Effect of Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Independence Day Speeches on the Countries of India and Pakistan

The independence of Pakistan and India from British rule was an event of significant importance. To commemorate the momentous day, the leaders of the newly created countries gave speeches to the people of the new countries near the stroke of midnight on August 15, 1947. The speeches, Jawaharlal Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” speech and Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s “Message to the Nation” speech were meant to not only commemorate the auspicious days, but to create a sense of national identity and pride in a time of trouble and bloodshed taking place near the borders of the newly created nations. Though discussing similar matters, Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” speech, with the greater effective use of rhetoric and literary devices, is far more compelling in creating a sense of national identity and pride that Jinnah’s “Message to the Nation” speech. By focusing on the similar aspects of both speeches, and observing the differing use of language and rhetoric, it can be observed how the language in the “Tryst with Destiny” speech makes it far more compelling than in the “Message to the Nation” speech.
A similarity that both the “Tryst with Destiny” speech and the “Message to the Nation” speech share is that both the speeches discuss the role of the newly created countries in the world. In several points in both speeches, Nehru and Jinnah both discuss the place of their nation in the world order. Jinnah states in his speech, “Our object should be peace within and peace without,” which with its obscure language, creates discord and confusion between the language and the intended meaning. However, in Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” speech, Nehru says that the goal of the leaders of the new country is to “wipe every tear from every eye.” This language is euphonic, helping to highlight the underlying message of the phrase. Another statement in Jinnah’s “Message to the Nation” speech is the statement “We have no ambition beyond the desire to live honourably and let others live honourably.” This statement while repeating the idea of living honourably is apathetic towards anything above and beyond that. Nehru however uses the phrase “we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.” and this phrase uses personification and hyperbole to get its point across. The personification of India expresses India as something that can be serviced
The two speeches given by Nehru and Jinnah also refer to the role of the citizens of these new countries that had just arisen. Both Nehru and Jinnah deal with the issue of citizenship and minorities in completely differing ways. “Let us” said Jinnah “impress on the minorities by word, deed and thought that as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations as loyal citizens of Pakistan, they have nothing to fear.” This phrase represents partition, as Jinnah divides the country between ‘us’ as in Muslims, and ‘them’, as in the minorities. Jinnah’s diction in this case is ambiguous as well, and can be interpreted to constitute a veiled threat. Nehru mostly avoids the issue, but in one part of the speech states, “All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations.” This statement, by personifying India, and portraying all the citizens as “her children”, reinforces the bond between India’s populations by likening it to a bond between siblings. In addition, while Nehru’s speech is secularized, Jinnah’s speech makes numerous references to a “Muslim Nation,” and uses phrases like “Let the Muslim congregations … in all the mosques, bow in all humility before the Almighty.” Thus, while Nehru’s speech addresses India as a whole, Jinnah’s speech places emphasis on Muslims, and in doing so leaves out the minorities, creating division.
The two speeches, particularly the “Tryst with Destiny” speech deals a fair bit with what could only be called ‘ambition.’ The speech deals with what the two leaders want their country to become. In Jinnah’s speech, this aspect is glossed over and only described very plainly without emphasis. However, in Nehru’s speech, the elegant use of language makes the speech more potent, and inspires a sense of duty towards the country. Jinnah’s states in his speech how a nation should “containing many elements, live in peace and amity and work for the betterment of all.” While this states the goal of the betterment of all, the broad generalization with the use of the word “betterment,” and conservativeness of the goals makes the statement uninspiring and generally dull. Nehru, however, in the “Tryst with Destiny” speech uses the phrase “the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.” The use of multiple conjunctions aids in emphasizing each social ill, and thus the speech lays out specific problems to tackle. Following this phrase is the phrase “And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams.” With the repetition of the idea of work, Nehru places emphasis on the labour that is required to achieve their ambitions. The pursuit of lofty goals helps in inspiring pride in the country and its leadership.
Destiny and appointment are also central ideas in Nehru’s and Jinnah’s independence day speeches. The attribution of independence to destiny or Allah portrays the event as inevitable and right. However, while both speeches view a higher purpose as a cause of the independence, Nehru’s speech uses the idea to far greater effect than Jinnah’s speech. The opening line in Nehru’s speech is “Long ago we made a tryst with destiny.” which personifies destiny. The line also uses the word “tryst” which implies a higher purpose in the world for India. The idea is further reinforced in the line “At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest.” Thus, Nehru implies the idea of India as a nation on the way to greatness, to meet with destiny. To Jinnah however, independence “marks the fulfillment of the destiny of the Muslim nation,” which implies that the countries role is already fulfilled, and there is nothing to aspire towards. Jinnah also states “Let us, on this day, humbly thank God for His bounty and pray that we might be able to prove that we are worthy of it.” which gives the impression that Pakistan is already what it was meant to be, and cannot go further.
Both Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s “Message to the Nation” and Jawaharlal Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” speech are meant to inspire national pride and identity. However, Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” speech is far better at this task than Jinnah’s “Message to the Nation” speech for several reasons. For one, the “Tryst with Destiny” speech with its hyperbolic use of language presents India as a nation to be of great importance in the world and its affairs. Jinnah on the other hand portrays Pakistan as a country that will be isolated and play a minimal role in world affairs. Another point is that Nehru does not mention differences in the people, and instead finds the common threads that link the people of India together, inspiring a national identity. Jinnah however focuses on the fact that Pakistan is a Muslim nation, and differentiates between Muslims and others, dividing the people of Pakistan. The “Message to the Nation” speech does not display any ambition either, and uses generalizations, indicating ineffectiveness on the part of the leaders. “Tryst with Destiny” however presents focused goals and emphasizes the work involved, indicating to the citizens that the leaders know what they are doing. Jinnah implies in his speech that Pakistan’s destiny has been fulfilled with independence, while Nehru presents a still greater purpose for India. Thus, this presents the people of India with a purpose. Therefore, the “Tryst with Destiny” speech stands as a representative speech to inspire feelings of national pride and identity in the people of a new nation.

Qualities of a Tragic Hero Displayed by Okonkwo in Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe

hhhhhAristotle first described the qualities of a tragic hero in his manuscript Poetics. These qualities – Hamartia – a fatal flaw, Hubris – over abundance of pride, Peripertia – a sudden change in circumstances, Anagnorisis – a lesson learnt by the hero, and a Nemesis – usually fate. The character Okonkwo in the novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, embodies all of these characteristics. In addition, the fall of Okonkwo creates a sense of Catharsis but in different ways in accordance with the audience – whether it is the reader, the Igbo or the Westerners.
hhhhhOkonkwo in several parts of the novel depicts the qualities of a tragic hero. For example, by beating Amalinze the cat on page 3, Okonkwo displays his strength, and makes him seem to exist on a higher plane than normal people. However, it is learnt that Okonkwo is driven by fear shown by “he was possessed by the fear of his father’s contemptible life and painful death” (Achebe 13), letting people relate to him. This fear, leads on to his Hubris, or pride based on his perceived strength, shown when Okonkwo breaks the week of peace, and though repentant “he was not the to go about telling the neighbors that he was in error.” (Achebe 22)
hhhhhOkonkwo’s Peripetia is displayed when the missionaries come into the Igbo understanding. The traditions of the Igbo reward Okonkwo for his strength and utter belief in the traditions with the status of the ozo title of his clan. However, with the coming of the missionaries and their new religion and government, Okonkwo is viewed little better than a savage, as depicted by the speech the district commissioner gave Okonkwo about peace, and by the title of the book he planned to write “The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger” (Achebe 148). This in turn leads to Okonkwo’s Anagnorisis, or learning. This occurs when “Okonkwo did not taste any food for two days after the death of Ikemefuna” (Achebe 44). This quote displays how Okonkwo discovers his softer side.
hhhhhThe novel creates a sense of catharsis for several groups such as the reader, the Igbo, and the Western colonizers. For example, when Okonkwo hangs himself on page 147, he is to be buried as an outcast of the traditions that gave him status. The fact that Okonkwo’s status is completely stripped from him by the very traditions he was trying to defend creates a sense of irony for the reader, as well as pity and thankfulness that such has not happened to them. This can be seen when Oberika says
“That man was one of the greatest men in Umuofia. You drove him to kill himself; and now him will be buried like a dog” (Achebe 147)
Thus, it can be observed that Okonkwo fulfils all of Aristotle’s characteristics for a tragic hero. The novel through Okonkwo’s being a tragic hero, thus creates a sense of catharsis for the reader. Okonkwo position in society, his hubris gained from this, and his eventual downfall due to the sudden change in his circumstances that together make him a tragic hero, and lead to the sense of catharsis affecting the reader.

Bibliography:

Sethi, Aman, Shirly Samuel, Lan Dang, “African Literature”, Powerpoint Presentation, March 16th 2009

Baldwick, Chris. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. 2nd. New Dehli: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Achebe, Chinua . Things Fall Apart. Oxford: Heineman Educational Publishers, 1958
Guma, Alex. "The Lemon Orchard" Into The Wind. Ed. Barrie Wade.Cheltenham: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1990. 16-19

The Kashmir Conflict

The Kashmir conflict in India is a prime example how national pride has led to the Indian government to an unsolvable situation. Kashmir is a mountainous region, with the only thing of note being the mountain K2. The Government spends more money on it than it earns from most of the other states, and in fair honesty, an outsider such as me cannot see where the money goes. But on the other hand, with more terrorist groups forming in India, in the north-east for example, or even in the heartland, as the police would leave us to believe in the aftermath of the Delhi blasts. The government backing out of Kashmir would send a signal to the others that the government can be beaten, and then the country would erupt in conflict. So now it seems that there is no way out of this situation completely, but there are several possibilities.
ttttttttThe first possibility is to withdraw completely form Kashmir,using the saved money to strenghten the security forces, and build up industry. This could be accomplished without cross border militants if India asks the UN to interfere and help guarantee Kashmir's Independence. It might also be conductive to work with the new Pakistani government to help guarantee Kashmir's Independence. If international assistance does not work then any savings would probably have to be used to strenghten the army. This would probably be the best solution. Another solution would be to spend extensively and develop the state to such a point where nobody would want to join any military outfits, and any who filter in from across the border will immeadtitly be reported. This plan would be hard to implement, requiring strong leadership over decades, upto trillions of USD over a 25 year period, not only to implement new industries and services, but to protect them.

Welcome

Watch out as I update this place with my views on the world and the occasional short piece of fiction.

Aman Sethi

The administartor and editor of the Ridgewood website, he