Jinnah and the Partition saga: To divide or not to divide.

The Partition of India in 1947 was an epochal event; even after seven long decades, it looms large like an intractable question mark over the horizon of politics and history in the subcontinent. There is voluminous scholarship on the matter--much of it, however, resembles a cantenkerous debate rather than reasoned dialogue. Opposing sides across India and Pakistan, and also within, seem to have rigid positions on the issue, nurtured by ideological or nationalist compulsions, leaving very little room for academic manoeuvre. This review article seeks to unravel the main knots of the debate on partition, as it has and continues to unfold, in rival historiographical traditions of Pakistan represented chiefly by Ayesha Jalal and Ishtiyaq Ahmed. The Gordian Knot, as it were, of this entire discourse is Jinnah. There is a wide chasm of disagreement that separates these two schools of thought--namely, revisionist and orthodox--in their estimation of both Jinnah's actions and intentions. The moot question being whether Jinnah really wanted partition or did he unwittingly, in a dangerous game of brinksmanship crafted to gain maximum advantage for Muslims within India, unleash forces that he could no longer control. From this vantage point, and this is the view that Jalal favours, partition was an unintended calamity. Ahmed, on the other hand, brings a wealth of historical evidence to debunk the revisionist claim and argues that Jinnah wanted an independent Pakistan all along. This article attempts to evaluate these two major interventions, by authors cited above who have arguably shaped the contours of scholarly opinion about the role of Jinnah, the main protagonist of the partition saga. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]