August 11: Jinnah’s Vision for Pakistan

Posted on August 11, 2007
Filed Under >Yasser Latif Hamdani, History, People, Politics, Religion, Society
160 Comments
Total Views: 65367

Share

Guest Post by Yasser Latif Hamdani

Today being 11th August Day has a great significance in Pakistan’s history.

60 years ago, Mr. Jinnah, Pakistan’s undisputed Quaid-e-Azam, Governor General and elected President of the Constituent Assembly elaborated his vision for the future of Pakistan.

Jinnah’s vision is unambiguous.

1. The state would be completely impartial to religion of the individual.
2. The state where every citizen would be equal and there would be no distinction between citizen on the basis of faith or caste or creed.

A lot of controverey has emerged about this speech. Any student of political science would tell you that is the classic exposition of a modern secular democratic state. However, the issue of whether this constitutes a “secular” state or an “Islamic” state is besides the point. A rose by any name is after all a rose.

Here is what Mr. Jinnah said on that fateful day. It is worth reading in the full:

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of every one of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling the exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than has been done. A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgment there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record its verdict in favour of it. And what is more it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a United India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster. May be that view is correct ; may be it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities the Hindu community and the Muslim community-because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabies, Shias, Sunnis and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnvas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis, and so on-will vanish. Indeed if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection ; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time but for this. Therefore we must learn a lesson from this. You are free ; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of 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. As you know, history shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some State in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the Government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today you might say with justice that Roman Catholic and Protestants do not exists ; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen, of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time 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.

Many have alleged that this was the only time he expressed such a vision. Unfortunately, these people are not very well versed with the life and work of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, who was after all a staunch secular Indian nationalist for most of his life and had turned to the Pakistan idea only after exhausting all the options for a United India.
Here are some of his other statements regarding what kind of Pakistan he wanted:

Jinnah Quaid Pakistan25th October 1947. Interview with Reuters’ Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters’ Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where.

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’

30th October 1947. To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore.

The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.

Same Day. On Radio Pakistan.

Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.

9th January 1948. Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi.

Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.

25th January. Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi.

I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.

3rd February 1948. Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh.

I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

21st March 1948. Mass Rally at Dacca.

Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said: We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.

22nd March 1948. Meeting with Hindu Legislators.

We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.

23rd March 1948. Meeting with the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’.

We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.

13 June 1948. Speaking to Quetta Parsis.

Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.

Jinnah’s address to the people of the US in Feb 1948.

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.

So what did Jinnah stand for?

He stood for justice and fair play for every one regardless of religion caste or creed. Let us make a solemn promise to ourselves on this 11th August Day (or the day I like to call Jinnah’s Pakistan Day) that we shall honor this vision of Pakistan as a pluralist, inclusive and progressive democratic state.

160 Comments on “August 11: Jinnah’s Vision for Pakistan”

  1. dawa-i-dil says:
    August 11th, 2007 10:50 am

    Jinnah clearly said that….

    in eyes of state ..all will be equal…

    hindus will not be 2nd class citizens…

    and exactly same thing happened ….

    for 4 months most powerful man of Pakistan was a hindu who could negate even the orders of Genearl Musharaf…

    Today..he is 2nd most powerful man of Pakistan…

    I maens..his highness..his honurable..a man of unbeatable respect and repute….Justice Rana Bhaagwandas..od honurable SC of Pakistan….

    not a single voice from 160 millions ..people..when he took this post..

    I am proud of my nation ..I am proud of my Pakistan….

  2. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    August 11th, 2007 11:02 am

    Well said Yasar. Religion is a private affair of the individuals and must be kept out of the affairs of the state.

  3. SH KAVI says:
    August 11th, 2007 12:10 pm

    I could’t agree more with you more Mr. Alvi. The sooner we realize this, the better we would be as a nation.

  4. Karim says:
    August 11th, 2007 1:12 pm

    Thank you for this.
    Really love the picture of the train, I believe from 1947. Brought so many emotions.
    I think we must keep reminding oursleves of these quotes and constantly ask what we have done to Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. I think most things went wrong with Zia and his ‘Islamization.’

  5. August 11th, 2007 1:21 pm

    Is this not a repeated post adil sb? I mean same topic was discussed last year?

    So, my take(which I have discussed with this author in past)

    Jinnah wanted a Secular Pakistan
    As I said in my post, When people in world can blame Allah as Moon God then why not Jinnah could be abused as a “Secularist”. the point is facts can’t be changed. :-)

  6. ali raza says:
    August 11th, 2007 2:49 pm

    the following is the most recommended comment on BBC NEWS website and i quote

    The contrast between the two nations since 1947 couldn’t be more stark. Indian is the world’s largest democracy and is becoming a major economic player. A democratic form of government has served India well. Pakistan is run by a military dictatorship trying to keep a lid on a large radical Islamic movement bent on Jihad against India and the West. Unfortunately, Pakistan is becoming a failed state with nuclear weapons that the Jihadists may one day rule. A nightmare scenario for us all.

    Victor Perry, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  7. ali raza says:
    August 11th, 2007 2:52 pm

    unless PAKISTANIS do not extricate themselves from the choke hold of psychotic religious impulse, & PUNJAB sees it self as a leader rather than owner of PAKISTAN this forum might as well should close it self and let go of all the PAKISTANIAT

  8. ali raza says:
    August 11th, 2007 2:58 pm

    majority of PAKISTANIS ahere to the SAUDI funded ideology which is intolerant as one could be i see no hope, what i see is INDIA invading with the AUSPICIOUS of WEST on the PRETENSE that PAKISTAN is a failed state which is harboring “JIHADIS”, India may be extremely stupid in doing so but SUB-CONINENT has a history of profound idiocy.

  9. YLH says:
    August 11th, 2007 3:26 pm

    I’d like to say just one thing: Discussing whether this vision can be termed secular or Islamic is futile.

    Those who feel that the abovementioned is Islamic should have no problem adopting these fine ideals and making religion a personal matter and helping usher in a society where for example a Hindu or Christian can be elected President of the state because that is what equal citizenship entails. This is Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan.

    It upsets me to praise India for anything but this morning on this August Day of the 11th of the month… I read the news that after electing a woman president, India has now elected a Muslim vice president. Remember the last president of India was a Muslim. One should give credit where its due… the country that the Quaid left behind today is closer to his vision than the country the Quaid wanted to implement his vision in.

  10. baber says:
    August 11th, 2007 3:50 pm

    …………..because that is what equal citizenship entails….
    YLH you are 100% rite…
    they say you can’t have freedom unless you are willing to give it to others.

  11. D_a_n says:
    August 11th, 2007 3:56 pm

    unfortunately…. unless Pakistan can shake off the Salafi and Wahabi Sickness that has us in a collective chokehold The Quaids vision will remain just that…..a vision…

  12. atif2 says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:14 pm

    in response to the quotations of Jinnah that I put yesterday that clearly imply that he wanted an Islamic state in Pakistan, you have produced a plethora of his quotations on minority rights!

    are you suggesting that an Islamic state, as envisioned by Jinnah, cannot assure minority rights? Even jews will beg to differ with you on that!

    The fact of the matter is that Jinnah clearly wanted a state where Islam played a key role (as per the quotations I put yesterday). Now we can debate whether he wanted a theocratic state or not, but one thing is VERY clear: secularism was NOT what he wanted. It is YOUR agenda…DO NOT color jinnah in that, you shameless dishonest vandalizer of history!

    Even if you dont agree with Jinnah’s quotations regarding Islamic state that I put yesterday, you must at least admit that Jinnah said different things to different people in different times through his 70 odd years of life.

  13. atif2 says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:17 pm

    here is Jinnah, telling us about his vision of Pakistan. I challenge Yasser Hamdani to bring even ONE sentence where Jinnah used the word “secularism” in regards to Pakistan. Afterall, the word “secularism” was in vogue at that time, give ataturk and all.

    If manto has a personal agenda regarding secularism in Pakistan, thats fine! But DO NOT vandalize Jinnah’s legacy!!! Thats criminal!!!

    You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy and Islamic social justice in your own native soil.
    –Jinnah

    We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.
    –Jinnah

    Along with this, keep up your morale. Do not be afraid of death. Our religion teaches us to be always prepared for death. We should face it bravely to save the honor of Pakistan and Islam. There is no better salvation for a Muslim than the death of a martyr for a righteous cause.
    Jinnah

  14. Ibrahim says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:18 pm

    Salamalikum,

    Very nice research. Most probably, Jinnah’s vision was what Hamdani sahib described. Whatever is mentioned of Jinnah is in Islam. Nowhere in Islam or Pakistan’s Islam-based constitution does it say to abuse the minority or not let them worship, and do other things to the minorities. If it didn’t pan out this way for Pakistan (which I contend is wrong anyways), it is because of the secularist elite who always ruled Pakistan with one exception and not because of some other reason.

    Second, whatever is quoted of MA Jinnah is from Islam, alhamdulillah. But, Islam doesn’t stop there. There is much more to it. Whatever Jinnah said about Islam (that is quoted here) is in all religion—no religion contradicts humanity. But, it is a grave mistake on part of Jinnah, if it was the case, and of people today to restrict Islam to these basic humanity characteristics. Hence, Jinnah’s overall vision is incorrect and not fit for a Muslim state, and therefore his “ideals” must not be followed completely. This means if he wanted a secular state where there was little to no sign of shariat-based laws, then he was gravely in the wrong.

    Lastly, non-Muslim not being a President/PM shouldn’t be an issue. Different cultures/religions have different mindsets and values. In the US, for example, even if you lived almost every single day of your life on American soil, but were born in another country, you cannot become a president even if you are a “citizen”. Take whatever conservative/cautious ideology is behind this policy, multiply it by billions, and that is the ideology that is behind a non-Muslim not becoming a President/PM in Pakistan. This is no breach of equality. As for India, when a Muslim becomes a PM of that country, then come and highlight India. The most important work of presidents in parliamentary democracies is to cut ribbons for events and have their pictures taken.

  15. atif2 says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:18 pm

    for those interested in alternative view, please visit:

    http://www.chowk.com/unplugged/t/43363

    thanks

  16. YLH says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:20 pm

    Dear Atif mian,

    May I suggest that you read the article once again. It is true that my view (shared most historians and political scientists) is that this is a secular vision. However if indeed the abovementioned vision is Islamic, then you should not have any problem implementing it.

    Unfortunately, however, such a vision has not come to pass in Pakistan. Whether Islamic or secular, I am glad we agree that this vision MUST be implemented.

    I, therefore, request that you kindly cease and desist from personal attacks and abuses, before the moderators ban you which would be a tragedy.

    Also your comment about “Mirzaees” is sad because Zafrullah Khan voted for the Objectives Resolution- the basis of Islamisation of Pakistan’s polity.

  17. Dewana Aik says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:26 pm

    Can we put a timeline to various Jinnah sayings? He used to be a congress member once and shared their views but that changed once he switched sides to Muslim League. Perhaps he changed his other views over time as well?

  18. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:28 pm


    Whether Islamic or secular, I am glad we agree that this vision MUST be implemented

    That’s the common point which I agree. If you are happy to call plate of Biryani a Daal chawal plate then it wouldn’t hurt anyone.

  19. atif2 says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:29 pm

    for those interested in seeing the “secular” Jinnah, here is a letter he wrote promising sharia (!) in Pakistan!!!!

    As i said before, fighting for secularism in Pakistan is a good cause, but vandalizing a historic figure like Jinnah for your purposes is criminal!

    The Pir of Manki Sharif

  20. YLH says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:29 pm

    All the statements quoted here are from 1947-1948- last year of the Quaid’s life.

  21. YLH says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:33 pm

    Yaar Adnan,

    You may call Biryani Daal Chawal but it shall always be Biryani… my point exactly.

  22. Dewana Aik says:
    August 11th, 2007 4:33 pm

    Guys whatever you do please do not ruin this thread. It is incumbent upon us to come to some sort of resolution over what should be the basis of our country. 60 years is already too late to be discussing this and trying to get an agreement but better late then never. Please show some patriotic responsibility.

  23. August 11th, 2007 5:19 pm

    This is the most interesting discussion (leave it to ATP for the most thought provoking ideas!), one that hits home very closely

    “However, the issue of whether this constitutes a

  24. Dewana Aik says:
    August 11th, 2007 5:43 pm

    Jinnah

  25. Faisal says:
    August 11th, 2007 5:45 pm

    It is as clear as day-light that a state must be secular in its operations, there are no two ways about it.

  26. August 11th, 2007 5:45 pm

    Also, I’d like to point out that people tend to blame Mr. Jinnah for the entire notion of Partition. This is not true; in fact, Mr. Jinnah had complained that in some ways, the idea of Partition had been foisted onto him. And there were others who mobilized the notion of Partition, namely right wing Hindutva groups (who also capitalized on the refugee problem that arose out of the “population exchanges” and helped foster animosities, etc).

  27. YLH says:
    August 11th, 2007 5:56 pm

    Dear Desi Italiana,

    You are entitled to your opinion but I don’t agree with any of it and I have explained elsewhere how and why Pakistan came into being. (You may want to read H M Seervai’s Partition of India Legend and Reality to get a better sense of my perspective) As for the sentiment against partition or for it – this is not the forum for it.

    The purpose of this post however is to underline Jinnah’s aspirations for Pakistan which remain unfulfilled and which we wish to fulfill. Simple.

    Hope you will excuse me for not responding to your points which I consider irrelevant to the issue at hand.

  28. Akbar says:
    August 11th, 2007 5:59 pm

    I think the heart of this is what some have pointed out. The mistaken notions some have of what SECULAR means. Some people insist on the silly notion that secular means ‘anti-religious’. This is nonsense. Anyone who has taken even an introductory class in high school political science knows that secular means that affairs of state are separate from affairs of religion. It does NOT mean that one is anti-religious. In fact, it is the responsibility of a secular liberal state to safeguard the rights of ALL religions within it. The problem is only when the rights of some religions or groups are made less … this is what leads to ethnic or sectarian struggles. By the way I just used teh word liberals, unfortunately there are some jahils in Pakistan who consider ‘liberal’ to mean ‘fuhash’ and ‘indecent.’

    I guess I should not be too harsh on Pakistani right-wingers on this day. Right wingers in USA also do not like secular liberalism and liek to construct their ‘jihads’ in the name of religion. Similarly, right wingers in India do the same. This is what makes them the ‘right’ wing… their belief that only they are right!

    Anyhow, thank you for a very timely post. I am sure we will not resolve the debate here. But we need to have the debate.

  29. August 11th, 2007 6:27 pm

    YLH:

    “The purpose of this post however is to underline Jinnah

  30. Daktar says:
    August 11th, 2007 6:56 pm

    As others have siad this is an important record for us Pakistanis to think about. This is not about what happened in 1947 or should have happened. This is about the meaning of that in 2007. 60 years ago this is more important than ever before. The question of Islamic or secualr state has been talked about too often. The real question for Pakistan and Pakistanis today is whether a Muslim state can fulfil the aspirations of the Muslims in it without suffocating the existence of non-Muslims and whether a state of muslims can be modern and progressive. There is no doubt in my mind that Jinnah Sahab woudl have said yes. But in 60 years we have not been able to prove the proposition yet.

  31. Reichhof says:
    August 11th, 2007 7:06 pm

    Desi Italiana:
    I don’t find any irrelevance in your post.
    Beware, the so called “liberal” Pakistanis tend to be sometimes democratic on the surface, but dictators in the heart!

  32. Daktar says:
    August 11th, 2007 7:19 pm

    Desi Italiana, I will not speak for Yasser. He can speak for himself I am sure.

    But I do feel similar to him. Your message is not irrlevant, but it does places the discussion in a very differnet context than his post and I like him hope that this will not become yet another diatribe on partition and should it have happened should it not. Lets get over that one. Its done. Finished. Water under the bridge. Most Pakistanis accept and celebrate it. For many Indians it seems its still a ‘live’ and important wound.

    Please, I am saying this in general and not directed at you specifically. I find it interesting that for many Indians as soon as you say Jinnah they immeidately say ‘two nation theory’. I understand that if you view it from the point of Indian history that IS his most important identity. NOT so for most Pakistanis. Nearly all of us know his stance on this and many of us believe the two-nation theory to be right. But it really is not THE big thing for us in terms of Jinnah’s legacy. Our issue is to try to interpret Jinnah for today as Yasser is doing. Reinterpreting partition is intellectually interesting, but not politicaly imortant today.

    Speaking for myself, this is why I roll my eyes as say ‘here we go again!’ when I see teh discussion slipping again into ‘two nation theory’ and ‘partition or not.’ The challenege for me is no longer whether we were two nations or not (I think we were and are!). The challenege is how we (Pakistanis) become one nation and how Jinnah’s legacy might help us there.

  33. Beej Kumar says:
    August 11th, 2007 7:39 pm

    In fairness, YLH must be commended for trying to bring a modicum of “secularism” (at least in theory, since in practice the country is 97% Muslim) to the country of Pakistan.

  34. August 11th, 2007 10:37 pm

    For those who say, “Partition happened, let’s get over it,” why not tell this to families in India who have relatives in Pakistan and vice versa? It’s so easy to dismiss history when history still lives on today. It’s not only “intellectually” stimulating, it’s about talking about contemporary issues as well.

    For those who say, “Let’s bring up Jinnah and connect it to present day Pakistan,” you do realize that when you dig up someone/something from 60 years ago, who was a product of his times, you can’t divorce the historical, social, and political context from his message? It’s difficult to transplant his message from another era and insert it into the present day one without a critical take. So please save the “Let’s talk about not 1947, but 2007!!!” and then revert to “Let’s try to fulfill the legacy of someone who was speaking in 1947!” This is a stale message. If you want to talk about today, you can find those who are speaking today who believe in these messages. All too often, nations hark back to an idealized/romanticized figure in the past for the present day.

    “I find it interesting that for many Indians as soon as you say Jinnah they immeidately say

  35. BD says:
    August 11th, 2007 11:16 pm

    @desi italiana

    I think the discussions on the ‘p’ word have been beaten to death.

    The post is about Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan. What happened to post-Jinnah Pakistan is not because of Jinnah or partition, but because of dorky policies adopted by the leaders who succeeded him.

    I would be more than happy to discuss about the ‘p’ word, but not at the cost of hijacking an interesting post.

    I would just like to mention this. The invalidity of two-nation theory in todays times doesn’t establish its invalidity in 1947.

    The bottom line is that there’s a whole new generation of Pakistanis and Indians who came to this world post partition. Both of them are comfortable with their new political identities.

    Ultimately the matter boils down to ‘aam aadmi’. All he cares about is ‘roti kapda aur makan’.

    Let’s not carry on with the ‘p’ word, at least not in this post :(

  36. BD says:
    August 11th, 2007 11:19 pm

    @Akbar

    hehe, I was going to give the example of Badshah Akbar to drive home the point about secularism :D

  37. Atif Mian says:
    August 12th, 2007 12:36 am

    Dear YLH,

    I completely agree with the view that a “secular” pakistan as Jinnah envisioned it, is the only way forward. Let this be our objective.

    My question to you and perhaps the ATP audience in general is: How do we go from our present state of affairs to this ultimate objective?

    For example, there is not a single prominent political party that ascribes to the Jinnah principles as its manifesto. Does that mean that people in Pakistan (at large) do not share Jinnah’s position either?

  38. Shafique says:
    August 12th, 2007 1:39 am

    (1)

  39. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 2:45 am

    Desi Italiana,

    My humble suggestion once more is that you search my name “Yasser Latif Hamdani” on google and you will find many discussions where I have discussed Jinnah’s evolution (you may call it deterioration but I believe it was evolution) from a staunch Secular Indian Nationalist to the apostle of Muslim separatism. You very rightly pointed out that Jinnah himself was a reluctant partitionist. But what forced a secular minded liberal barrister to opt for Pakistan is a question that is a completely tangential issue.

    Right now however this post is about Jinnah’s vision of a state and how far the constitution has veered off from it. You are welcomed to discuss partition at any of the other articles that I have written and notify me of the same. I assure you – you won’t find me lacking in my responses.

  40. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 2:49 am

    Dear Shafique,

    I can assure you that the quote you produced is NOT from the 11th August speech.

    Infact the 11th August speech makes no mention of Islam at all. I produce here the complete text of 11th August speech in toto- as is voice recorded.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Mr. Jinnah’s presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan
    August 11, 1947

    ——————————————————————————–

    Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!
    I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me – the greatest honour that is possible to confer – by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

    Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

    The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering – I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse – is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

    Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

    The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

    I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

    I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. 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. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

    Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time 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.

    Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

    I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads:

    I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency’s capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:
    On the occasion of of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Source: Dawn, Independence Day Supplement, August 14, 1999.
    Transcribed from printed copy by Shehzaad Nakhoda

  41. Kruman says:
    August 12th, 2007 3:07 am

    The most pertinent thing today is that Jinnah saw no role of army in politics. That’s enough for now.

  42. August 12th, 2007 3:48 am

    YLH:

    “My humble suggestion once more is that you search my name

  43. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 12th, 2007 3:57 am


    This is nonsense. Anyone who has taken even an introductory class in high school political science knows that secular means that affairs of state are separate from affairs of religion.

    that’s the problem with people like you who are still living in era of childhood hence still in school. The practical definition of secularism is entirely different that what you learnt in papers. Just look around, the events happening actually exposing the true meaning of secularism. Secularism in India means violence against Muslims and other minorities. Same goes in US and Turkey. No matter how much these countries do propaganda about their so called Secular state, ground realities reflect something else.

  44. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 12th, 2007 4:05 am

    kem chay- this is the only thing I know about gujrati. I also know chay is a verb means “is”.. Oh the other is “Samborh” means ‘to listen’. :-)

    this is off topic but since few Indians are participating here, I would really like to read some Indian blog regarding their 15th august that who’s considered HERO for them for nation building or independence, is it Gandhi or Nehru? I mean are Indian thankful for any of them or one of them because I think Gandhi isn’t like much because he’s blamed for partition.

  45. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 4:32 am

    Dear Desi Italiana,

    I can’t help you with your blinkers. Only you can :). You sound like a raving lunatic who wanted to derail the board into an India-Pakistan shouting match and is now bitter that it did not come to pass. I’ll be honest: I was suspicious of you from the first post and it is quite clear that I was right. I thank the Gujju who freed us from those who speak with a forked tongue.

    My friend, your assertions are entirely yours. As I have explained in my articles, this vision-outlined in the above article- was the logical outcome of Jinnah’s entire life … where he had championed justice and fairplay whether as an Indian nationalist or as the lawyer for the Muslim people(s).

  46. Shafique says:
    August 12th, 2007 6:02 am

    @YLH:

    Here is the relevant quote from Stanley Wolpert book: Jinnah himself was dying of lung cancer and tuberculosis by the time he returned to Karachi as Pakistan

  47. king_faisal says:
    August 12th, 2007 6:06 am

    jinnah lived little bit more than a year after the creation of pak. during this time he had absolute sway over pakistan. did he in this period take any steps which indicated that he favoured a creation of saudi or iranian style theocracy? no he did not. he did not appoint a group of religious scholars which would have veto power over law passed by the government. he did not appoint a saudi or iranian style religious police which would ensure that citizens would live their lives in a manner demanded by the mullah. consumption of alcohol was legal when jinnah was alive and remained so until the dying days of zab regime.

    so was jinnah a hypocrite for creating a country for muslims in which muslims would not live their lives according to that prescribed by the mullahs? no he was not. jinnah realised that despite protestations to the contrary by congress, neither would muslim interest be protected in a united india, nor would muslim’s be free from discrimination. jinnah and his saathis realised that while congress claimed to be a secular organisation, reality of south asia was such that religion would be the most important factor in determining the relationship between majority and minority community. congress track record in running state governments under british indicated to muslims that without any checks and balances, muslims would get a raw deal at the hands of majority community.

    the other and equally important reason for demand for pakistan was that jinnah believed that muslims of south asia possessed a unique identity which had something positive to offer for the rest of the world. jinnah’s experience of dealing with congress made him realise that independent muslim state would be the best vehicle through which muslim of south asia could meet their aspirations. jinnah genuinely believed supremacy of system rooted in islam over other belief systems such as secularism, socialism or communism. however, jinnah not being blind, realised that muslims had been losing to the west for two hundred years and he was smart enough to identify what those reasons were that caused west to gain supremacy over islamic world. essentially jinnah wanted to pakistan to be a modern muslim state which had incorporated in its fold those ideas through the west gained supremacy. jinnah believed, and history has proved him right, that only that state would be successful which did not discriminate against basis, caste, creed, origin as taught by islam. jinnah also realised that even within muslims, there are all types and it was not the job of government to make people live in a particular way.

    in my opinion, among all the current muslim countries, malaysia would be the country that would be closest to the country jinnah wanted paksitan to be. too bad we have our founding father, one of the foremost muslim leaders produced by modern islamic world. too bad we are too dumb to understand his vision.

  48. August 12th, 2007 6:12 am

    YLH:

    “You sound like a raving lunatic who wanted to derail the board into an India-Pakistan shouting match and is now bitter that it did not come to pass. ”

    What? Because you exhumed Jinnah and I was putting him into context? How on earth do you expect someone to discuss Jinnah and his ideas without talking about the time period he was speaking from? You say that his values and ideas should be adhered to today, and then you turn around and say that events from that era are irrevelant. You do realize that his values and ideas were formed and conditioned by his time? And that if someone brings up the past because YOU did, you can’t turn around and accuse them of irrevelantly bringing up the past?

    There’s absolutely nothing India vs. Pakistan about my comments. Show me where I ever insinuated such a thing. I went out of my way to state very clearly in my first post that everything that I was saying about my reactions to the things you quoted was entirely applicable to India. What kind of lawyer are you if you can’t even read and you miss the logic (which was explicitly explained) of the person with whom you are arguing?

    “I thank the Gujju who freed us from those who speak with a forked tongue.”

    I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say here, but if it’s something racist and self congratulatory and veering into India vs. Pakistan and respectively those who are fork tongued and not, then I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

    “I can

  49. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 6:13 am

    My friend,

    This was a misquote and not from Wolpert’s book Jinnah of Pakistan but “Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan. He confused two speeches. I quoted the speech in full but it has been taken off.

    Jinnah’s speech’s complete transcript is available here (this can be confirmed from “Jinnah of Pakistan” as well as Jinnah Papers, National Archives or Dawn’s archives):

    http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html

    There is no mention of Islam or Quran in this 11th August speech. It does not mean that Jinnah did not believe in the Quran or Islam but “guidance from the Holy Quran” was an advice Jinnah gave to individuals and did not wish to make it a constitutional principle.

    You must appreciate that the task of foreign biographers was made impossible by people who willingly distorted Quaid’s speeches… This is not the first time such a “mistake” was made. Even Bolitho was given the wrong text of the speech by the Government of Pakistan in 1951.

  50. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 6:19 am

    Dear Desi Italiana,

    I have not said that the events are irrelevant. On the contrary I have said that Jinnah’s unique role in South Asian History is what led to this vision of his.

    Abusing me is only proving my assertion to be valid. If you really want to discuss partition, you may wish to read “Partition of India Legend and Reality” by H M Seervai (he was a famous Indian constitutional lawyer mind you) and you will see that most of the myths around partition based on an Indian nationalist discourse are exactly that : Myths.

    What an independent Pakistan chooses as its policy is a matter quite unrelated to partition however. Whether this policy is Islamic or Secular is also unrelated to any other country’s concern.

    Therefore I may once again respectfully submit that you don’t have a locus standi in the matter, being twice removed from the issue at hand.

  51. JayJay says:
    August 12th, 2007 6:27 am

    I wonder where would Jinnah – Bohra by birth, who had converted to mainstream Shiaism

  52. August 12th, 2007 6:47 am

    YHL:

    “Abusing me is only proving my assertion to be valid.”

    Are you joking? Tell me you are.

    Please go back and read our exchange of comments. You accused me of being a raving lunatic. In all of my comments up until that one, I did not fly off the hande and “abuse” you. In fact, your only response to my comments was that I’m a raving lunatic who’s trying to get the discussion into a India vs. Pakistan battle, which led me to believe that you have no substantial argument against what I am saying.

    “Therefore I may once again respectfully submit that you don

  53. August 12th, 2007 7:04 am

    There s little that can be used to point fingers at MA Jinnah, because any reader of History can see very little change in his stance between the time he was a Congressite to the point Pakistan was created. He stood for equal rights then and he stood for equal rights for all after Pakistan. He was secular then and he was secular after partition. One has to be on a shallow agenda to try and fit anything Islamic into his stance, except that he on occassion reminded the Muslims he stood for that Secularism is inertly a principle of justice that Islam mirrors.

    What changed though was his constituency. In united India, though, he was fighting for a subgroup, the rights of Indians and in the 40′s for the rights of Muslims in India,.

    The latter led him to a realization that a separte homeland would be the ultimate gurantee for the Indian Muslim rights. He used that as a bargaining chip of sorts until he came to the second realization that the congress party would be willing to split the nation but not put in measured safeguards for the Muslims in a joint India. Although his political career, I feel his premise was that all human’s are worth dignity and each community deserves self-governence.

    A community is defined by the community itself. If Muslims and Hindus defined themselves as such how can such a geopolitical reality be denied by anyone.

    The bloodspill in partition of the two communities goes single-handedly to Mountbatten as defined by Mountabtten’s Shameful Flight.

    I personally think its Gandhi’s fault for letting the religious hooligans in politics. He was warned against doing so by Jinnah. After the Khilafat debacle however, Hindu and Muslim identities became non-negotiable. Jinnah only sought the best deal for his people.

  54. August 12th, 2007 7:14 am

    That’s Shameful Flight by Wolpert

  55. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 7:32 am

    Dear Desi Italiana,

    I am afraid I seriously don’t see what it is that you wish to state. You are utterly confused about the point you wish to drive home except that you think partition was wrong and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously an idiot. You keep claiming my assertions are “faulty” when it is not clear what assertions you are talking about.

    So your claim that I don’t have a valid point against what you are saying… but what is it that you are saying? That Pakistani should not exist? That Jinnah was a very bad man? That partition was wrong? These are all repetitive arguments from Indians which have been discussed to death. We obviously don’t feel that partition was a bad idea… we obviously disagree with you. We don’t accept your notion that Pakistan has not served us well. Sure we have lots of problems but that has to do with our unique political evolution.

    You say I brought this argument out of thin air. You will find a lot of agreement from Pakistan’s mullahs, but the western as well as Indian academics like Patrick French, Ainslee T Embree, H V Hodson, SK Majumdar, H M Seervai, Stanley Wolpert etc atleast agree with my assertions. They all tend to believe that Jinnah had a pluralistic democratic state in mind…

    But you are not willing to entertain that any view that contradicts your own narrow tunnel vision of history has any merit. So do you really fault me for thinking that you are sounding like raving lunatic?

    Kindly realize that this post is about an independent nation state … and its founder’s vision. It has NOTHING to do with insecurities of Indians or Gujuratis.

    Yours sincerely,

    YLH

  56. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:11 am

    YLH, you are doing it again…over defending yourself. Try to ignore off-topic comments rather than help them ruin your own post.

  57. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:16 am

    “JayJay says:August 12th, 2007 6:27 am

    I wonder where would Jinnah – Bohra by birth, who had converted to mainstream Shiaism

  58. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:21 am

    @Desi Italiana: Could you please post all this on your blog and let us discuss the matter in hand? Thanks.

  59. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:23 am

    Dewana,

    I am afraid that is not true. Any citizen- Muslim or Non-Muslim- of Pakistan qualified to be an MNA can become the Prime Minister of Pakistan according to the constitution.

    The position of President of Pakistan requires the candidate to be a Muslim… which is wrong and needs to be changed. However this Muslim does not mean sunni but does include all Muslim sects… except Ahmadis, who again in negation of the abovementioned, were apostasised in 1974.

  60. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:25 am

    Fair enough, I stand corrected.

  61. Mubarak says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:29 am

    YLH, I think no body can understand what you really meant by this post.

    To me Quaid-e-Azam only said what early Muslims use to say when they conquer some place.

    “You are free to go to your places of worship”.

    Yes, I agree with Deewana, pls dont argue too much it will harm your own post and most importantly you cant make everybody understand because of different mindsets.

  62. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:41 am

    “You think you are being cute by brandishing legal talk”

    I merely stated a fact. You don’t have locus standi. Are you a Pakistani citizen or even an expatriate Pakistani? If you are let us know.

    Why make such petty personal attacks ?

  63. Mubarak says:
    August 12th, 2007 9:32 am

    YLH, Never made a personal attack.

    I just wanted to say that I have tried it all, tried to convince people with the views of Quaid e Azam about the same speech but they never seem to understand. To majority PAKISTAN was made for Islam and whatever Quaid e Azam said was unislamic & secular for which there is no place in today’s Pakistan.

    Just to share with you the excerpt of the same speech “you are free to go……” was written on Guru Mandir Chorangi in Karachi and it was there for many years until chorangi was changed into signal. I always use to read it and wonder how true this man has said.

    YLH Sir, go ahead and do have legal talk but I bet it is really very very difficult to make people understand atleast in Pakistan. There seem to be many liberal and secular minded people in Pakistan but deep down inside they are all fundos.

    I may sound a bit passimistic but it is how I feel.

  64. YLH says:
    August 12th, 2007 9:37 am

    Mian Mubarik,

    The post I wrote was addressed to Desi Italiana.

    If you think Jinnah’s vision was Islamic… I respect your view and hope that you will work to implement it. If you think Jinnah’s vision was secular… then I’d hope that you’ll convert to it.

  65. Shafique says:
    August 12th, 2007 11:25 am

    YLH sb: I do appreciate your efforts to clarify (most authors at ATP generally avoid it

  66. Akbar says:
    August 12th, 2007 11:48 am

    I woke up this morning and opened the site hoping to read more interesting conversation on this important subject. Instead I find it has become this baazari name-calling and defensiveism. I agree with YLH’s post and ideas there but am appalled at the attitude towards anyone who disagrees with him. Calling people lunatic is not nice. It is not very useful for people who are called names to simply respond by calling more names, but that is neither here nor there. Anyhow, another good discussion killed. Sad.

  67. Mubarak says:
    August 12th, 2007 11:52 am

    YLH, I believe from the core of my heart that Mr. Jinnah ‘s view was absolutely Islamic and this can be proved from the Quran and History of early Muslim rulers.

    I really appreciate your efforts, wish you best of luck and godspeed.

  68. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 11:54 am

    I think YLH should give it a rest after making the initial post and let others make comments and take the discussion further. This author does seem to have a habit of ruining his own posts with over zealousness.

  69. Khurram says:
    August 12th, 2007 12:15 pm

    I find it interesting that 60 years later we Pakistanis cannot agree upon one of the most fundamental premises behind the formation or our country.

    So why don’t we decide in our minds what we would like our country to be, and then strive to make it so? Here is what I would like to see Pakistan become:

    - Every person in Pakistan has the opportunity to get a decent, well-rounded education
    - Every person in Pakistan has access to basic healthcare
    - Tolerance of others (no matter what their beliefs) is practiced by all
    - Every Pakistani has enough civic sense to obey the laws of the land. That inclides paying taxes and not stealing electricity.
    - We are at peace with our neighbors and treat them as friends
    - We hold ourselves and or leaders accountable for our own development and the development and betterment of our country.

  70. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 12:31 pm

    What I find ironic is that we all perhaps would like our country to be as prosperous as United States but do not have the moral courage to accept this important line from US declaration of independence;

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    We in-fact do not believe in equality for all and use Islam as the justification.

  71. thanos says:
    August 12th, 2007 1:04 pm

    Thanks for the post, I had not read Mr. Jinnah’s speech before and found it both interesting and inspiring. Some of the history in the discussion regarding secularism and faith was also good. My humble opinion is that morals and values come from your faith, However laws and government based on those morals and values must come from people; not the church; otherwise it devolves into which sect or church you will follow and after that all is just strife and disunity. The government becomes like a feather upon the sand awaiting the deathwind.

  72. yasser latif hamdani says:
    August 12th, 2007 1:18 pm

    Dear Akbar,
    I was forced to call the person a “raving lunatic” only after he resorted to thinly veiled insults aimed at me for not addressing his anxieties relating to partition and the creation of Pakistan. You may consult the post no 2 on Page 5 for example with his description of any point of view contrary to his as “nonsensical circular”.

    If it was a simple matter of disagreement, would I have reacted when Atif and Adnan Siddiqui were on my case about “secularism” etc? Or would I have responded so civilly at the first instance to the gentleman in question?

    It was not a matter of agreement or disagreement. I politely requested the gentleman to kindly refrain from trying to hijack this discussion in the name of partition which seems to have upset him to the extent that he started decrying anyone disagreeing with him as “nonsensical”. To me an interactor who does not respect the politest requests and then resorts to thinly veiled insults and sarcasm, he fits the description of a “raving lunatic”.

    Dear Shafique,

    Thank you for the compliment. My point was a clarification of history only. The said quote is not from 11th August speech. You may consult the original trasncript.

    It was misquoted in “Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan”

  73. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 2:36 pm

    Column by Wusatullah Khan of BBC. Saying the obvious but still worth reading:

    http://tinyurl.com/ywdms6

  74. Azam says:
    August 12th, 2007 3:07 pm

    Jinnah, like any historical figure was a complex man and he has MANY legacies. Part of his legacy clearly IS creating a country on the basis of religion. Part of it clearly IS that he was a modern, even secular, man. You can trade quotations from him all you like trying to prove anything you want to prove. His real legacy is the challenge of balancing between the desire of Muslims to have their own homeland while also respecting the liberties of non-Muslims. He clearly believed that this could be done. Our experience suggests that we have not been able to do this.

  75. Azra says:
    August 12th, 2007 3:12 pm

    The two points at top are most important
    1. The state would be completely impartial to religion of the individual.
    2. The state where every citizen would be equal and there would be no distinction between citizen on the basis of faith or caste or creed.
    If we do that we will fulfill the Quaid’s dreams and we will also uphold Islamic principles. Any other discussion is useless.

  76. Ali Zain says:
    August 12th, 2007 5:37 pm

    Desi Italiana: Good post

    Here’s my take on the issue:

    The ‘fear’ among the muslim leader and in particular Jinnah was, that under the Congress vision of United India, though secular, Muslims would not be able protect their rights as a minority group without having given equal representation and share in the affairs of the State. Jinnah’s blueprint of a Muslim nation state was one, based not only on secular lines, but of equal representation of all minorities in the affairs of the State. So Pakistan was not founded on religious basis as you said, essentially it was founded on purely egalitarian principles where the idea was that the State not only will have no official religion, but also it will abstain from favouring any majority. We know that this idea is now been turned up-side down.

    We can argue whether that ‘fear’ was genuine or not, bearing in mind that the Hindus had not been in control for nearly 800 hundred years in India. Also you can say, as the author of this post has pointed out that India has slightly more success in implementing this kind of secularism than the complete destruction of this idea in Pakistan. So it may be that the ‘fear’ was not well-founded.

    Based on this:

    I think the construction of Indian and Pakistani identity was a necessary one in order for secularism to work and I do believe that, had we not created these identities then you would have probably seen 10 different States sprouting up based on ethnic and racial grounds, Bangladesh is one fine example. And I beleive diversity is a vital element to achieve some sort of human progress and I do think that, this was what Jinnah had in mind about what Pakistan should be like, a nation based on pluralistic values, where one ideology/belief system does not control or subjugate the other.

    Jinnah quite aware of this, of what a hegemony of majority could result in, and how a religious, ethinic or racial based
    ideology not only could result in a regressive State but could also become tyrannical. And thats exactly what has happen to Pakistan after Jinnah, the Muslim as a majority not only altered the whole meaning of that vision, claiming pakistan was created in the name of Islam but also became increasingly intolerant towards other religious minorities and now on its way to extremism because the Pakistani identity is fast eroding. Pakistan has become exactly what Jinnah and other muslim leaders feared united India would be for Muslims if they did not have equal representation.

  77. August 12th, 2007 6:05 pm

    Ali Zain:

    Thank you for the response, I very much appreciate it. You’ve offered some takes that are making me think. :)

    ***
    To add body to Khurram’s ideals and visions (and here is a non Pakistani, non Pakistani expat agreeing with a Pakistani on the objectives which I believe every people should strive for), here are some numbers (which I realize offers an incomplete picture, but for lack of a better resource, quantification sometimes gives us a picture to think about:)

  78. August 12th, 2007 6:30 pm

    Ali Zain:

    “I think the construction of Indian and Pakistani identity was a necessary one in order for secularism to work and I do believe that, had we not created these identities then you would have probably seen 10 different States sprouting up based on ethnic and racial grounds, Bangladesh is one fine example.”

    I get the sense that you are arguing that in order to have secularism and egalitarianism, then it’s necessary to have a majority. And that if those identities (based on majoritarianism) exist, then it will pave the way for more establishing egalitarianism. Is this correct?

    If so, then I am following your logic, but I feel two issues are getting confused. Bangladesh broke away not because of religious reasons, but as you pointed out, “ethnic” or linguistic reasons, as well as socio-economic and political factors. Clearly, being part of the majority religiously didn’t fulfill the aspirations of a people.

    At the same time, the constructions of “Indian” and “Pakistani” identities- which are mostly based on religious majoritarianism- haven’t stopped separatism (and I don’t use the word “separatism” in a purely negative sense) within each nation-state. There are many, many, movements in India- a “secular” state in theory with a Hindu majority- which have been engaged in an uprising, and they are not always based on religion. Same thing for Pakistan. This is why I think that religion cannot be the sole basis/ideal for thinking about equalities for every citizen, because you have immense inequalities even within a given group (not to mention differences as well, as in sects, castes, etc).

    Furthermore, being a majority in a secular state does not necessarily foster the idea that secularism can and will be guaranteed, especially for minorities. Again, look at India or the US. Both countries are “secular,” but there are religious right wing movements who, fueled by precisely the idea that they are adherents of the predominant religion (ie “The US is a Christian country founded on Christian ideals” and “the majority of Indians are Hindus, and as such, India is a Hindu nation), will seek to undermine true secularism. The upside is that when a country professes to be a secular nation, there will be some actors (lawyers, politicians, judges, etc) who will implement those secular ideals into the law and strive to make and work and 2) some citizens will point to these legal visions and demand that they be applied. The downsides are: 1) those laws may guarantee and secure rights, but that doesn’t mean that they will be applied in practice, which is the most important point) and 2) inevitably, even if secularism may be the foundation of a country, practices, beliefs, etc of the predominant religion will somehow seep into (ie in the US, you swear with your right hand on the Bible when you give testimonies; when you pledge your allegiance to the flag- which we were required to do in public schools- you say, “One nation, under [Judeo-Christian] GOD, indivisible”, etc). The downsides of a supposed “secular” country can fundamentally undermine the very idea that a nation can actually be secular, because what’s the point of calling a country “secular” if it is not in practice? It doesn’t set it too far apart from countries that have an official state religion, does it?

    ***

    One question: isn’t PPP secular? As far as I understand it, it’s less focused on religion than it is on other things (at least in name, from what I gather.)

  79. Adnan Ahmad says:
    August 12th, 2007 6:32 pm

    I hope for a day when a hindu or a sikh or an ahmadi will become pakistan’s prime minister for they have been ahl-e-safa mardood-e-haram for too long. This will also be the day when the man http://pakistaniat.com/2007/07/28/pakistan-today-suggest-a-title/ featuring in one of the recent posts by Asma Mirza would have decent clothes and a decent ride.

    Pakistan has its own brand of shev sena and it can easily be noticed here.

  80. Lahori says:
    August 12th, 2007 7:36 pm

    Timely post. Mostly useless discussion.
    I wonder if there was someone with Jinnah’s views in politics today in Pakistan, what party would they be in?

  81. Farrukh says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:10 pm

    Nice to read the full speech. Every MNA should be made to read it.
    Maybe ATP should start a series on memorable speeches in Pakistan’s history from 1947 to today.

  82. Dewana Aik says:
    August 12th, 2007 8:19 pm

    In relation to what Quaid envisioned for Pakistan, he is a report on current situation;

    UN body accuses Pakistani govt of

  83. Shafique says:
    August 13th, 2007 12:21 am

    Dear Yassar,
    Thank you. The said quote as indicated in my 2nd & 3rd posts was from Jinnah

  84. Mubarak says:
    August 13th, 2007 1:48 am

    Just to share what nowadays Pakistan is in comparison with Mr. Jinnah’s views.

    a colleague of mine who is christian was going to attend a marriage ceremony in his own community and told this and one of my other colleagues who happen to be a muslim said “Tumhare haan Nikah hotey hain?” which made my christian friend shed to tears.

    This is not a story but everyday talk of the ordinary Pakistanis which clearly reveals the present ordeal of minorities in Pakistan.

  85. Kamran says:
    August 13th, 2007 1:59 am

    Nice compilation of speeches. I like idea suggested of making series on speeches. His vision for Pakistan was both democratic and Islamic. I hope we will ultimately achieve this vision.

  86. Debu Bhatnagar says:
    August 13th, 2007 3:37 am

    At the very outset I would like to clarify that as an Indian from India and nominally a Hindu as well, my remarks should be seen in context.

    It’s obviously a very heated discussion and I tend to agree that the spirit of it gets hijacked if we get into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of partition. What is in question is whether Pakistan today has lived up to the vision of Mr. Jinnah.

    To answer this we must first lay down clearly what Mr. Jinnah’s vision really was. In my view, based on all that I have read he was truly a secularist, he truly believed in the equality of all men. At the same time he also believed in the primacy and goodwill of Islam.

    If this is indeed true the Pakistan that he envisaged would be a secular state but guided by the principles of Islam. Many of his sayings, if taken together, add up to this simple truth. However, it is a delicate balance to say the least. In fact this is the key difference between what a pure secular state like India wishes to be and the idea of Pakistan.

    In my opinion in the recent past Pakistan has shed this delicate balance. It has emerged in many ways as a theocratic state. Good or bad is not really the question. It is clear that the Pakistan of today is not what it’s founding father wanted it to be.

  87. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 13th, 2007 3:59 am


    While in Pakistan the crimes are committed

  88. August 13th, 2007 6:24 am

    here we go again,
    well if Jinnah wanted a secular state, what was all the fuss about Two Nation Theory, wouldnt it be better he talked about Muslims rights within India rather than have a separate country (not nation) and then deem it secular.

    The day Pakistan’s constitution turns to a secular one, that day we will be having four to five countries instead of one. I’d love to visit my mother’s family in Punjab after acquiring a visa for Punjabistan from Sindhudesh.

    But its better we stick to the Islamic agenda, atleast Pakistan will remain on the map that way…

  89. NZ says:
    August 13th, 2007 9:35 am

    As someone already said, the issue here is not Jinnah’s vision it is the meaning of secularism. I don’t know where people get their info (maybe from some useless place like Wikipedia or some mulla) but there is some very serious confusion in many comments here about the meaning of secularism. Secularism is NOT anti-religion. Secularism is about religion (any religion, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, whatever) not affecting matters of state. It has nothing to do with individual rights of people to practice their religion. Jinnah was clear that he wanted a country where Muslims could be free to practice their religions because in a Hindu-dominated India they might not be. This was clearly a secular vision and based on rights of individual Muslims to practice their religion. Of course, this argument would be consistent if ALL religions and all minorities were granted the same right. Clearly from these quotes the Quaid believed they could. The problem, of course, is that the very people who opposed Jinnah because they did not consider him Islamic enough have now taken control of his country.

  90. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    August 13th, 2007 10:01 am

    Debu Bhatnagar: Your analysis is on the mark and relevant to the post. Coming from an Indian gentleman your remarks are very refreshing. I wish that same could be said about one of your country-woman’s comments here. Her wish is to debate the 1947 division of the British Indian Empire which is not the intent of this post here. Pakistan has not lived up to its full potentials and Jinnah’s promise of ‘equality of all citizens’. But every thing is not lost. We are capable of building a modern democratic state of Pakistan and God willing we will do that. I also wish that we put the subject of the ‘Division of British Indian Empire’ behind us and concentrate on building our respective countries in the best possible way. On this occasion we must wish each other ‘happy independence day’ and pledge to work for the betterment of the lives of our respective people. ‘Jai Bharat’ for you and ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ for us. May God help us all.

  91. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    August 13th, 2007 10:51 am

    “………….in the US, you swear with your right hand on the Bible when you give testimonies………”

    Not true. Non-Christians do not do that. Even some Christians do not do that. The lone Muslam in US Congress took his oath on a copy of Quran initially belonging to Thomas Jefferson.

    “………….when you pledge your allegiance to the flag- which we were required to do in public schools- you say,

  92. August 13th, 2007 12:03 pm

    Dear Atif Abdul Rahman,

    Looks like you forgot that Jinnah was not born in 1940. He was in politics from the early 1900s as the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

    His first attempt was to come to a settlement with the Hindus in United India… it was his second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, 30th attempt as well. Even in 1946 he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan and gave up the sovereign Pakistan demand.

    So your point isn’t fair. The Two Nation Theory was a consociationalist idea which said that Muslims were a nation and therefore would require a federal solution and autonomy within United India. It never said Hindus and Muslims could not live together…. from the outset.

  93. Ahsan says:
    August 13th, 2007 12:14 pm

    According to the title

  94. atif2 says:
    August 13th, 2007 12:24 pm

    Now we must admit that either Jinnah was drunk or under duress when he uttered these words, or that he really wanted Sharia in Pakistan. In either case, we MUST stop firing our secular guns from the shoulders of Jinnah. If we want secularism, lets fight for it, but lets not vandalize Jinnah’s legacy in the process.

    Exhibit A
    1- “Every Musalmaan, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come. Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually.”
    - Jinnah , Eid message on September 1945

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

    Exhibit C
    What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man, and what is the bedrock and sheet-anchor of the community. It is Islam. It is the Great Book, Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we go on there will be more and more of oneness, one God, one Book, one Prophet and one Nation
    - Jinnah (All-India Muslim League, Karachi on 26th December)

  95. August 13th, 2007 1:07 pm

    Pervaiz:

    “I wish that same could be said about one of your country-woman

  96. August 13th, 2007 1:12 pm

    “I had in mind the historical aspect

  97. Ali Zain says:
    August 13th, 2007 1:20 pm

    Desi Italiana:

    “I get the sense that you are arguing that in order to have secularism and egalitarianism, then it

  98. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 13th, 2007 2:48 pm

    Kruman here mentioned Jinnah’s vision against dictatorship. I once read a statement on Hakim’s blog but I don’t see anymore. Could someone quote that particular statement here? Since we are living under a military regime, it would be more better to discuss what Jinnah used to think about army involvement in matter of states.

  99. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    August 13th, 2007 3:24 pm

    Dear Ms. Italiana: It is very re-assuring that you are not just an Indian straight out of India, but an Indian American. If I may add, Indian American via Italy. How is that for credentials. We will not confuse you with those poor Indians who are just straight out of India. But my observation is that Indians of all shades would not let go the subject of ‘Division of British Indian Empire’. Please tell me why. The Empire, like empires before that, was forged by a colonial power by force. The concept of nation is an empirical one. Any denominator(s) could be used to define a nation. There are opinions that the Empire should have been divided into seven, ten or perhaps twenty states based on ethnic and geographical boundaries. Perhaps then much of the ethnic strives facing both India and Pakistan today would not have been there. Bangladesh is an example of Bengali-Muslam state within the crucible of Indian Sub-Continent. Soviet Union and Ottoman Empire and many empires before that were broken up into many many states. What is so holy about the British Indian Empire that it should not have been divided in 1947. You have a habit of showing us Pakistanis our pimples. This must be important to you otherwise you would not be on this post with the ferocity that you display. We do not know your real identity but at one point you have also identified yourself as a Hindu-Gujarati-Indian-Woman. You have shown us our pimples. When are you going to show us your warts and moles.

  100. libertarian says:
    August 13th, 2007 3:45 pm

    Pervaiz: But my observation is that Indians of all shades would not let go the subject of

  101. August 13th, 2007 4:46 pm

    Pervaiz;

    “It is very re-assuring that you are not just an Indian straight out of India, but an Indian American. If I may add, Indian American via Italy. How is that for credentials. We will not confuse you with those poor Indians who are just straight out of India.”

    I did not state my lcoation in a way to somehow place myself in a superior position vis a vis Indians in India AT ALL. You referred to me as a “fellow countrywoman” when you addressed a comment to an Indian gentleman. You lumped an Indian American with and Indian together, and they are not the same. An Indian living, working, voting, and breathing in India is not the same as an American of Indian descent who votes in America, works, breathes and lives in America. You cannot conflate the two, and I never have, and I stated in my first comment exactly where I am coming from.

    Are you satisfied with this response, or are there other enquiries about my identit (ies) which are to establish my credibility in voicing my opinions?

    “But my observation is that Indians of all shades would not let go the subject of

  102. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    August 13th, 2007 5:34 pm

    Ms. Italiana: You have displayed capacity to go on and on and on in futility and frivolously. Frankly I do not even know if there is any rhyme or reason to your lengthy rants. I and others have made our point. Now we are going in circles. You may wish to continue on the subject of your own choosing.

  103. DESI RULZ says:
    August 13th, 2007 5:57 pm

    I guess this ridiculous but funny conversation has just proved why the two countries SHOULD have separated. Having this silliness every day rather than just for a few days each year would have been unbearable ;-)

    Maybe Jinnah was smarter than anyone thinks!

    By the way, Independence Day greetings to all Pakistanis and all Indians. Chill, guyz. Peace to all. May all of you be happy, wherever you are and whoever you want to be.

  104. Dewana Aik says:
    August 13th, 2007 6:11 pm

    No azaadee for these people; http://tinyurl.com/2g8jl4

    Can those who are chanting two-nations theory slogans even after independence, explain why it was OK for them to get a separate homeland to preserver their rights, but it is not OK for Christians living in Pakistan to demand and achieve a separate homeland on the same grounds?

  105. Old ATPer says:
    August 13th, 2007 7:05 pm

    Sad discussion. So many people who I had great respect for because of their comments etc. elsewhere on thsi website, I just lost respect for them because of their behavior and attitude here.

  106. Old ATPer says:
    August 13th, 2007 7:51 pm

    I just did a quick count and more than half the comments here have nothing to do with Jinnah or the post or any thing of substance, expect name calling each other.

  107. Kamran says:
    August 13th, 2007 8:31 pm

    I have been reading this while listening to the song you have on the side. Yeh watan tumhara hai. Yes yeh watan humara hai. Its time we also started discussing what our vision is for Pakistan and is it the same as the Quaid’s.

  108. Qureshi says:
    August 13th, 2007 8:36 pm

    Is there a single good site where one can find all speeches by the Quaid?

  109. Humaira says:
    August 13th, 2007 9:01 pm

    I disagree with those who are finding these comments useful. The material in the post is not really new but the comments have added new information and knowledge for me. Whatever doubts I might have had about Pakistan’s creation are now gone. As DESI RULZ said, the commenters from both sides have just demonstrated why separation was so necessary!

  110. Faraz K says:
    August 13th, 2007 9:41 pm

    As far as I am concerned, this is an irrelevant topic followed by the most irrelevant and pointless discussion.

    There will always be some disagreement about exactly what Jinnah had in mind for Pakistan. But that was 60 years ago. So who cares? Historians may be, and people who want something to argue about. What’s important is what Pakistanis want Pakistan to be today.

    Becoming purely secular (or theocratic) will not solve any of Pakistan’s problems. No it will not even pacify the Lal Masjid fanatics. The root of these problems is something far more basic. Think about it.

  111. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 14th, 2007 1:49 am


    I

  112. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    August 14th, 2007 2:21 am

    From BBC


    Its foundations were shaken by two controversial decisions made by the country’s founder and first Governor-General, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

    He dismissed the Congress-led government of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) by decree, and instead of ordering fresh elections, appointed a Muslim League leader as the chief minister with the mandate to whip up parliamentary support for himself.


    Secondly, he declared to a large Bengali speaking audience in Dhaka, the capital of East Pakistan, that Urdu would be the only state language.

    Author’s own interpretations but interesting.

  113. LeftyProf says:
    August 14th, 2007 2:42 am

    Wow…. I must say that I’ve never actually read through 112 comments in detail before. If nothing else, it’s been quite revealing as to the readership of ATP.

    I am surprised at the vehemence and vitriol directed at Desi Italiana’s comments. Some of the responses have been downright insulting and ad hominem. And all for what? Because this person dared to open up a critical dialogue about the nature of Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan–precisely what the original post was about!

    The way I see it, any progressive or forward-thinking desi must necessarily confront the question of partition, what went wrong, etc., in order to be able to move forward. As the Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe said in a different context, the task that we face is to look back and figure out “when the rain began to beat on us.”

    The virulently nationalist attacks on Desi Italiana’s critical, and patently internationalist, argument is simply disheartening.

    It certainly makes me, as someone who happens to have had the misfortune of being born in India, think twice about contributing to any discussions in the future. The fact that Desi’s comments were resolutely NOT nationalist, and NOT written from the standpoint of an “Indian” seems to be lost on most of the commentators here.

    And the rest seem to simply sidestep the discussion by saying, in various ways, that the discussion itself is irrelevant.

    You know what, brothers and sisters? It is NOT irrelevant. What was done by the founders of “our” nations is not at all irrelevant to our lives in the present. And if a post on Jinnah and his vision for Pakistan is not an appropriate occasion for a discussion of Jinnah and his vision for Pakistan, then I don’t know what is.

    If we can’t have a reasonable, mature discussion on the internet, how can we hope for a reconciliation between the two nuclear-armed entities known as “Pakistan” and “India”?

    Grow up, people.

    (Oh, and for the record, like Desi Italiana, I am no Indian nationalist either–you can just take a look at my most recent post on my own blog to confirm that.)

  114. August 14th, 2007 2:50 am

    My last comment on this post!

    First off, let me say that ultimately, my entire feeling on this post (looking to the “founding father” as a reference point, model, etc which I find very problematic in a post-colonial, post-independence context) echoes Faraz’s. But to engage with the post itself, this is what I think.

    Every Independence Day in every nation, someone somewhere will quote the messages of the “founding fathers.” What happens is that people are encouraged to think/remember for that day about the gems of wisdom- and stop there. People are expected to say, “wah, wah!” and rub their chins and think, “oh, so very interesting. We should implement that.” The messengers of those quotes expect applause and rose petals: “Thank you for this timely question that you have posed! You are correct!”

    The problem is that when you selectively pick and choose certain views from those messages, you are in fact undermining the very meanings of the things you claim to be adhering/returning to. By idolizing, immortalizing, and deifying these “heroes” in a timeless fashion and transplanting their decontextualized messages into this era 60 years later, you are missing the very point of their messages. Examples:

    Mr Jinnah said:

    “May be that view is correct ; may be it is not; that remains to be seen.”

    The fact that Jinnah says publicly that “This is my vision; I may be wrong, and I may be right,” is actually astounding. What he was effectively saying is that I am human, and by admitting that there is the very real possibility that I may have been wrong, I am giving you the opportunity to challenge my views, critique them, make what you want of them.

    This is not so far from Gandhi’s view. Gandhi- the hero which your neighbors (Indians) worship, titled his autobiography, “My Experiments in Truth.” He writes that he cannot claim to have known The Truth; but that his life is an experiment in truth.

    Two men who were worshipped by millions, two men who knews that millions were listening to their words, men whose biographies they knew would eventually be read by millions and translated into several languages, and have been diefied by million, yet they placed themselves in the vulnerable position by telling people that they may have been wrong or right- and as such, people are free to criticize, think, and challenge them. This is actually astounding. Not many people (and certainly not the writer of this post) would make themselves susceptible to millions by declaring that others can and should be aware that they may be right or wrong.

    The same people who immortalize and deify these two men without a critical take and stifling any sort of discussion that doesn’t go the way they want it are in fact running counter to the very ideas that these two men had. It’s no surprise that the Congresswala in India wear topis and claim that Gandhi is their hero, but then turn around and are some of the biggest crooks.

    In this post, Jinnah was brought up. And in his speeches, he alludes to the conditions which caused him to come to the conclusions that he did- Partition, politics, equality, Hindus and Muslims, etc- with the possibility that he may be right or wrong. The fact that Jinnah was fully conscious that he was a man of his own times, that he was a product of the surrounding political, social, religious, and economic context is apparent.

    Strangely- and ironically- some have reacted in a very reactionary way. Any sort of view, interpretation, or feeling expressed which touches on any aspect of Jinnah’s messages, how it came about, etc that cause people to disagree have paradoxically elicited stagnant and conservative views- “These are the progressive messages of Jinnah according to MY VIEW, and if you say anything different to say or challenge me, you are not welcome, stop raving like a lunatic, and show me your warts.”

    I doubt very much that Jinnah or anyone else would want people to not be able to engage critically and that the only weapon in a debate is “Show me your warts,” and “Are you Pakistani or a Pakistani expat? If not, you have no right to say anything contrarian.” If everyone is to follow messages unthinkingly and uncritically, without asking questions, then that is not a vibrant, breathing, and alive society.

    Another example:

    Mr Jinnah said:

    “Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race.”

    “Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor.”

    “(On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.”

    Of course, he is speaking about equality, justice, within Pakistan’s borders. However, I am going to logically deduce that he applied his views for egalitarianism and rejection of bigotry and chauvenism across the board, whether he was talking about interactions between Pakistanis amongst themselves within their own borders and their interactions beyond their borders.

    But look what some have said below:

    -”Your views [to an Indian] are refreshing, unlike that of your countrywoman”

    -”Are you Pakistani or a Pakistani expat?”

    -”You are of Indian origin. You are pointing out all the bad things about Pakistan. Do you hate Pakistanis? Do you think that Pakistan shouldn’t exist?”

    -’Thank God that Guju [Jinnah] liberated us from those who are fork tongued.”

    -”This is a Pakistani centric website.”

    -”We [all 160 million plus Pakistanis] are over it. Why aren’t you Indians?”

    -”This is a Pakistani perspective.”

    Generalizing entire nations and peoples, applying one or two viewpoints onto millions (and more than a billion in India’s case) of people, purportedly speaking on the behalf of millions of your own countrymen actually betrays the intelligence, the sense of respecting individuals as individuals, and acknowledging diversity and richness that Jinnah had.

    And the comments above also demonstrate chauvenisms that the writers claim to be rejecting by upholding Jinnah. Using people’s identities and their nationalities (which in most cases is something that most people can’t control) against them and telling them they have no right to say anything because they do not share the same passport(s) is chauvenism in and of itself. It’s not too far from veering into asking a non Muslim Pakistani who would criticize a theocratic state, “Are you Muslim? If not, you have no right to criticize Islam, “Islam” according to me.” And furthermore, by the same logic, a non Palestinian or Palestinian expat would not have the right to criticize the racist Israeli state policies, occupation, colonialism or even criticize, say, Yasser Arafat. This would be a shame if this were the criteria to voice anything.

    That’s all I have to say on this topic :)

    ***

    Ali,

    I’m interested in what you have to say,and I’d like to continue this exchange. If you would like, you can e-mail me:

    italiandesi [at] gmail [dot] com.

    Adnan,

    I’m not even going to respond to your question. I’m almost impelled to say that you are flamebaiting, and like the others, you haven’t read any of my comments, but just the attacks directed at me and you are now jumping on board. Please re-read all of my comments, and I am sure that you will find your answer.

  115. August 14th, 2007 8:31 am

    Dear Leftyprof,

    With all due respect- saying that you are an internationalist or Desi Italiana is an internationalist will not make you an internationalist necessarily. It is after all a fashion to designate your self as lefty or righty or nationalist or internationalist. Merely putting a disclaimer, after regurgitating an essentially partisan vision of history is simply an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too. Just like your post is an attempt to skew the discussion in favor of Desi Italiana, Desi Italiana’s vision was essentially pro-Indian and to top it – deliberately insulting to anyone with a counter point of view.

    The author of this piece has written extensively about partition and has addressed the issues raised by your friend on several other boards and I saw him – in the first two posts- very politely requesting that the discussion about partition be taken to a more relevant board. He even pointed to and indicated which boards that may be utilised for the purpose and offered to have an academic discussion on those boards on this particular issue. In response, however, Desi Italiana wrote an intensely sarcastic and bitter post to the author.

    Partition is a fact of history. All nation states are created out of some conflict. Pakistan is as much an accident of history as India or France or Germany or Italy are. Anyone who reads the history of partition- after the declassification of classified documents in the 1970s and the 1980s, will see that Jinnah was the most reluctant partitionist. The issue was essentially one of identity which drove the former “Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” to champion Muslim separatism, and this identity itself became non-negotiable after Gandhi and the Congress Party employed both the theologies of Hinduism and Islam in the Non-Cooperation and Khilafat Movements… a move that was opposed vehemently by Jinnah- then a Congressman. Even in 1946 Jinnah was ready to come to an agreement on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan… but the CMP did not suit the centralising vision of the Congress Party.

    Then – through all moves and counter moves… Pakistan was created. Admittedly by Mountbatten’s own account Jinnah agreed most reluctantly. Now Pakistan has minorities and India has minorities- what then would be the vision for Pakistan? This is what this post is about. The only ad-hominem attack we’ve seen here is by yourself and Desi Italiana on the author because he has refused to discuss an issue here which he has discussed probably more than anyone else in the cybernet. And to be fair… he has also bypassed the usual whether Jinnah was secular or Islamic discussion… to underline a very important point: Jinnah’s vision of an egalitarian just state which treats the minorities equally and fairly has not come about even in 2007.

    Had his been a “nationalist” attack, he would not have praised India when he wrote:

    “I read the news that after electing a woman president, India has now elected a Muslim vice president. Remember the last president of India was a Muslim. One should give credit where its due

  116. YLH says:
    August 14th, 2007 9:29 am

    Dear Adnan Siddiqui,

    Governor General was empowered through the Independence of India Act 1947 read with GOIA 1935 to do so and he had a very good reason to do so.

    The Khan Brothers led a Congress Government which refused to acknowledge Pakistan … atleast till later after September 1947.

    So you had a government in NWFP which refused to acknowledge Pakistan, the leaders of which were colluding with Afghanistan and Fakir of Ipi to undo the Durand Line which was the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan through treaty… and you had Ghaffar Khan raising the slogan of Pathan National State and declaring that Pakistan would not be based on Sharia because Jinnah etc were westernised to rouse up the Pathans…. do you think any central government could have afforded to do so?

    Infact… according to agreement, Viceroy of India Lord Mountbatten was supposed to dissolve Khan ministry before 14th August … because it was his mandate and responsibility to dissolve any provincial government that continued to defy the partition agreement… after the referendum and/or parliamentary vote on the issue.

    Mountbatten deliberately did not do it… because he wanted to have Jinnah get the blame.

  117. Amused says:
    August 14th, 2007 9:41 am

    @Ms Aisha Sarwari: Seems to me you can hardly be considered “Objective” in this stupid sub-discussion between YLH and Desi Italiano. Perhaps a little honesty and disclosure that you are married to the author of the post might go a long way in giving your arguments some credibility.
    On a different note, PLEASE, can we move on and not get mired in these exceedingly ridiculous sub-arguments?
    Pervez Hoodbhoy’s recent article in Chowk on the same subject is a much better written article.
    http://www.chowk.com/articles/12462

  118. YLH says:
    August 14th, 2007 9:44 am

    Dear Ahsan,

    My response to Adnan Siddiqui’s comment (Biryani Daal Chawal analogy) was not an alteration of his comment but rather a frank statement of my own position using the same analogy. It was- I am sure- taken in the same vein by Mr. Siddiqui.

    It is quite unfortunate however that you seek – as usual- to personalise a discussion which is of such importance to our nation state …. it does not matter if Jinnah was an illusion or Jinnah was right or wrong in opting for partition. What matters here is that all said and done, as the unquestionable father of the nation and founder of Pakistan, he made a solemn promise to religious minorities of Pakistan which has NOT been kept by his successors.

    Let us join hands (without getting into the hassle of phraseology) … you, Adnan Siddiqui, myself and all Pakistanis to fulfill that promise so that Mr. Jinnah is not remembered as the founder of a state that ultimately descended into a nightmare of extremism and oppression but rather as a viable and modern state which sought to bring about the creation of a forward-looking society that would be a credit not just to Jinnah but a beacon of light to all Muslim majority countries in the world.

    This is my humble request and the reason behind posting this thread.

  119. August 14th, 2007 9:47 am

    Amused. If I wanted to hide my identity, could I have chosen a pseudonym like yourself and spared myself the ignonimy of this “revelation” that you’ve so kindly made.

    My marriage to the author is of no consequence to the points I have made above.

  120. K. Sinha says:
    August 14th, 2007 10:37 am

    As an Indian I am a little amused at the bullying by some Indians here and impressed by the many Pakistanis ho have openly condemned the rudeness of a few. But guys, there are a billion of us and people can have many different opinions. There are also many many different Pakistani opinions as demonstrated here. This diversity of views is a good thing. After years of worrying about partition and talking about it to my Indian and Pakistani friends I have come to the conclusion that it is not much use talking about this since this is a very very different thing for the two peoples. For many in the Indian right it is mostly a chuavinistic reaction to the ‘loss’ of Pakistan. To many in the Indian left partition was a slap on our sense of secularism. I find that most Pakistanis I know see partition as a good thing but the bloodshed that happened as bad. So you can see why no conversation on this can ever be fulfilling. I think for most of us middle of the road Indians and I hope for most middle of the road Pakistanis partition is something that happened. Good or bad lets just accept it and find ways to live together now rather than trying to prove it was a mistake or not. Jai Hind. Pakistan Zindabad.

  121. Sridhar says:
    August 14th, 2007 12:49 pm

    Amused: Thanks for posting Pervez Hoodbhoy’s Chowk article.

    Best wishes to everybody on the 60th anniversary of independence.

  122. Ali Zain says:
    August 14th, 2007 1:06 pm

    Desi Italiana:

    “Sigh

  123. August 14th, 2007 2:13 pm

    Ok, I swear, last comment (for reals, this time), as I am increasingly aware that ATP is not the place for me. Not because it’s Pakistani- there are several Pakistani bloggers I read regularly and enjoy immensely- but because I don’t agree with the views and stands here.

    Ali:

    I have a lot to say on this and I really appreciate you engaging with what I was saying as well as steering the discussion into being relevant to the post; do you mind doing this by e-mail? I don’t think anyone here particularly cares discussing this, but I am. Or come post on my blog :)

    Adnan:

    “Ms.Italiana, you are just pumped up hence you are considering every Pakistani against you which is not a good sign at all.”

    This exchange is extremely ridiculous, as others have pointed out. Your logic is: I am taking issue with certain commentators, and hence, this means that I am considering that every Pakistani is against me.

    ???

    “As far as my question is concerned, which was not to spoil your mood, It was a simple question which was not fictitious as well. You could simply say YES or NO.”

    My answer has been NO from my very first comment, I have said NO explicity, and if logic and reading comprehension were a fortitude on ATP, people would have been able to 1) read what I wrote and 2) in addition, infer that since I criticize India (and will) with the same gusto on this very post, I am patently NOT “pro Indian” and do not hate Pakistanis. I’m tired of repeating myself, and short of cutting and pasting from my previous comments, I’m not going to waste my time. I’m not “pro” anything. Haven’t you read my (by now very prolific) comments? This is why I think you’re simply flamebaiting.

    I know rote learning is a major problem in India and Pakistan, but I’m really appalled by the blind nationalist sentiments of some commentators here, the regurgitation of ideas without engaging them critically and questioningly, the claim that “Pakistaniat can mean many things, and that’s ok,” and then turn around and claim, “This is THE Pakistani view, Pakistani perspective, etc.” as well as taking comments of certain folks, reinterpreting them, and then getting defensive about them. I’m not really down for “Pop Patriotism” (as another blogger put it) whether it involves India, Pakistan and any other country for that matter (by the way, some of you have mirror reflections across the border. It’s great that I get accused of being “anti Hindu,” “anti Indian,” “anti Muslim,” and “anti Pakistan” by all sides. Oh, and I’m also a “Muslim apologist” according to some Hindutvavadis. Whatever that means. Go figure.)

    Happy I-Day to all on both sides of the border, and I only hope this isn’t another occasion of being “pro” whatever, blind patriotism, religious nationalism, and unthinking/uncritical acceptance of ideas.

    Peace.

  124. Dewana Aik says:
    August 14th, 2007 2:29 pm

    Desi Italiana: I am not following you for a while now as I can not possibly find the strength to read your elaborate comments but to give the credit where its due; thanks for posting such a short comment this time.

  125. baber says:
    August 14th, 2007 7:36 pm

    Desi Italiana I have read all your comments, and I can understand why they are so long. Rightly said people (not all but most) on this blog are “blind nationalist”. Please do comment when ever you want without reiterating. Its a voice of reason, fairly logical and mostly true. I have many Indian friends and they are not so different then the people here, very sentimental nationalist I must say.

    Amused Sorry but I am gonna post it again because of the long comments it got missed. Very well researched and written.
    Jinnah and the Islamic State

  126. Kruman says:
    August 14th, 2007 7:46 pm

    “majority of PAKISTANIS ahere to the SAUDI funded ideology which is intolerant as one could be i see no hope”

    Wrong, the Muslims in the sub-continent were heavily influenced by sufi though. Infact Islam was propagated in the sub-continent by the sufia.

    Militant Islam is a gift from the organization Musharraf hails from, Pakistan army. His predecessor (Ziaul Haq) let jihadis run free for a decade, propogating their violent ways and philosphy.

  127. Ali Zain says:
    August 14th, 2007 8:31 pm

    Desi Italiana,

    I don’t really care if anyone here cares or not, as long as the discussion is interesting and relevant to the topic. Also I am least bothered about the remarks that have been made here, personal or otherwise, this is the part and parcel of cyber-interactives. The best one can do is ignore.

    I’m happy to do this by e-mail or over your blog if you don’t think this is a place for you. my email address is:

    radicalali [at] gmail [dot] com

  128. YLH says:
    August 15th, 2007 1:34 am

    K-sinha,

    Thanks.

    Jai Hind and Pakistan Zindabad to you too.

  129. Adonis says:
    August 16th, 2007 4:59 am

    The August 11 speech of Quaid-i-Azam expresses the same thoughts as are present in Meesaq-i-Madinah (charter of Madinah). This is what Islam teaches us.

    As for those who equate secularism with anti-religiosism and try to mold Quaid-i-Azam into such a secular according to their own fantasies, his various speeches mentioning that Pakistan will be run on the principles given by Islam puncture a big whole into their baloon.

    For the sake of argument, lets assume for a minute that Quaid-i-Azam was an anti religionb secularist (which he was very clearly not) and he wanted to make Pakistan a country where religion would be a taboo word in constitution and law, how does it matter? Its the same lame argument used by kemalists in turkey; women cannot wear hijab, men cannot have beard or wear fez; Why? because Kemal Ataturk said so.

    Slowly but surely, the kemalist extremists have been bowing to the pressure of public opinion,people are getting their religious rights back and the parliament is becoming sovereign. Similarly, even if Quaid-i-Azam had decreed that Islam has no place in Pakistran, then does it preclude the people of Pakistan from ever making it the Islamic republic of Pakistan?

    When USA became independent slavery was an integral part of society and all the leaders of American revolution had slaves. When Lincoln banned slavery later on, was it really a rebellion against the ideas of founding fathers as claimed by the confederates?

    The irony is that secular extremists are giving their own interpretation of Quaid-i-Azam’s words and forcing their interpretation as something binding on the people of Pakistan forever. The fact remains that it is the people of Pakistan who have decided through their representatives in 1956, 1962 and 1973 that they want an Islamic republic of Pakistan not a secular republic. Those who don’t like it should try to convince people that secularism is in their best interest instead of trying to impose kemalist dictatorship on Pakistanis.

  130. YLH says:
    August 16th, 2007 5:13 am

    Dear Adonis,

    This is what Jinnah said about Kemal Ataturk:

    He (Kemal Ataturk) was the greatest Musalman in the modern Islamic world and I am sure that the entire Musalman world will deeply mourn his passing away. It is impossible to express adequately in a press interview one,s appreciation of his remarkable and varied services, as the builder and the maker of Modern Turkey and an example to the rest of the world, especially to the Musalmans States in the Middle East. The remarkable way in which he rescused and built up his people against all odds has no parallel in the history of the world. He must have derived the greatest sense of satisfaction that he fully accomplished his mission during his lifetime and left his people and his country consolidated, united and a powerful nation. In him, not only the Musalmans but the whole world has lost one the greatest men that ever lived.“

    (Quaid-e-Azam and the Islamic World, Rizwan Ahmed, Published 1981 on the occasion of OIC Foreign Ministers’ conference in Karachi)

  131. Mubarak says:
    August 16th, 2007 5:20 am

    YLH,

    I was just thinking if you could come up with a post on Agha Khan III who as far as I have read has great contributions towards Muslims of sub-continent after Mr. Jinnah.

    Also in the modern world I think Mahatir Muhammad is also one of the greatest leaders after Mr. Jinnah, Keeping in view Malaysia’s Muslim/Non Muslim population ration which is almost 50:50. I think YLH, your point can be more elaborated in context of today’s Malaysia.

  132. Adonis says:
    August 16th, 2007 5:23 am

    I have nothing against Ataturk. He indeed was the saviour of Turkey. But he was a human being. Ultimately, it is for the Turks to decide whether they would be bound by whatever he ordained or whether they would choose their own course of action.

    Seculars always say that one should do ijtehad in religion. Fine, but why confine ijtehad only to religion and treat the personal views of someone like Kemal Ataturk as something cast in stone and to be followed unflinchingly forever?

  133. YLH says:
    August 16th, 2007 7:50 am

    Mubarik…

    I am planning on undertaking a study of whether there exists a space between a “secular” and a “theocratic” state and whether the nebulous Islamic state lies somewhere in that middle ground… and for this I have chosen Malaysia as a model.

  134. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    August 16th, 2007 8:51 am

    Adonis: Good to have you back on this forum. (Real or not I like your name Adonis). The comparison between Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mustafa Kamal Pasha is only natural. Both men are credited for saving their respective people from total inhalation and for creating a modern state for their respective people. However each acted according to the socio-political situation of his own people. AtaTurk had to pick up the pieces of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and forge a modern Turkish nation. In order to do so he had to shake up the stranglehold of the parasitic clergy and the backwardness of his mostly illiterate people. Today, mostly thanks to the initiatives and foresight of AtaTurk, Turkey is an economically viable state with open and modern society. Yes Turks, mostly as a reaction to the European attitude, are moving towards their Middle Eastern roots, but society in general remains a tolerant one. Unfortunately Quaid was too old and sick to live long enough to create a modern and tolerant society. Whether Jinnah was ideologically a secularist or ‘religioust’, the sum of his thoughts tell me that he had a modern and tolerant state in his mind, a far cry from the semi-theocratic society that we have today. In order to change things for the better we have to make religion a personal affair of the individuals and not an affair of the state. Turkish model with some adjustments will serve us right.

  135. Adonis says:
    August 16th, 2007 11:55 pm

    Thanks. I agree with much of what you have said. But my view is that if the majority wants to make religion a part of law and constitution, then a tiny minority should not try to impose its own brand of secularism and of course vice versa.

  136. YLH says:
    August 17th, 2007 1:54 am

    Such a law should not violate the rights of minorities.

  137. Adonis says:
    August 17th, 2007 3:09 am

    “Rights of minorities” is a pretty vague term. Of course the minorities should have the freedom to practice their religion and they should have the same right on state assets as other citizens. But they cannot be given the right to force the majority to mold its life style as wished by the minority.

    It would be absurd for Muslims, say living in UK, to demand that pork or alcohol should not be served in official functions as it is against their religion or that polygamy should be legal for everyone because it is allowed in Islam.

    Laws should safeguard the rights of minorities while incorporating the views of majority.

  138. YLH says:
    August 17th, 2007 8:27 am

    What about when law of the majority states that certain offices shall exclude minorities because they don’t belong to a majority even though they are as much as citizen as anyone else?

  139. Dewana Aik says:
    August 17th, 2007 12:26 pm

    Adonis, religion and secularism are not opposite. The secularism

  140. August 17th, 2007 12:36 pm

    Dewana,

    You are right when you note that the problem is that while in places where Muslims are in a minority, all Muslims inter alia the Muslim priestly class becomes the champion of secularism as a defence against theocratic or exclusivist tendencies -if any- of the Non-muslim majority whichever that may be.

    However… in a Muslim majority society the Muslim priestly class poses a stiff challenge to the Muslim majority state as an Islamising pressure group … till the society itself becomes unstable through dissention and religious conflict. Such instability continues till either state repression (which is seldom total or complete) or state appeasement … the latter slowly leads to the state surrendering its sovereignty to religious groups. Ultimately the state itself falls to the clergy and you have an Iran like situation. The fall out of such theocratisation is enormous, even if there is stability through
    coercion.

    The bottom line is that reform in Muslim Majority country cannot be done by simply saying that religion has to be separate from the state but there has to be a proactive role of the state in reforming the Islamic clergy into accepting the modern state structure including civil liberties and choice and to give the constant challenge to the state.

  141. Pakistani says:
    August 17th, 2007 5:26 pm

    It would have pained Jinnah’s heart to read all the comments here.

  142. PatExpat says:
    August 18th, 2007 5:15 pm

    One can read too much into what Jinnah said and selectively citing his speeches or part thereof. Here are a few other which I read elsewhere

    QUOTE:
    Jinnah sounds to me more like Maulana Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

    Exhibit A
    “Every Musalmaan, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come. Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually.”
    - Jinnah , Eid message on September 1945

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

    Exhibit C
    What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man, and what is the bedrock and sheet-anchor of the community. It is Islam. It is the Great Book, Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we go on there will be more and more of oneness, one God, one Book, one Prophet and one Nation
    - Jinnah (All-India Muslim League, Karachi on 26th December)

    UNQUOTE
    Credit: Atif2 on CHOWK

    But I would end the argument that Jinnah was gentleman enough to not dictate the constitution and left it to the people of Pakistan through their constituent assembly to come up with a constitution that the people of Pakistan want.

    And now we have these corps d’elite who try to portray respected Jinnah in whatever color they seem fit with their own ideologies.

    Jinnah carved Pakistan for Muslims and not for himself. Let the inhabitants of Pakistan decide what do they want. I think Jinnah would agree to that.

  143. Dewana Aik says:
    August 18th, 2007 6:19 pm

    PatExpat, I am sure you must heard of “no compulsion in deen” which is an Islamic/Quran teaching so Jinnah, by referring to Islam and Quran, was not advocating forcing any one shariah on all. Further, word

  144. MQ says:
    August 18th, 2007 9:29 pm

    PatExpat:

    [quote] But I would end the argument that Jinnah was gentleman enough to not dictate the constitution and left it to the people of Pakistan through their constituent assembly to come up with a constitution that the people of Pakistan want. [/quote]

    In my opinion it was extremely unfortunate that Jinnah did not live long enough to “dictate” a constitution to the country. If he had, and then told the parliament to go ahead and amend it if they didn’t like anything in it — by a two third majority — I think things would have been different.

  145. Mastana Rahi says:
    August 18th, 2007 11:49 pm

    “Let the inhabitants of Pakistan decide what do they want. I think Jinnah would agree to that.”

    Mr. PatExpat, I see an implication here that vindicats many criminal acts commited on behalf of the people of pakistan, 80 percent of whom are still illiterate in real terms. I agree with MQ.

  146. PatExpat says:
    August 19th, 2007 8:48 am

    So if most of population is illiterate, the literate minority should decide whats best for the illiterate majority.

    Well this country has been run and ruled on the whims of the literate majority from their GHQs, Drawing Rooms, Presidential or Prime Minister Houses. Look where they led us.

    I think we should give the illiterate a chance. They would not do worse.

  147. Adonis says:
    August 20th, 2007 3:29 am

    YLH,

    The monarch of UK can only be a protestant as he/she also has to act as the head of anglican church. Similarly, not every american citizen can become the president as this post is reserved for only native born americans.

    Similarly, the president of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has to be a muslim as he/she has to ensure that the state is run according to the principles of Islam.

    Mastana Rahi et al,

    It is quite easy to ridicule the people as ignorant and illiterate when one does not agree with their view point. It was the same ignorant and illiterate people who voted for the creation of Pakistan. Surely they can now be trusted with deciding how Pakistan should be governed.

    Besides, I do not know of a single country in the world where people are barred from voting because they are not literate enough. Obviously no body can equate being illiterate with being stupid.

    PatExpat,

    Very well said. Quad-i-Azam was indeed a great democrat and never forced his views on others as some of the secular extremists are trying to do these days.

  148. Baluch says:
    August 21st, 2007 10:15 am

    Nice Ad

  149. YLH says:
    August 22nd, 2007 4:51 am

    Dear Adonis,

    United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with a history of 1000 years. Today in reality the monarch is merely a titular head.

    Pakistan is by constitution a republic, founded as a constitutional state through a struggle for a minority’s right to self determination. Furthermore, our president has never been a mere titular head.

  150. Adonis says:
    August 22nd, 2007 7:16 am

    YLH,

    Queen of UK may be a titular head of state but president of US is certainly all powerful. Still not all citizens of US can run for president.

    Besides, constitutionally the present is merely titular head of state. His powers are enhanced only by military dictators and diminished again when a civilian government comes.

  151. PatExpat says:
    August 23rd, 2007 8:38 am

    Lets all celebrate the supremacy of Justice and return of a principled politician (lesser evil).

  152. YLH says:
    August 25th, 2007 6:18 am

    Adonis,

    But every born citizen of the United States and citizen of the US born to naturalised US parents is constitutionally allowed to become the US President.

    Now look at the logical conclusion… would a Pakistani Christian’s great great great grandson every become the US president unless he changes his faith.

    Jinnah would not have had any of this discrimination I am sure… according to Dr. Mehdi Hassan, Jinnah even struck off “In the name of God” from the oath not because he didn’t believe in God … but because he didn’t want to set the wrong precedent for the future…. where an atheist may not be able to.

  153. YLH says:
    August 25th, 2007 6:19 am

    Sorry … Pakistan president… not US president… vis a vis Pakistani Christian.

  154. PatExpat says:
    August 25th, 2007 7:37 am

    YLH,

    If you want to push something down the throat of people against their wishes just because one man wants it, its going to blowback. Jinnah distanced Bengalis by insisting on Urdu being the only official language.

    I think we should leave Jinnah alone now. He left it to the people of Pakistan through the constituent assembly to draft a constitution. Lets mobilize the population, enlighten them about their rights and duties and make a constitution according to their wishes. We have come a long way since 1947 (for better or for worse).

  155. Kaim says:
    August 27th, 2007 4:01 am

    just for the record….Jinnah was Khojja by birth..not bohra.

  156. September 6th, 2007 7:12 am

    Islam’s message IS to treat the minorities well, and Quaid e Azam’s message is no different.

    There is no secular motive behind his clarifications or insistence, but remember the riots at the time. This is not the Quaid’s VISION for Pakistan, but rather his vision for treating the minorities.

    As to his real vision of Pakistan, please see my post, “Pakistan ka matlab kya”, on my blog.

  157. September 6th, 2007 7:14 am

    Sorry, The correct url is this: http://cyclewalabanda.blogspot.com/

  158. GreenSufi says:
    September 6th, 2007 10:50 am

    bhai, yes we must protect our minorities, but how is that “a vision for pakistan”? A country which protects its minorities? Is that our only Vision.
    And how about Allama Iqbal’s Vision of Pakistan?

    And the millions who sacrificed their lives, saying Pakistan ka matllab kya La ilaha illallah?

    Please don’t sacrifice Allama Iqbal at the alter of Faiz sahib.

  159. Leander Pace says:
    May 4th, 2008 4:57 pm

    Jinnah’s vision seemed to have failed..
    1. The state would be completely impartial to religion of the individual – Pakistan is a Islamic state. Less than 10% of population is non Muslim.
    2. The state where every citizen would be equal and there would be no distinction between citizen on the basis of faith or caste or creed – Again incorrect, Muslim is the only faith in Pakistan.

    Unless Pakistan reverts back to Jinnah’s vision of secularism, it cant progress and have a Global vision. Lets hope the new democratic government does something about this.

  160. Greywolf says:
    July 18th, 2008 2:41 am

    Green sufi,

    I read your little piece and it makes no sense whatsoever. It is better that people like you stick to religion and stop lying about Jinnah and Aligarh movement etc.

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)