What I have been speaking in Pakistan, I speak in India. I have been getting positive response from the public at both the places. People take my words seriously. In fact, I have never said anything without facts. For example, whatever I have said about Jinnah is in the documents.
For the last few years, it has been said about Jinnah that making Pakistan was not his goal and he had demanded it to give maximum rights to the Muslims. Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal believes that due to the obstinate attitude of the Congress, he had to stick to his demand. What is your opinion?
This opinion is not based on facts. As far as Ayesha Jalal is concerned, she has done PhD on this subject from Cambridge University. I wonder how he got his PhD. I consider this a scam because in his entire thesis he has not given any evidence to justify his opinion that Jinnah was only demanding Pakistan for bargaining so that Muslims would get better. In my book on Jinnah, I have told on the basis of his speeches and other documents that Jinnah was intent on partition of India and he rejected every proposal of Congress. Even in 1940, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the then President of the Congress, offered him a reconciliation in a secret letter. But he made it public. Abused Azad by calling him the show boy of the Congress.
You have talked about Jinnah’s collusion with the British. It is also said that he had close relations with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. How much truth is there in this?
There is documentary evidence of Jinnah’s collusion with the British. When the Congress decided to fight against the British when the Second World War started, Jinnah stood in their support. He was also proud of the fact that the British were taking him seriously. He also said that till now he had been doing Gandhi-Gandhi. Now they are looking at us. As for his relationship with Churchill, it is evident from the documents that the two had been in frequent communication since at least 1943. It has been accepted by Jinnah himself that as the leader of the opposition, he used to give information to him. But why talk about Jinnah alone. The organizations doing communal politics at that time i.e. Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS both were supporting the British. Both were against the Congress. During the Second World War, Jinnah met Viceroy Linlithgow and assured him of the help of Muslims in the war, while Hindu Mahasabha leader Savarkar also met Viceroy and promised him the support of Hindus. Savarkar said that he wanted to balance the strength of Muslims in the army.
You believe that Pakistan’s demand was fundamentally wrong. Is this the basic mistake behind the condition of Pakistan now?
What can be better proof of my opinion than what happened there and what is happening there. There was no debate in Pakistan on what would be the relationship between Islam and democracy or Islam and women. India built its country on the foundation of secularism and democracy. Here the one who is elected in the election will come to power. Institutions could not be built on the basis of democracy in Pakistan.
Controversies are taking place in our country too nowadays about changing history. Changes are being made in the text book. What is your opinion on this?
I cannot give any opinion on this. I can only say that by creating an ideological state, the condition of Pakistan becomes the same. The result of creating a state on the basis of religion is that not only Shia-Sunni, there is fighting between the different sects of Sunnis. What is going on with Imran Khan right now is the result of the weakening of democracy.