The 2014 general elections are coming to an end. On May 16, we shall come to know whose efforts have been rewarded. But by all standards, this has been an election which has redefined how low the  politicians can stoop to hit their counterparts. Instead of debates what we have seen is leaders heaping abuse on each other. It seems that they are taking part in a no holds barred contest, where the dirtier the muck the better it is.

This election has seen the 24x7 electronic media lap up all the low barbs by the leaders. They have magnified these into endless debates, repeatedly telecast to garner as many TRP's as possible. Social media has also been skillfully manipulated to further the low agendas set by some leaders and parties.

In past elections also, there have been personal attacks, but rarely below the belt. Leaders respected the private life of opponents and desisted from mentioning or commenting on them. However this time around this self imposed code of good behaviour has been given a go bye. Another introduction has been name calling which have been used as a force multiplier by social media.

Another phenomenon has been the open threats of different types  to those who will oppose a particular leader or ideology, including deportation to a neighbouring country not well deposed to India. Another leader said supporters of a particular leader should be drowned in the sea. Someone said, the time for revenge has come and yet someone said that, those who liberated Kargil were of a particular community only. Every low barb has to be replied by a still lower barb.

It is said, the fact that elections are spread over nine phases makes it difficult for the leaders to sustain the voters attention. The fatigued politicians have to come up with new issues and the easiest is raking up of personal issues. The media also wants masala and it is well known that negative news sells far more than positive news.

Would a debate on how to increase India's GDP be more interesting or discussion on how a leader of a certain party called the leader of another party  a particular variety of four legged creature. How many viewers would watch full time a discussion on need to improve India's social parameters. But the same viewers would sit throughout if the debate were on the marriage status of a particular leader. Therefore the media especially the electronic one wants the leaders to say nasty things so that they can run endless stories on it.

The issue of secularism and communalism was mercilessly flogged for some weeks before it ran out of steam. At the end we were not sure who was secular and who was communal. Sensing this lack of attention, the leaders started attacking their rivals on personal issues. This has sustained attention and is the current flavour. A leader makes the personal attack leaving the attacked leader no option but to respond in a like manner. 

No issue is left out. Caste, creed, religion, region, language, nationality, funding, length of processions, number of vehicles, are all constantly attacked in the choicest of words. Name calling and personal attacks have been liberally used in these elections.

Another technique  has been perfected. First abuse a leader or a party or an institution. Then when asked for a clarification begin by saying that " -- let me tell you I have the  highest regard for the ---- and start repeating the abuse.  Everyday almost every one worth his political salt is running to the Election Commission with a complaint. The EC mulls over them and either issues a stern warning or asks for an FIR to be registered. This does not deter the erring politicians from continuing their negative tirade. In fact many leaders have even challenged the EC to take action against themselves.

In this age of connectivity, the politicians seem to think that speaking dirty is one way of remaining in news, as it will be picked up by the TV channels and telecast repeatedly. Another low comment will be made for the next day. The intention is to remain in the viewers' focus even if it is for negative remarks. 

It is good that the elections are coming to an end. One hopes people will force the leaders to retrospect about the new low the campaigning this time has touched. Must votes be got by polarizing and dividing or appealing to the voters on developmental issues. Already the image of the politicians is at a nadir and they must now start improving it. 

If you ask an average Indian voter about the state of the nation, rarely you will get an answer that it is in good health. If you persist, the voter will reel out a list of demands which have never been fulfilled. The standard response is that, they see the politicians only during election times and not in between. A very large number of voters either do not know the name of their MP or MLA and may have never seen them. The only participation of the voters is when they go to cast their votes.

In spite of such indifference, Indians are coming out to vote in larger numbers. In many constituencies voter turn out it is between 80 - 90% and 70-75% is now becoming the norm.  If voters are not satisfied why do they go out and vote? Boycotting of elections is a rare phenomenon.

In the first three general elections after independence, voters voted with hope and aspirations of electing a government which was formed by Indians and reflected the will of Indians as against the pre-independence foreign rule. The towering personality of Jawaharlal Nehru inspired confidence among the voters till 1962 Indo-China conflict created a dent. Congress was the dominant party and formed government on its own majority. The country saw progress in the sense that groundwork was laid for future in heavy industries, power generation, education, health etc. Voters were patient as they acknowledged the fact that with limited fiscal resources governments had to be given time to perform. The voters were voting for consolidation of the democratic process and gave landslide victories to the Congress party under whose leadership India had also won its freedom.

The India-Pakistan war of 1965 was to effectively restore confidence in a shamed nation after the 1962 China war. Also Nehru had passed away in 1964 and Shastri suddenly died in Tashkent in 1966. Indira's rise to the PM's post was resented by many elder leaders within the Congress.  In the 1967, fourth general elections, Congress for the first  time won with a slender majority, winning 283 seats in a house of 520 members. The voter had shown their anger and put the dominant party on alert. incidentally the newly launched Swatantra Party, advocating free enterprise and economic reforms was the second largest party with 44 members  followed by Jan Sangh with 35 members. 

The internal strife within the Congress led to its finally splitting in 1969, into two parties, with Indira heading the  breakaway Indian National Congress (R) and the original party now was called INC(O). The elections were held in March 1971 and the voters were swayed by the  'Garibi Hatao' slogan of Indira. Hope once again decided the voters choice and Indira's party won a massive landslide victory getting 352 seats. It was an Indira wave across the country and voters were voting for progress under younger leaders rather than old one's leading the parent Congress party.

The Indian voters for the first time showed their power. In the sixth general elections held in 1977, held after lifting the emergency imposed in June 1975, the Congress party was voted out of power for the first time. The anger of the voters saw the emergence of the Janata Party a coalition of many opposition parties, winning 298 seats against Congress's 153 seats. The voter had shown their resentment at the suspension of civil liberties during the period of emergency. That Indians loved civil liberties and democracy was proved by this behavior of the voters. It was South which saved Congress as the excesses of the emergency were not as harsh as they were in North and West . In fact in many parts of India like UP, Bihar and Bengal strong seeds of anti Congress feelings were strengthened and have continued till today.

However the Janata Party was not able to provide a strong government in Delhi and collapsed in 1980 and fresh elections were held. In a remarkable display voters reelected Indira and Congress with a huge majority giving them 374 seats against 41 to Janata Party. It was clear that the voter recognized the leadership qualities of Indira but resented her autocratic behavior. They punished her by voting her out in 1977 and felt she had learnt her lesson and thus massively supported her again. A chastened Indira had learnt her lesson.

However in 1984 following the Operation Bluestar, her bodyguards killed Indira and elections were announced. The 1984 elections were swept by a massive sympathy wave and Congress emerged victorious with 416 seats in the Lok Sabha. The Indian voter had voted out of emotion and also the fact that Rajiv Gandhi was seen as a young and modern person who also exuded charm.

However the 1989 elections saw a reversal of fortunes for the Congress as it was once again voted out of power winning only 143 seats. The coalition of opposition parties Janata Party led buy V P Singh won 197 seats and form a shaky government. The Indian voter had voted against the alleged corruption in the purchase of the Swedish Bofors gun. For the first time corruption was a major issue and the voters showed their resentment.

V P Singh's government lasted only 16 months and fresh elections were held in May-June 1991. It was known as the Mandal-Mandir elections as the society was divided into forward and backward castes clashing  because of 27% reservations to OBC's and the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid issue gathering storm. It was India's fist polarized election and voters were expected to vote in a polarized manner. However the unfortunate assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991 was to once again create a sympathy wave for the Congress party. It won 244 seats against 120 won by BJP, and managed to run a minority government for its full term during which Indian economy was moved away from socialism to globalization and reforms were introduced. The Indian voter who was angry with the Congress till May 20th by which time nearly votes for nearly 200 seats were cast turned emotional  and increasingly voted for Congress in the postponed mid June elections for the remaining seats. Once again emotion had the better of the Indian voter.

The elections to the 11th Lok Sabha, in 1996, saw the Indian voter for the first time vote a hung Parliament. The national parties had joined with regional parties as on their own they were not sure of gaining a strong foothold. The emergence of a third front also took place.The Congress suffered its worst performance getting only 140 seats. BJP and its allies got 187 seats and the Janata Dal and its allies got 192 seats. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was invited to form the government but gave up after 13 days as he could not garner the required majority. Congress declined to form the government. The chance was then given to Janata Dal who formed the government with Dewe Gowda as the PM and with Congress giving outside support. Congress withdrew support to him and another Janata Dal leader I K Gujral became PM. But these were shaky arrangements which lasted for only two years before fresh elections were called. The Indian voter had got distributed between different ideologies and also between national and regional parties. The result was not only a hung Parliament but also political uncertainty.

Elections were held in 1998. The voters for the first time gave the BJP more seats than Congress. BJP got 182 vs 141 of Congress. The Indian voter had once again not given a clear verdict in favour of a single party or coalition. It was clear that the voters were not breaking away entirely from the Congress and also not wholeheartedly joining the BJP. Voters had also voted for many regional parties whose members also became MP's in significant numbers. It was clear that increasing number of voters were becoming regional in their outlook. A marked change was taking place in the voters of many states. The fragmentation of  the voters choices, saw the 12th  Lok Sabha last only for a year before fresh elections were again called in September 1999.

The BJP led NDA was able to get 270 seats and formed the government with outside support of TDP's 29 seats. It was the first non-Congress government to last its full term. The voting pattern showed that both the national parties were unable once again to get a majority on their own, The voters were encouraging the coming together of a number of parties to form the government. The coalition form of government had been firmly established  and was to be the model for future governments. The voters in many states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, UP, Bihar, AP, were voting for regional parties and these were playing a role at government formation at the Center.

It was election time again in 2004 to elect the 14th Lok Sabha. It was widely predicted and believed that the BJP led NDA would be returned to power. However the Indian voter sprang a major surprise. NDA"s  'shining India' campaign failed to impress the average voter. Congress led UPA 1 was voted to power and Sonia Gandhi sprang a surprise by declining to assume the PM's post, instead offering it to Dr Manmohan Singh. The voter in the rural areas was not interested in only selected urban pockets make progress and voted the BJP led NDA out of power.

In 2009 again it was expected that the 15th Lok Sabha would be controlled by BJP led NDA. The voters continued their support for the UPA it formed the government again as UPA 2 led by Dr Manmohan Singh. Congress got 206 seats against BJP's 116 seats, The UPA could garner the total support of 322 members in the 543 member Lok Sabha. 

From the above voting pattern of Indian voters it can be observed that no single party is able to get a majority on its own in the Lok Sabha since 1996. In fact, both the national parties Congress and BJP are not able to attract majority support for their manifestos. They have to fight the elections along with other, mostly regional parties and also seek support from other, again regional parties to form the government. The voters are not ready to transfer their loyalties from regional parties to either of the two national parties. Strong regional outfits like TMC, AIADMK, DMK, BJD, RJD, NC, Akali Dal, ,SP, BSP,SS etc are able to corner more than one third of the Lok Sabha seats. 

This puts the BJP and the Congress in a weak position as they have to compromise their agendas to accommodate the smaller regional parties agendas for their support in government formation. The quality of governance goes down. It has also started affecting the conduct of the country's foreign policy.

The Indian voter has in a large measure moved away from a significant national perspective in the years after independence to a significant local perspective which started in 1996. It seems the agenda of the national parties does not appeal to the voters to wean them away from local parties. The narrow issues of caste, religion or language are found more uniting by the voters on a pan India basis. There are no serious expectations from major political parties and therefore segregation into common identity groups is preferred. After Indira Gandhi there has been no leader who could catch the country's imagination and thus local leaders appeal is stronger.

However in the 2014 ongoing elections, it does seem that governance is becoming a major issue. Voters are taking into account the issues of corruption. scams, state of economy, quality and style of leadership factors and there is a growing expectation that this election may see the Indian voter voting for a national party in larger numbers than in the past few elections.However there are planned attempts to polarize the voters especially on religious grounds in major states. How the voters will respond will be known only when the final results are declared..

The Indian voter is an alert voter live to the issues on hand and his verdict is both sought and feared by the politicians. The largest democracy in the world is sustained by the increased participation of the voters in all of India in a peaceful and safe environment. The voters exercise their right to vote as per their choice for the candidate or party they feel will serve them the best for the next five years. However the voter also is aware of the fact that his expectations are generally not fulfilled by the elected representatives. Yet it is a tribute to the humble Indian voter that he he does not allow his dissatisfaction to prevent him from exercising his right to vote. The voter understands the responsibility of forming a responsible government.

Long live Indian democracy !!  

Introduction 

The history of struggle for Indian independence cannot be imagined without considering the role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah Mahomedali Jinnabhai reverently addressed as Quaid-E-Azam as well as Baba-E-Quam in Pakistan.  He was born in Karachi on twenty fifth December 1876.  Very little is known of his siblings except Fatima who cared for him in his last days.  His second wife was a Parasi young fashionable lady namely Rattanbai Petil, twenty four years yonger to him. She was daughter of his friend Sir Dinshaw Petil. The marriage was widely criticized by the Parsis as well as Jinnah's relatives.  Jinnah also got a taste of his own medicine when his daughter Dina also married a Christian against his well. She even retorted that she had just followed the example of her own father.  The relations between the father and daughter were far from normal.  

Brief life history 

Jinnah was no doubt a man of firm determination.  Although he was a firm secularist in his early life, later experience convinced him that the Muslims would not get due space in Hindu India. Hence he became not only a supporter of separate homeland for Muslims but also founder and key architect of new state- Pakistan carved out of undivided India.  He even sacrificed his health for the cause of Pakistan. He suffered from deadly disease tuberculosis known only to his sister Fatima and some others. He delibrately kept this secret for the sake of his aim.  He knew that others would take undue advantage.of his sickness.  His fear was very true. Many years later, Mountbatten stated that if he had known Jinnah was so ill, he would have stalled, hoping Jinnah's death would avert partition.  

After long and bitter struggle, finally on third June 1947, the announcement of creation of state of Pakistan was formally announced on Radio by Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and Sikh leader Baldev Singh. Although not in script, Jinnah concluded his address with 'Pakistan Zindabad".  Jinnah went from Delhi to Karachi in Mountbatten's plane. On 14th August, Pakistan became independent. Jinnah  was appointed first Governor General of Pakistan. Despite his poor health, Jinnah worked tirelessly for consolidation of Pakistan, supervising refugee rehabilation. Pakistan had to cope with problems of staff shortage as many employes had gone to India or back to Britain. Pakistan had also to get share of assets in undivided India. 

Jinnah died on Eleventh September 1948, just a year after formation of Pakistan.  

A brilliant career 

Jinnah was very successful in legal profession. at the age of twenty, he was offered salary of Rs. 1500/ P.M.  In those days this amount was very attractive. But Jinnah refused this offer. He hoped to earn Rs. 1,500/- daily and he really did. There is a proverb- If you can kiss the queen, don't touch the maid. Jinnah meticulously followed this.  If you accept anything lesser than  what you deserve, you cannot rise high. But Jinnah was not greedy.  He was just ambitious.  The fee for legal service is not only income but also also a measurement of career success. As first Governor General, he accepted only token remuneration of Rupee one per month.  Although he was meticulous in dress code, he was essentially simple. What is simplicity? Simplicity means that you adopt the normal practice.  Wearing loin cloth is no simplicity. This is just a way to get attraction. Once Sarojani Naidu remarked that Gandhi's simplicity is very costly to the nation.  Jinnah was simple in temperament. He was not interested in getting title like 'Sir' or 'Lord'. When Lord Reading Viceroy suggested knighthood, Jinnah just replied- "I prefer to be plain Mr. Jinnah".   

He was very self confident and self respecting. British minister Edwin Montagu wrote in his memoirs that Jinnah was young, perfectly mannered, impressive looking, armed to the teeth with dialetics and insistent on the whole of his scheme.  Once a magistrate said in the court- "Mr. Jinnah, remember that you are not addressing a third class magistrate".  Jinnah promptly retorted- "My Lord, allow me to warn you that you are not addressing a third class pleader."   One very famous case that he pleaded is known as 'caucus case'.  It was alleged that a causus of Europeans rigged the Bombay Municipal elections so as to keep Pheroze Shah Mehta out of council. Jinnah could not win the case of Pherozeshah Mehta but this gave a boost to his career and image as a lawyer.

Western values

Jinnah was impressed by western life style and ideas of liberalism and democracy.  He also adopted western dress. He was very particular about dress. However, in later years with shift to Islamic way of life, he adopted Achakan and Jinnah cap. He was for rule of law. He was a born aristocrat. He is known for liberal tipping in restaurants. He would never get back any balance after paying a bill. He would just give one note may be Rs. 100/- which was big in those days. Even if the bill were for Rs. twenty only, he would not wait to get back the balance. He was in the moderate group of congress that included eminent personalities like Dada Bhai Naoroji, the grand old man of India, Gopal Krishna Ghokhale and Pheroze Shah Mehta. He was opposed to the Khilafat movement in North Western Frontier province as well as the non cooperation movement of Mahatma gandhi. He considered these as anarchy.  He was a firm believer in rule of law. He wanted independence through constitutional means. That is why British preferred him. During quit India movement, most Congress leaders were in jail. Then he got higher recognition by the British as sole leader of Muslim commuinity. 

Believer in Rule of law and considered Satyagraha as anarchy  

No doubt, non cooperation non violence was  significant part of independence movement. However Jinnah viewed this as anarchy.  In recent period, the views of Jinnah have assumed significance. We have witnessed many such movements by present day Gandhis in the national capital in the name of fighting corruption and introducing anti corruption legislation.  If such trend is unabated, we are doomed to a state of chaos and anarchy.  Jinna's criticism of Gandhian Satyagraha as 'anarchy' is not so unreasonable. If Gandhi could severely oppose the armed revolutionaries as 'terrorists', what is wrong if Jinnah considers the Gandhian Satyagraha as 'anarchic.'

Secularist and symbol of Hindu Muslim unity in early days 

He was a secular in the beginning. He was considered a symbol of Hindu Muslim unity. He even opposed seperate electorates for Muslims although ironically he was elected as Bombay's Muslim representative on the imperial Mulim council from Muslim constituency. It is relevent to quote Gopal Krishna Ghokhale, who stated that "Jinnah has true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu- Muslim unity."  

It may be considered a paradox that despite his being an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity by a great leader like Gokhale, he became a votary of Two nation theory and founder of a state based on religion carved out of united India. Such contradiction in his approach arises mainly from element of fear in the Muslim community. Though Jinnah did not particpate in religious rituals and was religiously neutral, he very much belonged to the Muslim community and shared all the fears. However,  according to Akbar  Ahmad, Jinnah rediscovered his own Islamic roots, his sense of identity, of culture and history, which would come increasingly to the fore in the final years of his life.".  It is noticable that Jinnah put on Muslim dress in late 1930s.    

Political activities 

Jinnah started his political career in Congress. He was member of the Home League formed in 1916 for securing more rights to Indians in adminsitation. The League aimed only for getting a dominion status within the British Empire. Later when Congress opted for complete independence and adopted Satyagraha movement, Jinnah opposed.  The tide was against him. Jinnah was shouted down. He left Congress in disgust. Then onwards, he was only in Muslim League.     

He did not find favor with Simon commission report that denied Indians any role in mater of constitutional reforms. In 1928, British government accepted the view that Indians be involved in framing own constitution.  Moti Lal Nehru committee submitted a report outlining the proposed constitution. India would be a dominion within the British Commonwealth. The structure would be federal.  There would be division of functions between center and the states. The residuary powers would be with center. Language of the state would be Indian viz. Hindi, Tamil etc but English would also be used. There would be secularism and no separate religion based constituencies but there would be reservations of seats proportionate to population. Three round table conferences were held but there could be no agreement. Jinnah did not accept the Simon Commission and Moti Lal Nehru report as these did not adequately safeguard the interets of Muslims. Apart from Muslim League, Khilafat also did not accept the Nehru report.

Jinnah submitted fourteen points that included separate constituencies based on religion and that residiuary powers in the constritution should be with states and not center.  Jinnah understood that Muslims were in minority in India and so the states should have more power. The Muslim majority states of Punjab and North Frontier Province could enjoy more autonomy and power if the fourteen points were accepted.  The Congress leaders did not favorably consider the Jinnah's fourteen point programme. No doubt this inability of the Congress to consider Jinnah's fourteen points was a significant factor that  led to partition of India. In fact fourteen points were a precondition for United India.  All that Jinnah required was that there be seperate electoral lists for each community on basis of population. This would ensure that minorities would get due representation in legislature according to respective population.  The Congress leaders did not favorably consider Jinnah's fourteen points.

Refusal by Congress to give any heed to fourten points of Jinnah led to frustration.  Moreover the Congress provincial governments did not understand the culture and aspirations of Muslims in their jurisdiction.  There were many in Congress for whom Hindi and ban on cow slaughter were important. Congress did nothing to restrain the supposedly Hindu oriented leaders in its ranks.  Naturally, the Muslims felt insecure.

The creation of Pakistan state goes more to the credit of noted poet Iqbal. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal called for a state for Muslims in India. There was exchange of leters between Iqbal and Jinnah. Iqbal persuaded Jinnah to be more active. Jinnah spared no efforts to accomplish the creation of Pakistan. In February 1940, a formal resolution demanding separate state of Pakistan was adopted in Lahore. Two nation theory was the basis of carving state of Pakistan out of India.  The theory simply means that Hindus and Muslims are distinct nations even though living in same territory.

The reaction of Congress leaders to the Lahore resolution was very aggressive though Gandhi was somewhat restrained. Pt Nehru referred to the Lahore resolution as 'Jinnah's fantastic proposals whereas C. Rajagopalachari considered this "a sign of a diseased mentality".  In absence of any reconciliatory attitude, Jinnah's campaign for Pakistan became more aggressive. Jinnah commented- "Pakistan is a matter of life or death for us."  Muslim League won all seats reserved for Muslims in Constituent Assembly. The Muslim League polled 75% of the Muslim vote. Jinnah's biographer Bolitho views that- "This was Jinnah's glorious hour: is arduous political campaigns, his robust beliefs and claims were at last justified."   By end of 1946, The Muslim League came strongly in favour of a fully sovereign Pakistan with dominion status.    

The British Government decided to transfer power to India latest by June 1948.  The announcement of independence as well as partion of India was announced in a joint broadcast by Lord Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and Sikh leader Baldev Singh.  Jinnah concluded his address with the words- "Pakistan Zindabad".  

The Punjab and Bengal assemblies opted for Pakstan. North west Frontier Province followed suit. Jinnah was appointed Pakistan's first Governor General. Significantly, even after partition of the country and formation of Pakistan- Muslim homeland, Jinnah was still secular at heart. He served interests of Muslim community but would not favor a state based on Islamic fundamentalism. He still hoped that state would have nothing to do with religion or worship, which was personal affair of citizens. He addressed the new constituent assembly of Pakistan in these words- " You are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in the state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or creed- that has nothing to do with the state."  On 14th August 1947, Pakistan got independence. One observer commented on Jinnah- "Here indeed is Pakistan's King Emperor, Archibishop of Canterbury, speaker and prime minister concentrated into one formidable Quaid-E-Azam 

Jinnah's role in problems of infant Pakistan

Pakistan suffered massively from unprecented riots/ massacre in the early period or formation of Pakistan.  It may be correct to say that Jinnah could not be soley responsible for the massacres. May be situation was so bad and emotive that he could not control. British government also can't be considered absolutely blame free regarding massacres during the process of transfer of power. It will not be out of place to reproduce here the views of Christopher Beaumont, Radcliffe's private secretary that "Mountbatten must take the blame- though not the sole blame- for the massacres in Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished." 

Jinnah personally supervised the rehabilation of refugees. He also had to deal with the issue of division of assets between India and Pakistan. It will be relevant to point oiut here that Mahatama Gandhi had to threaten with fast unto death if Pakistan was not paid due share of assets. Pakistan was entitled to one sixth of assets in united India. The threat by Mahatma Gandhi to go on indefinite fast for payment of due proportionate assets to Pakistan led to his assasination.  It goes to credit of Jinnah that he worked tirelessly for consolidation and placing Pakstan on sound footing despite his poor health.

In a radio broadcast addressed to people of U.S.A., Jinnah clearly said that he could not exactly say what the constitution of Pakistan would be but he was sure that this would be democratic as Islam itself is based on democratic values. In words of Jinnah- " The constitution of Pakistan is yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Asembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of the constitution is going to be but I am sure that it will be a democratic type embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today these are applicable in actual life as these were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan."

On Jinnah's death, Pt Nehru stated: "How shall we judge him? I have been very angry with him often during the past years. But now there is no bitterness in my thought of him. Only a great sadness for all that has been. He succeeded in his quest and gained his objective but at what a cost and with what a difference from what he had imagined."

The Quaid E Azam rests in Mazar-e-Quaid mausoleum in Karachi.  It will not be wrong to say that the state of Pakistan by itself is in memorium of Jinnah. To quote Mohiuddin- " He was and continues to be as highly honored in Pakistan as George Washington in the United states. Pakistan owes its very existence to his drive, tenacity and judgment. Jinnah's importance in creation of Pakistan was monumental and immeasureable."

Could Partition of India be avoided

Many blame Jinnah only for the creation of Pakistan and partition of India. We need give serious thought to the fact that Jinnah in spite of all his secularism ultimately was instrumental in division of the country.  What appears is that Jinnah and Muslim League feared the majority community. If the Congress had seriously considered the apprehensions of minorities, partition of India could be avoided.  The two nation theory may not be  correct. In fact, Jinnah got support only in Bengal, Punjab and N.W. Frontier provinces. Most Muslims in India were with Congress.  

Indian leadership denied the two nation theory but also acceted that there is unity in diversity.  The phrase 'unity in diversity' recognizes the differences. It will be relevant to point out here that there were other divisiove tendencies also. There are still Sikh terrorists claiming Khalistan. These terroists were killing non Sikhs in Punjab. They also killed the police personnel. These activities necessitated Blue star operation to combat the Khalistani terrroists hiding and operating from golden temple.  Indira Gandhi, Prime minister was killed by terrorists working as her body guards.  This is just to bring home the point that Muslim League was not the only separist religious group.

There were some Hindu fundamentalist organizations working in the garb of religious and cultural  organization. It is not correct to say that Jinnah and his Muslim League alone believed in two nation theory.  Rashtriya Syayam Sewak Singh, described India as Hindu Rashtra. There were rank communal elements in Congress also for whom Hindu, Hindi and Hindustan were identical terms. Does Hindu Rashtra not mean that non Hindus are not genuine citizens but foreign elements. Often, the saffron organizations and even their sympatehizers in Congress proclaim that India has been under foreign rule for thosusand years. Rather they say that Hindus (not non Hindus) were under foreign rule for thousand years. They include the period of Muslim rule also as foreign rule.  There was even move to bring the RSS members in the congress fold but assasination of Mahatma Gandhi  put an end to such efforts. Their pet issues were promoting Hindi and banning cow slaughter. This alienated not only religious minorities but also non Hindi speaking south Indians. Consequently, Dravida Kazagam was established by Ramaswamy Naikar.  The Dalits or scheduled castes were also ill treated by upper caste Hindus. It is also worthwhile to point out that the Hindus in Punjab were persuaded by the saffron groups to mention Hindi and not Punabi as mother tongue. This appears very bizare that a Hindu Punabi may disown his own mother tongue and mention Hindi as his mother tonguie. This resulted from the concept of Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan. It goes without saying that the apprehensions of Jinnah and Muslim Leagure were not so ill founded. Once Jinnah said- Every Indian is not Gandhi.  He could trust Gandhi but not other Congress leaders.     

It can be safely concluded that if the Congress had shown greater foresight and removed the apprehensions of Muslims and other minorities, division of India and creation of Pakistan could be avoided. Jinnah's demand for greater autonomy to states and restraining the Hindu communal forces could certainly help to keep entire nation united and avoid partition of India 

Images are from wikipedea

I attended my first political meeting more than three decades ago. Thereafter I have been attending these meetings on and off. The arrangements at the meetings then were directly in proportion to the political importance of the speaker. The stage was a visibly a ramshackle arrangement barely able to accommodate a handful of persons. There were no arrangements for seating the audience. Beyond a certain distance from the stage the speakers voice would hardly be audible. Any ground big or small was good for holding a meeting.

There were no party volunteers herding people to attend the meetings, though some form of elementary propaganda was done, but mainly for informing people about the meeting. The meetings would start without much hassle and the main speaker would come on to address very fast. The mood of the public was not of listening with rapt attention but the joy of participating in the electoral process. 

I have attended many meetings but till recently never heard any speakers speak nasty words or hit below the belt. Opponents were treated with respect even when being criticized. The battle was ideological and not personal. It was also the period in the mid seventies and early eighties when many a veteran leader was finishing his political career and many times people went to see him for perhaps the last time. Remember there was no TV then.

I remember attending meetings of certain leaders who are today very big names where the crowd they addressed was not more than say 200 persons. Yet they wold speak with passion and move on to the next meeting. I remember walking away from a meeting because the speaker was shouting at the top of his voice and there were hardly a 100 persons. In course of time this politician was to aspire for the highest post in the country and is active today also. 

I remember seeing politicians like Raj Narain who looked like a wrestler and spoke in a rustic Hindi with Bhojpuri accent. The public simply loved to hear him though a majority may not agree with his views. Similarly other powerful speaker was Acharya Kripalini who spoke with a distinct Sindhi accent and would speak in a halting manner. He was respected by the crowds for he was a freedom fighter. Another powerful yet humourous speaker was Piloo Modi. He had a very wide girth and spoke with a Parsi accent and abandon. His speech was full of satire and crowds lapped them and cheered him on. S K Patil the boss of then Bombay Congress would speak in a low voice and ramble on and on. Mohan Dharia one of the three Young Turks of the then Congress was another powerful speaker worth listening.

I also attended once a meeting in Srinagar which was addressed by Sheikh Abdullah at the height of his popularity. He was not a good orator but spoke with considerable conviction. His speech was more of an educative fashion wherein he was as if teaching his audience rather than addressing them in a political manner. He could raise the passions of the crowds whenever he wanted to. 

One of the most charming meetings I attended was when a moderate crowd was addressed by the charming Rajmata Gayatri Devi in a town in Rajasthan. It was like she was coversing with the people rather than addressing them. Her beauty and poise were held in awe by all of us in the crowd and I remember thinking how could any one oppose her!

This was the same feeling I got listening to the diminutive Lal Bahadur Shastri who also could bond with the crowds instantly and they loved to hear him speak in a simple language. After the victory in 1965 war over Pakistan his mere appearance on the stage was enough to electrify the crowds. Alas he departed much before his time.

However it was Indira Gandhi who stole the show. By those days standards the stage used to be somewhat bigger and bit more decorative. Because of security arrangements lot many security personnel would be all over the meeting venue. Normally the attendance in her meetings would be very high. She was held in high esteem and many also saw her as a representative of the Nehru family which at that time was held in high esteem. She would speak in a shrill voice and also be more conversational in style. She would rarely be shouting in her addresses. The audience would respond to her appreciatively. However in the elections immediately after withdrawal of emergency I saw relatively thin crowd at her election rally.

The scene has dramatically changed today. A political meeting is now treated like an event management exercise. The center of attention is the stage. At a very high cost the stage is sought to be made as elaborate as possible. In fact many a time stages are based on a particular theme. Gone are the days when the audience would be sitting or standing on the bare ground. Now a days chairs or benches are hired in hundreds and thousands to make the audience comfortable. In some meetings I have heard food and cold drinks are served. The sound arrangements are very efficient and cover the whole ground. These days security arrangements are also very strict.

However it is unfortunate that the speeches have now become more personal than before. Attacking the opponent personally is now resorted to rather than attacking their ideology. This has introduced an element of crudeness in the public discourse. Today's speakers do not show restraint and resort to attacking communities, religions and castes with impunity. There is no question of an apology later on. They deny what they have said even when it is recorded and is being shown repeatedly on TV channels. Fear of loss of prestige is no longer an issue. The impression has gained ground that one has to take hard stands, speak tough, abuse if necessary and no need to retract if it is demanded later on. Almost all parties are resorting to these tactics, some more and some less. It seems there is a competition in how crude and nasty one can get.

Instead of engaging in political debates, the political leaders today are shooting sharp barbs at each other. These are lapped up by the TV channels. It seems many times that the leaders are speaking so harshly to increase the TRP's of the various channels. Such vitiated has become the political atmosphere that secularists are portrayed as communalists and vice versa.

Meetings are now more like a clinical affair, to be finished fast as the waiting helicopter will take the leader to another meeting. A leader is like a busy film star who has multiple shootings to attend in a day. Content and reasoning has taken a back seat. The easy thing to do is to attack the opponent. Many in the audience seem to like it. Meetings are now more of an 'organized and managed' affair. 

What a contrast to the earlier days when meetings were a more leisurely affair than the high pressure drams of today. But that is the change one has to accept.