“The Hindus and the Congress want to establish Hindu Raj in India… the Congress is a Hindu body and the Hindus and the Congress have made up their mind to dominate the Muslims.”
—Jinnah, Speech at All India Muslim League meeting, 1938
Celebrated and despised with equal intensity on either side of the line drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s reputation has oscillated with every political event in Pakistan. Until recently, we have come to the conclusion that Jinnah was a seer who could see the future across the veil of decades and the fog of events. Those who remained steadfast in their loyalty to Jinnah stand proud today, smiling meaningfully at those who left the “right” Jinnah behind.
Jinnah, a personality that has intrigued countless people over the decades, needs to be studied again in the light of recent events in South Asia. This revisionist view of his political foresight is not about aggrandizing him but about highlighting our collective inability to properly elucidate his character.
Scrolling through social media feeds in the post India-Pakistan conflict milieu, it becomes increasingly evident that the latent hate within the Indian community is so combustible that any event can set it off like a powder keg. Traditional media has also ramped up its rhetoric to match the hawkish attitudes fostered by social media. The lowest point of this narrative is the overwhelming support among the Indian populace for the genocidal policies of Israel against Palestinians—a macabre reality that Jinnah had long warned about. The majoritarian view of Hindu nationalism compels both Indian government and society to endorse any policy aimed at subjugating Muslims anywhere in the world.
The Indian response to the Phalgham attack epitomizes Performative reactivity—a theatrical display of rage that prioritizes spectacle over genuine solutions. This aggressive posturing, driven by majoritarian sentiment, mirrors the reality that Jinnah foresaw when he called for the independence of Muslims in the subcontinent. His warning about the wrath of Hindu nationalism is starkly validated today, as India’s retaliatory theatrics overshadow the actual incident, reducing genuine dialogue and amplifying the marginalization of Muslims.
Jinnah stands as the central figure in any academic work on the Partition of the subcontinent. Yet, recent scholarship in Pakistan has begun to criticize Jinnah, laying the blame for the country’s economic woes at his doorstep. In their attempt to reconcile Pakistan’s current inadequacies, this school of thought has targeted Jinnah, placing him squarely in the crosshairs of their critique. On the other side of the fence, Jinnah has always been portrayed as the architect of India’s vivisection. But these interpretations, especially those emerging from Pakistan, project present-day problems onto the past, ignoring the intricacies of Indian politics at the time of Partition.
Jinnah struggled throughout his life to achieve something that, to many, seemed abstract. He was not merely advocating for a separate homeland for Muslims; he was articulating a vision for a society in which Muslims could live with dignity, free from the hegemony of majoritarian rule. In every speech and negotiation, Jinnah emphasized the dangers of a majoritarian Hindu polity that would subsume Muslim identity under the facade of secular nationalism. His fears, dismissed as paranoia by his critics, are now being played out in real time across the subcontinent.
This blindness to Jinnah’s prophetic warnings has become especially evident among those in Pakistan who claim expertise in history. They overlook how Jinnah foresaw that the Indian government would one day become an instrument of majoritarian Hindu dominance. He predicted that only those Muslims willing to act as loyal subjects—like Mr. Owaisi today—would be allowed any real influence in such a system. Yet, while Jinnah’s fears have materialized in India, here in Pakistan we have strayed from his vision over the last three decades, losing sight of his legacy amid self-inflicted crises and disillusionment.
Political instability, economic mismanagement, and an erosion of democratic values have created an environment where even the memory of Jinnah’s struggle has become contested terrain.
It is time to reclaim Jinnah—to revive the lost faith in his foresight and principles. This does not mean glorifying him uncritically, but understanding him anew and explaining his political clarity to younger generations. Jinnah’s vision was not merely for a piece of land called Pakistan—it was for a society rooted in dignity, pluralism, and justice. We must teach young minds that Jinnah’s relevance lies not in political rhetoric but in his unwavering commitment to the rights of the marginalized and the promise of a society free from tyranny.
By discussing Jinnah, we also revive the promise of a better Pakistan—a Pakistan that refuses to mirror the majoritarian India that Jinnah feared, and instead stands as a testament to pluralism and the dignity of all its people. We must stop projecting present-day disillusionment onto the past and instead look to Jinnah’s example as a source of moral clarity and political foresight. Only then can we begin to move forward, not by discarding Jinnah’s legacy, but by finally understanding it.
Ertaan Siddiqui
“The writer is a regular columnist on social issues and can be reached at seer42.blog or via email at furian240@gmail.com.”