Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed is the author of a 800-page biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnah called Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History.

In an interview that is likely to be applauded by Hindutva supporters in India and infuriate many in Pakistan, Ahmed has debunked the belief the Lahore Resolution’s call for Pakistan was a bargaining chip to secure a greater role for Muslims in a united India and not divide the country.

He also debunked the popular interpretation of Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech to Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly as proof that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state.

Ahmed provides a wealth of evidence for debunking the bargaining chip theory, first popularised by Ayesha Jalal and thereafter accepted by many others. “Jinnah never, even once, showed any interest in a united India and in a power-sharing deal with Hindus and Muslims as equal nations sharing power at the Centre,” he says.

He says “Jinnah was obsessed with having India partitioned”. He says that on March 30, 1941, in Kanpur, Jinnah made it clear that he did not care about the impact of Partition on Muslims who would be left behind in India. He saw them as necessary sacrifice.

Ahmed said Jinnah also supported calls to establish an independent state in South India called Dravidastan and even an independent Sikh state. In fact, Jinnah tried his best to get as much territory as possible out of India and integrate it into Pakistan, he says.

Also read | Review: A Book That Busts Many Myths Surrounding Jinnah

Speaking about the famous speech of August 11, 1947, delivered at the inaugural session of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly just three days before the birth of Pakistan and which has been widely interpreted to mean Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular country, Ahmed completely disagrees. He says Jinnah’s intention was narrow and strategic.

In other words, as Ahmed explains, Jinnah was scared that if minorities in Pakistan (Hindus and Sikhs) were not treated well and felt unsafe then something similar could happen to the Muslims left behind in India who might then flood across the border and overwhelm Pakistan.

Ahmed makes other points about this speech.

First, “if omitting the words Islam, Quran or Sharia and instead projecting Pakistan in a secular light were worthwhile to please and assuage foreign powers, then Jinnah was possibly willing to do it … he wanted to be seen by foreign dignitaries as a leader of all Pakistanis and not just muslims.”

Ahmed also refutes the view of many historians that Jinnah’s speech was suppressed because his successors did not want people to remember Jinnah wanted a secular country.

“What can most certainly be discarded as unfounded and unwarranted is that the two-nation theory and the demand for Pakistan was about a secular-democratic Pakistan,” he says.

Watch the full interview here.