etc. This is one of the flaws in the authors writing. The greatness of a person should speak for itself, it is not attained by pointing mistakes of other great people. As per the book Jinnah was a proponent of Hindu-Muslim unity but became disillusioned by Gandhi's mass politics and was concerned about the safety of the muslims in India and so demanded a separate state. Elobarating this view the author tries to explain as to how the two cultures (Hindu and Muslim) in the sub-continent are totally different and it would have been impossible for them to co-exist. There is also an attempt to portray the history of the sub-continent as a shrinking muslim empire.
The author has done a selective exercise in history to pick events that suit to explain his point of view.The history of the sub-continent is 5000 years old and the muslim era forms only a fraction of that period. It is wrong to say that India was never united before the mughals came. There have been great empires and rulers before the mughals, to name a few Ashoka the great and the Gupta dynasty ( golden age in the Indian history). It is the fate of all great empires to crumble and fall one day and to cling on to the memory of past rulers ( Muslims as per the author, identifying with the mughals) is stupid.
The author explains two movements, Pakistanisation and Awamification but fails to talk about the Talibanisation of Pakistan. This last movement is eating into the very heart of Pakistans national and international identity.
The failures and disintegration of Pakistan ( Bangladesh) is not India's fault. The problem of kashmir is not as simple as the author tries to make it. India is not the big bully in the sub-continent, it has excellent relations with Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Bhutan and China is one of it's biggest trading partners. The only neighbour causing India any problem is Pakistan.
Great leaders work hard to keep people together and use cultural diversity as strength to build nations on. Jinnah did the opposit.
Rating:
Summary: Give Credit where credit is due
Review: Though one remains unconvinced that Mr. Jinnah was a Saladin figure, at least Akbar Ahmed mentions that it was Ch. Rahmat Ali who coined the name and concept of 'Pakistan'. He even reproduces Ch. Rahmat Ali's map of South Asia which depicts South Asia (India) as a CONTINENT composed of Muslim, Hindoo, Sikh, Dravidian, etc nations / states (though a lot of highly respected historians of South Asia such as Lawrence James, Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Akbar included) think India is a country!. However, Akbar Ahmed fails to explain why Mr. Jinnah did not adopt Ch. Rahmat Ali's idea of reforming British India / South Asia as a CONTINENT of diverse nations living in harmony with each other, thereby avoiding the tensions and conflicts that have afflicted South Asia since 'independence'. However, congratulations to Mr. Akbar for reproducing Ch. Rahmat Ali's map - though of course he would not be allowed to do that in Pakistan (where Ch. Rahmat Ali's works are banned)! An excellent book to purchase just to see the map!
Rating:
Summary: A must read
Review: Unlike the two other reviewers, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I praise Professor Ahmed for his hard work and research on very controversial subject in South Asian history. The real strength of this book is the honesty and frankness with which we writes, dealing with the relationship between the Mountbattens and Nehru and especially between Gandhi and Jinnah. There are many misconceptions about Pakistan and South Asian Muslims in general, and the author does a great job in explaining these subjects fully.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Research and a fresh point of view
Review: What I enjoyed about this book is the depth to which the author has researched existing literature and has been very independent in his analysis. He has given a human face to Jinnah and detailed his struggles and his obstacles in a very enlightening way.
Rating: 
Summary: a shallow book, full of unsubstantiated assumptions
Review: When you read a book that depends on things like the impression of a security guard who has viewed Jinnah in a parade to form the basis of what Jinnah was REALLY like, you know you are in trouble. The author often takes the idea of a monolithic Muslim community as agiven and goes from there. So if a Muslim poet has written a despairing poem, it is not that the poet is in despair or the community is in despair but that the MUSLIMS are in despair. When Hindus and Muslims have fought in battle together, the author supposes the Hindu must have felt odd fighting for a Muslim ruler. Nobody is arguing that Hindu and Muslims are brothers but the authors easy conclusions to fit his thesis are laughable. He often looks at WHO has written rather than WHAT has been written. The inconsistency of Jinnah fighting against the Hindu Mahasabha while strongly propounding Islamic identity in the midst of the minorities of Punjab and Bengal is not properly explored. In the manner in which it was not enough to have the word of a Gandhi to determine the fate of the Muslims, the author ignores it was not enough to rely on the word of Jinnah to determine the fate of Pakistan's Hindus. At the end of the day, the only thing that Jinnah did was give a name to a region (Pakistan) that would have been Muslim dominated anyway, he did nothing to solve the problem of Muslim minorities in India. That failure is not addressed in this book because the author starts his book with statements that assume the whole discussion away: such as there were three forces, British, Hindu and Muslim. His interviews with Dina Jinnah result in a few words here and there being pulled to make the author's point. You don't get a sense of Dina Jinnah herself. Maybe, the author needed to do that to sell to his Pakistani audience.
|
