The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the Demand for Pakistan

Cambridge South Asian Studies

by Ayesha Jalal

In 1940 the All-India Muslim League orchestrated the demand for independent Muslim states in India. Seven years later Pakistan was created amidst a communal holocaust of unprecedented proportions. Concentrating on the All-India Muslim League and its leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, The Sole Spokesman assesses the role of religious communalism and provincialism in shaping the movement for Pakistan.

Genres: History, Pakistan, Nonfiction, India, Politics, Biography, Islam

310 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

Ayesha Jalal is a Pakistani-American historian and academic, and the Mary Richardson Professor of History at Tufts University. Her work focuses on the military-industrial complex, post-colonial politics, and Muslim identity in South Asia. She is also known for positing in The Sole Spokesman that the Partition of India and Pakistan was less a political necessity than a terrible human tragedy and that the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a pragmatist who was motivated by greater rights for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent than the creation of a separate state.

Reviews

[Farrukh Pitafi · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are a Pakistani, haven't read it and have no plans to read it I may have to unfriend you :)

[Omar Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good account of events, though her central thesis is probably exaggerated. Jinnah was shallow, but probably more of a Two-nation theorist than Ayesha gives him credit for. He was not just using it as a bargaining chip. Under that Pukka sahib exterior, he was a bit of a (superficial) Iqbalian too..He may not have read much about religion or history, but like today's PTI voters, he liked the notion of a Muslim nation.

[Farwa · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was not like a boring academic book. with its beautiful graphic language, Ayesha Jala has made it "a must read" who wants to study pre-independence politics pf Pakistan. It dwells on the formation of Muslim League,the party that made Pakistan.Jinnah was a genius nd this book proves how but the author of this book didn't shy away to point out the mistakes Jinnah made.

[Mansoor Azam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. The prose , the rich sprinkling of idioms , the thought, the nacked truth. it's history at it's best..a must read for all subcontinent folks regardless of their nationality be it Pakistani, Indian or a Bengali. surely not a detailed account of events but it does probe Jinnah and the scenarios surrounding the man and their ultimate recourse to partition. unbiased history writing like this shall be more and more.
Some folks may not agree with the arguments made in the book as its, at times, miles apart to the official versions taught to us again and again.

[Indeneri · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is not easy to read. It just drones on and on and on and till you forget where you started from. Couldn't get past the first 30 pages.

I'm going to give it another try in a few months and see if I feel any different.

[Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be mandatory reading for all high school Pakistani students, particularly for those raised on the doctored history of Pakistan movement of the Zia-ul-Haq era textbooks.

[Shoaib · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is based on the doctoral dissertation submitted to the Cambridge University while the author was pursuing her PhD degree. The book focuses on the political strategies employed by the Muslim League and their leader, the Sole Spokesman, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in the run-up to the partition. The author challenges the existing historical facts by diligently analyzing intentions of Jinnah and building an argument that Jinnah never intended to seek Pakistan as an independent State for the Muslims of India, but instead he used the idea of Pakistan as a bargaining counter to safeguard the rights of the Muslims in the Muslim Minority Provinces and to get maximum of provincial autonomy for the Muslim majority provinces. Author positions that Jinnah’s often cited comment that India needed a “surgical operation” did not mean partition, but rather a notional division of India into two groups before they joined again in a new partnership of equality and that Jinnah’s stubbornness for a separate state must be understood as a tactic employed to preserve the fragile unity of Muslim League which always pro-establishment party controlled by various groups of vested interests.

With the unfolding events led to the independence of India, Jinnah lost the control over the idea of Pakistan in the due course which was very ambivalent and vague in its essence and was forced to accept a land that poorly suited the interests of the most of the Muslims – a ‘mutilated and moth-eaten Pakistan’ that Jinnah rejected twice the same formula out of fear that it would lead the division of Bengal and Punjab.

A few months before Independennce, Khawaja Nazimuddin, 2nd Governor General as well as 2nd Prime Minister of Pakistan, candidly told a British Governor that he did not know "what Pakistan means and that nobody in Muslim League knew ". Such was the preparation of the leaders of Muslim League, who had made no preparation for, how to run a new country. One possible explanation for for this lack is that the demand of Pakistan was "devised for bargaining purpose" to gain political leverage for the Muslims".

Jinnah and his colleagues in the Muslim League had not contemplated a Pakistan that did not include all of the Punjab and Bengal. If the entire scheme was designed to increase the Muslims bargaining power in post British India, the division of India had to be between Muslim-majority provinces and Hindu-majority provinces. Without the Non-Muslim majority districts of Punjab and Bengal, the Muslim League could not expect to bargain for parity between Pakistan and India. Jinnah critics already pointed out that any division of India along communal lines would inevitably have to include division of Punjab and Bengal, along similar lines.

The author assertion is that the creation of Pakistan was an incident and a miscalculation and that Jinnah never wanted a separate Muslim state but used it as a thread to the political bargaining chip to strengthen the voice of the Muslim in the undivided India and in order to defend her assertion, she maintains that one needs to look no further than Jinnah’s reaction to the partition.

[Tahir Ashraf · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a must-read for every Pakistani confused about the idea of Pakistan, the role of Jinnah, and Muslims in the making of Pakistan and partition of India. and An informative text that shines on a detailed account of pre-partition subcontinent politics. Debunks myths about Jinnah that are taught in schools and clears his stance of a secular modern Islamic state for Pakistan.

[Malik Asad · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have obtained you knowledge of the Pakistan project through textbooks taught in our education system, this book will completely change the understanding of realities of Pakistan movement and the challanges thrown to Jinnah, the Sole Spokesman but not just Congress and the Raj, but the muslim politicians in India (especially Punjab and Bengal), in great detail.

[Waqar Ahmed · Rating 4 out of 5]

A different look at the way Pakistan separated from India. If you, like me, have been raised on the 'official' Pakistan studies history, this is going to come as a big surprise. It is an incredibly detailed and well-written book full of facts and sources diligently put together by the formidable historian Dr. Jalal. A must-read for all Pak history students.

[Meem Arafat Manab · Rating 2 out of 5]

লেখার ভাষাটা বিচ্ছিরি, এর উপর ক্যাম্ব্রিজ থাপ্পাওয়ালা আর দশটা বইয়ের মতো এখানেও ব্রিটিশদের গায়ে গুলি ঘেষতে না দেয়ার একটা গেইম। অনেক তথ্য জানা গেলো, শুকরিয়া শুধু এটুকের জন্য। বই ভালো না।

[Muhammad Usama · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jinnah is hailed as the founder of Pakistan without knowing any of his actual struggles by most of my countrymen. In this remarkable book, Ayesha Jalal has portrayed how Jinnah had evolved into the sole spokesman for the Muslim of the subcontinent. At various occasions, countering the Congress and the British was easier compared to dealing with the Anti-league Muslim majority provinces and navigating through the self centred muslim politicians. Although ideology of Pakistan could not be associated with him, but realising this dream for safeguarding the rights of Muslims would be impossible without the legal and political acumen of Jinnah. Jinnah avoided defining his "ideal Pakistan" till the very end due to multiple restrictions and for good reason and the author successfully showed how his "ideal Pakistan" differs vastly from the actual manifestation of the concept.
Lastly, this is one of the few books with if not more then equally interesting and important footnotes. They show the amount of research which must have been done to pen down this masterpiece. The footnotes also help to further understand the views of multiple stakeholders involved in the partition of Pakistan .

[Sagheer Afzal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Few people realise that the Pakistan exists today is very far from the Pakistan that Jinnah envisaged. This inevitably lead to the question as to what was the Pakistan Jinnah envisaged; the answer is that nobody knows because he never revealed his vision of what Pakistan entailed, much to the frustration of his followers. This according to Ayesha Jalal was deliberate because were he to disclose his idea of Pakistan it would cause dissension between the groups of people that supported him. Thus his silence on the issue was a political ploy. I think this is too generous an assessment of Jinnah; he never told anyone what Pakistan was going to be because he himself did not have a clue.
Ayesha Jalal paints a nuanced picture of Jinnah; one that is a far cry from the stories told about him in Pakistani school textbooks. Jinnah was for sure a brilliant lawyer; his mastery of detail enabled him to point out the hypocrisies in British policy. He was a man who believed in the constitution and that the ruled should be commanded from the centre.
The early part of his career was a herculean effort to become the sole spokesman for the Muslim minority. The All India Muslim league of which he was one of the founders became his platform to contest the supremacy of the Congress party.
Ironically, the shaky foundation of the league was one of the reasons why Jinnah failed to carve out the Pakistan of his dreams. It was a party riven with factionalism. Many of the founding fathers supported Pakistan not because they had any empathy for their fellow Muslim brethren but because they wanted to protect their vested interests.
It should be pointed out that at that time India was the most divided it had been in its history. Violent communalism was rife and rampant. This was a bitter irony for Jinnah because he himself was a secular man and he was shrewd enough to see the horrors it could cause.
It is important to note that the idea that Pakistan was the homeland for Muslims had become to firmly embed itself in the minds of many Muslims; thought not all. This was due to relationship between the Zamindars (land owners) and the Pirs. The two worked hand in glove. The Zamindars bankrolled the Pirs into proclaiming that Islam could not survive without Pakistan. It was the Pirs who began to issue fatwas such as whoever does not support Pakistan is a kafir and his prayers are invalid.
It seems according to Ayesha Jala, that Jinnah did nothing to stem this idiocy because it would inculcate the notion that Pakistan was the utopian ideal for the Muslims of India and such a sentiment would lead to devotion for his cause.
Jinnah believed that his league should have parity with the Congress. He advocated his two nation theory on this basis. But why would the Congress party agree to have parity with a minor party; one so conflict-ridden at that?
This exemplifies a weakness in Jinnah: he had no idea or understanding of provincial politics. He seemingly failed to comprehend that those supporting him were the wealthy Zamindars who did not want their lands usurped by any Communist Hindu mob. The people further down the social strata actually wanted the British to stay. As did Jinnah; but what Jinnah did not understand was the British had no interest in staying on as a referee between two warring parties.
Mountbatten had been told to avoid partition and to try and persuade India to remain in the Commonwealth. The proposals he put to Jinnah were dismissed with the cold contempt for which Jinnah had become notorious for.
Close friends of Jinnah tell that he was visibly shaken by the idea of Partition. Although he never explicitly said; he wanted Pakistan to be a series of federated states; three being Bengal, Kashmir and the Punjab.
The problem was that the premiers of Punjab and Bengal did not want Partition. The Punjab in particular had begun its march to anarchy. Big business owners and Rajas hired demobbed soldiers to kill on their orders. The potential for genocide was apparent.
Jinnah’s strategy was based on the assumption that the central government ruling India was a British creation and would cease to exist once the British left India. The new all India government would have to allow Muslims an equal say in the government. Once that happened it remained an open question as to whether Pakistan would be a Muslim state in confederation with other non-Muslim states or a sovereign state in its own right.
But the difficulties he had faced since 1937 in rallying support in the Muslim provinces and in challenging their devotion to their own particular tribe or group meant that he could only cast his demands in communal terms.
Yet it was this communal slant for unspecified demand for Pakistan that was now destroying the very base of his campaign. A demand for Pakistan presented in communal terms was against the imperatives of the Bengali and Punjabi Muslims because their supremacy depended on alliances with non-Muslims. But seven years of destructive propaganda for Pakistan had scared the non-Muslims and weakened law and order in the Muslim provinces. The Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal states all thought they could use Jinnah to further their provincial interests by eliminating rival Hindu businesses and failed to realise they were stoking the flames of violent conflict.
This forced Jinnah to contradict himself; he now started presenting Pakistan as a state which offered equality and protection to non-Muslims begging the question as to why it was necessary in the first place. But by now the tide was against him.
Congress saw no need to negotiate on even terms with the Muslim league; they only ever saw it as a divided minority party which indeed it was. Mounbatten seemed determined to undermine Jinnah and flatly refused every demand he made.
The problem Jinnah was that he could not negotiate from any position of strength. By trying to box clever by keeping silent about what Pakistan was actually meant to be he had manoeuvred himself into a corner. And once there he had no choice but to accept in his own words: ‘the moth-eaten and truncated’ Pakistan presented to him.
By then Jinnah was a tired and defeated man. He had come to accept the truth he uttered on his deathbed that ‘Pakistan was the greatest blunder of my life.’
Ayesha Jalal’s book reads more like a thesis than a gripping historical read but it does give a fascinating insight into how Pakistan came to be.

[Anuraag Godavari · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an Indian, I felt the need to understand perspectives different from my own on Pakistan, Indian Muslims and other related issues, and I think Sole Spokesman was a great first step in that. Jalal lays out the argument very well that Jinnah was actually trying to secure a future for all of India's Muslims within a larger subcontinental state. She also describes very well how the Indian National Congress, in an effort to maintain totalizing control, sealed out and radicalised the Muslim League and ensured partition. And, of course, much of this is the legacy of British policies created to pit the communities of India against one another. Of course, I think the author is a bit too favorable to Jinnah despite her own argument - it seems to me that he launched a political campaign which he refused to define and which relied intrinsically on communal differences, ensuring the exacerbation of communalism which the secularist and unionist really should have seen coming. This book made me pessimistic, as it showed me the utter stupidity and immovability of the powers jockeying for control or slices of it in the twilight of the British Raj. But it also made me optimistic - it shows just how surface level the political divisions of the subcontinent are and hint at a deeper brotherhood which we must seek to preserve or else fall into the trap of exclusive and exclusionary nationalism.

[Khitkhite Buri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dry and empirical, and Jalal's writing is disappointingly naive. It tries to provide a narrative, which by itself is quite bare; without the footnotes, it would have gone nowhere. It, however, gives me some insight into the mainstream historiography of the partition as well as that of Pakistan, by departing from it. The Bengal divergences of the League help to make sense of larger ideological trends.
I really dislike biographical histories, even when it claims to be debunking myths of its pivotal figures.

[Rick Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating tale about the All-India Muslim League and its political goals. The story reveals how the partition of the Indian subcontinent came to pass because of the divergent political intents of the various elites at the colonial, federal and provincial levels and the personalities involved. It provides some insights into the politics of the Pakistani borderlands that relate to the area known as "Pashtunistan".

[Hasan · Rating 3 out of 5]

An academic read, which is extremely dry but provides crucial insight into the demand for Pakistan. It's a good book if you're really interesting in the topic of India's partition, Jinnah and the Muslim League.

[Anish Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another perspective on the British India's partition and a brilliant explanation of what might be happening inside Mr Jinnah's mind.
Perhaps the best lawyer produced by British empire in its entirety and how he succeed/failed (depends on one's perspective) in advocating his case.

[Ajmal Khan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think it's the greatest book for Pakistan history

[Hashir Maan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Few books have reshaped the historiography of the Pakistan Movement as profoundly as The Sole Spokesman. Rather than accepting the conventional narrative that Muhammad Ali Jinnah pursued Pakistan as an inevitable end in itself, Ayesha Jalal presents a far more nuanced and politically sophisticated argument. She contends that Pakistan was, above all, a bargaining strategy: a means through which Jinnah sought to secure meaningful constitutional safeguards and political parity for India's Muslims within a federal framework. Partition, in this reading, was not the predetermined objective but the unintended consequence of failed negotiations, mutual distrust, and the rigid positions adopted by the British, the Indian National Congress, and the All-India Muslim League.

What makes *The Sole Spokesman* exceptional is its refusal to reduce history to nationalist mythology. Jalal reconstructs constitutional debates, correspondence, cabinet negotiations, and political calculations with remarkable precision, revealing Jinnah not as a dogmatic separatist but as a strategic constitutional politician operating within the constraints of late colonial politics. The book demonstrates that historical actors often pursue objectives that diverge significantly from the outcomes they ultimately produce. It is a reminder that history is contingent rather than inevitable.

The book's greatest contribution lies in its challenge to teleological history—the tendency to interpret the past as though it naturally progressed toward a known endpoint. Jalal dismantles this retrospective certainty by exposing the multiple political possibilities that existed before 1947. In doing so, she compels readers to reconsider not only why Partition occurred but also how states construct founding myths to legitimise themselves. The Pakistan that emerged in August 1947 was not necessarily the Pakistan envisioned during constitutional negotiations in the preceding decade.

Reading The Sole Spokesman today feels particularly significant. Contemporary Pakistan continues to wrestle with questions that Jalal implicitly raises: the relationship between federalism and centralisation, the representation of diverse identities within the state, and the gap between constitutional ideals and political practice. Many of the anxieties surrounding provincial autonomy, democratic legitimacy, and civil-military relations can be understood more clearly when viewed through the constitutional disputes of the 1940s.

The book also resonates beyond Pakistan. Across the world, political discourse has increasingly become polarised, with complex historical processes reduced to simplistic nationalist narratives. Jalal's work reminds us that history is rarely a morality play divided into heroes and villains. Instead, it is shaped by negotiation, compromise, contingency, and unintended consequences. This methodological lesson is perhaps even more valuable than her central thesis.

Whether one ultimately agrees with Jalal's interpretation or not, The Sole Spokesman remains indispensable reading. It is rigorous without being inaccessible, revisionist without being provocative for its own sake, and intellectually courageous in questioning long-established assumptions. More than four decades after its publication, it continues to influence historians because it does not merely ask what happened in 1947, it asks why we remember 1947 in the ways that we do. For anyone interested in South Asian political thought, constitutional history, or the making of modern Pakistan, this is not simply a book to read; it is a book to wrestle with.

[Aditya Adhikari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent work of historical writing, though it does assume a basic knowledge of partition and the main characters involved. Jalal does not focus much on what Jinnah himself said about his motivations or what others said about him, but rather conducts a minute reading of the Muslim League’s negotiating positions through the decade or so before independence and the political context in which they evolved. Her main innovation is to use this to extrapolate to Jinnah’s psychology and political strategy. This approach is fruitful, and the text is rich and dense. But all the detail on the composition of the ministries and legislatures in the Punjab or Bengal at different times, or the specific details of and responses to the Cabinet Mission plan, for example, can sometimes make for tedious reading.

Jalal’s famous argument is of course that Jinnah never wanted a separate state of Pakistan, all his demands to the very end were simply a way of, first and most importantly, gaining leverage in power-sharing negotiations with the Congress, and second, uniting the disparate Muslim groups across India under a single banner of the Muslim League. The argument seemed to me to be well-developed, though perhaps somewhat exaggerated. This argument has become controversial because it has been taken to mean that Jinnah himself was not responsible for the catastrophe of partition, that Nehru and the Congress were to blame, since they pushed him to accept a “moth-eaten” Pakistan. And some of the author’s rhetoric does reveal greater sympathy for Jinnah than for the Congress – perhaps due to the author’s own nationality.

But the book is much more nuanced than its popular interpretation. Jalal reveals Jinnah to be a nervous and insecure character who for over a decade pursued a maximalist negotiating position with such great determination that in the end he paid the price for his brinksmanship by getting a version of what he said he wanted, rather than what he actually did want. The narrative also makes clear why the Congress became willing to accept partition as the lesser evil. The alternative would have been to accept total parity with the Muslim League, a weak central government, and dual sovereignty at the heart of the Indian state. Such a state of affairs would have led to paralysis and could not but be unacceptable to someone like Nehru or Patel, whose goal was to establish a strong central state after independence in order spearhead the progressive transformation of Indian society.

[Animesh Mitra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Analytical PhD dissertation of the author. Superb research. According to the researcher the concept of separate Mohammedan state based on two nation theory was actually a bargaining strategy and tactic adopted by Jinnah to maintain his own leadership upon the Mohammedans, to retain the integrity and unity of the fragile and disorganized Muslim League organization, to prevent a Hindu majority rule and to get a Parity and equal share of power and sovereignty for the Mohammedans at the center in an undivided India. Jinnah never actually wanted a separate Mohammedan state for the Mohammedans but he adopted it as a bargaining strategy and tactic to achieve equal share of power and sovereignty for the Mohammedans in an undivided India. Pakistan happened and emerged because of the intransigence of the Congress and it’s leadership Nehru-Patel and their inclination for a Hindu majority rule, rejection of Parity and refusal of share of the power and sovereignty with the Mohammedans at the center in an undivided India. Jinnah never wanted Pakistan but an undivided India with equal share of power and sovereignty. Nehru refused and Pakistan became the reality. It was not the Muslim League but the Congress which created Pakistan through it’s refusal and rejection of Parity. Nehru refused Parity and Pakistan emerged. It was Nehru not Jinnah who was the real creator of Pakistan. Rejection of Parity at the center is the real cause of Pakistan. Jinnah's aim - Parity, goal- equal share of power and sovereignty at the center, strategy - Pakistan, separate Mohammedan state, two nation theory, tactic- first constitutional method, later unconstitutional method, direct action day 16th August - 20th August 1946.

[Talha Bajwa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ayesha Jalal definitely deserves an accalaim for this marvelous work. From the eye of such an erudite scholar, this book analyzes the true role of Jinnah as a statesman who put forward the case of Muslims of United India for their equal rights. Disappointingly, most of the history books written on Indo-Pak subcontinent fail to bring out the real dynamics of his struggles. What I like the most about Dr Jalal is her unbiased and factual analysis of Jinnah's statesmanship. Although being a consistent and determined player in the politics of British India, Jinnah throughout remained constrained on many fronts. As a matter of fact, he never really succeeeded in disciplining the provincial muslim hands and in establishing a strong and well structured All India Muslim League. Despite all that, he proved himself to be a sole spokesman of Muslims of India at the level of All India Center. This was what made him Quaid-e-Azam in true sense. Furthermore, the book provides in-depth insights into the politics of Muslim majority provinces in India, the role of Muslim League at central and provincial tiers and how each of them along with Congress inflicted the British policy towards India upto the time of Independence. I would highly recommend this book to every student of history and politics seeking an impartial, neutral and well-researched analysis on Indo-Pak politics.

[Zain Najam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jalal’s illustrious writing abilities makes what would otherwise have been a tiresome topic a very dynamic and rousing one instead. It’s a fascinating book, perhaps Jalal’s best work thus far, and is laid sporadically with facts that have historically been shunned aside. It reveals how complicated, dynamic, and elaborate the genesis of Pakistan was.
Pakistanis are averse to their own history. Most of them have incorrect narratives instilled in their minds since their childhood on how, or why, Pakistan was birthed, or what the political atmosphere at that time was. It shows us a different side of Jinnah, with his shortcomings (along with those of his companions) scrutinised and laid bare. It’s a bold work, and one that it very important to read for anyone seeking to understand the origin of their country through an authentic account. The only drawback is that it for the average reader, Jalal’s writing can be inaccessible at times.

[Tayyab Khalil · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I found out that Dr. Ayesha Jalal wrote this book primarily to challenge the standard views propagated about Muhammad Ali Jinnah by not just the British and Indian historians but by the government of Pakistan as well, I just had to read it. What makes this book unique is that it is the very first biography of our founder by a Pakistani historian.

The most fascinating sections of this book are about how even his fiercest critics admitted that he was an extraordinary man of high moral character, the foundation of Pakistan had little to do with Islam and was essentially about safeguarding the regional and communal interests of Muslims and how Jinnah was vehemently opposed by not just the Indian nationalists, but (ironically), also by a large section of India’s Islamic groups and leaders. This is a must-read book for anyone interested in the political career of Jinnah leading up to the creation of Pakistan.

[Azam Ch. · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazingly well written book, full of context and sources for everything it claims and talks about. gives a lot of solid perspective on the muslim league and the congress. both sides of the border love to gobble up whatever they've been taught and so this is a must read for anyone wondering the events, talks and demands that actually happened, a very well researched and solid book, kept me turning page after page wanting to know more.
it is a must read for any South Asian muslim.
This along with India wins freedom by Azad, Sixteen stormy days by Tripurdaman Singh and Being the Other by Saeed Naqvi are must reads for any Indian muslims.

[Harjeet Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loads of information and references. If you looking for references that can be used for further reasearch then this book is of great value. However one piece of criticism is the over use of references and excessive academic nature of the book. It is hard to follow the main events and personalities to build a consolidated view of the narrative. Not an easy book to read for an average reader.

[Abdul · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book outlines the 'Cambridge' thesis about the formation of Pakistan developed originally by Professor Anil Seal and written into a PhD thesis by Dr. Ayesha Jalal. It is a well-written text that presents a credible theory about the formation of Pakistan.

[Hassan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jalal accomplishes the impossible by successfully untangling the web of politics from 1930-1947 by following the man at the center of the storm and the events leading up to the partition of the Indian subcontinent.

[Amir Sohail · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exemplary use of figurative language and excessive use of expressions (idioms ,phr v etc) are the beauty of Aysha Jalal (The sole spokesman ).
A spade should be called a spade.