Custom Search

Pictures of the Day: Aazadi Mubarak!

Posted on August 12, 2006
Filed Under >Adil Najam, History, Music, People, Photo of the Day
67 Comments
Total Views: 62531

Share

Adil Najam

Full page ad in DawnWhat an amazingly poignant and powerful advertisement. And how timely.

Published in Dawn (11 August, 2006) as a full page ad for the radio station City FM 89 it highlights what I believe to be one of Mr. Jinnah’s most evocative and inspiring speeches. Certainly one that is most relevant to Pakistan’s present as well as future. The key quote is printed right below his photograph:

“You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

Of course, his vision was not always followed. But on this, the eve of Pakistan’s Independence Day, there could not be a more timely moment to remind ourselves what the vision was.

City FM 89 also has a full day of special music planned for August 14, which by the looks of its sounds very enticing. For example, I would love to find out what their list of the ‘Top 50 Pakistani Songs’ look like. Whatever that list might look like, it is bound to have multiple entries from the incomparable Shahenshah-e-ghazal: Mehdi Hassan.



And that brings me to the second advertisement I saw, also in Dawn (12 August, 2006). This ad also spoke to my sensibilities.

First, this advert from Mobilink pays tribute to one of our greatest artists. That is something we do not do often enough; and do not do very well when we do it.

Moreover, the Urdu verse at the top — yeh watan hamara hai, hum hain pasbaan iss kay — comes from what I think is one of the most moving Pakistani national songs ever (commentary and link to the song here; more ATP posts on this here and here).

Most of song is in the ‘words’ of Mr. Jinnah so that ‘humara‘ (ours) in that line is ‘tumhara‘ (yours) in the song. But the intent is quite clear: we have to make of this country what we make of it. Even as a kid, this song always mesmerized me both for how Mehdi Hassan sang it and even more so for the words…. hum tou mehz unwaaN thay, asl daastaN tum ho!

Unlike so many other milli naghmay which were really naara baazi set to music, this one had a clear and powerful message. It seemed to me that Jinnah was saying to all of us: ‘guys, my time is up, I have done what I could, now its your turn; do the best you can and make the best of what you have.’ Of course, neither he nor the song was saying exactly that. But that is what I took from the song.

It was always a poignant song, but also an uncomfortable song. Because one always knew that we had not really lived up to the responsibility placed on us.

67 Comments on “Pictures of the Day: Aazadi Mubarak!”

  1. Raza Haider says:
    August 12th, 2006 1:58 am

    Amazing – what a sobering post that shows us just how far we have come from the original intent of Pakistan

  2. August 12th, 2006 2:06 am

    Folks, if I might add two quick points to the original post:
    First, I think it is remarkable and something to celebrate that this ad (the one about Jinnah’s speech) was published as a full page ad. That alone shows some progress (see link below to what was).
    Second, there is some debate about the exact words that Jinnah used and attempts by governments to (needlessly in my opinion) play around with them. The good news is that the quote in the ad is from what is considered to be the ‘original’ speech.
    For more on both points see this essay by Ardeshir Cowasjee:
    http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20031005.htm

  3. sabizak says:
    August 12th, 2006 5:40 am

    Loved this post, I myself had been meaning to post about the Mobilink ad, the visual version of it (i dont know whether you have seen it or not).

    As for City FM89, you need not wonder, you can log onto its website and hear the radio station live on your computer.
    http://www.cityfm89.com/cityfm89web/home.aspx

  4. August 12th, 2006 8:23 am

    I have often felt that this quote attributed to Mohammad Ali Jinnah is rather ironic- it is a negation of his own efforts to create a Muslim homeland.

    In a different manner, I suppose that Ibne Insha also makes the same case, when in Urdu in aakhiri kitaab he poses the question on why Pakistan was created in the first place.

    I realize that I am writing at a site devoted to Pakistaniat and in no way want to indicate any disrespect to all those who feel are proud Pakistanis. But I do feel bewildered and would like someone to clarify this question:

    Isn’t Jinnah’s quote opposite of what he had wanted, and got?

  5. Umera Ali says:
    August 12th, 2006 9:13 am

    In pre-independent India was extremely divided and Muslims were not able to practice their religion and that was a main source of discourse for them along with marginalising of Muslims from economic arena because of their religion.

    Jinnah envisaged a country where Muslims would not be discriminated against because of their religion. However, he also envisaged and strive for a country where other people would not be isolated because of their religion. This is not such a bizarre concept to comprehend specially given Muslims in India had first hand experience of being discriminated because of their religion. Jinnah had the foresight and intelligence to know that if religion was allowed to be interceded with the matters of state, minorities would be discriminated as one religion would take priority over every other religion. The rest of is vision is quite simply stated in his speech.

    In words of my grandfather “Pakistan was not suppose to be a Muslim state parse but a state where Muslim would be able to practice their religion freely without interference from the State. However, now we are a Muslim state where Muslims cannot follow their religion without the interference from the state.”

    I have always found that sums up Pakistan extremely well.

  6. Roshan Malik says:
    August 12th, 2006 9:15 am

    @Bhupinder Singh
    Its really a valid question.
    Mr. Jinnah never dreamt and demanded a theocratic state. He has always been advocating the rights of Muslims of Sub Continent as they were in minority. If you look into his political life, he joined Congress as a combined struggle against the British rule.

    Later on he joined Muslim League, as he had some differences with Congress leadership about the protection of Muslim’s rights as minority. He never propagated the idea of supremacy of one religion over other. But he alwasy believed in the equality of all human beings regardless of creed. Even the two nations theory was based on the principle that both the communities had been living together for centuries but have different culture and way of living. Therefore it would be better to have their seperate homelands.

    The seperate homeland idea did not come instantly, rather these were the political developments like Nehru Report, Jinnah Fourteen points, Round Table Conferences, 1935 act, 1937 elections and so on so forth. The aftermaths of 1937 elections was the turning point towards the movement for seperate homeland for muslims. Therefore in 1940, the resolution for Pakistan was passed by Muslim League. Let me also add that it was Muslim Clergy which was against the very idea of Pakistan. While Jinnah always believed in peace, secularism and democracy.
    Recently Jaswant Singh (former foreign minister India) wrote a book ‘A call to honour – in service of emergent India’ in which he discussed these issues too. Have a look on the news item regarding the release of the book. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006%5C07%5C22%5Cstory_22-7-2006_pg7_10

  7. Roshan Malik says:
    August 12th, 2006 9:31 am

    @Bhupinder Singh
    Sorry I could not respond your query abotu Ibn-e-Insha. He is a great humourist and he wrote that essay in humour context. The title of the book “Urdu ki aakhree kitab” is a parody of “URDU KI PEHLI KITAB” and whatever was taught in URDU KI PEHLI KITAB, Ibn-e-Insha wrote other way round in his humorous style. If you read other essays in the same book, you will realize that.

    PS: By the way Ibn-e-Insha and Shafiq-u-Rehman are my favorite humorists.

  8. August 12th, 2006 10:40 am

    Umera: Thanks, I liked your grandfather’s quote, I can understand that feeling of being let down by subsequent developments.

    Roshan: Thanks, too, for a very informative post.

    I am not sure, however, how different the demand for a homeland based on religion would not logically lead to a theocratic state. In my view (and I will be happy to be contradicted), the quote in Umera’s post is the logical outcome for a religion based homeland.

    Further, in the review that you indicated, Jaswant Singh quotes Jinnah as follows:
    >our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions, but in fact two distinct social orders and it is only a dream that they can evolve a common nationality.â€

  9. Raza Rumi says:
    August 12th, 2006 12:45 pm

    Bhupinder,
    You have raised peritnent quesitons and I guess the debate on Pakistan’s creation and partition of India (depends on the narrative chosen) continues. I’d draw your attention to two (perhaps not so) recent texts that may answer some of your questions.

    First is of course Ayesha Jalal, a historian based in the US now. Her seminal work on Jinnah – The Sole Spokesman – has, with the help of newer materials, shown that until 1946 Mr Jinnah was willing to settle for a decent compromise. In fact, the demand for partition was a bargaining counter used to secure a better deal for Indian muslims (mainly from UP, Bihar elites, East Bengal and a few other regions). The Cabinet mission plan came close to securing some measure of autonomy for the muslim majority areas and its rejection by Congress leadership (except Azad) was the turning point and led to a chain of events where partition became inevitable. Once it became a reality, Jinnah made sure to uphold his cherished ideals of secularism and democracy and hence the 11 August speech quoted in this post.

    The second text is by HM Seervai who has also debunked the Indian national discourse on partition and Jinnah. Seervai in “Partition of India: Legend and Reality” narrates a dispassionate view on the partition that holds the Congress leadership and Mountbatten equally, if not more, repsonsible for the partition of India. In fact he directly holds Nehru and Patel responsible for squeezing all space for a negotiated settlement with the Muslim League. The monograph (sequel to India Wins Freedom) that was only made public in the 1980s also confirmed this view albeit in a diluted manner. A link to Seervai’s book: http://www.dukandar.com/partitionofindia.html

    The purpose of my comment is not to undermine the reality and aspirations for Pakistan that existed in the 1940s. However, the historical context, removed from state-led ideologies (of power), can help us understand some of the complex questions raised here.

    Nevertheless, ironies of our situation are baffling: more muslims in India than Pakistan; and East Bengal (the former East Pakistan) – where the popular struggle for Pakistan existed – is no longer a part of Pakistan! The latter development in large measure is attributable to not following what the Quaid said on Aug 11, 1947…

  10. Aziz Akhmad says:
    August 12th, 2006 1:17 pm

    Umera,

    I don’t know where did you get this information that “Muslims were not able to practice their religion” in pre-Independence India. I don’t think it is true. I haven’t seen any evidence supporting that perception. (Fortunately, I had graduated from high school before they started doctoring the history textbooks).

    Ironically, Muslims (of all shades) were and are more free to practice their religion in most non-Muslim countries including India than they are in their own countries. Only the other day I saw a Pakistani taxi driver in downtown New York pull his taxi to the side, take out a Ja-namaz, spread it on a busy sidewalk on Varick Street and offer his maghrib prayers. No one bothered him or even questioned the fact that he was obstructing foot traffic. In fact most people, when they would notice this person praying, would silently sidestep or or even cross over to the other side of the street so as not to disturb him.

    And, by the way, the mother of all madrassas was and still is in Deoband, India, established in 1867.

    I do agree, however, with the comment of your grandfather and also your comment at the end of your message.

  11. MSk says:
    August 12th, 2006 1:37 pm

    Bhupinder. I don’t see any contradiction between one the one hand a (very large) minority community that considers itself socially distinct and fears the imposition from an even larger (gigantic) majority and fears that they will be drowned out in a behemoth country wanting to seek independence and on the other hand also thinking of creating a non-theological state. The irony is NOT that Jinnah wanted minority rights. The irony is that a people who KNEW what it felt like to be a minority and had created a new country precisely because they did not want to be a second class minority, so quickly forgot what it feels to be like a minority and ended up doing to its minorities precisely what it did not wish to be done to it.

    So, I do not see any contradiction in this vision at all. Most countries with a single very large minority face this in one way or another. We have just not been good at dealing with it. At least one theory on this is that had Pakistan remained the much more diverse country that it would have been had non-Muslims in the Pakistan region not migrated (or if Bengal and Punjab not been divided) then the resulting more multicultural country would have been forced to deal differently with this question and those who wanted a more theocratic Pakistan (many of whom had actually been opposed to the idea of Pakistan originally) would not have gained the influence they did. This is an interesting theory but is, of course, just speculation since there is no way of knowing what would or would not have happened.

  12. August 12th, 2006 3:17 pm

    Raza: Thanks for the link to Seervai’s book. I am aware of Ayesha Jalal’s arguments and have read a critique (I think in Sucheta Mahajan’s book on Partition), though not the book itself.

    I agree with you, that the question of Pakistan’s creation/ India’s partition will continue to be debated.

    Aziz: Your point on Deoband is well noted. I happened to drive from Mussorie to Delhi few years ago, and while taking a short cut away from the highway, suddenly found myself in Deoband. In the few minutes that I stopped there, one could see the rather grand mosques and buildings that stood out in the otherwise typically Uttar Pradesh town- or perhaps an overgrown village. One can only conjecture that a lot of (Saudi?) money has gone there.

    Msk: I see your point and can relate well with this. The case in India has not been dissimilar- specially after 1992 (demolition of Babri Masjid) and the rule from 1998 to 2004 by a coalition government headed by the Hindutva party, the BJP.

    I must thank everyone who has commented here in response to my question, it has been educative and helped to understand the context of Pakistaniat from different viewpoints that are different from what I had grown up with.

    Azaadi Mubarak !

  13. Aziz Akhmad says:
    August 12th, 2006 5:37 pm

    Adil,
    I am glad that you brought up the 11 August Speech on ATP — at an appropriate time. Of all the speeches and statements of Jinnah this one is a defining speech. Pakistan ideology, if ever there was one, is spelled out in this speech.

    Politicians make all sorts rhetorical speeches and statements, sometime even contradictory, especially when they are addressing crowds. So did Jinnah, on occasions. But this was no ordinary public speech meant to arouse or quell the emotions of a crowd. Pakistan had already been achieved, a constituent assembly was in place and Jinnah was elected its president. He delivered this speech to the assembly defining his vision of Pakistan and thus giving out, if you will, his guidelines for the future constitution of Pakistan. It was a calculated and written speech from a person who, unlike most politicians of Pakistan, was very careful with words.

    It is a shame that successive governments in Pakistan have tried to hide or even distort and censor this speech. No government school or college in the country displays this speech and no school textbook includes it.

    It is good to know that someone thought it fit to publish this speech as a full page advertisement in Dawn.

    I am sure you are aware that Oxford University Press in Karachi, a few years ago, collected all the speeches and important statements of Jinnah and published them in the form of a book. Therefore, can be happy that it won’t be easy for anyone to doctor or distort this historic and defining speech any more.

  14. August 12th, 2006 11:57 pm

    Folks, I would very highly recommend that you read the post that Bhupinder has just posted on his blog under the title: “Midnight’s Children- Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

    It is not just that he has very kindly mentioned this blog and post, but because it is an absolutely fascinating and deeply thought provoking comparison and analysis of

    “Their thrust is similar, the challenges that they foresee for their nations are nearly the same- in fact, each speech, with very little changes, could have been delivered in either country- Jawaharlal’s in Pakistan and Jinnah’s in India.”

    It is, however, his analysis and his conclusion that I found the most insightful. He says:

    In Pakistan, the view is that the country did not live upto the ideals of the Quaid e Azam. In India, it is Jawaharlal Nehru who is blamed for not living up to the possibilities of India.”

    I hope I have whetted your interest enough that you will go and read Bhupider’s post in full:
    http://bhupindersingh.blogspot.com/2006/08/midnights-children-jawaharlal-nehru.html

  15. BD says:
    August 13th, 2006 1:18 am

    =start rant

    I personally believe the creation of Pakistan was based on realpolitick of those times. However I also feel that not much debate followed after its creation, that would have gone towards forging an inclusive ideology for nationalism.

    I hope I am not offending anyone, but the “islamization” done by Zia completely uprooted the saplings planted by Jinnah. Pakistan was created for Peace. I simply wish the subcontinent followed the vision of our founding fathers.

    I am yet to read Aitzaz Ahsan’s book, Indus Saga. Has anyone here read it?

    =end rant

  16. BD says:
    August 13th, 2006 1:28 am

    Ayesha has an interesting post here

  17. Mariam says:
    August 13th, 2006 1:30 am

    I don’t like news like these

  18. August 13th, 2006 1:57 am

    BD. On your first point (re. realpolitik) is elaborately made and argued in Ayesha Jalal’s The Sole Spokesman which others have also reccomended. On your second point (re. Zia) I woudl certainly agree that his imposed ‘Islamization’ ccaused much harm but even if weathered, the sapling is not “iprooted” (at least not yet). On Aitizaz’s book (The Indus Saga) it may not be the best written book, but the idea is very powerful and I would highly reccomend it.

  19. Zain Imran says:
    August 13th, 2006 2:23 am

    I await the day Pakistan will be what it should be. A secular state. Religion and politics is a mixture as bad as nitromethane and ammonium nitrate. I know I won’t live to see a secular Pakistan, but I hope that day is only decades away.

  20. BD says:
    August 13th, 2006 3:51 am

    “Religion and politics is a mixture as bad as nitromethane and ammonium nitrate.”

    Quote of the century!!

  21. August 13th, 2006 10:42 am

    Thanks for the link, Adil.

  22. Sohaib says:
    August 13th, 2006 3:51 pm

    I always find discussions about the creation of Pakistan and its justifications to be fascinating. Being a kid brought up amongst history books which have everything but history and hence cause extreme disillusionment, followed by a heavy dosage of the real story, I have somehow stopped believing in the rationale of Pakistan. To me, it probably wasn’t necessary. A good idea, but not worth the bloodshed and hatred.

    This obviously does not mean that I love the country, and that is also not simply because of lack of other countries I could call home and love. Heck no, I am deeply patriotic, and the songs that move you move me equally, if not more. What I firmly believe in is something a friend of mine said in a completely off-hand manner:
    “Mulk mazhab kuch nahin hota, sirf log hotay hein.”
    I think we ignore the real deal too often, the people. Yes it’s all well and good to talk about Pakistan and its necessity and importance and brilliance, what it’s about time we start focusing on Pakistanis. Jo hogaya so hogaya, ab agay ki socho. We are already a downtrodden, misunderstood, poor nation. We need policies that will uplift our people, not justifications for why they plow their land and till their farms on one side of a border rather than the other.

    :)

  23. Sohaib says:
    August 13th, 2006 3:53 pm

    A correction:

    *This obviously does not mean that I DONT love the country,

  24. BD says:
    August 14th, 2006 2:44 am

    A good idea, but not worth the bloodshed and hatred.

    Sohaib, when I said “Pakistan was created for Peace”, I meant it was created to stop the bloodshed (and possibly hatred). The animosity between the two communities had reached a tipping point. Hence TNT probably made sense then.

    But, it (TNT) doesn’t make sense now. The nation needs to move away from it — rediscover the concept of its nationhood that gives space to a diverse culture instead of a monolithic one. A secular Pakistan can’t afford to have indoctrination of TNT in its textbooks.

  25. August 14th, 2006 4:02 pm

    miriam yes but its surprising after reading this

  26. August 15th, 2006 3:17 am

    JInnah’s words are always misinterpreted as any Religion’s book words.Let me quote Jinnah’s word.


    You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

    I don’t understand how this statment was taken as he was willing to make a secular state.While the term *secular* itself is very controversal as the message given by secularism is very common in Islam,christianity and Judaism,specialy pretty clear two Islamic resources Quran and Hadith.Allow me to quote one of Jinnah;s speech to learn about his mindset.


    The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. The life of the Prophet (PBUH) was simple according to those times. He was successful in everything that he put his hand to from as a businessman to as a ruler. The Prophet (PBUH) was the greatest man that the world had ever seen. Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundations of democracy(Prophet’s birthday at the Karachi Bar Association on 25th January 1948)

    Jinnah was pretty clear,even more clearer than our modern ignorant muslims who think that Islam has nothing to do with democracy while Islam always preached about democracy which obviously are unable to grasp at all.

    Another speech by Jinnah Sahab which stengthens further about his clear views about new state.

    It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles

    (Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947 )

    Crystal clear isn’t it??nothing to read between lines.Jinnah was well aware about Islam and life of the Prophet(SAW) and His teaching.

  27. August 16th, 2006 2:13 am

    but I also know that its not good to declare Jinnah a secularist due to “has nothing to do with the business of the stat”.I could really agree with you if JInnah had not given that two particular speech.

    As i cleared earlier the so called and controversal “Secularism” exist in every religion so why to take it as a seprate branch?

    Read his two speeches again and I quote the main words below:


    … is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principle

    Its a “crystal clear”.If you are not even able to interpret BOLD words according to merit then I really can’t argue with you more.You are free to declare him whatever you want but offcourse Jinnah’s words are more noticeable than anyone else

    WHy are you afraid of “Islam” as long as you re a muslim?


    Not unIslamic, Not atheist. Just secular.

    Sorry the Jinnah’s words dont reflect that

    BTW doesnt secularism deals with “SEPRATION of CHURCH and state” *grin* ?


    None of the quotes you give suggest that Quaid wanted an Islamic government BASED on shariah principles.

    Do you have any idea about “SHARIAH” ?I would like that you elaborate SHARIAH to Adil’s blog readers since I often infact most of the time see that our copycat muslims comeup against Shariah just by keeping in mind stuff like “Choppinf off hands”.

  28. August 16th, 2006 7:06 am

    oh yo already mentioned state’s association with secularism but it’s also true that sepration of church from state is actually very supportive for atheist community.

  29. Eidee Man says:
    August 22nd, 2006 1:13 am

    Separation of church and state is a very tricky issue. The U.S. claims to have it but it obviously does not. I believe that all of the things that we call morals have been in some form or another derived from religion. There is no law or morality without religion.

  30. September 9th, 2006 5:37 am

    Here are a few posts I wrote to different friends on the issue of Jinnah, secularism etc… I am sure it will amply answer the objections raised by those who quote Jinnah’s references to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to deny his secularism.

    The word “secularism” and its understanding is what the problem is… secularism means “separation of church and state”. In legal terms a secular state is one which has no state religion… in political science terms a secular democracy is one which places parliament above all religious institutions. It can also mean that the state would be ruled by non-clerical elements… and it can also mean that state treats every religion equally and impartially. At times states can be secular in one way or the other. At times states can be theocratic approaching secularism and at times they can be secular approching theocracy. But ultimately secularism can only be guaranteed in a democratic society.

    Every secular state in the world has a civic religion- the ethos of its cultural majority. The US, a secular country, is overwhelmingly judaeo-christian in a civic sense… Secular India was always expected to be a Hindu Majority country.. where Hindus, by being the virtue of majority, would be define the culture of India… hence- no matter how secular India gets… the official Indian greeting will always be “Namaste” with folded hands… similarly Pakistan being a Muslim Majority country would always have “Assalamualaikum” as its greeting … regardless of how secular or Islamic it is…

    It is natural… and does not say anything about secularism in its truest sense- a separation of church and state. It begs a question about what then is the purpose of making it such an awesome deal. Truth be told… secularism in the end favors and is to the advantage of the majority… because it is always the majority which-by the sheer weight of its religious dogma- stands to be crushed…

    In Ottoman Turkey at the close of the 19th century- just as an example- Non-muslims were the most prosperous communities under the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamit. Andrew Mango in his book on Ataturk draws a very cosmpolitan picture of Istanbul… the overwhelming question he says was not that the country was going down… but whether Muslims would even have a place in the country. Muslims, because of restrictions of Islam and Islamic law, were left far behind …. In sharp contrast… Secular Turkey was 99% Muslim and Muslims of Turkey were forced to adopt modern education, commerce etc… leading to an enrichment for the Muslim Majority which had been hitherto impossible…

    Malaysia… the other great prosperous Muslim nation… interesting is closer in my estimate to Ottoman Turkey… or what Ottoman Turkey had been had it managed to evolve into a constitutional monarchy that Midhet Pasa had implemented in the 1830s…

    Again… secularism has very different meanings in different context. What is important is constitutional democracy, a fair judicial system and affirmative action for minorities… I am convinced that the Indian constitution attempts to do that… and to certain extent Pakistani constitution too… so I think this whole question is, as is, irrelevant.

    Ceteris Paribus… to other issues.

    First of all let us clarify one thing. Jinnah’s secularism is not a Pakistani claim nor merely a claim… every historian- including all Indian historians of partition- consider Jinnah a secularist. H M Seervai, S K Majumdar, Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed, Bandopadhaya, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Patrick French, Sumit Sarkar, H V Hodson, Richard Symonds, Ainslee T Embree etc all consider him secular and his ideal for Pakistan … an inclusive pluralistic democracy. I want to make it clear at the outset because I have had enough of people telling me about my claims…. Secularism means a separation of church and state and to bring together an inclusivist system… Jinnah’s entire life was a struggle to that end… whether today Indians or Pakistanis wish to deny it or not… I will tackle in a minute of Muslim nationalism in a minute…

    Now it is amazing that you say ” If Mr Jinnah was even a fraction of the secularist that you claim he was, then whatever his apprehensions regarding Hindu majority, he should have stayed, and fought”… for did Jinnah not give 35 of his 42 year old political life to the cause of a United India and Hindu Muslim Unity… As for the downtrodden etc… Jinnah’s contributions both inside of the assembly and outside of it for the untouchables and scheduled castes etc are well documented… he worked for them both as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian and as a politician… however… in my opinion the most touching tribute to Quaid-e-Azam came from an untouchable leader who said:

    “All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi ”

    Even Gandhi once commented that he thought Jinnah was planning on uniting all the Non-Hindu and Non-Congress elements under one flag … which is what Jinnah did on 22nd December 1939… the day when he was joined by leaders of all communities, including B R Ambedkar in a day of deliverance from Congress rule…

    But this is all irrelevant… because Jinnah did speak for the Muslims … first as a minority and then as a nation. But the question of Muslim identity has been an old one and historically all Muslim peoples every where do tend to have strong sense of identity…. Jinnah as a representative democratic parliamentary politician could not afford to ignore the mass sentiment (which may I add Muslims had every right to- it is a universal human right to freedom of expression and identity)…. it become irrelevant whether Mr Jinnah was himself as conscious of this identity… as a representative politician, he understood his role… and his constituency… and his constituency was very clear. And what a great inspiration he was to the people… he managed to bring into politics women and unite all sects of Islam under his typically modern and non-religious leadership… the contribution of the Pakistan Movement to the Muslim women’s movement and their education and development is well recognised… Jinnah uplifted the Muslims … told them to adopt modern professions, go to universities, delve in commerce, become poltically aware and yes… to vote as one block. What did the “secular” Congress do? It coopted the same Mullahs who said women should stay in doors and that Muslims should not go into modern professions… see the difference? Secularism means different things in different contexts… the modernisation and the liberation of the Muslim masses… that Pakistan movement and the Pakistan idea brought (though temporarily halted in the 1980s by General Zia whose family was from the same mullah mold that supported the Congress) … resulted in real and material bourgeoisie development of the Muslim community… this is secularism. Secularism is not dictating to people what their identity should be… but taking an existing identity and molding it into an ever evolving modernity…

    Now it doesn’t matter if you, Mr Joshi, feel that you can’t reconcile yourself to the idea that in the 1940s a great majority of the 100 Million Indians who called themselves Muslims came to see themselves as a nation for however brief a period… and then rejected the Mullahs and chose leaders who were cosmpolitan and non-religious…

    The fact of the matter is the 87% of the Muslim electorate voted for the Muslim League in 1946… ignoring the Muslim League’s demand and refusing to budge from its position that Congress did … may have been the cool thing to do … but then accept that it was Congress’ decision and its insistence on partition of Bengal and Punjab that led to violence in 1947 and not the creation of Pakistan… it can’t be “heads Congress wins tails Muslim Leagues loses”…

    The fact of the matter is that AIML’s idea involved the creation of two semi independent republics under one Union… which would have avoided the bloodshed and the hostility and solved India’s age old problem as well as keeping the subcontinent united… to continously blame the violence of partition on Pakistan is merely an ignorance of history….

    I suggest you read H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”.

    As I must have repeated myself so many times… for Pakistan to be created… India need not have been partitioned. India was partitioned because Congress decided it was “my way or the highway”. Muslim League’s idea of Pakistan was of two semi independent states in a confederation. The creation of these semi-independent Indian states in one confederation of India would have balanced out the historic Hindu-Muslim conflict that had consumed so much of Jinnah’s life …. The partition of August 1947 was- whether Indians (and Pakistanis) admit it or not- as much a partition of the Pakistan idea as it was of British India.

    Also … your comment about minorities… let me say this. Despite the fact that Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as expressed in his speeches as the governor general has not been fully implemented… a minority essentially in Pakistan has two votes to every Muslim’s one. Not only that but a minority woman Pakistani has three votes to a Muslim man’s one vote.

    There are many institutional problems with minorities in Pakistan…. most of them of 1980s origin… but if you ever visit Pakistan you will discover that the minorities in Pakistan… especially Hindus of Karachi are not that badly treated…. but infact make up a significant portion of the upper middle class… there is material equality for many minorities even if there is no constitutional equality… Some of the richest people in Pakistan are non-Muslims … and some of the most educated and progressive people in the country are non-muslims… this is not to say that I defend the discrimination that exists… but we must also recognise the facts. And for all your great lectures on Indian equality…. even today you are trying to force Vande Mataram (which is bad not because it is an ode to homeland – even Sohni Dharti is an ode to homeland… it is bad because it is from an anti-Muslim novel called “Anand Math” by Bankim Chatterjee which praises the British and calls them the saviours against evil Muslims)… violence is rampant against minorities… and people are burnt alive for being non-Hindus… not to say Pakistan is perfect… but then why such self righteousness about our problems ?

  31. September 9th, 2006 5:41 am

    Burpinder singh sahab,

    First of all let us clarify one thing. Jinnah’s secularism is not a Pakistani claim nor merely a claim… every historian- including all Indian historians of partition- consider Jinnah a secularist. H M Seervai, S K Majumdar, Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed, Bandopadhaya, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Patrick French, Sumit Sarkar, H V Hodson, Richard Symonds, Ainslee T Embree etc all consider him secular and his ideal for Pakistan … an inclusive pluralistic democracy. I want to make it clear at the outset because I have had enough of people telling me about my claims…. Secularism means a separation of church and state and to bring together an inclusivist system… Jinnah’s entire life was a struggle to that end… whether today Indians or Pakistanis wish to deny it or not… I will tackle in a minute of Muslim nationalism in a minute…

    Now it is amazing that you say ” If Mr Jinnah was even a fraction of the secularist that you claim he was, then whatever his apprehensions regarding Hindu majority, he should have stayed, and fought”… for did Jinnah not give 35 of his 42 year old political life to the cause of a United India and Hindu Muslim Unity… As for the downtrodden etc… Jinnah’s contributions both inside of the assembly and outside of it for the untouchables and scheduled castes etc are well documented… he worked for them both as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian and as a politician… however… in my opinion the most touching tribute to Quaid-e-Azam came from an untouchable leader who said:

    “All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi ”

    Even Gandhi once commented that he thought Jinnah was planning on uniting all the Non-Hindu and Non-Congress elements under one flag … which is what Jinnah did on 22nd December 1939… the day when he was joined by leaders of all communities, including B R Ambedkar in a day of deliverance from Congress rule…

    But this is all irrelevant… because Jinnah did speak for the Muslims … first as a minority and then as a nation. But the question of Muslim identity has been an old one and historically all Muslim peoples every where do tend to have strong sense of identity…. Jinnah as a representative democratic parliamentary politician could not afford to ignore the mass sentiment (which may I add Muslims had every right to- it is a universal human right to freedom of expression and identity)…. it become irrelevant whether Mr Jinnah was himself as conscious of this identity… as a representative politician, he understood his role… and his constituency… and his constituency was very clear. And what a great inspiration he was to the people… he managed to bring into politics women and unite all sects of Islam under his typically modern and non-religious leadership… the contribution of the Pakistan Movement to the Muslim women’s movement and their education and development is well recognised… Jinnah uplifted the Muslims … told them to adopt modern professions, go to universities, delve in commerce, become poltically aware and yes… to vote as one block. What did the “secular” Congress do? It coopted the same Mullahs who said women should stay in doors and that Muslims should not go into modern professions… see the difference? Secularism means different things in different contexts… the modernisation and the liberation of the Muslim masses… that Pakistan movement and the Pakistan idea brought (though temporarily halted in the 1980s by General Zia whose family was from the same mullah mold that supported the Congress) … resulted in real and material bourgeoisie development of the Muslim community… this is secularism. Secularism is not dictating to people what their identity should be… but taking an existing identity and molding it into an ever evolving modernity…

    Now it doesn’t matter if you feel that you can’t reconcile yourself to the idea that in the 1940s a great majority of the 100 Million Indians who called themselves Muslims came to see themselves as a nation for however brief a period… and then rejected the Mullahs and chose leaders who were cosmpolitan and non-religious…

    The fact of the matter is the 87% of the Muslim electorate voted for the Muslim League in 1946… ignoring the Muslim League’s demand and refusing to budge from its position that Congress did … may have been the cool thing to do … but then accept that it was Congress’ decision and its insistence on partition of Bengal and Punjab that led to violence in 1947 and not the creation of Pakistan… it can’t be “heads Congress wins tails Muslim Leagues loses”…

    The fact of the matter is that AIML’s idea involved the creation of two semi independent republics under one Union… which would have avoided the bloodshed and the hostility and solved India’s age old problem as well as keeping the subcontinent united… to continously blame the violence of partition on Pakistan is merely an ignorance of history….

    I suggest you read H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”.

    As I must have repeated myself so many times… for Pakistan to be created… India need not have been partitioned. India was partitioned because Congress decided it was “my way or the highway”. Muslim League’s idea of Pakistan was of two semi independent states in a confederation. The creation of these semi-independent Indian states in one confederation of India would have balanced out the historic Hindu-Muslim conflict that had consumed so much of Jinnah’s life …. The partition of August 1947 was- whether Indians (and Pakistanis) admit it or not- as much a partition of the Pakistan idea as it was of British India.

    Also … your comment about minorities… let me say this. Despite the fact that Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as expressed in his speeches as the governor general has not been fully implemented… a minority essentially in Pakistan has two votes to every Muslim’s one. Not only that but a minority woman Pakistani has three votes to a Muslim man’s one vote.

    There are many institutional problems with minorities in Pakistan…. most of them of 1980s origin… but if you ever visit Pakistan you will discover that the minorities in Pakistan… especially Hindus of Karachi are not that badly treated…. but infact make up a significant portion of the upper middle class… there is material equality for many minorities even if there is no constitutional equality… Some of the richest people in Pakistan are non-Muslims … and some of the most educated and progressive people in the country are non-muslims… this is not to say that I defend the discrimination that exists… but we must also recognise the facts. And for all your great lectures on Indian equality…. even today you are trying to force Vande Mataram (which is bad not because it is an ode to homeland – even Sohni Dharti is an ode to homeland… it is bad because it is from an anti-Muslim novel called “Anand Math” by Bankim Chatterjee which praises the British and calls them the saviours against evil Muslims)… violence is rampant against minorities… and people are burnt alive for being non-Hindus… not to say Pakistan is perfect… but then why such self righteousness about our problems ?

    Yasser Latif Hamdani

    PS: The word “secularism” and its understanding is what the problem is… secularism means “separation of church and state”. In legal terms a secular state is one which has no state religion… in political science terms a secular democracy is one which places parliament above all religious institutions. It can also mean that the state would be ruled by non-clerical elements… and it can also mean that state treats every religion equally and impartially. At times states can be secular in one way or the other. At times states can be theocratic approaching secularism and at times they can be secular approching theocracy. But ultimately secularism can only be guaranteed in a democratic society.

    Every secular state in the world has a civic religion- the ethos of its cultural majority. The US, a secular country, is overwhelmingly judaeo-christian in a civic sense… Secular India was always expected to be a Hindu Majority country.. where Hindus, by being the virtue of majority, would be define the culture of India… hence- no matter how secular India gets… the official Indian greeting will always be “Namaste” with folded hands… similarly Pakistan being a Muslim Majority country would always have “Assalamualaikum” as its greeting … regardless of how secular or Islamic it is…

    It is natural… and does not say anything about secularism in its truest sense- a separation of church and state. It begs a question about what then is the purpose of making it such an awesome deal. Truth be told… secularism in the end favors and is to the advantage of the majority… because it is always the majority which-by the sheer weight of its religious dogma- stands to be crushed…

    In Ottoman Turkey at the close of the 19th century- just as an example- Non-muslims were the most prosperous communities under the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamit. Andrew Mango in his book on Ataturk draws a very cosmpolitan picture of Istanbul… the overwhelming question he says was not that the country was going down… but whether Muslims would even have a place in the country. Muslims, because of restrictions of Islam and Islamic law, were left far behind …. In sharp contrast… Secular Turkey was 99% Muslim and Muslims of Turkey were forced to adopt modern education, commerce etc… leading to an enrichment for the Muslim Majority which had been hitherto impossible…

    Malaysia… the other great prosperous Muslim nation… interesting is closer in my estimate to Ottoman Turkey… or what Ottoman Turkey had been had it managed to evolve into a constitutional monarchy that Midhet Pasa had implemented in the 1830s…

    Again… secularism has very different meanings in different context. What is important is constitutional democracy, a fair judicial system and affirmative action for minorities… I am convinced that the Indian constitution attempts to do that… and to certain extent Pakistani constitution too… so I think this whole question is, as is, irrelevant.

    Ceteris Paribus… to other issues.

  32. September 17th, 2006 4:26 pm

    dear YLH.

    Pardon me but I really dont understand what were you trying to say in such lengthy posts.

    First you said:
    [quote post="26"]PS: The word “secularismâ€

  33. Yasser Latif Hamdani says:
    September 18th, 2006 12:55 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    The problem here is your view that secularism is essentially incompatible with Islam… when in my view it is not nor does it equal atheism. But here lets discuss Jinnah’s idea of statehood …

    When Jinnah spoke of Islamic Principles(and these references are few and far between) he spoke of equality fraternity and Justice… which are universal and secular principles… that they are Islamic principles (if they are and you believe they are) then Islam buttresses true principles of secularism.

    Instead of quoting selectively and arguing about the words “secular” and “Islamic” … let us instead define what kind of state Jinnah wanted, without getting into the debate of whether this state is Islamic or secular …

    Jinnah’s conception of Pakistan – as far as I have understood it- was as follows:

    1. A state based on universal adult franchise where every citizen of the state would be equal citizen regardless of religion caste or creed (21st May 1947, 14th July 1947, 11th August 1947, March 1948 address to the people of the US via radio, March 1948 address to the people of Australia via radio and there are several others)

    2. A state where a person’s religion does not matter and is not the business of the state. A state where faith is the personal business of a citizen (11th August 1947, 14th July 1947… several other pronouncements to the constituent assembly)

    3. A state where there is no distinction in the eyes of law between Muslim and Non-Muslim…(17th December 1947)

    4. A state where a Non-muslim/non-believer could become the constitutional head of the state… Jinnah reportedly struck off the words “in the name of god” from his oath of office not because he did not believe in god but because he wanted to lay down the principle that even a non-believer could become the head of the state in Pakistan.

    5. A Pakistan “that would not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission”. Jinnah as a lawyer presumably was using these words in proper legal sense. A theocracy is a state which places scripture and doctrine over the will of the people… Contrary to this, Jinnah believed that the sovereignty rested with the people (as opposed to what our lawmakers said later)… thus by Jinnah’s standards.. Pakistan would qualify as exactly what he was opposed to.

    Now consider…

    Jinnah told several of his colleagues when asked… “Sharia?Whose Sharia”… the fact of the matter is that Jinnah was well aware that every time a doctrinal controversey is brought forth… it ends up dividing Muslims themselves.. recall his break with Gandhi was over the issue of religionization of the non-cooperation movement. Jinnah as the leader of the Muslims knew well that amongst his followers there are Shias and Sunnis and amongst them there are Ismailis, Ithna Asharis, Barelvis, Deobandis and above all, his staunchest supporters were Ahmadis…

    Hence every time the issue of Sharia came up Jinnah vetoed it. He threw out Raja of Mahmudabad for raising doctrinal controversies which he felt would divide the Muslims. He vetoed Dr Kazi’s resolution in 1943 which wanted to commit Pakistan to Quran and Sunnah… He told his close colleagues, that Pakistan would be a modern state based on modern principles and reprimanded them for speaking in retrogressive terms… Now the statements you quote should be seen in their proper context. To Jinnah a modern egalitarian democratic state which is impartial to its citizens’ faith embodied essential Islamic principles.

    Also consider…

    Jinnah made it a point to appoint Jogindranath Mandal, a Hindu, first as the representative of Muslims on the interim government, then it was Mandal who opened the first legislative session of the new state of Pakistan- a unique honor, and finally Jinnah chose Jogindranath Mandal to become Pakistan’s first Law Minister..

    And if the point wasn’t driven home, Jinnah got another Hindu to write Pakistan’s first national anthem which was played during Jinnah’s tenure…

    The very fact that it was he who was asked to write the first national anthem of Pakistan within less than a week before its formal birth indicates the potentiality of its happening. It is interesting to recall that writing the national anthem of Pakistan was made at the behst of its founder Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The request was in conformity with his famous speech of 11th August 1947 in which he had said, “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” His request to a secular Hindu poet filled into his vision of Pakistan. Alas he did not live long to put that vision into practice.

    http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31Aug04-Print-Edition/163108200462.htm

    There are several other nuggets which prove beyond a matter of any doubt as to what kind of state Jinnah wanted.

  34. September 18th, 2006 1:39 am

    Dear YLH

    Thanks for your prompt response.You said:

    [quote post="26"]here is your view that secularism is essentially incompatible with Islam… when in my view it is not nor does it equal atheism. Bu[/quote]

    That is certainly not my view.I rather prefer to burry my head in orignal source for referrence rather just beliving some XYZ’s defnition of anything.I quoted definition of SECULARISM given by founder or you say Baba-e-Secular George Jacob Holyoake in 1847 and did spend waste little time to learn more about reasons of secularism.You search google you will find about or else I can also give you link upon request.When the founders are clearly saying that secularism was introduced to protect aethists right then why one should believe in any other theory?Its like I ignore newton’s equations and theories and believe in some xyz.

    Sepration of Church and State,this is copied a lot by our educated desis to support secular govt but what do you understand about this?I am not sure but do you equate a Christian teaching equal to Islamic teaching?If yes then ok fine i would understand your source of information.If not then I really want to know that how secpration of church and state equal to sepration of masjid/madrasah and state.

    Regarding Jinnah sahab,his speech you pointed in no 2 statment.I really dont find it a secularist statement anyway because even Quran also says similar things like There is no compulsion in religion and Lakum Denokum Waliyadin.Isn’t Islamic teaching capable to absord non-Muslims?

    I think Jinnah was infinite time clear about secularism and Islam than current Pakistanis who always find difficulty to find freedom within relgiion.

  35. Yasser Latif Hamdani says:
    September 18th, 2006 2:27 am

    Again let me quote my own post… lets put aside for a second this distinction that you wish to draw between secularism and Islam… and just concentrate on the nitty gritties of Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan…

    Do you disagree with any of the following:

    [quote comment="2801"]

    Jinnah’s conception of Pakistan – as far as I have understood it- was as follows:

    1. A state based on universal adult franchise where every citizen of the state would be equal citizen regardless of religion caste or creed (21st May 1947, 14th July 1947, 11th August 1947, March 1948 address to the people of the US via radio, March 1948 address to the people of Australia via radio and there are several others)

    2. A state where a person’s religion does not matter and is not the business of the state. A state where faith is the personal business of a citizen (11th August 1947, 14th July 1947… several other pronouncements to the constituent assembly)

    3. A state where there is no distinction in the eyes of law between Muslim and Non-Muslim…(17th December 1947)

    4. A state where a Non-muslim/non-believer could become the constitutional head of the state… Jinnah reportedly struck off the words “in the name of god” from his oath of office not because he did not believe in god but because he wanted to lay down the principle that even a non-believer could become the head of the state in Pakistan.

    5. A Pakistan “that would not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission”. Jinnah as a lawyer presumably was using these words in proper legal sense. A theocracy is a state which places scripture and doctrine over the will of the people… Contrary to this, Jinnah believed that the sovereignty rested with the people (as opposed to what our lawmakers said later)… thus by Jinnah’s standards.. Pakistan would qualify as exactly what he was opposed to.

    [/quote]

    If you agree with these issues… in my view, it is immaterial what you call such a state… a rose is rose by any name.

    But for the record.. such a state legally and constitutionally falls in the purview of a secular state according to theory. If this is also an Islamic state, then your argument is that a secular state is an Islamic state.

    Also… the historical development of secularism started in Cardinal Richellieu of France who was a Christian Priest as well as the Prime Minister… Anyone who deserves to be called the father of secularism is John Locke…

    George Jacob Holyoake (born in 1817) is not the father of secularism by any definition, given that he hardly gave a theory that spoke of state organisation and given that completely secular states like the Rhode Island Colony had in been existence since the 1650s… the first amendment to the constitution of Unted States of America establishing the principle of separation of church and state came as early as 1789 … so to quote one definition as overriding definition is wrong.

  36. September 19th, 2006 1:16 am

    dear YLH!

    Lets just quit wasting time about the term “secularism”.Atleast you and me both agree with that secularism was actually concept of seprating a religon from state business,right?I disagree with that too and I am not in favor of sepration of religion from state business.Please keep in mind that we are talkig about Islam here not christianity.I asked you before that do you equate Islam and Christianity or other religion?.You guys would have done researched that bible laws were not liked by aethists of America in late 60s and they demanded to exclude religous content from textbooks later it become a law to keep religious matter aside.Now A simple but a direct question,Do you guys believe that Islam is NOT capable to deal with non-muslims’ life and can not provide security,izzat and other necessary things required to lead life?If you say Yes then fine then no reason to extend this debate further but at the time same time it looks kinda funny that people claim that they are muslims too.I as muslim believe that Islam has 100% capability to deal with state business where non-muslims also lead life.There are several stories of Islamic history where non-muslims used to live under muslim law.I dont have any doubt that Islam cant protect minorities.Yes if i was a christian then i also favored keep religious matter seprately because I have read verses of different bible versions[old and new testmants] and sevral verses of Matthew,Deut,Numbers,Jhon and what not dont appear in favor of minorities,even for their own people[i quoted verses somwehrre on this site]

    I have not met any muslim yet who is 5 times regular,read quran,follow islam and claim he is wiling to keep islam aside from state business.if one claims like that either he never read Quran and other sources or a liar.”Muslim” is not a award that it is given to someone,its all about practising a religion.There is no partial thing in Islam that one pick something which is good for him and leaves other.There is a very famous verse of Quran(2:85) which says that one has to completely enter into Islam or just ignore it.I fully believe tht Islam is unlike Christianity[which many non-muslims believed as well] and we dont need to throw iSlam aside and forumulate our own state laws.If one does feel that Islam is like christianity and cant handle state business then say without hesitation rather hiding under cover of secularism or anything else.Usually such people prefer to choose things from Islam, like I have met people who dont give Zakat,dont believe in salat,dont believe in shariah by saying that it was only for desert land 1400 yeas back and in last they say “I am a muslim”.

    The core problem is that we dont consider ourselves educated unles we adapt some western stuff in our life and those who dont adapt are labelled as “Mullahs”.No offense but for me such people are very confused souls.At one side they want to keep their bonding with Islam so that they are not cursed by society and on other hand they believe in following west which would make them super.In urdu there are idioms like Adha teetar Adha bater etc etc.Intresting thing is that GOOD things of west are never adapted like their honesty,integrity,patriotism,discplined etc etc.we choose residue of their culture and life style.

    In conclusion,If I am living in a state governed by non-Muslim religious law and is providing me all facilities and rights then I am more happy to live under such laws rather I prefer sepration of state and religion.I am sorry from all of you for yet another long post.Hope it wouldn’t happen again.Thanks again!

    p.s:YLH,Read “principals of secularism” to understand what is secularism and 1867 was not mentioned his DOB it was the year he gave a public address abot secularism laws.

  37. Yasser Latif Hamdani says:
    September 19th, 2006 3:00 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    Please note that your views are wholely irrelevant to the discussion here.

    1. We’ve established what kind of state Jinnah wanted. If you think that the concepts given by Jinnah as quoted hereinabove, equal an Islamic state, good for you… but the vision stays the same.. and many like myself consider it secular. If Islam favors these principles, then Islam favors secularism.

    2. I don’t care what George Jacob Holyoake said… he wasn’t born till the 19th century… whereas the concept of a separation of church and state has been around much longer than that… with Rhode Island formally putting this into writing as early as 1650s.

    3. The issue is not about whether Islamic principles can be a source of secular law… all secular democracies of the west are essentially based on Judaeo-Christian sense of morality… the issue here is whether a Non-Muslim can be considered an equal citizen of the state or not… Jinnah thought a non-Muslim or non-believer could be as good a Pakistani as a Muslim…

    4. Jinnah was against raising doctrinal issues because they divided Muslims around sectarian lines.

  38. saima nasir says:
    September 19th, 2006 7:12 am

    The daily Dawn published an article in June 1995 written by late Iqbal Ahmed, a prolific writer, journalist and an intellectual, unintimidated by power or authority, under the heading “The Betrayed Promise.” The article is an analysis of so called Islamisation of Pakistan and how it had shattered Jinnah’s dream of modern and progressive Pakistan. He writes, “In less than three decades we had four ‘minorities’, each a little less Pakistani than the so-called Muslim majority. During this year alone Christian citizens had to take asylums abroad because even after a court had acquitted them of blasphemy charges, their safety was not assured; an Ahmadi was beaten to death inside a government building, and scores languish in prisons without trial. If he were to appear in my dream how shall I convey our shame to the lean old man whose life and work we celebrate every year with much fanfare and enthusiasm.” One can read the whole article in the link given below:

    http://www.bitsonline.net/eqbal/articles_by_eqbal_view.asp?id=6&cid=2

  39. Yasser Latif Hamdani says:
    September 20th, 2006 6:02 am

    Excellent choice Saima…

    And this Part 1 of the same article… called “Jinnah in a League of his own”

    http://www.bitsonline.net/eqbal/articles_by_eqbal_view.asp?id=5&cid=5

  40. sohail says:
    February 2nd, 2007 1:51 pm

    hi
    there isa famous milli song played a lot on national occasions .its called …….hum zinda qaum hai.painda qaum hai….hum sub ki hai shan .hamara pakistan pakistan pakistan…
    the sad thing is that we evry year have to remind ourselves that we are a zinda qaum !!!
    that means were half dead if not full. our national character is amply displayed by this song, the passion of those who think we are a zinda qaum and the inherent irony in the same song that in fact we are dead, morally, politically and economically.

  41. February 9th, 2007 7:13 am

    [...] Mohamed Ali Jinnah, it seems, was not a “real freedom fighter” and he did “nothing for Islam.” (On Jinnah, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). So says the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). And by what logic does Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his party come to this conclusion? According to the party spokesman: ““Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering.â€

  42. Ehtesham says:
    February 14th, 2007 5:24 pm

    Did ppl see the great news today. Motion in assembly approved to include passage from this speech within the constitution. I think it is great.

  43. Akbar says:
    February 15th, 2007 3:45 pm

    Someone put a link for this somewhere else, but I wanted to say here also that there was a very nice Editorial in ‘The News’ today about this:

    ——

    The Quaid’s words

    The introduction of a bill in the National Assembly proposing the inclusion of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s famous speech that he delivered to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1941 is a welcome move on the part of the treasury MNA who has moved the bill. The speech is famous and perhaps controversial because of attempts by successive vested interests and shapers of our national ideology and worldview to censor it, especially because it shows the Quaid’s vision of a Pakistan where, in his own words, people would be free to go to their temples, to their mosques or any other place of worship, that they may belong to any religion or caste or creed and that would have “nothing to do with the business of the state”. Clearly, he saw a Pakistan where the state and the government of the day would not intrude into the private lives of citizens and where the latter would be free to practice the faith of their choosing without fear of punishment or prosecution.

    Had that great man been alive today he would have been most upset and disappointed. He would have been upset by seeing laws such as the ones dealing with blasphemy, he would have been unhappy at the discriminatory treatment of the minorities, he would have been particularly dismayed by the way we treated our only Nobel Prize winner and how a government by one fell swoop outlawed a whole community. Had Jinnah been alive today, the high level of hypocrisy and pervasive misuse of religion would not have been escaped him either — and if anything he would have probably found it revolting. For instance, how does any government explain giving students of a particular faith extra marks for memorising their Holy Book while not allowing the same option to those of other faiths. Of course, one is referring here to the provision – which began with General Zia’s dark rule — where students who applied to government-owned colleges were given extra marks if they had learnt the Holy Quran by heart. This is discriminatory because a similar concession is not granted to non-Muslim applicants.

    The fact is that the incorporation of Jinnah’s speech into the Constitution, as envisaged by the MNA who has moved the bill, is not so important as is its implementation in letter and spirit. Sixty years after this country’s birth, there is still controversy over what the country should be and what the Quaid wanted it to be. One thing is clear enough: if one reads his speeches, this one in particular, then it becomes clear as crystal that he did not want Pakistan to become a theocratic state. That probably helps explain why the religious parties and the clergy were all opposed to him and his efforts to create Pakistan.

    In any case, there are several constitutional provisions, not least Article 25, which guarantee all citizens equality before the law and the right to equal protection. Much of what this article and several others are guaranteeing relate to what Jinnah said in his Aug 11 speech but there are openly ignored or violated. Even if the bill does not get passed, the government should do its bit to at least make available to citizens their constitutional rights.

Your Ad Here

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)