Canada India and Pakistan: A Journey through the
Events, Leaders and Ideas of the countries and what they Represent.
Munish Alagh
“we do not have the right to
make Canada
An India
that denies itself to some Indians would no longer be the India
Introduction
Canada and India have both albeit separately
faced similar challenges and reacted in a common manner. In the political
sphere Pluralism and democracy have been confronted with challenges in India
and Canada not least sucessionism and terrorism, but remain important
foundations on which the two countries depend.
We begin with a quote from Sunil Khilnanis
“The Idea of India” where he sees in India
Common features between India and Canada
are many but what stands out are the adherence to Secularism in India ’s case and Pluralism in Canadas India India
stands apart from its immediate neighbours Bangladesh
and Pakistan India
As Trudeau
himself writes in the introduction to the book “Towards a just society” edited
jointly with Thomas Axworthy-
The ideas that animated our efforts from 1968 to 1984 are every bit
as compelling today as they were during our years of power.
- We fought for a
- We fought for a strong federal
government capable of initiating programs that would equalize
opportunities for Canadians wherever they happened to live.
- We fought for an independent Canadian
economy and foreign policy so that we would have the ability to create and
maintain a distinctive way of life in our part of
- We fought for a fairer, more
humane
The period when
Trudeau was in the driving seat in Canada saw a lot of conflict, because
conflict does arise when a leader who espouses strong humane ideas emerges and
drives his point home quite forcefully to the discomfort of elements inimical
to Individual freedom. As we see below these ideas which remain a force in
Canada today emerged during a period when they were even more forcefully
contested then they are today in Canada.
Section-I Pierre Elliot Trudeau-The man and his ideas-
Rather than discuss personalities and events
it is our aim in this project to discuss ideas, but behind these ideas lie
certain events, and in the case of Trudeau these include events like the
October Crisis and the Quebec Referendum. The ideas that lie behind these
events include Multi-Culturalism, Federalism and Canadian Nationalism.
October Crisis:3 During the October
Crisis of 1970, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ)
kidnapped British Trade Consul James Cross at
his residence on the sixth of October. Five days later, Quebec Labour
Minister Pierre Laporte was also kidnapped (and was
later murdered, on October 17). Trudeau responded by invoking the War
Measures Act, which gave the government sweeping powers of arrest and
detention without trial. Although this response is still controversial and was
opposed as excessive by parliamentarians like Tommy
Douglas and David Lewis, it was met with only limited
objections from the public. Trudeau presented a determined public stance
during the crisis, answering the question of how far he would go to stop the
terrorists with "Just watch me". Five of the FLQ terrorists were flown
to Cuba in 1970 as part of a deal in exchange for James Cross' life, although
they eventually returned to Canada years later, where they served time in
prison.
Trudeau’s credo was to strengthen
individual rights over groups. Notwithstanding his approach of individual
freedom being paramount, or perhaps, because of it, during the crisis of
October 1970 Trudeau while initially making some concessions dealt with terror
with a heavy hand. In this he showed that whereas he was all for individual
freedom the legitimacy and the authority of the State was to be upheld. As
Trudeau explained ‘Freedom and personal security are safeguarded by laws; those
laws must be respected in order to be effective.’
He emphasized ‘This government is not
acting out of fear. It is acting to prevent fear from spreading..it is acting
to make clear to kidnappers and revolutionaries and assassins that in this
country laws are made and changed by the elected representatives of all
Canadians-not by a handful of self selected dictators.’
Trudeau it was claimed was acting during
this crisis to discredit the PQ, but this is clearly contradicted by his
statements and that of his Ministers at this time. Thus Trudeau’s record as a
democrat is enhanced not weakened by the events of October 1970.
Defeat of the referendum on Quebec sovereignty4,
called by the Parti Québécois government of René Lévesque, which was held on May 20, 1980 was
another landmark event in Trudeaus career. In the debates between Trudeau and
Lévesque, Canadians were treated to a contest between two highly intelligent,
articulate and bilingual politicians who, despite being bitterly opposed, were
each committed to the democratic process. Trudeau promised a new constitutional
agreement with Quebec should it decide to stay in Canada, and the
"No" side (that is, No to sovereignty) ended up receiving nearly 60%
of the vote.
Federalism: With regard to federal
–provincial relations and constitutional reform too Trudeau’s steps mirrored
his credo of individual rights over groups. However his governments overall
record was mixed with regard to this ‘bold in approach, but often enfeebled and
infirm in withstanding the provinces political demands.’4This credo
was however put to test in the crisis of Autumn 1970. Trudeau was definitely
not one ‘to put Quebec in its place’ unlike what some commentators noted,
instead his efforts was always for cultural and social accommodation following
his credo.
Multi Culturalism: On October 8, 1971,
the Liberal government of Prime
Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced in the
House of Commons that, after much deliberation, the policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism would
be implemented in Canada. When the Canadian constitution was patriated by Prime Minister Trudeau in
1982, one of its constituent documents was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and section 27 of the Charter stipulates that the rights laid out in the
document are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the spirit of
multiculturalism.
Trudeau ‘represented a legitimate strand of
Quebec thought or opinion, often overlooked both inside the province and in the
rest of Canada.’5 That opinion was of providing the rights of
French-Canadian people within Canada. His approach ‘urged French speaking
Quebeckers to seek their future in a larger Canada than a narrower Quebec; it
stressed safeguards for individual rights rather than the collective
responsibilities of a beleaguered French-Canadian people.’6
This was similar to Henri Bourassa who
represented a strand of Quebec thought which was unique in Canada in the late
nineteenth century another thought or opinion-Indian nationalism was
inaugurated in the same time period. This phrase Indian nationalism is somewhat
misleading; “Infact a sense of region and nation emerged together through
parallel self definitions-and this point is essential to any understanding of
the distinctive layered character of Indianness”7
The commonness in Bourassa’s thesis of a
federal security to French Canadians and Jinnah’s initial project to protect
the interests of the Muslim minority in
provinces is noticeable.
This need for a federal balance in
population is reflected in Bourassa’s thinking as well when he claims “we do
not have the right to make Canada an exclusively French country any more than
the Anglo-Canadians have the right to make it an English country.”
But indeed Bourassa had strong roots, he
had a conviction that the church and the
French culture were coexistential. In this respect he was close to Maulana Azad
who had deep roots in Islamic tradition and simultaneously in Indian tradition.
Bourassa had deep roots in the church and in French Language and culture but
even so had an unshakeable belief in Canadian unity.
It is interesting to note that Trudeau
moved from supporting Quebecois Nationalism in his early years to being a
Canadian Nationalist through most of his political life speciually with regard
to the constitutional and federal stand which he took.
Jinnah: A look
at how much he loved India in his early years and how he fought for India’s
Secular Principles Part-I:The Beginning 1876-19108
Whereas Trudeau remained steadfast in his
political ideals through his political life it is interesting to note that
while studying in a Jesuit School in his teens, he supported Quebecois
Nationalism, it is this fact that can help us when we reflect on the Changing
Political Beliefs of Muhammad Ali Jinnah; ie-time and circumstances do tend to
change peoples political beliefs.
In Lincoln Inn :the
hallowed hall of British Jurisprudence is an oil painting, hung since July 1965
on the entrance of the Great Hall and Library in London. The anonymous artist
captured his upbright, unbending spirit, as well as his impeccable taste in
clothes, yet Jinnah’s face is almost as enigmatic and spare as the shining
brass plate beneath. His eyes, opened wide, are piercing; his lips, tightly
closed, formidable. One would guess that he was a man of few words, never
easily thwarted or defeated. “M.A. Jinnah, Founder and First Governor-General
of Pakistan” stares down at the students, barristers, and benchers rushing in
and out of Lincoln’s Inn, nothing more is revealed of Jinnah’s history, but his
birth and death date, but what should interest Indians is, that there was much
more to Jinnah, including the fact that even uptill the last decade of British
Raj, Jinnah remained, by and large committed to India’s unity.
Even so it must be
said that Jinnah during the last decade of his life tenaciously and single
mindedly fought for Pakistan.
A part of Jinnah’s
personality was due to his background, Jinnah belonged to a minority community
within Islam, itself a religious minority in India, the Khojas of South
Asia remained doubly conscious of their separateness and cultural difference,
helping perhaps to account for the “aloofness” so often noted as a
characteristic quality of Jinnah. Khojas, like other mercantile communities,
however, traveled extensively, were quick to assimilate new ideas, and adjusted
with relative ease to strange venvironments. They developed linguistic skills
and sharp intelligence, often acquiring considerable wealth.
As an eleven year old
Jinnah visited Bombay and would never forget it, although he went back to
Karachi after little more than six months it was hardly out of boredom with his
new environment.
As a seventeen year
old Jinnah left for England, and although had some initial adjustment pangs,
soon adjusted to life in London and began to like it before long.
His perfect manners
and attire always assured him entry into any of England’s stately homes, clubs
and palces. Jinnah became a model of fashion the world over, rivaled among his
South Asian contemporaries only by Motilal Nehru.
Dadbhai Naoroji fought
and narrowly won in 1892 a seat in Britian’s Parliament. During the
campaign, he was characterized as a “black man” during the campaign. From that
day, Jinnah was an uncompromising enemy of all bars of colour and racial
prejudice. Jinnah was thrilled to hear Dadabhais maiden speech extolling the
virtue of Free Speech in the House of Commons. As Jinnah noted “there he was,
an Indian, who would exercise that right and demand justice for his
countrymen.”
In 1893 when Jinnah
enrolled in the Lincln’s Inn, John Morley was elected as a bencher and argued
for placing “truth” first among any choice of “principles”. Jinnah quoted
Morley to student audiences later in life, and he personally tried to adhere to
the liberal ideas early imbibed from Lincoln’s great bencher.
M.P. Alfred Webb, whom
Jinnah had heard from Westminister’s Gallery, was elected to preside over
the Madras Congress in 1894. “I hate tyranny and oppression wherever practiced,
more especially if practiced by my own Government, for then I am in a measure
responsible,” Webb said to his Indian audience that December. And until the
“Irish question” was resolved, President Webb insisted, India like the rest of
the British empire, would suffer, for parliament “is paralysed with…the affairs
of under five millions of people, and ministries rise and fall on the question
of Ireland rather than great Imperial interests.” It was an important lesson
for Jinnah, one he subconsciously assimilated during those early lonely years
in London, of how a small minority and its insistent demands could “paralyse” a
huge empire. He learned to appreciate all the weaknesses as well of strengths
of British character.
Jinnah, let go an
opportunity to take u the Stage as a profession, after a letter from his
father,urging him not to be a traitor to the family.He was however a born
actor.Many a political opponent however made the mistake of believing, however,
that Jinnah was “only acting” when he was most serious.
In 1896, Jinnah
returned to the city he chose as his new permanent home, till partition i.e.
Bombay.
Jinnah admired
Badruddin Tyabji a secular liberal nationalist, who argued in his presidential
address to the Madras Congress: “I, for one, am utterly at loss to understand
why Mussulmans should not work shoulder to shoulder with their
fellow-countrymen, of other races and creeds, for the common benefit of
all..this is the principle on which we, in the Bombay presidency, have always
acted.” Jinnah’s other closest friends and admiored elders in Bombay were
Parsis, Hindus and Christians, none of whom took their respective religions as
seriously as their faith in British Law and Indian nationalism.
Jinnah’s universe at
that time was law, though his singular success as an advocate was not unrelated
to his acting talent.” He was what God made him,” a fellow barrister of
Bombay’s high court put it, “ a great pleader. He had a sixth sense: he could
see around corners. That is where his talents lay…he was a very clear
thinker…but he drove his points home-points chosen with exquisite
selection-slow delivery, word by word.” Another contemporary noted,”When he
stood up in Court, slowly looking towards t6he judge, placing his monocle in
his eye-with trhe sense of timing you would expect from an actor-he would
become omnipotent. Yes, that is the word-omnipotent.” Joachim
Alva said he “cast a spell on the court room…head erect, unruffled by the worst
circumstances. He has been our boldest advocate.” Jinnah’s most famous legal
apptrentice, M.C. Chagla, the first Indian Muslim appointed chief justice of
Bombay’s high court, reminisced that his leader’s “presentation of a case” was
nothing less than “ a piece of art.”
In politics, Jinnah’s
heroes remained Dadabhai Naoroji and another brilliant leader of Bombay’s Parsi
community, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta. Sir Pherozeshah was more the Bombay model for
Jinnah’s early career than Dadabhai. In 1890 he labeled the
”supposed rivalry” between Hindus and Muslijms nothing more than “a coinvenient decoy to distract attention and defer the day of reform.” Young Jinnah felt much the same way.
”supposed rivalry” between Hindus and Muslijms nothing more than “a coinvenient decoy to distract attention and defer the day of reform.” Young Jinnah felt much the same way.
The 1904 Congress was
Jinnah’s first meeting with Gopal Krishna Gokhale, whose wisdom, fairness and
moderation he came to admire so that he soon stated his “fond ambition” in
politics was to become “the Muslim Gokale.”
Jinnah left the 1906
Annual Session of the Congress in Calcutta inspired with the mission of
advocating the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity, perceiving as few of his
contemporaries did how indispensable such unity was to the new goal of Swaraj
(“self-government) that Congress had adopted. He was politician enough to realize
that his only hope of succeeding his liberal mentors and friends as leader of
vthe Congress was by virtue of his secuar constitutional national appeal, not
through his double-minority status. In one short decade after returning from
London he had virtually emerged as heir apparent to the Bombay triumvirate.
Jinnah was to rise in
the Allahabad Congress of 1910 to second a resolution that “strongly deprecates
the expansion or application of the principle of Separate Communal Electorates
to Municipalities, District Boards, or other Local Bodies.”
Paradoxically, Jinnah
spoke at the end of his first year as the Calcutta council’s Muslim member from
Bombay.
Section
II-Mohammad Ali Jinnah-The Man and his ideas.9
- Jinnah’s
story is an apparent paradox, why did a person considered the greatest
“Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”, become the creator of Pakistan, indeed
Jinnah, like his fellow Gujarati, Gandhi was an extremely enigmatic
figure, but the fact is that we know very little about him, his inomitable
will with which he created Pakistan, could have very easily have been
directed towards the opposite direction, ie., towards strengthening
Hindu-Muslim unity, this blog attempts to study why that did not happen?
What are the lessons we should learn from this big failure of Indian
nationhood?
- From the
time when Jinnah in his early days in Britian saw Dadabhai Naoraji
struggling against racism Jinnah became an uncomprising enemy of all forms
of colour bar and racial prejudice, listening from the Commons gallery in
1893 to Dadabhai’s maiden speech and being thrilled to hear the Grand Old
man extol the virtues of “free speech”, Jinnah noted “there he was, an
Indian, who would exercise that right and demand justice for his
countrymen.” So, thus began
Jinnah’s advent into politics as a liberal nationalist.
- It is
interesting that when he returned to Bombay, Jinnah’s heroes remained
Dadabhai Naoroji and other brilliant Bombay Parsi, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta
who, in fact very much was the model for Jinnah’s early career specially
with reference to his impassioned advocacy of the role of minorities in
India’s nation-building process. Further, in the 1904 Congress, Jinnah
first met Gokhale, whose wisdom, fairness, and moderation he came to
admire so that he soon stated his “fond ambition” in politics was to
become “the Muslim Gokhale.”
- Another
interesting aspect of these early years is that the doughtiest opponent of
the Muslim league in 1906 (in the Aga Khan’s words) was Jinnah, who “came
out in bitter hostility toward all that I and my friends had done and were
trying to do. He was the only well-known Muslim to take this attitude…..He
said that our principle of separate electorates was dividing the nation
against itself.” Such an impassioned advocacy against separate electorates
by the man who was later responsible for creating Pakistan!!
- Jinnah
helped write Dadabhai’s speech at the 1906 annual session of the Congress,
and the theme of national unity present in this address was echoed by
Jinnah at every political meeting he attended during the ensuing decade.
- In the
decade since he had returned from Britian Jinnah had emerged as the hier
apparent to the triumvirate of Gokhale, Mehta and Naoroji, he was free
from all parochial and provincial prejudice, also in practical terms Jinnah
realised that his strength lay in his secular nationalist appeal.
- Jinnah
was to rise in the Allahabad Congress of 1910 to second a resolution that
“strongly deprecates the expansion or application of the principle of
Separate Communal Electorates to Municipalities, District Boards, or other
Local Bodies.” Paradoxically, Jinnah spoke at the end of his first year as
the Muslim member from Bombay.
- Jinnah
did join the Muslim League in 1913, but he insisted as a prior condition
that his “loyalty to the Muslim League and the Muslim interest would in no
way and at no time imply even the shadow of disloyalty to the larger
national cause to which his life was dedicated.”
- Before
Gokhale died, he told Sarojini that Jinnah “has true stuff in him, and
that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best
ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity.” In his late thirties Jinnah seems to
have personified that tragically elusive spirit of communal amity.
- In 1913,
at the Agra session of the Muslim League, Jinnah proposed postponing
reaffirmation of faith in the principle of “communal representation” for
another year. On this issue majority of
the Muslim League members would long remain at odds with Jinnah.
I will end this
section with the first sign of trouble in this garden of Eden, and we will note
that again and again, trouble for Jinnah, came in the form of the Father of the
Nation, for when in January 1915 the Gujarat Society, which he led, gave a
garden party to welcome Gandhi back to India, Gandhi’s response to Jinnah’s
urbane welcome was that he was “glad to find a Mahomedan not only belonging to
his region’s Sabha, but chairing it. This was very insulting to Jinnah who
prided himself on his Cosmopolitan identity. It also set the tone for his
relation with Gandhi…which was lead to much trouble later
How Gandhi did not make Hindu Muslim consolidation a political priority
till too late....
Whereas Jinnah, for a long period remained
steadfast in his ideals, the more worrying element at that time should have been
Gandhiji turning a blind eye to compromises with political opposition, an
obstinate almost stubborn refusal to bow, to step back, an impatience in
working for outcomes with means which though he claimed to be motivated by
peace were actually creating social turmoil; surprisingly the first person who
tried to resist Gandhis instruments of Civil Disobedience was Jinnah, who
correctly saw in these instruments a chaotic diequilibrium inducing disturbance
to Social Stability and Peace. That later, Jinnah became the foremost opponent
of the very social equilibrium he so correctly blaimed Gandhi of disturbing is
the second big tragedy of India pre 1947.
The First big tragedy of secular India was in 1920: a moderate secular
Jinnah losing out to Gandhijis direct action community based approach; that
marked the end of moderate Gokhales dream for undivided India pre 1947, the
second biggest tragedy was Gandhis dream of Hindu Muslim unity losing out to Jinnahs
post 1937 British stooge avatar; that marked the end of jinnahs dream to stamp
out separate electorates which treated one eye as different from the
other....what a contradiction is India...pig eating Jinnah...a Muslim hero
being supported by a mosque breaking advani who in turn is criticised by
congress leaders for supporting Jinnah vs Nehru et.al.
After 1915 Gandhi's local style of leadership gained great popularity with the Indian people. Jinnah criticised Gandhi's Khilafat advocacy, which he saw as an endorsement of religious zealotry.10 Jinnah regarded Gandhi's proposed satyagraha campaign as political anarchy, and believed that self-government should be secured through constitutional means. He opposed Gandhi, but the tide of Indian opinion was against him. At the 1920 session of the Congress in Nagpur, Jinnah was shouted down by the delegates, who passed Gandhi's proposal, pledging satyagraha until India was free.
After 1915 Gandhi's local style of leadership gained great popularity with the Indian people. Jinnah criticised Gandhi's Khilafat advocacy, which he saw as an endorsement of religious zealotry.10 Jinnah regarded Gandhi's proposed satyagraha campaign as political anarchy, and believed that self-government should be secured through constitutional means. He opposed Gandhi, but the tide of Indian opinion was against him. At the 1920 session of the Congress in Nagpur, Jinnah was shouted down by the delegates, who passed Gandhi's proposal, pledging satyagraha until India was free.
Sometimes... remaining silent when someone is attacked is as dangerous
as opposin; Gandhijis response to jinnahs disagreement of direct action was
always: anyone is free to resign, if they disagree! I am afraid that a careful
reading of Indian history, brings me to the conclusion that: the precipice of
the Nagpur Congress in 1920 to which Jinnah was brought could have been
avoided...
The Father of the Nation did not nurture all his children
equally...although none could have foreseen partition...its portents were
visible...there was a dire need for consolidation of secular forces...not a
business as usual " like it or lump it" approach with other leaders
allowing them to fall away if they "did not agree" or "were
losers to begin with after all"....
In the 1920's a section of the muslim elite was already following the footsteps of 19th century British stooges among the Muslim community, onwards from Syed Ahmed khan... a distancing of Muslims from Hindus had already begun that is why...Bapu should have sensed the portents...the undercurrents of Seperatism...which were very much there...Hindu nationalism among Hindus and Muslim consolidation among Muslim elite...alas Bapu did not keep Hindu-Muslim consolidation as a political priority till too late though it was a concern for him....
Later Events11which
separated the communities included the failed attempt to form a coalition
government including the Congress and the League in the United Provinces
following the 1937 election. The British Parliament's Government of India Act 1935 gave
considerable power to India's provinces, with a weak central parliament
in New
Delhi, which had no authority over such matters as foreign policy, defence,
and much of the budget. Full power remained in the hands of the Viceroy,
however, who could dissolve legislatures and rule by decree. The League
reluctantly accepted the scheme, though expressing reservations about the weak parliament.
The Congress was much better prepared for the provincial elections in 1937,
and the League failed to win a majority even of the Muslim seats in any of the
provinces where members of that faith held a majority. It did win a majority of
the Muslim seats in Delhi, but could not form a government anywhere, though it was
part of the ruling coalition in Bengal.
The Congress and its allies formed the government even in the North-West Frontier Province (N.W.F.P.),
where the League won no seats despite the fact that almost all residents were
Muslim.
According to Singh, "the events of 1937 had a tremendous, almost a
traumatic effect upon Jinnah"12. Despite his beliefs of
twenty years that Muslims could protect their rights in a united India through
separate electorates, provincial boundaries drawn to preserve Muslim
majorities, and by other protections of minority rights, Muslim voters had
failed to unite, with the issues Jinnah hoped to bring forward lost amid
factional fighting. Singh notes the effect of the 1937 elections on Muslim
political opinion, "when the Congress formed a government with almost all
of the Muslim MLAs sitting on the
Opposition benches, non-Congress Muslims were suddenly faced with this stark
reality of near total political powerlessness. It was brought home to them,
like a bolt of lightning, that even if the Congress did not win a single Muslim
seat ... as long as it won an absolute majority in the House, on the
strength of the general seats, it could and would form a government entirely on
its own ..”13
According to
historian Ian Talbot,14 "The provincial Congress governments
made no effort to understand and respect their Muslim populations' cultural and
religious sensibilities. The Muslim League's claims that it alone could
safeguard Muslim interests thus received a major boost. Significantly it was
only after this period of Congress rule that it [the League] took up the demand
for a Pakistan state .
Conclusion
Human Nature is
fragile, leaders with strong will are known to bend, sometimes make U turns
too, what remains are ideas and ideals, but sometimes mistakes of a few men
leave generations to repent and endanger the very ideas they have fought for.
India, and Pakistan are divided by religion which leaders dividing them claim
are separate nationalities, Canada is divided by the origin of the
settlers-French and Anglo-Canadians, many people, specially in Quebec feel are
different nations, meanwhile Anglo Canadians feel Canada makes too many
concessions to the Quebecois people. Many Hindus feel likewise about Muslims,
the Leaders who we have studied above created this present situation of
Conflict due to the disequilibria in society which strong and forceful
portrayal of a vision brings. You could have disagreed with the vision of these
people but you cannot ignore their determined portrayal of a forceful vision.
Notes
- Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee,
Aditya Mukherjee, India after Independence 1947-2000, Penguin,
Fourth Impression , 2002.
- Wikipedia on Trudeau
- ibid
- Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and
- Ibid
- Sunil Khilnani,The Idea of India,
Penguin, 2003
- Jinnah of Pakistan: Stanley Wolpert,
Oxford University Press, 1984.
- Ibid
- The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim
League and the Demand for Pakistan (paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
- Wikipedia
on Jinnah
- Singh-Jaswant.(2009). Jinnah:
India—Partition—Independence. Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Ibid.
- Talbot, Ian (February 1984). "Jinnah
and the Making of Pakistan". History Today.
No comments:
Post a Comment