Adil Najam
What 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.
Ayesha has an interesting post here
=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
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
It is, however, his analysis and his conclusion that I found the most insightful. He says:
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/midnigh ts-children-jawaharlal-nehru.html
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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…