A lucidly-written, balanced study of constrasts by one of the better-known historians writing on India

MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH, born as Mahomedali Jinnahbhai, in his vision for a new land for his Muslim brothers wanted six provinces and a sperate state of Pakistan. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or the Mahatma opposed the partition with all his being. Interestingly, the two states formed during partition—Pakistan and India—even in the later days were to embody the most fundamental differences between the two men; how they were born, how they were raised and not in the least, the religion that the two belonged. In their essence they were human. But the course of history has ennobled them to near prophets (in the strict sociological meaning of the word). In sociology, prophets are charismatic people who are first-class attention winners. Through their discourse they provoke absolute resentment or evoke absolute sympathy. And Jinnah and Gandhi, have the characteristics that can lead them to be christened thus. One can see that prophetic quality by reading all the tomes that have been dedicated to them—they have been vilified or hailed. Does Roderick Matthews successfully break the mould and manage to put forth a realistic idea of what the two were? He does. Matthew for the best part of the book sees the two as they were, distinct personalities whose differences merely served to put them further apart. Matthew points out that the two great men differed on three points—nature of the country they lived in, the procedure in which to end the colonial rule and the methods that should be used to persuade the colonialists to leave. For one Matthew draws our attention to the detail that Gandhi was an individual, personal being (hence his worries about sexual behaviour and diet). Gandhi was also concerned with personal and national reformation which was, in many cases, one and the same for him (how people could be better authorities and government by being better people). Jinnah, on the other hand, worked for self-determination and political rights, ‘isms’ that were far more western in their narratives and thereby more understandable. While one worked from inside-out, the other worked outsidein. Gandhi believed that good people would make a strong nation. Jinnah knew that a strong nation would have strong (good) people. The last time when I picked up a book which dealt with the past was when teachers at school held me at gunpoint. I am sure there are several like me around—those who would not bother reading tomes unless there was a prize or punishment awaiting. This book catches the reader by surprise. Matthew caught my attention from the first chapter—and there was no flashback to the school days for yours truly. He has taken the trouble to understand the culture and times of the country he has looked at. He has obviously done his research. Matthews ‘assessments’ do not carry the colour of “Hark! I was right”. He lets his readers decide similarities or differences and keeps things less scholarly (a good thing for some readers but not for all). Personally, the de-elitisising of history works. The questions raised by the author are common enough; how did Jinnah, who started out as a secular liberal, end up a Muslim nationalist? How did a god-fearing moralist and social reformer like Gandhi become a national political leader? And how did their fundemental divergences lead to the birth of two countries that have shaped the political history of the subcontinent? Matthews decodes these questions on behalf of his readers by analysis which has been attempted before. Where Matthews gets brownie points is his methodology—he demystifies both the leaders and makes them as human as they can be made. He does so in a lucid and unbiased manner; at least he tries his best to. Personally, I felt Jinnah was left hanging a bit, rather there was more to Jinnah’s “vision” than what was attributed to him. What Matthew does say is, “here are your two leaders—they are equally indecisive, they are trying equally hard to make a better time and they are both human”. It is finally upto the reader to decide who is the poster boy. Do not expect a heavy, scholarly tome in Jinnah Vs Gandhi.