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:
25th 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ‘Division of British Indian Empire’. ”
You have met all 1 billion Indians and the millions in the Diaspora?
And also plese be aware that YOU do NOT represent all Pakistanis and Pakistani expats. There is no such thing as a “Pakistani perspective” or “The Pakistani would say/thinks, etc.” It is also not true that “all Pakistanis” are over Partition, if the Pakistanis I know are anything to go by, and that “all Indians” cannot let go of Partition. Speak for yourself, as I speak for myself and no one else.
“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.”
What are you talking about? Are you saying this because I am referring to the nature and amount of inequalities in Paksitan? And furthermore, are you insinuating that I’m singling out Pakistanis because I hate them? You’re being absolutely absurd. I am talking about Pakistan because the post is on Pakistan. If you want to hear me criticize India with equal ferocity, I can do that, too. What a stupid assertion you have made.
“You have shown us our pimples. When are you going to show us your warts and moles.”
Lame comback. It’s useless to write comments to people who revert to calling folks “lunatics” because they give their thoughts on Partition EVEN THOUGH THE AUTHOR BRINGS UP THE SUBJECT IN HIS POST and immature comments like “show us your warts.”
“Please tell me why.”
Why don’t you ask people instead of asking “show us your pimples?” Or instead of shutting down a discussion because you think what the person is saying is unacceptable and/or irrevelant, why not just let it be?
Let me just say that I am actually disappointed and baffled that commentators like Pervaiz and writers like LHF can revert to such childish antics when someone voices their opinion. Instead of replying with something concrete, all sorts of generalizations, insults, criteria (”Are you Pakistani or a Pakistani expat?”), lumping people together and assuming that one or two commentators speak for entire nations, defensiveness, and uncritical assertions have been flung. I of course have been defensive as well because almost everything I’ve said so far has been re-interpreted, dismissed and hacked down (with the exception of Ahsan and Ali Zain)and I’m wondering if those who are taking issue with me have actually read my comments.
***
Ali Zain:
There’s some substantiative things you have written, and I would like to take the time to read them before I respond to you (I’m at work and shouldn’t even be writing comments :) )
But one thing I gleaned:
“you choose the handle ‘Desi Italiana’ and not Gugrati or Hindu Italiana, ‘Desi’ is strictly an off-shoot of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi identity”
Sigh… everyone looks at handle names as true, accurate reflections of the actual person :)
I chose that handle rather than “hindu” or “gujarati” because I don’t identify myself primarily and/only as “hindu”, “gujarati”, etc. I’m an amalgam and product of all of my identities (as I see others to be).
You could argue that “desi” is not so much an offshoot of “Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi” identities as constructed by the powerful elite; “desi” could refer to anyone who identifies themselves from their “desh,” whether it’s Nepal, Sri Lanka, or their region within a given state. Basically, a “desi” could see him/herself as coming from the desh as they imagine and define it, and it may or may not be contingent on the contemporary constructions (by the powerful elites). It is also true that “desi” is used much more by the diasporans. In the end, it is difficult to extricate what constructions are by the powerful elite and what are created by the people; people will also internalize, or take those constructions and make them their own. Isn’t that what “India” and “Pakistan” are all about? Indians and Pakistanis have taken those nationalist constructions and have made them their own, and will always constantly recreate the meanings of what it means to be “Indian” and “Pakistani”. An earlier commentator pointed out quite rightly that there are generations now who are post 1974 and feel comfortable with their political identities. And as such, tt’s not always a top down process. Which is why I said in my earlier comment that you can take issue with what that Pakistani gentleman had said to me.
So I could also see your point when you say, “Desi’ is strictly an off-shoot of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi identity” to which I respond “Touche.” Smart move, Ali :)
Anyway, getting off topic too much. Will get back to the other parts of your comments later.
Pervaiz: 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.
Be careful with those generalizations. Pick your battle with Desi Italiana if you will, but leave the rest of us out of it.
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.
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.
Desi Italiana:
“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?”
Let me clarify a bit, what I was trying to say — and this is strictly in context to what Jinnah had in mind — is that you need to create an identity, like Pakistan(i), in order to have this kind of egalitarian secularism. Now this identity should create a nation-state, it will become their dominant identity, whatever religion, race, creed or ethnicity they may belong to. And ideally this identity should subsume all other identities. So a Pakistani can be a Sikh, Parsi, Hindu, Muslim, Punjabi, Pathan, Gujrati etc. This is why not only the state should not have any religion, it should not have a race or ethnicity, which basically solves the problem of minority (minority in purely political sense of the term).
Yes you are right about other factors involved in creation of Bangladesh, also sheer geography was against holding it together with Pakistan. But again I must say that the construction of Pakistani identity (and for that matter Indian) is NOT based in “religious majoritarianism”, there is fine difference when I said Pakistan was not created in the name of Islam, but to protect the rights of a minority whose religion happen to be Islam. Now this was the theoretical basis of Pakistan and as I have said what happens when you distort that theoretical basis.
Now we have to remember that no system or ideology is perfect and can be wholly implemented, there will always be short-comings and threats from within, but it does not mean we give up on the secularist ideology, as you seem to suggest that it has failed somehow, and that the predominant religion, ethnicity will somehow seep into. I think in order to lessen the effects of race, ethnicity and religion (in the working of a nation-state) we have to keep polishing our secularist ideals and come up with more emancipating and humanist ideologies. I think the answer is not to renounce our Indian or Pakistani identities and revert back to religious, racial or ethnic identity, because history has taught us how injurious is that to human development.
Now it may seem at this particular historical period with a sudden rise in neo-conservatism from all sides and of all shapes, that the secularist ideology has failed and it cannot be fully or effectively put into practice because as human beings our prejudice will always come into play. And you cited some examples from India and US, let me tell you, even the architect of American Constitution Thomas Jefferson and English political philosopher John Locke who spent all their lives preaching human equality and freedom owned slaves. US has a long history of up-holding the secular beliefs, even with its early Slavery, the Civil War, its experiment with Prohibition without the clumsiness of a holy book and Jazz, Hollywood, Rock ‘n Roll, Jewish comedy, the black culture, landing on the moon, the Internet, oh and did we forget basic amenities to the people in a welfare state. Now I am not suggesting at all that it is a perfect system without defects, there are many, but the fact is that the secularist ideology has fostered diversity and progress.
And I think this answers your question as to why Jinnah is relevant today, far removed from our history, social and political context, his secularist ideals are still relevant for Pakistan and can be used, although its true that we have to come up with new ways suited to our own culture and time. But giving up the idea of Pakistan or ‘Pakistaniat’ and regressing back to religious/ethnic identity will be disasterous as we are witnessing. We need the Pakistani identity more than ever or otherwise we will divide over sectarian and ethnic lines. The answer to most of our problems is a national identity based on democratic secular values, most of scientific, technological and artistic and other advancement are made in more secularised demoractic countries.
Lastly
Despite the fact that, this ‘Pakistani guy’ you met in Itlay, who suggested that you are in fact a Gujrati and not an Indian, and that Indian and Pakistani identities are false constructions by powerful elite, you choose the handle ‘Desi Italiana’ and not Gugrati or Hindu Italiana, ‘Desi’ is strictly an off-shoot of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi identity :)
——
Yes PPP is a secular political party, but ironically it was under the government of its founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that Pakistan was officially declared an Islamic State.