What's new

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill or Subhas Chandra Bose. Who was the greatest statesman of the 20th century?

Who was the greatest statesman of the 20th century?

  • Muhammad Ali Jinnah

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Mahatma Gandhi

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Nelson Mandela

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Winston Churchill

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Subhas Chandra Bose

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    2
The Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Runs
18,424
Mr Jinnah single handedly carved out Pakistan for Muslims, Gandhi helped India in gaining Independence, Mandela wiped out apartheid regime from the face of South Africa, Churchill weathered the storm of World War 2 and brought UK out of war and Subhas Chandra Bose through his Indian National Army expedited the exodus of British Empire from India. So all of them have some accomplishments but in your sight who is the best statesman among them.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Mr Jinnah single handedly carved out Pakistan for Muslims, Gandhi helped India in gaining Independence, Mandela wiped out apartheid regime from the face of South Africa, Churchill weathered the storm of World War 2 and brought UK out of war and Subhas Chandra Bose through his Indian National Army expedited the exodus of British Empire from India. So all of them have some accomplishments but in your sight who is the best statesman among them.
Click to expand...
Ho Chi Minh is another top contender who can make it to above list as he kneeled the US regime to win freedom for his beloved nation i.e Vietnam.
 
Mr Mohan Das Kramchand Gandhi was an Indian lawyer, politician and social activist who became the leader of the nationalist movement against the British rule of India.

He offered Jinnah premiership of United India but due to Vallabhai Patel's opposition could not do so. Or else may be we had a united India today.

Was killed by Nathuram Godse whom BJP leaders revere as "leader"
 
I would rank them as follows:

Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Nelson Mandela
Mahatama Gandhi
Subhas Chandra Bose
Winston Churchill
 
topspin said:
I would rank them as follows:

Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Nelson Mandela
Mahatama Gandhi
Subhas Chandra Bose
Winston Churchill
Click to expand...
TBH I would have ranked them in the same manner. But with a slight variation, I would have put Ho chi Minh above Churchill
 
The Bald Eagle said:
TBH I would have ranked them in the same manner. But with a slight variation, I would have put Ho chi Minh above Churchill
Click to expand...

Oh yes, Ho Chi Minh is a name that doesn't get mentioned enough and I would agree with that.
 
topspin said:
Oh yes, Ho Chi Minh is a name that doesn't get mentioned enough and I would agree with that.
Click to expand...
If one makes the ground or on field struggle the main criteria then may be we can rank him on top of them all. As he himself led the Vietnamese forces against the US imperialist army.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
If one makes the ground or on field struggle the main criteria then may be we can rank him on top of them all. As he himself led the Vietnamese forces against the US imperialist army.
Click to expand...

No doubt about that. Are you a historian or did you study History by any chance?
 
One story of great importance here is the struggle tale of Mr Mandela. He spent 27 years of his life in prison in his endeavor to end Apartheid regime. And never stood with the countries like US in their wayward campaign against small countries. Because of this reason he ranks high among world statemans.
 
Close tie between Churchill and Q-e-A. One led his country against the nazis, other got freedom for his people from sanghis. Mohandas should not be in the list, he was of no use, except his masters.
 
Subhas Chandra Bose for me. He has always been mine and my late father's hero.
 
Hitman said:
Subhas Chandra Bose for me. He has always been mine and my late father's hero.
Click to expand...
Neta ji was a man of great astute. Also a greatly talented and intelligent personality who aced the IAS exams in early 1920s. He would have been the PM of India if he had lived long.
 
Only Nelson Mandela makes it in that list, IMHO.

All the others have rather mixed legacies. Netaji could have made the cut, but he was suppressed too soon.

Certainly not Gandhi, Jinnah or Churchill, and I don't care what the chest thumpers think. None of these deserve to be called statesmen. They all were morally corrupt.

Talking about statesmen, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the UAE must be among the topmost.
They transformed the economies and the quality of life of their people beyond all recognition within a couple of decades. In the 1970s Singapore was just a backward little island and UAE a patch of desert. If they are where they are now it's largely due to these men.
Great men create something worth emulating from nothing.
 
gani999 said:
Only Nelson Mandela makes it in that list, IMHO.

All the others have rather mixed legacies. Netaji could have made the cut, but he was suppressed too soon.

Certainly not Gandhi, Jinnah or Churchill, and I don't care what the chest thumpers think. None of these deserve to be called statesmen. They all were morally corrupt.

Talking about statesmen, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the UAE must be among the topmost.
They transformed the economies and the quality of life of their people beyond all recognition within a couple of decades. In the 1970s Singapore was just a backward little island and UAE a patch of desert. If they are where they are now it's largely due to these men.
Great men create something worth emulating from nothing.
Click to expand...
Sheikh Zayed and Lee Kuan certainly deserve more appreciation but couldn't understand why you called jinnah a morally corrupt person. Well, Churchill's ruthlessness certainly cost lives of thousand of innocent Indians but how can you name Jinnah in the same breathe. Can you state even a single reason that makes you believe Jinnah was a morally compromised personality?
 
Gandhi's role is often over stated. While i do respect the guy as he died for Pakistan's rights and not Indias, but often his role gets over praised worldwide.

While Gandhi and Nehru failed in their mission of keeping one whole India, Jinnah was successful in getting a country that no one would had expected.

However, Nehru should be praised for his leadership for India after 1947 as many Indians dont realize this but it was because of him the grass roots of Indian politics were laid down very strongly, and India's politics did not end up like Pakistani politics where for power politicians allowed the army to mess the country up.

However, Gandhi and Jinnah were not statesman.

Alot of Bengali and Pashtun politicians of pre 47 are ignored.

I think one name ignored for greatest stateman is probably is Franklin D roosevelt who saved the USA after its economy had collapsed and his role during the WW1
 
gani999 said:
Only Nelson Mandela makes it in that list, IMHO.

All the others have rather mixed legacies. Netaji could have made the cut, but he was suppressed too soon.

Certainly not Gandhi, Jinnah or Churchill, and I don't care what the chest thumpers think. None of these deserve to be called statesmen. They all were morally corrupt.

Talking about statesmen, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the UAE must be among the topmost.
They transformed the economies and the quality of life of their people beyond all recognition within a couple of decades. In the 1970s Singapore was just a backward little island and UAE a patch of desert. If they are where they are now it's largely due to these men.
Great men create something worth emulating from nothing.
Click to expand...
how was Jinnah morally corrupt?

plz elaborate
 
Only Nelson Mandela for me and Sardar Patel as an Indian.

Personally I would had loved to have a leader like Churchill but on this side than the other side.
 
Major said:
However, Nehru should be praised for his leadership for India after 1947 as many Indians dont realize this but it was because of him the grass roots of Indian politics were laid down very strongly, and India's politics did not end up like Pakistani politics where for power politicians allowed the army to mess the country up.
Click to expand...
Only gullible bhakts are gullible enough to trash talk about Nehru. They've been brainwashed by feku to do that.
 
JaDed said:
Only Nelson Mandela for me and Sardar Patel as an Indian.

Personally I would had loved to have a leader like Churchill but on this side than the other side.
Click to expand...
Nelson Mandela was no doubt in top echelon of statesman but how come Sardar Patel. This man was the actual culprit behind partition not Gandhi.

The late Jaswant Singh wrote the same in his book on Jinnah and resultantly was banished from BJP straight away.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Nelson Mandela was no doubt in top echelon of statesman but how come Sardar Patel. This man was the actual culprit behind partition not Gandhi.

The late Jaswant Singh wrote the same in his book on Jinnah and resultantly was banished from BJP straight away.
Click to expand...
This.

Its just fashionable in today's India to pay glowing tributes to Sardar Patel when the truth is he had his own failings just like JLN, Gandhi and other freedom luminaries. And he had his strengths too just like rest of those guys had.

For propagating feku's agenda to vilify JLN at all costs, gullible bhakts don't even realize what challenges India faced in the aftermath of our freedom in '47.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Nelson Mandela was no doubt in top echelon of statesman but how come Sardar Patel. This man was the actual culprit behind partition not Gandhi.

The late Jaswant Singh wrote the same in his book on Jinnah and resultantly was banished from BJP straight away.
Click to expand...
Because he dealt with realities that he was facing instead of riding the boat of idealism.
He is responsible for the union that we have today.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Nelson Mandela was no doubt in top echelon of statesman but how come Sardar Patel. This man was the actual culprit behind partition not Gandhi.

The late Jaswant Singh wrote the same in his book on Jinnah and resultantly was banished from BJP straight away.
Click to expand...

Culprit? So you don't think partition was a good idea? :danish
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Nelson Mandela was no doubt in top echelon of statesman but how come Sardar Patel. This man was the actual culprit behind partition not Gandhi.

The late Jaswant Singh wrote the same in his book on Jinnah and resultantly was banished from BJP straight away.
Click to expand...
Man i have that book from Jaswant singh, but never get time to read it.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Now it was a good idea but according to the Indian criteria that was a great folly so now you know your culprit man. It's not only Nehru alone.
Click to expand...
Partition was the best thing to happen to the subcontinent, except the manner in which it was done (people were left to fend for themselves) and it not being complete (only muslims got a muslim homeland, hindus and sikhs got a raw deal, not counting sickulars as hindus).
 
Only Bose and Mandela from that list. Rest of the 3 are not statesman.

Gandhi and Jinnah were partisan where as Churchil was racist.

Modi will go down as the greatest statesman from Indian subcontinent once he retires or when no more with us.
 
Rajdeep said:
Only Bose and Mandela from that list. Rest of the 3 are not statesman.

Gandhi and Jinnah were partisan where as Churchil was racist.

Modi will go down as the greatest statesman from Indian subcontinent once he retires or when no more with us.
Click to expand...
funny how you call churchill a racist but modi going down as the greatest. There is a reason why Modi is known as the butcherer of Gujrat. Killing muslims over night. But its ok lets ignore that and call out Churchill.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Partition was the best thing to happen to the subcontinent, except the manner in which it was done (people were left to fend for themselves) and it not being complete (only muslims got a muslim homeland, hindus and sikhs got a raw deal, not counting sickulars as hindus).
Click to expand...
while partition was indeed the best thing, how it happened was a big fraud by Radcliff and Nehru.

I dont know from where they were getting the data on demographics, because I belong from Rawalpindi and whenever i study about Rawalpindi's history, i always see more sikh reference and it suggests that Sikhs were living in majority around here. Similarly how Muslims were majority probably in UP side.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Partition was the best thing to happen to the subcontinent, except the manner in which it was done (people were left to fend for themselves) and it not being complete (only muslims got a muslim homeland, hindus and sikhs got a raw deal, not counting sickulars as hindus).
Click to expand...

Paritition was a good thing but should have been done along regional lines not religious. Punjab should have been partitioned, Sindh should have been partitioned, Bengal should have been partitioned, Kashmir should have been partitioned etc. That way cultural and linguistic heritage could remain intact (for those that want it).
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Paritition was a good thing but should have been done along regional lines not religious. Punjab should have been partitioned, Sindh should have been partitioned, Bengal should have been partitioned, Kashmir should have been partitioned etc. That way cultural and linguistic heritage could remain intact (for those that want it).
Click to expand...
Why? Just bcoz you are saying it, is it?

There were no outcry for regional divide. Regional divisions already existed in India as princely states before and later with their own separate assembly and governance. Punjabis & Bengalis never wanted partition. It was done based on religious lines bcoz Indian muslims didn't wanted to stay in a Hindu majority India. No one else had any issues with it. Therefore before Britishers left, Lord Mountbatten drew borders and gave muslim majority lands to Pakistan (East & West) and rest remained with India. What should have happened though is Gandhi & Jinnah should have asked all Indian muslims to go to Pakistan since they were getting their own country and get all Hindu's/Sindhi's/Sikhs & Christians from Pakistan to come to India. Half of the subcontinent problems would have solved by now...especially the problems we see in India these days.
 
Major said:
funny how you call churchill a racist but modi going down as the greatest. There is a reason why Modi is known as the butcherer of Gujrat. Killing muslims over night. But its ok lets ignore that and call out Churchill.
Click to expand...

Modi is known as Butcher of Gujarat only in Pakistani circuit who also believes Kashmir banega Pakistan. We are talking about reality here and not some delusions. Modi killed thousands of Muslim's but Arab world gave him highest civilian award..LOL.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Paritition was a good thing but should have been done along regional lines not religious. Punjab should have been partitioned, Sindh should have been partitioned, Bengal should have been partitioned, Kashmir should have been partitioned etc. That way cultural and linguistic heritage could remain intact (for those that want it).
Click to expand...
Well said cap, I actually somehow completely agree with this, but now that’s it been done there needs to be peace along ethnic and religious lines in India and Pak.

Only Bd is lucky with a single ethnicity.
 
Rajdeep said:
Why? Just bcoz you are saying it, is it?

There were no outcry for regional divide. Regional divisions already existed in India as princely states before and later with their own separate assembly and governance. Punjabis & Bengalis never wanted partition. It was done based on religious lines bcoz Indian muslims didn't wanted to stay in a Hindu majority India. No one else had any issues with it. Therefore before Britishers left, Lord Mountbatten drew borders and gave muslim majority lands to Pakistan (East & West) and rest remained with India. What should have happened though is Gandhi & Jinnah should have asked all Indian muslims to go to Pakistan since they were getting their own country and get all Hindu's/Sindhi's/Sikhs & Christians from Pakistan to come to India. Half of the subcontinent problems would have solved by now...especially the problems we see in India these days.
Click to expand...
Bengali Hindus asked for partition as well and Punjabi Muslims did.
 
Rajdeep said:
Why? Just bcoz you are saying it, is it?

There were no outcry for regional divide. Regional divisions already existed in India as princely states before and later with their own separate assembly and governance. Punjabis & Bengalis never wanted partition. It was done based on religious lines bcoz Indian muslims didn't wanted to stay in a Hindu majority India. No one else had any issues with it. Therefore before Britishers left, Lord Mountbatten drew borders and gave muslim majority lands to Pakistan (East & West) and rest remained with India. What should have happened though is Gandhi & Jinnah should have asked all Indian muslims to go to Pakistan since they were getting their own country and get all Hindu's/Sindhi's/Sikhs & Christians from Pakistan to come to India. Half of the subcontinent problems would have solved by now...especially the problems we see in India these days.
Click to expand...
I feel like you have no idea about ethnic divide which wa
 
Rajdeep said:
Modi is known as Butcher of Gujarat only in Pakistani circuit who also believes Kashmir banega Pakistan. We are talking about reality here and not some delusions. Modi killed thousands of Muslim's but Arab world gave him highest civilian award..LOL.
Click to expand...
yes, USA banned him because they jsut felt like it right.... If the deaths of muslim is an lol matter for you, i really feel sorry than.
 
Rajdeep said:
Modi is known as Butcher of Gujarat only in Pakistani circuit who also believes Kashmir banega Pakistan. We are talking about reality here and not some delusions. Modi killed thousands of Muslim's but Arab world gave him highest civilian award..LOL.
Click to expand...
Modi is a butcher of Indian Muslims and there is no two opinion on that. If he wasn't one then why he famously aborted and walked out shamelessly of the Karan Thapur interview when asked about Gujrat Killings. You can't answer this question, man.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Paritition was a good thing but should have been done along regional lines not religious. Punjab should have been partitioned, Sindh should have been partitioned, Bengal should have been partitioned, Kashmir should have been partitioned etc. That way cultural and linguistic heritage could remain intact (for those that want it).
Click to expand...
would not had made sense, and would not had been possible.

Partition on the basis of regional lines would had meant that Muslims would still be a minority, and that was the whole point of partition, so that the largest minority can have its own country and not have their rights violated by the Hindu majority as it had happened during the 1935 act.

If regional lines partition was followed, than there weas no need for partition in the first place, and having just one India would had been good enough.

Partition also was not going to happen just like this. Just because a few people wanted partition doesnt mean it will happen. Look how the Sikhs got ignored.

For Partition to take place, or for a separate country's idea of existence to be implemented, the first thing was to create an idea of a nation.

That was the brainchild of Jinnah's strategy and which is why we got Pakistan. He created this idea of a nation and got a whole lot to rally behind it. Once you get a large number of people to rally behind the concept of a particular nation, you grow stronger, which is why the British had to oblige by it. Jinnah's leadership and strategy worked here, but at the same time i would never call Jinnah a politician and think that calling Jinnah a politician is an insult towards the great man.

After partition was gained, thats where real politics was needed, and while Nehru was able to kept his country united and laid the grass roots of Indian politics through a proper constitution. Pakistan had no politician to do so. Jinnah died and everyone was power hungry. What Pakistan needed was strong leadership in politics that could had united the country and kept Bengal part of the country.

For regional lines, you needed people to do the rallying for it. No one really rallied in Punjab for a seperate Punjab, or a seperate Sindh. And Bengal had its own issues because Bengal had already been divided before 1947, the Business community of Hindu Bengalis were quite flourishing already.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Modi is a butcher of Indian Muslims and there is no two opinion on that. If he wasn't one then why he famously aborted and walked out shamelessly of the Karan Thapur interview when asked about Gujrat Killings. You can't answer this question, man.
Click to expand...

Not sure whose opinion is that. It is pretty laughable...honestly :ROFLMAO:

And Karan Thapar? LOL

He walked off bcoz the case was subjudice at that time and was being investigated by SIT committee set up by Supreme court. Why would Modi speak about it in a news channel when the case was in court? Prior to the interview it was agreed no question regarding Gujarat riots will be asked but Thapar went off script and Modi refused to answer.

Modi was grilled by supreme court and he gave all answers there. SIT committee set up then congress govt couldn't find an iorta of proof against him and free him of all charges. Looks like you are watching too many Indian liberal news channels.

Modi has transformed India for good since 2014 with development in every sector. There is a reason why his popularity rating is still 78% after 10 years of governance. People admire his hard work, honesty and sacrifices he made for the country. I have no doubt history will have him as the greatest statesman from India.
 
Rajdeep said:
Only Bose and Mandela from that list. Rest of the 3 are not statesman.

Gandhi and Jinnah were partisan where as Churchil was racist.

Modi will go down as the greatest statesman from Indian subcontinent once he retires or when no more with us.
Click to expand...
Aah churchill the dead racist who engineered one of the greatest famines in the world and killed millions. Far far greater in numbers than the muslims murdered by 'statesman' modi or the east Pakistanis brutalized and killed by the establishment. The dead racist chrchill's cruelty far exceeds most war crimes and should be on the same pantheon as hitler!

In fact the roots of the current Palestine conflict and how churchill the dead racist helped engineer it is legendary.

When Palestine was a british colony and the colonizers started sowing the seeds of stealing the land from it's rightful inhabitants for the jews, Lord Peel formed the Peel Commission to investigate the causes of unrest in Palestine and questioned churchill regarding his methods.

Churchill replied in the parliament to questions by invoking commitments given when Britain captured Palestine toward the end of 1917. “We decided in the process of conquest of [Palestine] to make certain pledges to the Jews,” Churchill said.

Churchill responded with a blunt argument of might: “We have every right to strike hard in support of our authority.”

Lord Peel asked Churchill if the British public “might get rather tired and rather inquisitive if every two or three years there was a sort of campaign against the Arabs and we sent out troops and shot them down? They would begin to enquire, ‘Why is it done? What is the fault of these people?… Why are you doing it? In order to get a home for the Jews?’”

“And it would mean rather brutal methods,” added Laurie Hammond, who had worked with the British colonial administration, " it would mean the blowing up of villages and that sort of thing?” The British, he recalled, had blown up part of the Palestinian port city of Jaffa.

Peel agreed, and added that “they blew up a lot of [Palestinian] houses all over the place in order to awe the population. I have seen photographs of these things going up in the air.”

But when Peel questioned whether “it is not only a question of being strong enough,” but of “downing” the Arabs who simply wanted to remain in their own country, Churchill lost patience.

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger,” he countered, “even though he may have lain there for a very long time.” He denied that “a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the Black people of Australia,” by their replacement with “a higher grade race.”
Click to expand...
It's nice to see the same voices sympathetic to Palestine now coming to the defence of churchill :ROFLMAO:
 
JaDed said:
Well said cap, I actually somehow completely agree with this, but now that’s it been done there needs to be peace along ethnic and religious lines in India and Pak.

Only Bd is lucky with a single ethnicity.
Click to expand...
Many ethnicities would get swallowed by stronger ethnicities. At least religion provides an umbrella to all within the religion.

You really think it is a good idea? Then go and find out how many officially recognized ethnic groups are in India itself.

You have a heart at the right place, but need to work on knowledge and insight.
 
None of them, the correct answer is Lenin with Stalin and Mao in close second. Lenin and Mao not only succeeded in establishing new political order but their vision was great enough to make two poor economy into the world' greatest superpower. China , India and Pakistan got their freedom in roughly the same time with equality poor economies, and now look at China and compare them to Pakistan and India.
 
anikrc1 said:
None of them, the correct answer is Lenin with Stalin and Mao in close second. Lenin and Mao not only succeeded in establishing new political order but their vision was great enough to make two poor economy into the world' greatest superpower. China , India and Pakistan got their freedom in roughly the same time with equality poor economies, and now look at China and compare them to Pakistan and India.
Click to expand...
Bro wasn't it Deng xiaoping that uplifted the China because Mao's great leap forward and cultural revolution turned out to be disastrous one for China.
 
Rajdeep said:
Why? Just bcoz you are saying it, is it?

There were no outcry for regional divide. Regional divisions already existed in India as princely states before and later with their own separate assembly and governance. Punjabis & Bengalis never wanted partition. It was done based on religious lines bcoz Indian muslims didn't wanted to stay in a Hindu majority India. No one else had any issues with it. Therefore before Britishers left, Lord Mountbatten drew borders and gave muslim majority lands to Pakistan (East & West) and rest remained with India. What should have happened though is Gandhi & Jinnah should have asked all Indian muslims to go to Pakistan since they were getting their own country and get all Hindu's/Sindhi's/Sikhs & Christians from Pakistan to come to India. Half of the subcontinent problems would have solved by now...especially the problems we see in India these days.
Click to expand...

But that is exactly what you ended up with. Punjab got chopped in half. Bengal got chopped in half (and a nice big fence erected to commemorate it). Kashmir got chopped in half, etc. All on the basis of making fake nations of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

We can see the progress made in mighty Bharat when Indians spend 24 hrs a day churning out movies about Pakistan or spamming Pakistani sites with their relentless and dismal propaganda and the reality is still slum life similar to every other nation in the region.
 
Without any second thought its Muhammad Ali Jinnah who gave a vision of an Islamic state that shaped the nation's identity.
 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the biggest leaders to have ever born in Asia and I still remember him for his famous quote: "You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state."

He was all in for equality of religions and created a separate homeland for the Muslims.
 

Yesterday was the anniversary of one of the greatest leader of South Asia​

====

How Jinnah went from a pro-Congress nationalist to the leader of Muslim League​

"Raven-haired with a moustache almost as full as Kitchener's and lean as a rapier, sounding like Ronald Colman, dressed like Anthony Eden, and admired by many women at first sight while envied by most men", this is how a British general's wife described Mohammad Ali Jinnah, one of the most hated men in India and the most loved in Pakistan at the time of Independence.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Quaid-i-Azam) died on this day in 1948. Jinnah was much more than just the founder of Pakistan. Born in Karachi to Jinnabhai Poonja, a trader from Gujarat who had moved to Karachi just before Jinnah's birth, Jinnah's lineage traces back to a Hindu Rajput family from Sahiwal in Punjab, writes Aziz Beg in Jinnah and His Times: A Biography (1986).

Jinnah's ancestors converted to Islam in the 18th century. He was educated at Sind Madarsa and the Christian Missionary Society High School before moving to London in 1893. After that, he was sent to London in 1893 to join Graham's Shipping and Trading Company, which did business with Jinnah's father in Karachi.

In the late 1940s, he told the Manchester Guardian (now called Guardian) that it was "impossible to work for a democratic parliamentary government in India," where a significant portion of the electorate was "ignorant, illiterate, and untutored, living in centuries-old superstitions of the worst types and thoroughly antagonistic to each other, culturally and socially."

THE EARLY CALL IN THE SUPPORT OF MUSLIM MINORITY
During his time in London, Jinnah developed a new identity and emerged as an unorthodox Muslim. It was during these years that he studied law and became the youngest Indian barrister, at the age of 28 in 1896.

Soon, he came back from England and started his legal practice in Bombay.

In 1904, he finally joined the Indian National Congress, which had fragile Muslim support. Nevertheless, he was the voice of Muslims in the initial years of the Congress and did everything to remain an unorthodox Muslim.

He and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, whom he admired, were two men who believed in gradual, negotiated reforms rather than boycotting or radical action against the British Raj.

Source: India Today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
In hindsight who appears correct & triumphant, Mohandas Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah or someone else?
2
Replies
88
Views
2K
rpant_gabba
rpant_gabba
Back
Top