Book Review

Sikandar Hayat, The Charismatic Leader: Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation o f Pakistan O xford University Press, 2014 Price: PKR 1S 9S /- - PP. 520Review ed by: Prof. D r. Saeed Shafqat (PC College University, Lahore)

In th e last fo u r decades, pa rticu la rly after th e h reak -u p o f Pakistan in 1971, d iffe ren t in te rp re ta tio n s have em erg ed on th e c rea tio n o f Pakistan. Som e have argued th a t th e place was ‘insufficiently im ag in ed ’, a n o th e r claim s it was u sed as ‘hargaining c o im te r’ to m axim ise concessions fro m th e co lonial ru le r ; o th e rs have equa ted its h ir th w ith ‘sham eful fligh t’ o f th e B ritish and y e t o th e r scholars are still try in g to ‘m aking sense o f P akistan ’ . W h ile a m o re re c e n t study has ch arac terised th e c rea tio n o f Pakistan as ‘M uslim Z io n ’ -- calling th e ‘re jec tio n o f o ld land fo r th e n e w ’, fallaciously equating th e c rea tion o f Pakistan w ith the m aking o f Israel. T he questions o n th e n a tu re , origins and c ircum stances o f P akistan ’s h ir th have also ro u sed considerable in te re s t o n the ro le and leadersh ip o f Jinnah- th e fo u n d e r and c rea to r o f Pakistan.

M ost o f these stud ies have looked a t Jinnah as som e k ind o f passive b y ­stander; w h e th e r he is p o rtra y e d as ‘sav ior’, o r d riven by p erso n al am b itio n to be th e ‘sole spokesm an’ o f Indian M uslim s, o r because th e re was a ‘v acu u m ’ and d e a rth o f leaders, hence Jinnah cou ld em erg e as filler o r th e hostility o f th e Indian N ational C ongress and M ohandas K. G andhi, th a t p ro m p te d his rise . It is iron ic and sad tha t, u n til 1993, th e firs t vo lum e o f his co llec ted p apers cou ld n o t be published; in Pakistan itse lf m any con tin u e to see Jinnah, as ‘u n co m fo rtab le fa ther o f th e n a tio n ’ . P a trick F rench has incisively re m ark ed th a t n e ith e r Indians n o r Pakistanis seem keen to claim h im as a ‘rea l h u m an b e in g ’ ; Pakistanis have confined h im to ‘an appearance o n the bank n o te s in d em u re Islam ic co s tu m es’ . . . his ach ievem ent, how soever, ‘flawed it m ay be, was p h en o m en a l.’

Dr. Sikandar H ayat, in an u p d a ted and rev ised ed itio n o f his book . T he C harism atic L eader: Q uaid-i-A zam M oham m ad Ali J innah and th e C rea tio n o f Pakistan (K arachi: O x fo rd U niversity Press, 2014) challenges these explanations and in te rp re ta tio n s and draw s a tte n tio n tow ards th e cen tra lity o f Jinnah as ‘the C harism atic L ead e r’, w ho w ith a co m m itm e n t o f p u rp ose , in tegrity , ded ication and im flinching su p p o rt fro m his fo llow ers, a t th e m o s t critica l ju n c tu re in the

244 Pakistan Vision Vol. 18 No. 1

h is to ry o f Indian M uslim s o ffered the ‘fo rm ula o f a separate s ta te ’ th a t led to the c rea tio n o f Pakistan. In o th e r w ords, c rea tio n o f Pakistan is n e ith e r th e do ing o f th e B ritish n o r a g ift o f G race, as m any seem to helieve. H e also dism isses the n o tio n th a t Jinnah used the idea o f a separa te s ta te as a ‘hargaining c o u n te r ’ to seek concessions fro m the colonial ru le rs . Dr. H ayat b rings persuasive a rgum ents and evidence to g e th e r to m ake us believe th a t du rin g th e d istressfu l p e rio d o f 1920s, and 3 0 ’s fo r the Indian M uslim s, Jinnah, was m a n o f th e m o m en t; p rinc ip led and d e te rm in ed , a m a n w ith a m ission, w ho h ad a clear vision, a sense o f p u rp o se and w ho k n ew h o w to accom plish it.

Dr. H ayat m akes a persuasive e ffo rt to recast, re -im ag in e , re - in te rp re t the h is to ry o f Pakistan M ov em en t (1 9 3 7 -4 7 ) and th e stud ies o n J in n ah ’s leadersh ip by cen ter-s tag in g h im as th e ‘C harism atic L ead er’, w ho was visionary, had an eye on th e goal and p u rsu e d a s tra tegy slow ly and peacefully w ith dedication , d e te rm in a tio n and p erso n a l devo tion to th e cause. O f course, this phase o f P akistan ’s h is to ry is w ell re sea rch ed and s tud ied b u t leadersh ip o f J innah has beg im to a ttra c t scholars only recently . W hy Jinnah m a tte re d then? W h y is he re lev an t today and fo r tim es to com e? H o w studying his leadersh ip is v ital for u n d e rs tan d in g th e adversarial c ircum stances u n d e r w h ich he p ro v id ed n o t only h o p e b u t a co n c re te fo rm u la to th e dism ayed and d istressed M uslim s o f und iv ided India. Dr. H ayat has b een research ing and refin ing th e co n cep t and th e o ry o f charism atic leadersh ip fo r over tw o decades and in th e p rocess he provides a refresh ing and insightfu l analysis o f th e final phase o f Pakistan M ovem ent.

In focusing o n charism atic leadersh ip o f Jinnah, Dr. H ayat m akes th re e im p o rta n t co n trib u tio n s in refin ing, synthesizing and expand ing th e th e o ry o f charism atic leadersh ip ; first, connecting charism a w ith institu tionalization , second, dispelling th e n o tio n th a t charism atic leadersh ip is a lw ay s/ m ostly irra tional, he highlights the ra tiona l d im ensions o f charism a, th ird , synthesizing p erso n al a ttr ib u te s o f leadersh ip w ith situational c ircum stances. A ll th re e co n trib u tio n s reso n a te and cou ld be in stru c tiv e fo r lead ers and po litica l partie s in co n te m p o ra ry Pakistan.

I have found five ch ap ters in his b o o k o f p a rtic u la r in te re s t and theoretica lly and concep tua lly en ligh ten ing (chap ters 1, 3 , 4 , 5 and 7). In the firs t chapter. Dr. H ayat takes read ers in to confidence by expla in ing w h a t charism atic leadersh ip is and w hy Jinnah excels as a charism atic leader? Like m any o th e r scholars he also s ta rts w ith th e o rig inal so u rce— M ax W eber, w ho defined , concep tua lized and th e o rize d th e re levance and n eed o f th e charism atic leader.

O perationaliz ing th e co n cep t o f charism atic leadersh ip th ro u g h th e lens o f W eber, Dr. H ayat goes beyond it and weaves th e a rg u m en ts o f A nn R u th W illner, D avid A pter, R o b e r t T ucker and D an k w art R u sto w to p o in t o u t th e e x trao rd in a ry qualities o f his leadersh ip and h o w such a lead er is able to insp ire o rd inary

Book Review 245

citizens to fo llow his calling and they ex a lt h im . C harism atic leader has ‘p ro p h e tic qualities’, in tegrity , com passion, co m m itm e n t o f p u rp o se and w ho is ahle to evoke dev o tio n am ong his fo llow ers. A charism atic lead e r has em otio na l appeal am ong his fo llow ers, w ho hond , lis ten and fo llow th e leader w ith devo tion . T hese a re e x trao rd in a ry and ra re qualities, w h ich establish an im breakable b o nd b e tw een th e lead er and th e follow er, thus charism a is as m u ch a fu n c tio n o f perso n al a ttr ib u te s b u t also fo llo w er-ju d g m en t and bo nd in g w ith th e leader. S uperna tu ra l qualities and m yths aboim d and fo llo w ers’ allegiance and o b ed ience to th e charism atic leader p rogressively grow s. A ccord ing to Dr. Hayat, am ong th e M uslim leaders du rin g th a t p e rio d (see his chap tersS and p articu larly 4 on L eadership C risis) Jinnah, was th e only leader, w ho had these p erso n a l qualities and cou ld establish p erso n al ra p p o r t w ith d istressed Indian M uslim s. Thus, Dr. H ayat insists th a t charism a is a fu n c tio n o f b o th , ‘p e rso n a l’ and ‘ s itu a tio n a l’ factors and th a t ap tly describes J in n ah ’s ro le in th e c rea tion o f Pakistan.

In th a t sp irit. Dr. Hayat, am plifies the concep t, adding th a t charism atic leader is sober, responsib le and ra tional, and does have ‘passions’ b u t te m p e re d by ‘re a so n ’. In his analysis and theoriza tio n , Jinnah em erges as th e charism atic lead er w ho s teers, guides cou rse o f h is to ry and events and th e decisions th a t he m akes a re u ltim ate ly th e best. T he m asses ch arm ed by this ability, flock a ro u n d h im and fo llow his call. Invoking W illner, Dr. H ayat rem in d s read ers th a t w hile an o rd inary lead er m ay be re sp ec ted by th e fo llow ers, th e charism atic leader, like Jinnah by sheer co m m itm e n t o f p u rp ose , cou ld com pel his fo llow ers to ac t u p o n his com m ands and obey--- this becom es m o re m ean ingfu l w h en one looks a t ch ap te r 4 , w h e re Dr. H ayat has rea l h a rd tim e develop ing a typo logy o f social elites, p rovincial leaders and trad itio na l leaders and u lam a, w ho in th e ir ovm rig h t and locality had su p p o rt am ong fo llow ers b u t n o t th e d eg ree o f devo tion th a t Jinnah was able to so licit from th e M uslim m asses across reg ions th a t w ere to c o n s titu te Pakistan. This helps Dr. H ayat to gel p erso n al fac to r w ith crisis s itu a tio n and p re se n t a synergetic p ersp ec tiv e o n charism atic leadersh ip o f Jinnah, h o w th ro u g h p erso n a l fo llow ing he was able to rescu e his fo llow ers fro m the crisis situation .

Dr. H ayat is conscious th a t the rise and fall o f ch arism atic lead er could be ephem era l depend ing o n th e ‘crisis’ s itu a tio n and n e e d o f p eo p le a t th e m o m e n t (th in k C hurch ill a t the end o f Second W o rld W ar, N k ru m ah a t his fa ll); how ever, he po in ts o u t th a t Jinnah was d iffe ren t as he did n o t re ly only o n personal a ttr ib u te s b u t m ade con sis ten t effo rts to develop M uslim League as a political p a r ty — w hich is a h a rd sell. This d im ension is exp la ined and in te rp re te d w ith r ig o u r and evidence in ch ap te r 6. In ch ap te r 7, Dr. Hayat, highlights J in n ah ’s fo r titu d e and po litica l skills to re s is t C ripps and C ab in e t M ission P lan th ro u g h w hich, accord ing to h im , th e B ritish a im ed to p re se rv e th e u n ity o f India and

246 Pakistan Vision Vol. 18 No. 1

oppose ‘J in na h ’s concept ojsovereign Pakistan o j all the six Muslim majority provinces, that is, the Punjab, NWFP, Sind, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam’. H ow ever, by m anaging and s teering th e factional politics o f th e M uslim m a jo rity provinces, Jinnah was efficacious in p resen tin g M uslim League as th e sole rep re sen ta tiv e body o f M uslim s, and afte r due delibera tions w ith in th e League and to u g h nego tia tions w ith th e B ritish he accep ted the P a rtitio n P lan th a t paved th e way fo r th e crea tion o f Pakistan.

In this perspective , he adds theo re tica l r ig o r by p o in tin g o u t h o w som e e x trao rd in a ry leaders are able to ‘ro u tin iz e ’ charism a in a social o r political in s titu tio n and in case o f Jinnah, Dr. H ayat argues th a t som e o f his charism a was inevitably p laced in th e M uslim League, as th e p eo p le saw it s tric tly as J in n ah ’s party . T herefo re , th e a ttra c tio n o f a charism atic lead er becom es tw o-fo ld : firstly, th e re is th e a llu re o f th e ir personality , and secondly, even m o re tantalizing, is the favour o f th e social positions they can confer, perhaps u p o n a p articu la rly devo ted follow er. In this sense. Dr. H ayat has m ade an en o rm o u s co n tr ib u tio n on leadersh ip studies. Such a p e rsp ec tiv e cou ld ro u se g re a te r cu riosity and perhaps m o re rig o ro u s resea rch o n h ith e r to im ex p lo red facets o f Jin n ah ’s leadership .

Dr. H ayat’s u p -d a te d and rev ised version stops a t th e c rea tio n o f Pakistan in 1947, and thus invites o th e rs to re flec t o n Jinnah as G o v ern o r G eneral o f Pakistan, cou ld he still b e considered charism atic? May be som e younger resea rch ers and po licy analysts w ou ld be te m p te d to te s t if J in n ah ’s charism a ho lds beyond th e c rea tio n o f Pakistan? T he study offers a n ew angle to leadersh ip o f Jinnah and opens u p fresh avenues o n th e subject. All tho se w ho are in te re sted in im d ers tan d in g w hy po litica l w ill, c larity o f p u rp ose , a sense o f vision, m ission, in teg rity and ded ication to a cause is essential fo r leadersh ip , w ill find th e study invigorating, inviting and in stru c tiv e to im d ers tan d th e past and c h a rte r fu tu re d irec tio n o f Pakistan.

THE CHARISMATIC LEADER: QUAID-I-AZAM MOHAMMAD ALI HNNAH AND THE CREATION OF

PAKISTAN By Prof. Dr. Sikandar Hayat

Oxford University Press, 2014, Seeond Edition. Xvi + 503,ISBN:978-0-l 9-906920-0.

Reviewed by:Dr. IlhanNiaz,Assistant Professor, Department of History,Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Sikandar Hayat’s The Charismatie Leader: Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ah Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan, now available in a revised edition from the Oxford University Press, seeks to explain the ereation of Pakistan in terms of stmetures, ideas, and personalities. Hayat has long advoeated the development and applieation of theories to South Asian studies and what sets The Charismatie Leader apart is the employment of Weber’s eoneept of eharisma to the study of Jinnah’s rise and the realization of Pakistan.

At first glanee Jinnah may seem to be an unlikely eandidate for eharismatie leader status. Normally, the use of the term “eharisma” eonjures up images of totalitarian ideologues like Hitler and Mao, military modernizers like Mustafa Kemal, or, more benignly, the dhoti-elad liberator of the Indian realm, Mahatma Gandhi. Jinnah, in eontrast, was freakishly alienated from the mainstream of Indian eulture and never took the populist pretensions of the Indian National Congress (INC) leaders seriously. In a soeiety steeped in arbitrariness, Jinnah was the areh-eonstitutionalist and liberal eonsensus builder. In an age of rising religiosity fueled by Gandhi’s and the Khilafatist’s propaganda Jinnah was deeidedly out of plaee and would eventually be aeeused by his Muslim opponents of being an infidel. In a period where all manner of soeialisms (from the National Soeialism of Hitler to Stalinism and Fabian programs) were in style Jinnah resolutely resisted the urge to promise imminent utopia. And yet, Jinnah’s aehievement as the founder of what was in 1947 the largest Muslim-majority state in the world and the restorer of Muslim politieal sovereignty over those territories of South Asia where they were demographieally eoneentrated, is sueh that a serious explanation is in order.

Hayat’s theoretieal starting point is that our understanding of Weber’s eoneept of eharisma is flawed as it does not ineorporate the post-First World War development in Weber’s thought. This development was that, disillusioned by the eollapse of Imperial Germany, Weber eame to regard rationality and sobriety as

Book Review

231

core qualities of authentie eharismatie leadership. The importanee of personal eharisma being institutionalized in the state or politieal party was equally important for otherwise eharismatie leaders would be little more than demagogues with a death wish. Having elarified this important point, Hayat proeeeds to provide the historieal and soeio-politieal eontext in whieh Jinnah operated and eventually emerged as the leader of the Muslims. In this Hayat identifies eertain eonditions that needed to be met for a eharismatie leader to emerge.

The first eondition is that of a erisis that has the potential to imperil the eore interests of a group or a eommunity. In the eontext of Muslim India this erisis had several dimensions. First, the Muslims were demographieally in a minority and as India headed towards greater representation in loeal, provineial, and, eventually, eentral, governments, inferior numbers translated into reduetion of the Muslims to the status of a permanent minority in most of the provinees and loeal government, as well as in the eentral government. Seeond, numbers aside, eolonial representation was determined by edueational, property, and ineome qualifieations, and here, even in those territories where the Muslims were in a majority, they were underrepresented due to their baekwardness. Third, as demands for self-government esealated during and after the First World War the question of British imperial sueeession beeame the eentral long-term issue of Indian polities. The Congress was quite elear on what it wanted - a British exit aeeompanied by handing over power to a strong eentral government that would operate on the basis of universal suffrage and pretend minorities were diabolieal eontrivanees of the Raj. The loeal and provineial Muslim leaders had little to say about what kind of India would emerge if the British left and many hitehed their wagons to the Congress hoping for some magnanimous eoneessions that might materialize after a eentralized, majoritarian, demoeraey, under the Congress had eome into existenee. Hayat makes the ease that among the Muslim leaders Jinnah alone had a long-term perspeetive on the evolving situation. He understood that the real question was the distribution of sovereign power and that the Muslims needed to get organized so that they too eould have a say in what an independent South Asia might look like.

In terms of vision, Jinnah advoeated a formula in the form of the Lahore Resolution of Mareh 23, 1940 (dubbed the “Pakistan” Resolution by its erities). The formula was vague and deliberately so, but it held out the promise that sovereignty would be restored to the Muslims wherever they were in a majority. For Hayat, the ambiguity of the formula led people to read into their own preferenees or fears, and it foeused the attention of the Muslims, and the Muslim League, on a grand objeetive. Opposition to the “Pakistan” seheme served to lend it substanee and turned it into a key eomponent of Indian politieal diseourse.

Aetually organizing the Muslims to aehieve this objeetive was a very diffieult task and one in whieh Jinnah did not sueeeed as mueh he would have liked to. Still, the growth of the Muslim League between 1940 and 1945 was eonsiderable, while the Seeond World War made it evident that the aetual sueeession to British rule was at hand. Hayat explains in detail the mobilization strategy of the Muslim League, its aetivation of students, women, traditional elites, businessmen, and at least some ulema and the ereation of a national eoalition. The

Journal o f Research Society o f Pakistan - VoL 54, No. 1, January-June, 2017

232

growth of the League was sueh that by 1946 it elaimed all the Muslim seats at the eenter and nearly all at the provineial level. With sueh a resounding vietory, the time for finally working out what Pakistan meant had arrived and here Jinnah was prepared to aeeept a sovereign Muslim India within an Indian eonfederation, or, failing that, an independent Pakistan with no eonstitutional eonneetion to India. Onee the Congress reneged on the Cabinet Mission Plan, whieh promised the former, Jinnah had no eompunetions about doing what was neeessary to earve an independent Muslim-majority state out of the British Empire in India and moving towards the latter option. For Hay at, the ereation of Pakistan and its eonsolidation meant that Jinnah’s mission had been aeeomplished and his eharisma was routinized in the new state.

So, at a struetural level, the demand for Pakistan was the outeome of internal asymmetries of demography, eeonomy, and soeio-politieal eonseiousness, whieh had emerged during the British Raj. These asymmetries, barely managed by eoneessions, reforms, and repression, threatened to permanently erase the Muslims as a politieal eommunity and beeame unmanageable as the British Empire went into deeline after the First World War. The eentral question was of sueeession, and here Jinnah pieked his idea and timing perfeetly, whieh was to advoeate the restoration of sovereignty to the Muslim-majority areas of South Asia. The idea resonated and eonneeted with the anxiety and distress of the Muslim triggering the Pakistan Movement. Jinnah’s leadership in terms of organization of the League, deal-making, and negotiating with the British, the Congress, and other groups, led to extraordinary eleetoral sueeess in 1946. This sueeess meant that Pakistan would either eome into existenee as a vast Muslim-majority sovereign region that eomprised the whole of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh plus the Hindu- majority areas of Bengal and Punjab, or as a smaller but eompletely independent state. Aeeeding to either of these options was galling to the Congress, but Jinnah’s sueeess was that they now had to ehoose between a notionally sovereign united India or an aetually sovereign divided India. The Congress’s pain and eonfusion were evident in its dithering as it went from preferring a loose eonfederation and then ehanged its mind and went for the two-state solution.

Hayat’s The Charismatie Leader is a fine study of politieal leadership in South Asia. Historieally grounded, theoretieally sound, and argumentatively plausible, it provides a rieh starting point for further debate and seholarship. What sets Hayat apart from other writers is that he seeks to explain Jinnah’s leadership in terms of phenomena, leadership and in doing so breaks new ground. Seholars, students, and the general readership ean all benefit from the book under review.

Book Review by Dr. IlhanNiaz

233

o o #r r e / e w January 16-22, 2015iFrl Times

TheCharismaticLeader

Yaqoob Khan Bangash reviews a new book on Jinnah that challenges som e fix ed notions about his perso nality and leadershipJ he ex-cricketer turned politician• 1 Imran Khan is by definition a charis-

1 matic leader' writes the lawyerYasser Hamdani in an issue of The Criterion Quarterly. He views Imran from the oft-quot­ed perspective of Max Weber and within a space of four sentences declares Imran Khan the ‘Charismatic Leader.' While this popular notion of charisma persists, Professor Sikandar Hayat, who is currently the Distinguished Professor of History and Public Policy at Forman Christian College Lahore, gives another view in TheCharismatic lead er: Quaid-e-AzamMohammad AH Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan. Dr Sikandar notes that there was another, genuine, compelling perspective too, in his [Weber's] later writings. In Politik als Beruf (Politics as a Vocation) he rules out the possibility of any useful transformation of gesellschfl/t (community and society) through a charismatic leader who was not sober and rational. He calls any kind of specifically irrational and “emotional” behavior of political leaders "false charis­ma." It is in this perspective that Hayat calls Jinnah— the undisputed leader of Muslim India by 1947, as the Charismatic Leader.

By departing from the usual narrative on Jinnah and using Max Weber's little known, but very important, second perspective of charisma on Jinnah, Dr Hayat has broken new ground in historical research. His multidiscipli­nary approach helps us to fully appreciate the importance and role of Jinnah for the Muslims of India. Hayat’s arguments also enable us to

understand how Jinnah— seemingly an aloof English speaking, matter-of-fact lawyer, could claim the allegiance of the vast majority of Indian Muslims by the 1940s. This indeed was Jinnah's greatest achievement and Dr Hayat’s aides are understanding of it from both a his­torical and sociological perspective.

The first chapter on charisma is followed by a chapter on the early career of Jinnah so as to introduce the reader to the person and his initial forays into Indian politics. The next two chapters outline the situation of the Muslim community in India from the time of Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan and highlights its ‘systemic’ and 'leadership' crises. It was in these conditions that Jinnah emerged as the

The Charismatic Leader: Quaid-e- Azam M ohamm ad Aii Jinnah and

the Creation of Pakistan by Sikandar Hayat

Second Edition, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2014. 503

pages. PKR 1500charismatic leader, when no one else could assume that mantle, Hayat argues. In chapter four, Hayat systematically analyses the role and function of Muslim leadership— the social elite, the provincial leaders and the ulema— and comes to the conclusion that ‘...the traditional Muslim leadership, as a whole, failed to produce any far-sighted leader who could understand the difficult, distressful situation faced by the Muslims, rise above their own narrow sectional con-

CEiAREMAnCl.eadcrQ u a id - i - A z a m M o h a m m a d A li J i n n a h

AND T H E C r e a t i o n o f P a k i s t a n

OXFOKD

cerns, and show them a way out.’ It was due to this failure, that Jinnah, in the words of the editor of his papers, Professor Z.H. Zaidi— also quoted by Hayat— “‘wrested the leader­ship of the Muslim community,” from his “colleagues” and “competitors” with “an ease that baffled observers.'”

The next three chapters focus on how

Jinnah accepted and then realized his mission of creating a separate state for Indian Muslims— Pakistan. Quoting Jinnah himself, Hayat argues that 'He was convinced that Pakistan was “not only a practicable goal but the only goal” for the Muslims.' Here Dr Hayat also tackles the celebrated argument of Professor Ayesha Jalal in her book The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan,’ that Jinnah was using the Pakistan demand as a bargain­ing counter to achieve better concessions for Indian Muslims, and that Jinnah’s acceptance of the Cabinet Mission plan In 1946 was an example of it. In return, Hayat argues: ‘...as a[n] astute strategist that he was, Jinnah accepted the plan more out of tactical con­siderations than any compromise on the fun­damental principle of Pakistan. He was aware of his limitations after the end of the war... As a charismatic “genuinely principled politi­cian,” he knew that he had to act with reason and a "sense of responsibility and objective­ly.”' This is certainly an alternate perspective and needs to be taken seriously.

Like any other work, this study has its limi­tations. While Hayat tackles the issue of charis­ma and Jinnah’s personification of it in an excellent manner, he does not cover the whole career of Jinnah—something which would have completed the work. In fact, Hayat himself notes th a t'... a greater under­standing of the problems of “routinization” of charisma after the charismatic leader had attained his goal,' has not been addressed in the present work. I do hope that either Professor Hayat or one of his students investi­gates this issue in the not too distant future, n

The writer teaches History at Forman Christian College Lahore and tweets at (SBangashVK. He can be contacted at: yaqoob.bangash@gmaiI.com

l.m derQ u A i n - F - A r A M A u J i n v a m

Asrn T ii» :< jR F .itT tiM <3 P P*Kivr,^T5

:■ MV H

_________________ M tThe book is available at the Oxford University Press for Rsl,500.

Jinnah Revisited

ISikander Hayat skillfully addresses the nuances of Jinnah’s leadership

in his latest bookBY MOHAMMAD WASEEM

' 4 ( .

One might question why we need another book on Jinnah. But the distinct format and approach in Sikandar Hayat's latest addition to the subject, A Charismatic Leader: Quaid-i-Azam Mo hammod AH Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan is reason enough to revisit ttie subject. The general pattern of Indian history leading to Partition is rooted in an evolutionary framework of analysis of the constitutional debates. It typically draws on a relatively unbroken line of events as well as initiatives taken by the three protagonists — the British govern­ment in India, the Congress and the Muslim League — that seem to move to an inevitable endgame in the form of Partition. In contrast, the present book

deals with certain deeply endemic crises that solve the grand riddle of social, cultural, political and constitutional life of Muslims in British Itidia. The author elaborates on this theme by focusing on the 'Muslim crisis' spread over half a century, which provides the structur al context for the emergence of Muslim

nationalism. However, as electoral politics took root in India, there was a dire need for a shift in emphasis from

'structure' to 'agency'. Muslim leaders at this point failed to consolidate their hold over the community and there was a dearth of leadership. Hayat makes a convincing argument about the nature and characteristic of jinnah's leadership beyond traditional explanations and shows how Jinnah's role seems to be

carved out by history itself when seen in the broad context of structur e-agency dichotomy.

in the transition from the first to the second edition of his book on Jinnah, Hayat has expanded both theoretical and empirical findings of his research on the creator of Pakistan. Not only has he refocused his study on Jinnah's

charisma from the first edition but he has also consciously and con,scientiously placed himself firmly within the dis­course of Partition in general and Jinnah

in particular.

In the second edition of his book, Hayat specifically seeks to address Jinnati's new profile based on some

historians' portrayal of him — for ex­

ample Jaswant Singh, Ajeet javeed and Saleena Kariim — as a secular persorr par excellence, the aulhor t evisits the controversy over Ayesha Jalal's t tresis about the Pakistan demand being a bargaining counter, from which she has distanced hei'self in recent writings. The author finds enough ground in lalal arrd her critics' positions to prrt aside this so-called 'revisiorrist' thesis. The new edition of the book explor es ttre theme of nation-making with reference to some of the famous theorists of nationalisni such as Ernest Gellner and Paul Br ass, especially in the context of shaping an ethnic variety of rrationalisrn based on Islam.

In the current edition, the author

engages himself in a dialogue with nrore recent writers on the subject, agr eeirig or disagreeing with their argumerrts as

the rase may be. Irr the former case, he eirdorses the view about not mixing

Partition as the finale of a long process of development of Muslim natiorralism with conrmunal violence that accom­panied it, inasmuch as these were two separate phenomena. Iir the latter case, tfre author confronts a writer on the controver sial role of the NWFP governor

Olaf Cafoe in such matters as the 1947 r efer endum, and later Pakistan's entry

into ttre Western military alliances, the author's willingness to expand and update his findings in the light of newer insights on Partition and Jinnati is com­mendable. In the matter of production of the book, one cannot overemjrtiasise the fact that this is a high quality publi­cation worttr rea.dirrg for anyone inter­ested in the history of tire subcontinent.

M oham mad Waseem is a professor o f political scienceai the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

SF.PTEMBHR 28-OCTORER 4 2014

DR HASAN ASKARI RIZVI , ivxvwAO,

Jinnah and political discourse inPakistan

1

here is an increased invocation o f Ouaid-e- Azam M uham m ad Ali Jinnah in political discourse in Pakistan. In addition to poUtica] leaders and societal activists, m any reKgious

leaders and parties talk about Jinnah while projecting the political and social order they w ish to establish.

W hen D rTahim l Oadri used to address press confer­ences or give interviews to TV chaiuiels from Canada, Jinnah ’s portrait could be seen in the background. Even some Jaraaat-e-Islam i leaders talk positively about h im . The leader o f the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jam aat (reincarnation of the Sipah-e-Sahaba) recently invoked the Ouaid in support o f his demand for establishing an Islamic political system in Pakistan. On March 23, 2014* the Jam aat-ud-Dawa staged a street m arch in Lahore for reaffinning commitment to Pakistan and the Islamic political system.

The increased use o f a com m only shared h is­torical icon should promote political harm ony and consensus-building on the nature and direction of Pakistan’s present and future politico-economic and social arrangem ents. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Pakistan’s social and political order is facing greater fragm entation and, at tim es, it appears that Pakistan m igh t become an increasingly unm anage­able society.

Jirm ah is not necessarily invoked in popular politi­cal discourse to understand w hat he stood for and w h y and how he began to employ Islamic symbols and principles to articulate a nationalism to counter the Congress party nationalism ’s based on secular­ism and a single nation in India. There is no desire to know w h at he m eant w hen he em phasised the Islam ic idiom in the post-1934 period. He;also talked o f a m odem democratic state system , constitutional m le and equal citizenship irrespective o f religious or any other consideradons.

Today, Jin n ah ’s legacy is often pursued to strengthen partisan political agendas. Those who w ish to dom inate the present and w ant to give respectability to their partisan views of state and society often attem pt to rewrite history in order to ju stify w hat they are currently doing in the political and cultural dom ains. Therefore, those advocating a conservative, Islam-based religious state system only

talk o f Jin nah ’s Islam ic discourse and give their own preferred m eanings to the idiom s and term s used by h im . Those advocating a secular system m ention those statements o f Jinnah that serve their current political agenda.

However, is is a m atter o f great satisfaction that there have also been efforts to undertake a sober and non-partisan understanding o f Jinnah . Well- researched and scholarly articles and books have appeared since the centenary celebrations o f Jinnah in 1976. This has contributed to a comprehensive u n ­derstanding o f Jin nah ’s personality, political orienta­tions and political career, especially since 1934 w hen he returned from England, revitalised the All-India M uslim League and led the dem and for a separate hom eland for the M uslim s o f British India. These w ritings have relied on official documents, personal papers o f the leaders, the M uslim League’s records, m emoirs o f Jinnah ’s contemporaries and w ritings on Jinnah and the Partition.

The w rings of Shariful M ujahid , Ayesha Jalal, Stanley Wolpert, W aheeduzzam an — to nam e a few accomplished works — offer a comprehensive vievk of Jinnah , covering his personality, role and leadership in the freedom m ovem ent. These w riters place his leadership in a broader academ ic context o f the study o f freedom m ovem ents, leadership and the nation- building processes.

A recent publication, The Charismatic Leader: Ouaid-i- Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan by Dr Sikandar Hayat (OUP, 2014), is an updated edition o f the book published in 2008. It not only m aintains the strong theoretical fram ework o f the earlier edition, but also adds discussion on som e issues that are pairt o f the current discourse on the Pakistan Movement and the role o f Jin n ah .

The central them e o f the book is the notion o f cha­rism a w hile studying the leadership o f Jinnah. The- author pulls together all the m ajor theoretical w rit­ings on charism a in the social sciences and combines it vyith a dispassionate, analytical and documented study o f the political career o f Jinnah to describe h im as a charism atic leader for the M uslim s o f British India w ho had complete faith in h im for securing their identity, rights and interests. By establishing

Pakistan as a hom eland for the MusUms o f British India, Jinnah changed the course o f history and left a strong im print on it. The author focuses m ain ly on the post-1934 period to analyse how Jin nah ’s charism a w as established, surpassing the attributes o f charism a as articulated by M ax Weber, Edward Shills, David Apter, Dankwart Rustow and others.

The evolution o f the political identity o f the M uslim s that became the basis for m ovem ent for a separate hom eland can be fu lly understood from the discussion in the book on.the six phases of Hindu- M uslim relations and the evolution o f the M uslim political stm ggle in British India (pp.135-146). This needs to be coupled w ith the analysis o f Jin nah ’s po­litical transition from a cham pion o f H indu-M uslim un ity to an ardent advocate of M uslim s’ identity, rights and interests and the dem and for a separate hom eland (pp.88-109, 258-262).

The discussion o f the political context and the text o f the Lahore Resolution, M arch 1940, (pp.273-283) is instm ctive for those who often get bogged down in polem ical debates on this issue for justify in g current partisan political agendas .T h e author discusses the British opposition to the m aking o f Pakistan, rejecting the argum ents o f m any Indian w riters that the creation o f Pakistan w as a British conspiracy to w eaken an independent India, The fast m oving po­litical developments in 1946-47 have been dealt w ith som e detail in an easy-to-understand narrative of how arid w hy the All-India M uslim League accepted the Cabinet M ission Plan and then walked out on- it. This also includes its decision to jo in the interim governm ent in October 1946.

Jin nah is a national sym bol whose relevance has increased over tim e. There is a need to pursue a non­partisan and research-based understanding o f the development of Jin n ah ’s poUtical orientations, his politics and the changes therein and how he articu­lated an alternative nationaUsm to the Congress-led secular, one-nation nationalism .

The writer is an independent political and defence analyst. He is also the author of several books, monographs and articles on Pakistan and South Asian Affairs