What do you think?
Rate this book
Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History
Mohammad Ali Jinnah has been both celebrated and reviled for his role in the Partition of India, and the controversies surrounding his actions have only increased in the seven decades and more since his death. Ishtiaq Ahmed places Jinnah's actions under intense scrutiny to ascertain the Quaid-i-Azam's successes and failures and the meaning and significance of his legacy. Using a wealth of contemporary records and archival material, Dr Ahmed traces Jinnah's journey from Indian nationalist to Muslim communitarian, and from a Muslim nationalist to, finally, Pakistan's all-powerful head of state. How did the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity become the inflexible votary of the two-nation theory? Did Jinnah envision Pakistan as a theocratic state? What was his position on Gandhi and federalism? Asking these crucial questions against the backdrop of the turbulent struggle against colonialism, this book is a path-breaking examination of one of the most controversial figures of the twentieth century.
840 pages, Hardcover
Published September 11, 2020
51 people are currently reading
612 people want to read
About the author
Ishtiaq Ahmed
74 books89 followersIshtiaq Ahmed is a Swedish political scientist and author of Pakistani descent. He is Visiting Professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 27, 2021
I have already read many books on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, but this one is undoubtedly the best one. There are books like "The Sole Spokesman" by Ayesha Jalal, "Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan" by Hector Bolitho, and "Jinnah of Pakistan" by Stanley Wolpert. However, this book is unique and answers the questions all other books don't dare to. I would like to recommend this book to the students and scholars of history and politics and to those who love reading biographies.
April 25, 2021
This book seeks to resolve a conundrum: Mohammad Ali Jinnah succeeded, in fact against all odds, in mobilizing Indian Muslims to support his claim for the partition of India to create Pakistan; but once Pakistan came into being, Pakistani Muslims have ceaselessly disputed Jinnah’s vision of the state and nation.
A prelude solution of the puzzle is that Jinnah’s main and only mission was to bring about, at all costs, the partition of India.
He set forth the two-nation theory dichotomizing Hindus and Muslims as two detached, intimidating nations. Muslim nationalism became the trademark of his separatist politics, and he resorted to all sorts of populist arguments and political manoeuvres to win the case for Pakistan in the face of stiff opposition from a host of opponents, among whom the most inveterate opponent was the Indian National Congress, while the final arbiter over the future of India were the British.
On the other hand, for the Pakistan that finally emerged in mid-August 1947, he had no consistent idea or vision.
However, since he had demanded and won Pakistan on the grounds that Indian Muslims were not a large minority but a discrete and distinct nation with their own sense of history, law and state, such arguments became the foundational ideology of Pakistan, in spite of evidence that Jinnah was neither a proponent of a secular–democratic state nor of a medieval type of Islamic state.
The foundational ideology became inevitably and essentially the framework within which the Constitution and law-making, especially the rights of citizens, had to be addressed. However, neither historically nor contemporaneously were Muslims a homogeneous religious community; rather their differences and disputes over belief, theology and law were deep, bitter and divisive.
Those disputes and controversies came to haunt Pakistan, inevitably bringing repercussions for its domestic and external politics and policies.
Ishtiaq Ahmad divides his book into the following 21 chapters:
1. Jinnah’s Role in History: A Scheme of Analysis
2. Jinnah as an Indian Nationalist
3. Joining the Indian National Congress
4. Jinnah as a Muslim Communitarian
5. Jinnah’s Communitarian Forays
6. The Two-Nation Theory: Jinnah Drifts towards Muslim Nationalism
7. The Congress Ministries and Jinnah’s Reaction
8. Jinnah Embraces the Politics of Othering and Polarization
9. Building Momentum (26 March 1940 to July 1942)
10. The Quit India Movement: A Blunder Jinnah Used to His Advantage
11. Jinnah’s Relentless Election Campaign for Partition and Pakistan
12. The Cabinet Mission Plan and Jinnah
13. British Efforts to Salvage the Cabinet Mission Plan
14. The British Decision to Partition India
15. Jinnah as the All-Powerful Head of a Muslim State
16. Jinnah’s 11 August 1947 Speech
17. Governor-General Jinnah’s Other Speeches, Statements and Messages
18. Jinnah’s Prerogatives as the All-Powerful Head of State
19. The Liaquat Interlude
20. Jinnah’s Pakistan: An Overview
21. Analysis and Conclusion
Ahmad has sought to study Jinnah’s political career in four phases. He has adopted a chronological approach to analyse Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s role in history.
This approach makes it likely to put in context and perspective the speeches, statements, arguments, decisions, indecisions, strategies and tactics Jinnah employed during his four-stage political career. His successes and failures are evaluated in the context of objective circumstances.
The book identifies four main stages in the political career of Mohammad Ali Jinnah: first, as an Indian nationalist; then as a Muslim communitarian; next as a Muslim nationalist; and, finally, as the founder of Pakistan. Each stage is historically contextualized and politically theorized.
The British colonial system forms the background of Jinnah’s transformation, and his relationship with the Indian National Congress provides the measure of the first three stages: first, as a champion of the Congress Party’s ideology; then, as a champion of Muslim communitarian rights within a united but loose Indian federation; and, finally, with Partition in view, as the champion of Muslim nationalism culminating in the creation of an independent Muslim state with him as the all-powerful head of state. Stages one and two represent those phases in Jinnah’s political career when he was struggling to establish his leadership—first, at the all-India level and then over the Muslim community.
Although detailed, they are background chapters, because Jinnah was yet to establish himself as the supreme leader of Muslims and challenge his chief adversaries, Gandhi and Nehru.
The first three stages unfolded against the backdrop of British rule and the fourth after Pakistan had come into being. Jinnah’s third stage is celebrated as the hallmark of his charisma and ability to bring about a paradigmatic shift in Muslim thinking.
Jinnah demanded the partition of India to create Pakistan, in return for supporting the British during World War II against the Congress, which demanded a transfer of power to elected Indian representatives. British encouragement and support to Jinnah allowed him to broach populist rhetoric promising a Muslim paradise on earth to Indian Muslims.
The core and supplementary arguments and political tactics and strategies he devised were aimed at bringing about the division of India. Jinnah’s demand was granted by the British but on their terms.
For the fourth stage, when, finally, Jinnah succeeded in bringing about the partition of India, and Pakistan had been established and his lifelong ambition to be the supreme leader had finally been realized, Jinnah had no clear or consistent vision or policies to offer.
Consequently, one of the main contentions of this book is that during the fourth and final phase of Jinnah’s extraordinary political life, he had no single core argument around which he conducted his politics.
Instead, the fear of a perceived Congress–Hindu–India conspiracy against him and Pakistan remained the constant referent for his behaviour.
Therefore, he randomly acquired unusual powers as the head of state and, armed with them, he took some very controversial decisions which greatly weakened the chances of Pakistan stabilizing as a liberal, parliamentary democracy.
He left the question of the Constitution of Pakistan to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly to work out, hoping it would be based on Islamic democratic principles, the Quran and sharia, which would treat Muslims and non-Muslims as equal citizens. His statements and actions/inactions during the fourth stage are the subject of unrelenting disagreement and continue to haunt Pakistani politics.
In this inquiry, the last two phases are subjected to exhaustive examination and analysis, and the association between the ideas, arguments and decisions during stages three and four are analysed to elucidate why those set forth during stage three became the framework for the Constitution, the law and the domestic and external politics of Pakistan.
Jinnah’s case that separating Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan would usher in peace in the subcontinent was another flawed idea. Instead Yahya Khan’s forecast that the partition of India would mean India and Pakistan fighting one another proved to be true.
Bitter disputes over the division of colonial assets, territory and princely states meant that from the outset both states were going to experience great difficulty in establishing normal friendly, neighbourly relations.
Three wars, and a mini war at the inhospitable Kargil heights when both were armed with nuclear weapons showed in abundance that the partition of India was not going to result in the peace Jinnah predicted.
Also, since the Partition did not mean an exchange of population on a religious basis, the tiny Hindu community in Pakistan (hardly any Sikhs stayed on in Pakistan) and the relatively much larger Muslim minority in India were greatly disadvantaged.
The zeal to Islamize Pakistan impacted unenthusiastically on all religious minorities—Hindu women particularly were subjected to forced conversions to Islam—while in India it gave birth to the contention that Muslims were a fifth column: they were Pakistanis masquerading as Indian citizens. They ought to be dispatched to Pakistan.
Certainly, rational voices on both sides have been raised against such unenthusiastic stereotyping but on the whole India–Pakistan relations are a continuation of the two-nation theory proving a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the other hand, the few times Indians and Pakistanis have met freely during cricket matches and other sport events or visited each other’s country the experience has belied the stereotyping and amazingly warm receptions have been given and friendships formed. It is at the level of state where relations between the two nations have been marred by zero-sum games between the Indian and Pakistani establishments, and set in motion an arms race which claimed scarce resources which otherwise could have been available to invest in human resource development, fighting climate change and environmental degradation.
Should India be blamed more than Pakistan or vice versa for the bad relations between them? The question is moot.
There is, however, no doubt that if Jinnah and the Muslim League had not demanded the partition of India to create Pakistan and the British not granted it, the leaders of the Indian National Congress would not have agreed to it.
Read this book if you are an Indian history enthusiast.
A prelude solution of the puzzle is that Jinnah’s main and only mission was to bring about, at all costs, the partition of India.
He set forth the two-nation theory dichotomizing Hindus and Muslims as two detached, intimidating nations. Muslim nationalism became the trademark of his separatist politics, and he resorted to all sorts of populist arguments and political manoeuvres to win the case for Pakistan in the face of stiff opposition from a host of opponents, among whom the most inveterate opponent was the Indian National Congress, while the final arbiter over the future of India were the British.
On the other hand, for the Pakistan that finally emerged in mid-August 1947, he had no consistent idea or vision.
However, since he had demanded and won Pakistan on the grounds that Indian Muslims were not a large minority but a discrete and distinct nation with their own sense of history, law and state, such arguments became the foundational ideology of Pakistan, in spite of evidence that Jinnah was neither a proponent of a secular–democratic state nor of a medieval type of Islamic state.
The foundational ideology became inevitably and essentially the framework within which the Constitution and law-making, especially the rights of citizens, had to be addressed. However, neither historically nor contemporaneously were Muslims a homogeneous religious community; rather their differences and disputes over belief, theology and law were deep, bitter and divisive.
Those disputes and controversies came to haunt Pakistan, inevitably bringing repercussions for its domestic and external politics and policies.
Ishtiaq Ahmad divides his book into the following 21 chapters:
1. Jinnah’s Role in History: A Scheme of Analysis
2. Jinnah as an Indian Nationalist
3. Joining the Indian National Congress
4. Jinnah as a Muslim Communitarian
5. Jinnah’s Communitarian Forays
6. The Two-Nation Theory: Jinnah Drifts towards Muslim Nationalism
7. The Congress Ministries and Jinnah’s Reaction
8. Jinnah Embraces the Politics of Othering and Polarization
9. Building Momentum (26 March 1940 to July 1942)
10. The Quit India Movement: A Blunder Jinnah Used to His Advantage
11. Jinnah’s Relentless Election Campaign for Partition and Pakistan
12. The Cabinet Mission Plan and Jinnah
13. British Efforts to Salvage the Cabinet Mission Plan
14. The British Decision to Partition India
15. Jinnah as the All-Powerful Head of a Muslim State
16. Jinnah’s 11 August 1947 Speech
17. Governor-General Jinnah’s Other Speeches, Statements and Messages
18. Jinnah’s Prerogatives as the All-Powerful Head of State
19. The Liaquat Interlude
20. Jinnah’s Pakistan: An Overview
21. Analysis and Conclusion
Ahmad has sought to study Jinnah’s political career in four phases. He has adopted a chronological approach to analyse Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s role in history.
This approach makes it likely to put in context and perspective the speeches, statements, arguments, decisions, indecisions, strategies and tactics Jinnah employed during his four-stage political career. His successes and failures are evaluated in the context of objective circumstances.
The book identifies four main stages in the political career of Mohammad Ali Jinnah: first, as an Indian nationalist; then as a Muslim communitarian; next as a Muslim nationalist; and, finally, as the founder of Pakistan. Each stage is historically contextualized and politically theorized.
The British colonial system forms the background of Jinnah’s transformation, and his relationship with the Indian National Congress provides the measure of the first three stages: first, as a champion of the Congress Party’s ideology; then, as a champion of Muslim communitarian rights within a united but loose Indian federation; and, finally, with Partition in view, as the champion of Muslim nationalism culminating in the creation of an independent Muslim state with him as the all-powerful head of state. Stages one and two represent those phases in Jinnah’s political career when he was struggling to establish his leadership—first, at the all-India level and then over the Muslim community.
Although detailed, they are background chapters, because Jinnah was yet to establish himself as the supreme leader of Muslims and challenge his chief adversaries, Gandhi and Nehru.
The first three stages unfolded against the backdrop of British rule and the fourth after Pakistan had come into being. Jinnah’s third stage is celebrated as the hallmark of his charisma and ability to bring about a paradigmatic shift in Muslim thinking.
Jinnah demanded the partition of India to create Pakistan, in return for supporting the British during World War II against the Congress, which demanded a transfer of power to elected Indian representatives. British encouragement and support to Jinnah allowed him to broach populist rhetoric promising a Muslim paradise on earth to Indian Muslims.
The core and supplementary arguments and political tactics and strategies he devised were aimed at bringing about the division of India. Jinnah’s demand was granted by the British but on their terms.
For the fourth stage, when, finally, Jinnah succeeded in bringing about the partition of India, and Pakistan had been established and his lifelong ambition to be the supreme leader had finally been realized, Jinnah had no clear or consistent vision or policies to offer.
Consequently, one of the main contentions of this book is that during the fourth and final phase of Jinnah’s extraordinary political life, he had no single core argument around which he conducted his politics.
Instead, the fear of a perceived Congress–Hindu–India conspiracy against him and Pakistan remained the constant referent for his behaviour.
Therefore, he randomly acquired unusual powers as the head of state and, armed with them, he took some very controversial decisions which greatly weakened the chances of Pakistan stabilizing as a liberal, parliamentary democracy.
He left the question of the Constitution of Pakistan to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly to work out, hoping it would be based on Islamic democratic principles, the Quran and sharia, which would treat Muslims and non-Muslims as equal citizens. His statements and actions/inactions during the fourth stage are the subject of unrelenting disagreement and continue to haunt Pakistani politics.
In this inquiry, the last two phases are subjected to exhaustive examination and analysis, and the association between the ideas, arguments and decisions during stages three and four are analysed to elucidate why those set forth during stage three became the framework for the Constitution, the law and the domestic and external politics of Pakistan.
Jinnah’s case that separating Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan would usher in peace in the subcontinent was another flawed idea. Instead Yahya Khan’s forecast that the partition of India would mean India and Pakistan fighting one another proved to be true.
Bitter disputes over the division of colonial assets, territory and princely states meant that from the outset both states were going to experience great difficulty in establishing normal friendly, neighbourly relations.
Three wars, and a mini war at the inhospitable Kargil heights when both were armed with nuclear weapons showed in abundance that the partition of India was not going to result in the peace Jinnah predicted.
Also, since the Partition did not mean an exchange of population on a religious basis, the tiny Hindu community in Pakistan (hardly any Sikhs stayed on in Pakistan) and the relatively much larger Muslim minority in India were greatly disadvantaged.
The zeal to Islamize Pakistan impacted unenthusiastically on all religious minorities—Hindu women particularly were subjected to forced conversions to Islam—while in India it gave birth to the contention that Muslims were a fifth column: they were Pakistanis masquerading as Indian citizens. They ought to be dispatched to Pakistan.
Certainly, rational voices on both sides have been raised against such unenthusiastic stereotyping but on the whole India–Pakistan relations are a continuation of the two-nation theory proving a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the other hand, the few times Indians and Pakistanis have met freely during cricket matches and other sport events or visited each other’s country the experience has belied the stereotyping and amazingly warm receptions have been given and friendships formed. It is at the level of state where relations between the two nations have been marred by zero-sum games between the Indian and Pakistani establishments, and set in motion an arms race which claimed scarce resources which otherwise could have been available to invest in human resource development, fighting climate change and environmental degradation.
Should India be blamed more than Pakistan or vice versa for the bad relations between them? The question is moot.
There is, however, no doubt that if Jinnah and the Muslim League had not demanded the partition of India to create Pakistan and the British not granted it, the leaders of the Indian National Congress would not have agreed to it.
Read this book if you are an Indian history enthusiast.
November 29, 2025
Probably the best book on partition. Very unbiased
January 7, 2021
Lively and logical. It could be regarded as a utopia for realists seeking an impartial perspective on the reckoning of the partiton of India. The best single book not only on toils and labours of Jinnah but also on his intellectual manoeuvres regarding the stance on the future of the subcontinent.
In fact the sole piece of literature, I have encountered which holistically explores the neutral perspective of the making of Pakistan backed up by explicit citations.
In fact the sole piece of literature, I have encountered which holistically explores the neutral perspective of the making of Pakistan backed up by explicit citations.
April 9, 2022
Politics is a musical chair, the smart player will be the winner, I do not going to argue the player’s competency, ethics, and morals but my point is the player’s ambition. The grater Bharath balkanized into two pieces Hindustan (currently prescribed as modern India) and Pakistan once the freedom struggle comes to an end from the British emperor. The then British India’s governor-general Lord Louis Mountbatten declared independence for the two states, most the Indians dislike the division but division is a main political agenda in the form of independence. Jawaharlal Nehru voiced “struggle, struggle eternal struggle” but Muhammad Ali Jinnah stood solidly in his policy “direct action day”, a separate state for Muslims. However, Nehru’s dream should be the first prime minister of independent India even though the land size is a palm of the hand.
It was the victory of Jinnah, it is not a normal victory the author describes Jinnah’s victory that Stanley Wolpert tributes “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-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three”. Jinnah’s League demanded Pakistan on the two-nation theory further Jinnah demanded one-fourth of India of the demarcated land. Pakistan was created but today’s Pakistan is not the Pakistan that Jinnah wanted he dreamed that Pakistan should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all Pakistanis.
According to the author, there are two reasons that Jinnah was celebrated one Jinnah as the creator of Pakistan and the other school argues that Jinnah was using the Pakistan card as a bargaining chip, and it was Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who rejected Jinnah’s legitimate demand for a fair share of political power, who should be held responsible for the partition of India and the concomitant horrors. The author Ishtiaq Ahmed’s research can be summed up that there is no other way of doing to live as separate entities, ‘Pakistan’ is the only way to India’s freedom.” As a reader, I have been tempted and impressed by praising the sentence. Congress wants independence and Jinnah doesn’t say that he wants the British to leave.
The author’s themes that readers make interested in, citing Thomas Carlyle, who highlighted the roles of Prophet Mohammad, Oliver Cromwell, and Napoleon, the reader is taken to Machiavelli’s The Prince, and to Karl Marx. After Jinnah called for Direct Action, resulting in the Great Calcutta Killing with cold blood to get Pakistan, would set fire to greater India? According to the author, the British encouraged the formation of the Muslim League. In July 1906, Secretary of State for India Lord Morley announced plans to introduce constitutional reforms in India. Muslims got feared domination by Hindus and argued that India was not a homogeneous nation and that Muslims and it seeded Morally-Minto reforms.
The author also deflates the myth that had Jinnah lived longer he would have put democracy on a more secure footing in Pakistan. The author provides evidence that Jinnah flouted constitutional norms during his short term as Governor-General by acquiring powers not permissible under a parliamentary system thus setting the precedent for the subversion of democracy in Pakistan.
In my conclusion, the author has done an invaluable job of eliminating several major misconceptions about Jinnah propounded by revisionist historians. My broad view is that the author has done so at such great length that the average reader may lose sight of the other side of the coin. This edition of the publication constructed over many pages with a depth of the historical focus would be recommended for wider readers.
It was the victory of Jinnah, it is not a normal victory the author describes Jinnah’s victory that Stanley Wolpert tributes “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-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three”. Jinnah’s League demanded Pakistan on the two-nation theory further Jinnah demanded one-fourth of India of the demarcated land. Pakistan was created but today’s Pakistan is not the Pakistan that Jinnah wanted he dreamed that Pakistan should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all Pakistanis.
According to the author, there are two reasons that Jinnah was celebrated one Jinnah as the creator of Pakistan and the other school argues that Jinnah was using the Pakistan card as a bargaining chip, and it was Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who rejected Jinnah’s legitimate demand for a fair share of political power, who should be held responsible for the partition of India and the concomitant horrors. The author Ishtiaq Ahmed’s research can be summed up that there is no other way of doing to live as separate entities, ‘Pakistan’ is the only way to India’s freedom.” As a reader, I have been tempted and impressed by praising the sentence. Congress wants independence and Jinnah doesn’t say that he wants the British to leave.
The author’s themes that readers make interested in, citing Thomas Carlyle, who highlighted the roles of Prophet Mohammad, Oliver Cromwell, and Napoleon, the reader is taken to Machiavelli’s The Prince, and to Karl Marx. After Jinnah called for Direct Action, resulting in the Great Calcutta Killing with cold blood to get Pakistan, would set fire to greater India? According to the author, the British encouraged the formation of the Muslim League. In July 1906, Secretary of State for India Lord Morley announced plans to introduce constitutional reforms in India. Muslims got feared domination by Hindus and argued that India was not a homogeneous nation and that Muslims and it seeded Morally-Minto reforms.
The author also deflates the myth that had Jinnah lived longer he would have put democracy on a more secure footing in Pakistan. The author provides evidence that Jinnah flouted constitutional norms during his short term as Governor-General by acquiring powers not permissible under a parliamentary system thus setting the precedent for the subversion of democracy in Pakistan.
In my conclusion, the author has done an invaluable job of eliminating several major misconceptions about Jinnah propounded by revisionist historians. My broad view is that the author has done so at such great length that the average reader may lose sight of the other side of the coin. This edition of the publication constructed over many pages with a depth of the historical focus would be recommended for wider readers.
November 26, 2021
I have listened to his many videos where readers or listeners asked good questions . His answers impressed me that he has thorough knowledge of Jinnah spoken words . Jinnah did not write much but gave lot of speeches .
Jinnah wanted seperate state or country and he did not push hard for secular state . Jinnah knew of riots in Rawalpindi villages in March 1947 but did not make any comment on mass killings of Sikhs and Hindus.
He was aware of Violence in Lahore and other places but did not try to stop it .killings got worse in august , 1947 and by the end of 1947 , there were only 5% of Hindus Sikhs , Christian’s and Dalits left in Lahore ..
Jinnah knew about J&K incursion by Pathans from Pakhtunwa ( NWFP ) but did not say anything in public .
Jinnah appointed governors who will carry out his orders especially in West Punjab .
He knew about huge killings of Muslims in India so he tried to restrict vast exhodus of Muslims from major provinces of India .
Jinnah wanted seperate state or country and he did not push hard for secular state . Jinnah knew of riots in Rawalpindi villages in March 1947 but did not make any comment on mass killings of Sikhs and Hindus.
He was aware of Violence in Lahore and other places but did not try to stop it .killings got worse in august , 1947 and by the end of 1947 , there were only 5% of Hindus Sikhs , Christian’s and Dalits left in Lahore ..
Jinnah knew about J&K incursion by Pathans from Pakhtunwa ( NWFP ) but did not say anything in public .
Jinnah appointed governors who will carry out his orders especially in West Punjab .
He knew about huge killings of Muslims in India so he tried to restrict vast exhodus of Muslims from major provinces of India .
December 17, 2022
After a long delay, I read and finished the book. A brilliant book! So well documented. Rich in details, the book talks about the evolution of Jinnah’s political ideas with regards to his place in the Indian politics. The strategic thinking of the British in the partition of India. I have a few questions into some of the never-brought-to-the-fore details. I would ask the author about those, and hopefully get a reply.
All in all, it’s a must read for all those interested in the history of Indian independence movement that culminated in its partition.
All in all, it’s a must read for all those interested in the history of Indian independence movement that culminated in its partition.
December 8, 2023
Another addition in efforts to analyze Quaid-e-Azam's thinking and strategy. Ishtiaq Ahmed's book paints a negative overall picture. I could not help but develop the impression that the author does not support the partition of India in 1947. This anti-partition bias could be the reason that while interpreting various events, statements and data, he is highly critical of Quaid-e-Azam, but very generous in either praising or giving a benefit of doubt to Congress, Gandhi and Nehru.
August 26, 2023
Detailed and objective
Very deep analysis of historical facts. Objective in his views about leaders of that time. Throws light on nuances of personality, society and world politics that led to the creation of Pakistan and it's basic structure on which it is supposed to operate
Very deep analysis of historical facts. Objective in his views about leaders of that time. Throws light on nuances of personality, society and world politics that led to the creation of Pakistan and it's basic structure on which it is supposed to operate
January 26, 2023
This guy is a fraud this was an excruciating book to read. Filled with opinions and twisted facts.
October 20, 2025
It is one of the monumental works on the political life of an extremely important personality. Some may vilify Jinnah, while for others he is the greatest leader (Quaid-e-Azam). This is a scholarly work with extensive references and citations. The author has tried to be objective and neutral while he has busted many myths. He has divided the life of Jinnah into four phases, namely: Jinnah as an Indian Nationalist; Jinnah as a Muslim Communitarian; Jinnah as a Muslim Communalist; and finally, his role as the all-powerful head of state. The systematic critique is backed with speeches, statements of Jinnah, and his tactical and strategic positions. The author also theorizes the role of ideas, their intended and unintended consequences; the making of heroes and the effects of circumstances on them; the power of ideology and its binding influence even on great leaders. The section on the confusion regarding the ideology of Pakistan is also very enriching. In short, it is a great book, objective, neutral, and highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of the Indian subcontinent. Full of knowledge and very fulfilling. Ishtiaq Ahmed is just too good.
December 25, 2024
The author has aptly divided Jinnah's lives in four phases -
1) Indian Nationalist
2) Muslim Communitarian
3) Muslim Nationalist
4) All powerful Governor-General of Pakistan
While his opinion of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS is coloured by unsympathetic voices like Christophe Jaffrelot, he has written about the subject matter from a very objective position exposing the flaws & blunders of Jinnah, INC and has underlined the British thinking & role in the partition of India.
1) Indian Nationalist
2) Muslim Communitarian
3) Muslim Nationalist
4) All powerful Governor-General of Pakistan
While his opinion of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS is coloured by unsympathetic voices like Christophe Jaffrelot, he has written about the subject matter from a very objective position exposing the flaws & blunders of Jinnah, INC and has underlined the British thinking & role in the partition of India.
August 14, 2024
A good book to understand Jinnah and Partition.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews