More than anything else, I’m surprised by how much underwear talk has come out of the Jaswant-Jinnah imbroglio.
“There is nothing more comical than seeing the chaddi gang pressing the self-destruct button,” writes blogger Liju Philip (http://tinyurl.com /ng6kmk) in response to the BJP’s increasingly obtuse handling of the situation.
“I love how just the mention of Jinnah in India in the slightest positive gets everyone’s knickers in a knot,” says a commenter on the blog Qalandar (http://tinyurl.com/ktll2e).
Naturally, interpretations of history, and what they tell us about the people doing the interpreting, are central to the debate. Among the dozens of websites — Indian and Pakistani — discussing this subject is the SouthAsianIdea Weblog (http:// tinyurl.com/ nqk52v), which says, “It’s sad that the history we are taught in our countries is so one-dimensional that even the thought the ‘Other’ might be semi-intelligent makes people catatonic. The predictable reaction is to impugn the motives of the writer.”
In the discussion that follows, someone points out that every middle class needs its national myths and “conventionally accepted truths” that allow for no nuance.
“In the mythology of middle-class India, Jinnah is a villain… but these issues go beyond Mr Jinnah. They have a bearing on the moral and intellectual health of nations. Are we living a series of big lies?” (Personally I’m tempted to reply “Yes. All history is a big lie in one way or the other.” But I’ll still my tongue.)
More From This Section
On Permanent Revolution (http://tinyurl.com/kon6ek), V Krishna Ananth suggests that Jaswant Singh’s mistake was highlighting the “wrong” positive side of Jinnah. “He could have earned a promotion if he had praised Jinnah for having defied Islam. Jinnah loved his drink, relished Western cuisines and several things in his life were un-Islamic — the BJP would have enjoyed anyone pointing out these things.”
Things get ugly on some message-boards. “Indians are not taught the correct facts about Partition in school,” says a post on Let us Build Pakistan (http://tinyurl.com/ mt4bf2). “One reason is that the Congress’s role in the freedom movement is inviolate.”
Meanwhile, a commenter on a Hindustan Times blog (http://tinyurl.com/kmnhvq) finds it ironical “that Indians are batting for Jinnah while no Pakistanis are left to bat for him as they are busy batting for Hafiz Sayed. That’s the problem with Indians. We are always one step behind”.
A flurry of angry responses follow and discussion is soon replaced by ad hominem.
You know a discussion has firmly entered the mainstream when it begets a Facebook analogy. Commenting on how the BJP should have gone about things, Great Bong (http://tinyurl.com/n78t35) writes, “When a friend is dissing you, the immature way to react is to grab him by the collar and scream ‘You are no longer my friend’. The more mature way is to move him to the restricted list on Facebook and later remove him.” Advani and social networking seem like strange bedfellows, but you never know.
The banning of Singh’s book in Gujarat has set off several discussions about freedom of expression. Wearily, I turn to a related — and disheartening — story involving the author Sebastian Faulks. When Faulks’ novel A Week in December was perceived as being critical of the Quran, he quickly wrote a Telegraph article (http://tinyurl.com/mskarx) apologising to any Muslims whose sentiments may have been hurt. Most of the comments on the piece are understandably scornful. “Wow, that was a long-winded, grovelling article,” says one,
“All he really had to do was say: 1) I’ve written a book about your holy book, 2) Please, please don’t behead me.” Perhaps Jaswant should have sent a similar missive to the BJP top brass: “I’ve written a book about your holy bogeyman. Don’t sack me.”
