Full transcript of Jitendra Singh's address at Rising Bharat Summit 2025

Supporting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's comments on India's partition, Union Minister Jitendra Singh stated on Wednesday that the ambitions of Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were behind the 1947 division of the country.

At the Rising Bharat Summit 2025, Jitendra Singh criticized the partition of India as a disastrous decision driven by the ambitions of Nehru and Jinnah, with no public demand for it. Supporting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's comments on India's partition, Union Minister Jitendra Singh stated on Wednesday that the ambitions of Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were behind the 1947 division of the country.

Interviewer:

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. You can be a little more generous with the applause. He has the ability to underplay to the level that we don't know the extent of responsibilities and role that he has in the establishment and the government. He is also someone who specifically made time for Rising Bharat Summit 2025. So, Dr. Jitendra Singh, Namaste and many, many thanks.

Jitendra Singh:

Thank you very kind of you. I am sure this is going to be a learning experience for me as well. So, thanks for making me a part of this.

Interviewer:

Sir, I would like to begin a passage with this. “The root of the ongoing debate of Waqf truly lies in the politics of appeasement. This politics of appeasement is not something new. Its seeds were sown during our freedom struggle itself. Just think—along with India, and even after us, many countries around the world gained independence. But how many of them had to accept partition as a condition for freedom? They were divided the moment they became free. Why did this happen in India? Because at that time, the desire for power was placed above national interest.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi made these remarks at the Rising Bharat Summit less than 24 hours ago.

Jitendra Singh:

Anand, I think what the Prime Minister said, nobody could have summed it up better than what he's done in a very polite, very subtle manner which has of course very crude connotations. And since you've raked up this, I'll ask you to give me two or three minutes because I have always had very strong views on this. And I have gone on record, in fact I've written a number of times, I also said once in the Parliament that the partition of the Indian subcontinent was possibly the greatest, greatest blunder in the recent history of the world.

And one major fundamental question is this, nobody raises this, who asked for partition? There was no public demand, there was no yearning in any section of society. It was just the ambition of two individuals, Nehru and Jinnah, because you couldn't have two Prime Ministers in a single country, so they carved out one each for each one of them. And the British Empire made the best use of this ambition of theirs to divide. In fact, Mountbatten initially had another plan to divide it into three parts, Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestown. Thankfully, thanks to Sardar Patel, he didn't let that happen.

But the fundamental question, the one that is never really spoken about, is this, in fact, while the so-called political protagonists of Pakistan were demanding an Islamic state or Islamic nation on the basis of two-nation theory, the common man even in the Muslim community was opposed to it. There was a forum of the Muslim intellectuals and Muslim writers called the Progressive Writers Forum, in which there was Sahir, there was also Kaiffi, and there was Mohsin Bhopali. They had actually very vehemently opposed the idea of partition. So much so that, and in fact, even when this happened, they were so disgusted that they had no hesitation in writing about it.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz went there—he was in Lahore—so from there he wrote that, “Yeh daag daag ujala yeh shab guzeeda seher, woh intazaar tha jisko yeh woh seher nahi.” When he saw the riots happening, and Sahir went to Pakistan, actually, but he stayed there for about two years. I think somewhere towards the end of 1949, he came back, very disgusted. And he wrote immediately, “Ai rahabar-e-mulk-o-kaum bata ye kisaka lahoo hai kaun mara.” And then later on, a few years later, he went on to write another beautiful poem, which of course, Raj Kapoor incorporated in one of his movies. “Jab Dukh Ke Badal Pighalenge, Jab Sukh Ka Sagar Chhalkega. Jab Ambar Jhum Ke Naachega, Jab Dharati Nagame Gaaegi. Jis Subah Ki Khatir Jug Jug Se. Hum Sab Mar Mar Ke Jite Hai. Jis Subah Ke Amrit Ki Dhun Me, Hum Zahar Ke Pyaale Pite Hai. In Bhukhi Pyaasi Ruho Par, Ek Din To Karam Faramaayegi.”

So what I'm trying to say is that in the immediate aftermath of partition, bloodshed, displacement, the biggest ever exchange of populations happening anywhere in the world, and in the later aftermath, after a few years, it was food scarcity, poverty, a long spell, which even India had to bear. Under the same Prime Minister, who happened to be one of the protagonists of the partition, or maybe facilitated Jinnah's two-nation theory. And the two-nation theory itself, if you see academically, evidently, fell short of indicating itself. Otherwise, Bangladesh was not created.

The very basis, the East Bengal was made a part of Pakistan, was because of this Muslim population, which didn't happen. Then you wouldn't have this kind of disenchantment, discontent happening in Balochistan, which you witnessed today. Or even in the Pak-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, which of course, was not a part of the partition, Red Cliff. And that Red Cliff is itself a case study for you. You know, the story of Red Cliff, he was an attorney, Lord Mountbatten wanted a legal expert to do so. So he came here. He stayed there just for about 30 days or so, in Delhi, didn't move out. But they say he was a great brainy guy. So he drew a line on a map, depending on the population. And that came to be known as the Red Cliff Life. In fact, Firozpur was also going to be cut off. So there was a rethinking that Jammu Kashmir will be completely cut off.

Then this link came. And intelligent as he was, because I have with me about 500 books on partition. It's written by Indian victims, Pakistan victims, those who went abroad and settled because there was a window period, you could choose even a Commonwealth country. And of course, last month, only one young lady journalist from UK has written a book on the families of migrants. And there are also books written by the British authors.

And one of the British books mentions that when Red Cliff's task was over, he handed over his documents to Lord Mountbatten. He had at the back of mind that this was going to be a disaster. So he wrote a letter to his stepson. He said, my task is over. I'm coming back before more than one million people rendered homeless come looking for my blood. So he knew what he was doing. But that suited Jinnah, that suited Nehru and that also very much suited British rulers.

Interviewer:

Allow me to ask you this. Is this the BJP and the current dispositions obsession with pushing down Nehruvianism and Nehruvian politics? Or is it just bringing front and center our history, our history like it was? Because it's difficult to believe that because of the ambitions of two individuals—and perhaps the over-ambition of a few others, as the Prime Minister said—such a large section of the population had to suffer loss. Nobody liked the bloodshed that happened. Three million people died, got displaced, and there was so much bitterness. And those lines are still drawn.

Jitendra Singh:

No, absolutely. I totally agree with you.

Interviewer:

Would you really want to say that it was just the power hungry ambition of two, three people and a collective that destroyed this entire subcontinent?

Jitendra Singh:

Yes, to a very great extent. And do you know something, even Jinnah, I don't know how far ideologically or by conviction he was subscribing to an Islamic state. It was more of a mission. And in the very first speech in the National Assembly of Pakistan, he said, look, now our objective is over. Now everybody will be equal. And one more fact, which is not much talked about is that on the 14th of August, the midnight when Pakistan was granted independence, the very first national anthem was written by a Hindu poet called Jagannath Azad.

And the story was that Jinnah asked for a panel of poets who would have to write this. And when he noticed the name of a Hindu young poet, he said, look, let's have this, we might send out a message. And the phrase of Jagannath's anthem was something different. It was like, Sar Zameen-e Pakistan. It was dedicated to Mother Earth of the new country, nation. And then, of course, later on, it got changed. Then Hafiz Jalandhri wrote, Jo Aaj Kal Hai.

Interviewer:

Jive Jive Pakistan.

Jitendra Singh:

That's right. So, and the same night, Jagannath used to tell us, he's, of course, no more. He was Professor Emeritus of Iqbal. Even after partition, he kept visiting all the universities across the subcontinent for his Iqbal lectures. He used to take quite a lot of sadist pleasure in narrating that when my national anthem was being composed, at that very moment, he was running away from there. Some of my Muslim neighbors came there and said, "Sir, your anthem is playing—it's a matter of great honor—but we’re afraid that with the riots going on here, something might happen to you, and we might not be able to protect you." So, they managed his safe passage into this side of the territory. And therefore, what is mean is that it has, it was traumatic, not only physically, it was traumatic psychologically. It took a toll of every aspect of human existence.

Interviewer:

So, you agree when the Prime Minister says that this is a thought continuum?

Jitendra Singh:

Yes.

Interviewer:

And I'm bringing it front and centre because the youth of today, do they need to understand their history? Do they need to be coloured by their history? Or do they need to accept and move on? What do they need to do? Because what the PM is saying is and you’re also saying, there is a fundamentalist thought process, along with those who are hungry for power at all costs. Is it a combination of these two? And does this continue?

Jitendra Singh:

Absolutely.

Interviewer:

So, is the Waqf to be seen from that perspective?

Jitendra Singh:

Absolutely. The two are intertwined and they tend to supplement each other to the convenience of these handful of… Now, going back to the part that you said about the Nehruvian, is it just deliberate that part of BJP agenda? No. Because we live in an evidence-based era. So, it is not that if I say somebody has to agree. I'll give you just three examples, which have been proven or disproven with the passage of time.

Three of Nehruvian initiatives. First, of course, was Article 370, which he himself told Mukherjee in the Constitutional Assembly meeting, when Mukherjee asked him, could we have a rethinking? He said, “Dr. Saheb, this clause will wear out completely from being used over and over again.” But he was proved wrong because his own successors didn't want him to get so far. They found a vested interest.

Second, his China. Sardar Patel kept warning him. (0:11:35 inaudible). And just three years later, there was the Chinese attack. So this had also ended. The Chinese policy. Third, the Non-Aligned Movement. Non-Aligned Movement died its death in just one decade. Because Mrs. Gandhi was the one who did that. She got into an Indo-Soviet accord, where there was an imminent threat of Pakistan aggression happening. And US, at that point in time, siding apparently with Islamabad. So, that was over. Non-Aligned was over. So, the three concepts that he gave, those three were not over in 10-15 years.

And this, of course, this appeasement became a convenient tool for vote bank politics. And then it went on and on and got deeper and deeper. And of course, Waqf was also result of that. Shah Bano was also the same. But BJP, right from the beginning, from the times of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, has followed the mantra, the basic mantra of appeasement to none, justice to all.

So, justice, not to a single section of society, justice to every section of society, including Muslims, including Hindus, including Buddhists. So, why should we have a different policy for someone who is subscribing to a particular religion? So, it's, I think, doing justice to even the Muslim brothers. It's not doing them any harm.

Interviewer:

Sir, there is a serious thought process now that Hindu votes for you, and you don’t do anything for them. Muslim largely don’t vote for BJP, but you are passing all the legislations for them. You know, instantly Triple Talaq and Waqf. So there is this whole thing that those who are voting for you, you’re not doing anything for them, and those who are not you’re doing all these things. And all in the garb of saying, okay, justice for all, appeasement for all.

Jitendra Singh:

That’s why I say that Modi ji has worked to transform the political culture of our country. He's trying to bring a change in the very political culture of this country, the way the politics is practiced. It’s not that if others didn’t vote for them, then they shouldn’t be given anything. It was a Congress culture. We saw that when drinking water pipes were being laid, the work wouldn’t be done in colonies where people from the Jan Sangh lived. But from day one, Modi ji said that his government is for the poor, for the farmers, for women—that they will reach those who have been left out, and they will make up for the shortcomings of the previous governments. You’ll be surprised—I was, for some time, overseeing work on behalf of the organization in Western UP, and entire colonies where only Muslims live received houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. I used to go and ask them— I even have videos, I’ll show you— and they would say, “Sir, ask us.” Then we’d say, “You didn’t vote last time, right?” And they wouldn’t answer—just smile.

So I feel that Modi ji has tried to initiate a new political culture in this country—one that rises above, moves beyond, and goes higher than just vote politics. We have to reach out to those who need us. The labor to the wisdom of the person whom to vote for. So, it's not that if someone doesn't vote, you don't have to do work for them, and if someone does, you have to vote more for them. So, what's the difference between Congress and this? And this is precisely the reason which Shyama Prasad Mukherjee cited when he founded the Jan Sangh. He was asked by RSS, what was he looking for? We would look for a kind of an approach where we would be part of the decision-making. At the same time, we would not follow the policy that Congress is following.

Interviewer:

So, you're saying you're trying to change the political discourse and the approach to governance. Let me also just quickly ask you on this entire political part of it, that do you plan to continue going down this path? And should history need to be revised? Names of places were changed, names of cities were changed—or you could say the original names were restored. Whatever way you want to say. Is this not revisionism? What do you want the youth to do? Should they read history, accept it as it is, and then move on? Or should they be colored by it and say, Oh, you read this wrongly in school. Now, read this and make your decision based on this.

Jitendra Singh:

No, honestly speaking, you asked the first part, would you like to go down? I think I'm too small a person to respond to such a lofty question. There are, you know, leaders sitting out there, policy makers. I'm just an ordinary worker. But having said that, having been grown and trained in the political culture of the party that I belong to, I think even if you take it from the point of view of youth, it's one of the best times happening for the youth of India.

And if you give me one minute, I'll explain to you at two, three levels. Because as I said, we've been taught to speak with evidence, otherwise the youth don't accept. These days, it’s an era where if parents tell their child to vote for a particular party, the child pulls up something from Facebook and says, “Dad, look how corrupt this person is.” So, you can't carry yourself with a youth like that. In fact, the other day in the post-podcast, somebody asked me, any regret and any wish? I said, no regret, because God would be angry if I started regretting. But wish, of course, I wish I was a youth in this age and times.

Interviewer:

You're the second leader to say that. On the Rising Bharat Summit platform, second political leader to say that you are lucky that you are in this generation.

Jitendra Singh:

No, I tell you. First, the opportunity that is available now was not there. We were just about 350 startups in 2014. Now we've gone to 1.75. We are number three in the startup ecosystem. Our global innovation index was 81. Now we are 39. We were taken very non-seriously as publishers of some research papers or even as researchers. Today, we stand number six, sorry, number four in number of publications. Now, some of the cynics say, no, your publication standard should be up. That's because you can say, but at least publication have started to come. Till 30 years back, there was no habit of documenting in this country.

In patent, we are number six. And you know what is the difference? Now, 55 to 56% of the patents are Indian residents. Born here, educated here, worked here, did research here, and created success story right here. In the old days, even this used to be a taunt—“Oh, what happened? Har Gobind Khorana did it, what have you done?” He went abroad and got a Nobel Prize. But now, that’s no longer the case.

The second level, I tell you, there's so much of unleashing of opportunities happening that I am witness to it because we have a large number of schemes, to facilitate some of the youngsters who want to come back. We have a Vaibhav scheme for young sighters, researchers, innovators to come back if they wish to incentivize that also. So many of them want to come back. But my advice to them is that if you're going abroad, go with a 5–6 year plan in mind—don’t go there and then start thinking about what to do. Because what happens is once five, seven years are gone by, then the other factors, extraneous factors take over. You know, once your children are in the adolescent age, you want to come back, your children say, okay, you choose between us and choose between going back. So the other factor is coming.

The third is esteem. In my age, if an Indian went to the West and introduced himself as Indian, he was not taken very serious, not even looked up to. Today, there's a premium on being known as an Indian. Do you know, we were in Berlin last year, there's so many of Indian startups, 12 food outlets, because they also combine entrepreneurship. So I asked him, “Brother, you’ve opened 12 food outlets—this isn’t just the Indian diaspora, right?” They said, “Sir, we’re not just feeding Indians—we’ve changed the taste of the British!”

And most of the European startup groups had Indian boys and girls. So I asked one of the European heads of the group, I said, why do you prefer our boys and girls? You know what he said? They said, the best part is they don't take a weekend off. So many of these qualities are now starting to be understood by them. So if you go out, even Pakistanis are now introducing themselves as Indians. That means there's a definite premium on being an Indian. So the esteem has gone up. And that has raised our confidence.

That has also raised our aspiration level. You look at the civil service, for example, because I'm also dealing with the academy. There was a time when most people in civil services came from Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Bihar. Now we have toppers from Punjab, and toppers from Haryana. You have 30% girls for three years consecutively. I think 15, 16, 17. We have three girl toppers. First Ira Sehgal, then Tina Dabi and then Nandini. It started to feel like the toppers were beginning to be reserved.

So that rising of aspiration among the youth has also happened because now they feel that they have an equal opportunity. And I think the credit again goes to Prime Minister Modi. You remember, which is not often recalled now, soon after this government came in, because I happen to be associated with DOPD. One of the first decisions in the first three months was to do away with that practice of getting your documents attested by a gazetted office. And that sent out a huge, huge message. They look at now this is a government and now this is a Prime Minister who has the capacity to trust the youth of this country. When you have a population more than 70% below the age of 40, how can you do business without trust? Tomorrow, you’ll tell your child to get their mark sheet attested by a tehsildar or DC, and then you won’t believe whether it’s true or false. You have to learn to trust.

And the second major decision which he announced from the Red Fort was abolition of the interviews for selection. Otherwise, there was also the accusation that those who scored 100 marks in the written exam were failed in the interview. And those who had nepotism in their favor were passed in the interview.  And these, I think many in this room may not understand, it's not an easy decision for a political dispensation to take. Even our people say, "Sir, what will happen to our people?" But Modi ji has also worked to change the political culture by saying that all children are our children. We have provided a level playing field. And that is a cumulative outcome of the increase in opportunities, increase in aspiration, rise in esteem. And that's why I say, for all these reasons that I've tried to cite in the last few minutes, this is one of the best times happening for the Indian youth.

Interviewer:

Makes a lot of people want to think that they should have been born sometime in the early 2000s, so that they have to be the prime of their youth. But 2047, last two, three minutes, I just want to ask you, 2047, will space travel be possible? Will Bharat be sending tourists to moon and beyond? Is it possible? I think we've got a former astronaut also with us, Mr. Scott Kelly is there. And we'll try and spot him somewhere. Yes, Scott, hi. So I'll come to you for a question if you'd like to ask, because he's our science and technologies minister also. But let me ask you, is space travel going to be possible? But of course, as we're sending a mic across to you, Scott.

Jitendra Singh:

No, but as of now, as we go by the schedule that we have laid out for ourselves, and we are able to move as we have envisaged for ourselves, we hope to land an Indian on the surface of moon by the year 2040. So that's going to be a great accomplishment.

Interviewer:

Let me go up to Scott, sir. Sorry.

Scott Kelly:

Well, that's in 15 years, you know, my brother said at one point, he used to say, particularly about going to Mars, it's not about rocket science, it's about political science, meaning the money. So I think you probably have the technological capability. It's really whether you want to make the investment or not. So I'm confident if India decides that they want to land an Indian astronaut on the moon, as an example, in 15 years, assuming you make the investment, it's absolutely possible.

Interviewer:

He's saying 15 years. Can we do it faster?

Jitendra Singh:

Yeah, well said. That's precisely the schedule that we have laid out for ourselves. 2040 is the year where we hope to land an Indian on the surface of moon. And before that, by 2035, India's own international space station, which will be named as Bharat Space Station. So see, technology wise also, and I think broadly speaking, we should realize and that's why I say this is one of the best times happening with you. Today, we are running in the same level as any other nation in the world. For example, we are among the four or five nations in the world who are into quantum technology or quantum mission. We are the first who have come out with a vaccine, COVID. Now, the importance of that is that India was never taken seriously as a healthcare nation, even our society.

That if someone falls ill, just wait for three or four days. If they get better, it's the blessing of the mother; if not, it's the result of past life's actions. So we had homemade placebos.

Now, the same country, which was not taken seriously by the world as a serious country, I mean, it's not taken seriously for curative healthcare or therapeutic healthcare, is being seriously taken as a global leader in preventive healthcare. Look at how much change has come. And in the same way, take television, for example. It happened in America in 1950s. You see, the previous Prime Ministers—Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri—if you go to the archives, you'll find all the TV interviews they gave, especially those taken by the BBC when they went abroad. Because television happened in this country around 1970s. You got to see half an hour Chitrahaar. By that time, it was color. And the famous election of 1960, where John Kennedy turned the tables on Nixon, happened because of a TV debate. But at that time, we didn’t even know what a TV debate was. Now thanks to guys like you. Now you are at par. We are no longer 15 years behind them. So that also has added to our esteem, also added to the opportunities and added to the kind of perception that the rest of the world holds about India as has been now said by Scott.

Interviewer:

True. And Scott Kelly will be in session, and he will be on stage in shortly from now, throughout the course of the day, on Day 2 of the Rising Bharat Summit 2025. But for the moment, we have to call it a wrap. Dr. Jitendra Singh, amazing, engaging conversation as always. Thank you so much. A big round of applause for him, please. Thank you.