More than seven decades later, Pakistan still bears the scars of its confused foundation.

He ate pork, drank alcohol, couldn’t speak Urdu, had no connection to the Quran, and didn’t even know the Kalma. Yet, because he bore a Muslim name and wore the garb of political leadership, Mohammad Ali Jinnah rose to prominence and led the movement that birthed a new nation—Pakistan—with the full blessings of British colonial rule.

Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam. But the man who led its creation was far from a practicing Muslim. Jinnah’s lifestyle mirrored that of an English-educated barrister: refined suits, cigars, and Western social norms. He neither lived by Islamic principles nor claimed to understand them deeply. When someone once asked him the meaning of the Kalma, he reportedly shrugged it off with the words: “I am a political leader of Muslims, not a cleric or religious scholar.”

Yet today, he is revered in Pakistan as Qaid-e-Azam—the Great Leader. His image is printed on currency notes, his speeches are quoted in schoolbooks, and his vision is routinely invoked in national debates. But how fitting is that title when the man himself lived a life far removed from the very faith he claimed to represent?

The contradiction at the heart of Pakistan’s creation is not just ironic—it is deeply consequential. When a country is born claiming a religious identity, yet its founder is disconnected from that religion, the confusion seeps into every layer of national life. It becomes a country where Islam is invoked not as a guiding moral force, but as a political tool. Where slogans are louder than substance. Where identity is built on emotion rather than ethical clarity.

What kind of example does that set for future generations? How can a people reconcile a faith-based nationalism with a founding figure who lived by anti-Islamic standards?

Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan has struggled to answer these questions. The country has oscillated between military dictatorships and fragile civilian governments, between radical Islamism and half-hearted liberalism. Minorities have faced persecution, sectarianism has grown deep roots, and the vision of unity under Islam has fractured into violent ideological battles.

Jinnah’s legacy plays a central role in this national confusion. To some, he is a visionary who protected Muslim interests in a Hindu-majority India. But to others, he remains a symbol of political opportunism—someone who used the Muslim identity to achieve a personal goal and left behind a nation with no clear ideological direction.

His early death, just a year after Pakistan’s birth, only amplified the ambiguity. Without his presence, competing forces pulled the country in different directions, each claiming to act in his name. Some insisted he wanted a secular Pakistan. Others claimed he dreamed of an Islamic state. The truth? He likely wanted whatever served his immediate political needs.

More than seven decades later, Pakistan still bears the scars of its confused foundation. It is a country where Islam is both everywhere and nowhere—present in slogans, but absent in governance and justice. It is a country where the founding myth glorifies a man whose private beliefs were at odds with the nation’s supposed mission.

This is not just a matter of historical debate—it is a living contradiction that defines the Pakistani identity to this day. Jinnah may have delivered a country, but he left behind no compass. His legacy is not one of clarity or conviction, but of ambiguity and bloodshed.

In the end, the story of Pakistan’s creation is not just about the formation of a new state—it’s a lesson in what happens when religious identity is exploited for political ambition. A nation built on such shaky ground may rise, but it will always tremble under the weight of its contradictions.

In spite of Muslims and Hindus and others fought vigorously for the independence of India and during India’s freedom an unfortunate thing happened which is the partition of India based on religion. Partition was no solution to any of the problems and it created more problems than it solved. To blame the Muslims for the creation of Pakistan or playing a negative role in the national movement is not substantiated by the existing literature. These facts speak something other than what has been said of the Muslims.

It were they who at every stage fought against the British right from the battle of Plassey and it were they  who in 1857 rendered maximum sacrifices and suffered  by far the most in comparison to their non-Muslim brethren.

The British knew their energetic role and avenged them by closing all the avenues of livelihood and reducing them to bankruptcy. Even after this, their struggle continued and they suffered so much  that their houses were dugged to their foundations and the majority of them had either been transported to Andaman islands for life or put to death.

The Ambala trial, the Patna trial and Rang Mahal trial are replete with their sacrifices and the records of the archives silently justify. A study of the whole political development reveals that while the Congress and Lord Mountbatten are responsible for the partition, the Muslim League cannot be exonerated from this responsibility. Mountbatten did not give much time to the Indian Leaders and hastened the pace irrespective of its repercussion on the socio-economic and political structure of India.

ALSO READ ARTICLE: From Wahabi Movement to 1857 Revolt: Muslims in India’s Freedom Struggle

However, ulterior motives, ego, mutual suspicion and hatredness of the leaders of both the communities played their part in moulding the shape of events in the forties in India. Their political faults and lack of adjustment ultimately led to the rupture which had cost millions of their lives in both the countries and even today since independence differences of the two countries have not been resolved.

Jinnah took to Pakistan demand not all of a sudden. Though he had revived the League but till 1938 he considered himself a nationalist as he was earlier which is evident from one of his letters to Pandit Jawaharlal on March 17, 1938 which said: “It is the duty of every true nationalist to whichever party or community he may belong to help achieve a united front. ” [Quoted by Michael Brecher, Nehru: A Political Biography (London 1959. P.233)]

But contrary to it, some of the Congress leaders had given Congress a communal tinge. In its sessions putting up Tilak on the forehead and presenting coconut to its members had become a common practice. Not only the Muslims but the Christians also realized it. Rev.A.W. Moore of Shikohabad (U.P.) wrote to Nehru: “It seems to me that if you want cooperation, and I am sure you must, of non-Hindus, you must keep Hinduism as such out of public meetings.” [Ref: Letter dated April 30, 1938, AICC Papers File #G-32/1938]

It was a departure from the Congress policy. Mr. Asif Ali, a staunch Congressman stated that many Muslims asked questions which it was difficult to answer. They wished to know why responsible Muslim leaders were withdrawing themselves from the Congress and why Iqbal’s Tarana-e-Milli, Sare Jahan Sey Accha Hindustan Hamara was no more sung at Congress meetings and only Bande Mataram was recited. [Ref: D.G. Tendulkar, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, pg.30]

Such a change in the Congress was not lost sight of by the Leaguers. Jinnah who only a few months ago said that there was no difference between ideals of the Muslim League and of the Congress, the idea being the complete independence for India, now for the first time spoke as a Muslim leader, exclusively for the Muslims and started a vigorous movement known as the Muslim Mass campaign and delivered speeches to win Muslim support. His Lucknow speech was noticed by Gandhiji who wrote to Jinnah (October 19, 1937), “Of course, as I read it, the whole of your speech is a declaration of war. Only I had hoped you would reserve poor me as a bridge between the two, I see you want no bridge, if so I am sorry.”

To this Jinnah replied (November 5, 1937), “I am sorry you think my speech at Lucknow is a declaration of war. It is purely in self defence… as to reserving you as a bridge, and ‘peace-maker’, don’t you think your complete silence for all these months identified you with the Congress leadership, although I know you are not even a four-anna member of that body.” [Ref: Nehru-Jinnah Correspondence, pp.81-83]

To this Gandhi again wrote (February 3, 1938), “In your speech I miss the old nationalist. When in 1915 I returned from my self-exile in South Africa everyone spoke of you as one of the staunchest of nationalists and hope of both the Hindus and Musalmans. Are you still the same Jinnah…”

And Jinnah again replied (February 15, 1938), “Do you think that you are justified in saying that? I would not like to say what people spoke of you in 1915 and what they speak and think of you today. Nationalism is not the monopoly of single individual. In these days its very difficult to define it, but I do not wish to pursue this line of controversy any further.” [Ref: Nehru-Jinnah Correspondence, pp.53-54]

ALSO READ ARTICLE: From Tipu Sultan to Barasat Risings: Muslims in India’s Freedom Struggle

The relations between the Congress and the League continued deteriorating and Jinnah in the Annual session of the All-India Muslim League at Lahore (1940) presented what is known as the Pakistan Resolution, demanding separate homeland for Indian Muslims.

In 1940, when the demand for Pakistan was made, neither the Congress, nor the League took it seriously. Both still believed in evolving a formula on which Hindus and Muslims might have lived peacefully in a ‘United India’. [Ref: India Wins Freedom, Moulana Azad, p.164]

Search for a solution was on. The League stood for a United India with a perfect safety for the Islam in it. The rejection of Desi-Liaqat Pact in 1945 (which proposed an equal number of persons, nominated by the Congress and the League in the Central Legislature and the formation of a coalition ministry) by the Congress was another jolt in the Congress-League relation and the demand for Pakistan was made. Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan may be a bargaining counter [Ref: Rajmohan Gandhi’s Review on H. M. Seervai’s book Partition of India: Legends and Realities in Express Magazine, June 11, 1989].

But it is clear that he wanted no division of the country but security of the minority as he feared that in an independent India they would be swamped by the majority. When Mountbatten argued with him for a united India, Jinnah replied that ‘even though nothing would have given him greater pleasure than to see such a unity it was the behavior of the Hindus, that had made it impossible for the Muslims to share it. [Ref: The Illustrated Weekly of India, August 13, 1972, See Kuldeep Nayar’s article, The Break-up of Pakistan-A Prophecy Came True]

Similarly the Congress also felt about the League’s behavior in the interim Government. Experience of the said period had convinced Congress that the League would  continue to obstruct the smooth working of the ministry. In sheer anger, it accepted partition and persuaded Gandhiji to give his concurrence.

ALSO READ ARTICLE: Struggle and Sacrifices of Muslim Women: Muslims in India’s Freedom Struggle

Sardar PaTel thought that the acceptance of Pakistan would teach Muslim League a bitter lesson. Even Acharya Kripalani, a Congress leader of considerable note said that a strong and prosperous democratic India would win back the ‘seceding children to its laps’ and a united India after the withdrawal of imperialist would be achieved. [Ref: Vishno Bhagwan, Constitutional History of India,  (Delhi, 1964), p.320]

The creation of Pakistan might be an act of joy for a section of Muslims, but to the majority of them, it was not a wise step; they remained where they were during their struggle for independence. The aftermath of the partition for both the communities was chaotic. Communal riots broke out causing the heaviest loss of human lives in both the countries unprecedented in history. [Ref: P.J.O. Taylor, W as Mountbatten Mistaken? In SaturdayTimes, August 13, 1994. See also Arabinda Das Gupta ‘Partition Solved No Problem,’ The Hindustan Times, September 29, 1995]

This article is a part of series to highlight the sacrifices of Muslims in liberating India from the British-raj.

Imtiaz Ahmed is a founding member and CEO of Illume Academy. The Academy is a youth centric learning forum, deploying all possible innovative teaching techniques in molding youth to be decisive thinkers with sound character, and effective leaders.

Unlike several other prisoners, Savarkar traded his loyalty to the cause of freedom struggle with his own freedom.

Several years ago, a puny little man, who was fond of wearing round black caps and perfumed jackets, thundered at the princes of India: “But anyone who might have actively betrayed the trust of the people, disowned his fathers, and debased his blood by arraying himself against his Mother — he shall be crushed to dust and ashes, and shall be looked upon as a helot, and a renegade.”

Bear in mind these fiery words of admonishment and warning as we revisit the legacy of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the controversial Hindutva ideologue whom the BJP wants anointed as ‘Bharat Ratna’.

In his lifetime, Savarkar was known by many names. In Bhagur village of Nashik, where he was born in 1883, he was known as Tatya as a child. When he grew up, a Marathi journalist lionised him as ‘veer (brave)’ for his revolutionary writing and strident opposition to the British. In the cellular jail of Andaman, where he served nine years and ten months before begging for clemency, Savarkar was known as the “suave and polite” prisoner number 32778. And in a 1969 report by Justice Jeevan Lal Kapur, he was identified as one of the conspirators in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

So, who exactly was Savarkar? And does he really deserve India’s highest civilian honour?

By 1909, Savarkar, who was studying law at London’s Grey’s Inn, had established himself as a firebrand leader of Indian struggle for independence from the British rule. Under the tutelage of Shyamji Krishna Verma, he was at the forefront of an organisation that carried out revolutionary propaganda in England and smuggled bomb-making manuals and pistols to Indians back home. (Gandhi was invited to one of the meetings of this network, where he was offered prawns personally fried by Savarkar. Gandhi, a staunch vegetarian, was horrified when he saw a Chittapavan Brahmin frying prawns and left the meeting without eating).

One of these pistols used in the murder of Nashik collector AMT Jackson was traced back to Savarkar. In 1910, caught at the wrong end of the law, Savarkar was dispatched back to India for being tried for treason and sedition. Just as the ship was to enter Marseilles, Savarkar jumped out of a porthole almost naked and ran towards the beach, but he was caught within a few minutes and sent to the Andamans to serve 50 years in prison. Within two months of landing in the hell-like jail, Savarkar’s revolutionary writings turned into mercy petitions.

Savarkar’s pleas for clemency had the desired effect gradually. First, he was accorded certain privileges that others were denied — like being given clerical jobs instead of being made to press oil, a punishment that not many could escape. Unlike other prisoners, he was allowed to write letters and later meet his wife and brother in the jail.

By 1913, Savarkar was ready to serve the British. In another mercy plea to the governor general, he wrote: “I am ready to serve the government in any capacity they like… The mighty alone can be merciful, and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the government?”

In 1921, Savarkar’s pleas for mercy resulted in his transfer from Andaman to Pune, where he was incarcerated like a normal prisoner. In 1924, he was released and sent to Ratnagiri after vowing to not participate in politics. Unlike several other prisoners, Savarkar traded his loyalty to the cause of freedom struggle with his own freedom. He was to later justify this as a tactical ploy to escape from the jail to continue the revolutionary movement. (It’s a pity that martyrs like Bhagat Singh didn’t think of such ingenious tricks and preferred to sing to the gallows instead of falling at the feet of the British). Instead, he devoted his remaining life supporting the British and undermining mass movements led by the Congress.

Two-nation theory and two-faced leaders

Speaking at a rally in Maharashtra in September this year, Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray opined that had Savarkar been the prime minister of India, Pakistan would not have come into existence. This, of course, is typical Hindutva bunkum that ignores Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s intransigence and simplistically assumes that the decision to divide India was taken by India’s prime minister and not the departing British. But even after discounting the rightwing naiveté, Savarkar’s role as some sort of patron of Akhand Bharat is a bit of a laugh.

For Savarkar, like the RSS ideologue Syama Prasad Mookerjee, was not averse to the two-nation theory. Savarkar was one of the original proponents of the idea. As president of the Hindu Mahasabha, he claimed in 1937 that “there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation… On the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Muslims, in India.”

A few years later, after Jinnah had hijacked the two-nation theory, Savarkar expressed his approval thus: “I have no quarrel with Jinnah. We, Hindus, are a nation ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”

Hindutva idol

So, why does the BJP consider a man who surrendered to the British, undermined the freedom struggle and espoused the two-nation theory as a ratna (jewel) of India?

Ironically, for several years after Independence, the RSS and its political arm Bharatiya Jana Sangh kept itself away from Savarkar and his ideology. (Savarkar was never a member of the RSS or Jana Sangh.) He was resurrected only in the late 90s when the BJP started using Hindutva as a political strategy and manufacturing and co-opting new icons to give itself more gravitas and heft.

The man who could be India’s Bharat Ratna was an admirer of both Fascism and Nazism. He sincerely believed both Italy and Germany needed these philosophies for their own good and criticised Indian politicians — read Jawaharlal Nehru — for opposing Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. (Many historians believe RSS ideologue BS Moonje’s meeting with the Italian dictator and his black caps inspired the idea of Sangh with its own khaki-clad, lathi-wielding volunteers).

It is thus not a surprise that he turned to Indian version of majoritarianism in his later life and became the founding father of Hindutva. As its pioneer he advocated India only for those who considered it their pitrabhoomi (fatherland) and pavanbhoomi (holy land). This clever argument implies that only Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are entitled to live in India because their religion and beliefs originated here. And since the Muslims and Christians have their sacred lands (punyabhoomi) in the Middle East, they ought to be looked at with suspicion and as outsiders.

As the BJP steers India towards majoritarian politics, raising the decibel level of the discourse on India as pitrabhoomi of Hindus and Hindutva, Savarkar’s polarising figure acts as a powerful symbol of its politics. Hindutva needs a certain amount of historical legacy and the likes of Savarkar, in spite of their questionable contribution to the freedom struggle and claims of bravery, are, unfortunately, the rightwing’s only available options.

The irony would be not lost on many though. The Justice JL Kapur Commission that looked into Gandhi’s assassination concluded that Savarkar and his men were the key conspirators. Several years before the report was made public, the then-home minister of India, Sardar Patel, wrote to Nehru: “It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through.”

In Gandhi’s 150th year, Savarkar is set to become an Indian idol, a Bharat Ratna. Patel, the idol BJP has stolen from the Congress, would be smirking atop the Statue of Unity, thinking how in BJP’s India, all three have been posthumously made to sit in the same tent.

Independent assessments of Savarkar’s legacy may, however, not be so lenient. In the end, Savarkar’s volte-face on the freedom struggle, compromise with the British, support to the two-nation theory may remind many of the fiery words that a puny little man who loved round black caps and perfumed jackets threw at the princes of India as a warning. No points for guessing the name of the man who said those immortal words. Today, even he’d be surprised that instead of being called a renegade, he may soon be anointed Bharat Ratna.

Article first published on The Federal.