Jinnah, the Movie
description
Transcript of Jinnah, the Movie
Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly
anyone can be credited with creating a nation. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.
(Professor Stanley Wolpert)
Jinnah, the movie, begins with these words of eulogy in honor of Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the
founder of Pakistan. Jamil Dehlvi’s effort is a commendable one, partly because he brings forth a historically
accurate picture of Jinnah and his times. Unlike Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi, which was a sadistic take on
Jinnah, Dehlvi’s production presents its characters in a fairly balanced and neutral manner, seemingly guided
by the principles of the man he seeks to portray, i.e. justice, fair play, and impartiality. Dehlvi presents the
facts and events as they were and allows the audience to arrive at their own conclusions. However, this does
not mean that Jinnah is a dry lesson in history. On the contrary, it is a very engaging account, with an
element of fantasy sprinkled in the movie that not only serves to lighten the mood but also helps in eliciting
Jinnah’s perspective.
The young Jinnah is convincingly played by Richard Lintern, who portrays Jinnah as the brilliant, self-
respecting, and suave gentleman that he was. Dehlvi has skillfully balanced the cold, calculating, and astute
Jinnah who dramatically dumb-witted his opponents in court and in politics, with the gentle and loving Jinnah
who affectionately loved his sister and who dared a romantic escapade with the beautiful Ruttie. The elder
Jinnah, played by Christopher Lee (again very convincingly), is shown to have matured into a statesman and
a spokesperson for the Muslim community of India. As always, Jinnah is thoroughly self-respecting and will
not settle for anything less than a separate country precisely because he believes it is the “only way” to self-
respect. This perspective of Jinnah is effectively brought out in the following conversation that takes place
between the viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, and the Quaid-e-Azam:
Mountbatten: Divide the country in two? Muslims on one side, Hindus on the other? Mr Jinnah and his
madness!
Jinnah: No, Mountbatten. It would be equally insane to leave a Muslim minority at the mercy of a Hindu
majority, many of who hate us. Now, if the English Parliament …
Mountbatten (cutting Jinnah short): The Prime Minister has given me full powers. I decide. That’s why I am
here, as representative of the King Emperor.
Jinnah: Whom we respect. I am here as a representative of a Muslim nation whom you must learn to
respect.
Some people have questioned the reasons for the creation of a separate Muslim state. They cite as
arguments against the creation of Pakistan the genocides of 1947 and 1971, the secession of Bangladesh,
the three wars fought over Kashmir, and the overall failure of successive Pakistani governments. Such
spurious reasoning is the product of ignorance or sheer prejudice. Granted those are pathetic facts, but they
do not serve as evidence against the creation of Pakistan. It would be dumb indeed to surmise that it would
have been all flowers and sunshine if only we had remained part of a larger India. We should not forget
Quaid-e-Azam’s incisive words in the conversation quoted above: “many of who hate us”. Yes, many of them
hated us in the early twentieth century and many of them still hate us in the early twenty-first century. To be
sure, it was this hatred that spurred the genocide of 1947; it was this hatred that conspired with the Soviet
Union to incite the genocide of 1971; and it was this hatred that provided the ideological ammunition to fight
three wars over Kashmir.
Though Quaid-e-Azam’s vision still lies in the future (albeit not-too-distant future – and that’s something
which is the subject of my next post, insha’Allah), I would, for the moment, like to emphasize that Pakistan
has the potential to spearhead the formation of an Islamic Bloc, a position it couldn’t hold if it
were part of secular India. This alone is good enough reason for the creation of Pakistan, and woe to the
disbelievers.
Who says that Pakistan is a failure, yet India is a success? For the record, allow me to mention that we are
economically slightly better off than India (rates of abject poverty being significantly lower in Pakistan), we
have very low prevalence of HIV/AIDS compared with India’s sky-high rates, and we have a cricket team
that wins more often than it loses when it is in mortal combat with the Indians.
Long live Jinnah.