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.
I don’t know what you are reading from this but a state can remain secular while allowing all communities including Muslims to follow their own shariat - India to some extent tries to achieve that, of course there is always room for improvement like that in “shariah” based system of Saudi Arabia.
You seem to have some misunderstanding about the word “Secular”…. just for clarification; it does NOT mean “no religion is allowed” as some Mullahs will have you believe. Incidentally Mullah Parties in Pakistan demand from Indian government to follow principals of secularism in the affairs of Indian Muslim community…why is that, if secularism will negate religion and in particular Islam?
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 “secular” state or an “Islamic” state is besides the point.”
I agree and disagree. I don’t think you can dismiss whether the state is departing from a “secular” project or not. The very ideas that go into nation-making do get affected by ideas of whether a state attempts to be secular, or based on a certain religion or not.
The thing is that Pakistan- like India- has taken on very conscious state/nation construction. For example, the implementation of “Urdu” as the national language, or the construction of “Pakistan” and a “Pakistani” identity that didn’t even exist 50 years ago.
And of course, the same is absolutely true across the border: the awareness and intention of making an “Indian” identity that is different from 50 years ago, and of an India that finishes at the border of Pakistan, etc.
On the other hand, I agree with you that there shouldn’t be much of an emphasis on whether the state is declared “secular” or not. What’s important is to look at the practices. Indians like to pride themselves on India “being the largest democracy in the world,” but in many ways it’s a joke. How can you call it a “democracy” when you have things like the 1984 anti Sikh riots, the Jan 1994 anti Muslim riots in Bombay, or the more recent 2002 anti Gujarati Muslim pogrom? All three episodes had the hand of the state, which is frightening. None of the political exponents who were implicated in these riots have ever been actually tried.
Things from Jinnah’s speech that have caught my eye:
“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.”
I suppose my problem is that I feel quite uneasy about pairing these two ideals for nation-making: 1) that the country was founded on an explicitly religious basis and 2) arguing that the country is secular.
Pakistan, apart from Israel, is the only country to have been founded on religion (quite separate from the idea that there is a sanctioned state religion). When it is proposed that the state is then secular, it seems almost paradoxical to me. The explicit ideal is to create a country where the adherents of one religion are in the majority. And indeed, he goes on to insert his views within the framework of “majority vs. minority” (an idea that arguably stemmed from our lovely padroni- the British. Here I’m borrowing from Benedict Anderson’s analysis- how the British state had consciously constructed the very dichotomy of “minority” and “majority” by systematically quantifying people).
“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.”
The two ideas here are at complete odds with one another: 1) that non Muslims “have nothing to fear” because Pakistan is secular but 2) Pakistan was formed on Islam (and as such, a religion privileged over the others) and Islam precisely has ideals of democracy, etc.
“Any idea of a United India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster.”
Mr. Jinnah is no longer alive, and so to be fair, he wouldn’t have seen how remarkably wrong his contention was (and everyone else who believed that India needed to be carved up), but even in his time, if he would have looked at the matter of the incredible bloodshedding and carnage that went into drawing the borders- in which people from all three faiths inflicted the most horrendous atrocites on their own people (Punjabis, for example), then he might have changed his tune. Instead, he looks at it as a shameful conduct of inhumanity. But let me ask this: was not dividing people based on religion setting the stage for this conduct? I think it would be fair to say that Indians pre 1947 did not kill each other in the numbers that they did during Partition. If anything, the idea of a divided India has exacerbated, fueled, and fostered disasterous perceptions, goals, and ideas, even to this day, and it is an idea that continues to haunt our present politics and nation-making (ie the Hindu fundamentalists who always, always, fall back on Partition and argue that if “Muslims” get their own state, why can’t Hindus do the same? In other words, create a Hindu Pakistan).
“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.”
I really feel that Mr. Jinnah and others who shared the idea of dividing India along religious identities truly and really discounted and perhaps did not even see just how intertwined, intermixed, and messy pre-1947 Indians were. Perhaps because the entire idea of dividing India was a top down decision (and the nationalists who garned political power were the bourgeousis- ie Nehru and Jinnah, and thus had very little idea of how things were on the ground, even if they referenced to the populace). An example of this was how the British were drawing the boundry lines of what would then become Pakistan and India. As you know, they tried to do it on a “majority” basis- those areas that were predominantly Muslim and Hindu/Sikh would become a part of Pakistan and India respectively. But there were multiple villages in which it was too mixed: there were equal numbers of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims.
Along related lines, I also think that Nehru and Jinnah did not fully take into consideration the extent to which regional identities had such a powerful impact. For example, a Gujarati Hindu has very little in common with a Tamil Hindu or Kashmiri Hindi and has more in common with a Gujarati Muslim. And needless to say, Punjabi regionalism is quite strong, regardless of the religious adherence. The sole critieria of a shared religion is not effective in binding a people. Furthermore, there are people who have more in common with folks across the borders than they do within their own borders (Punjabis, Bengalis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, etc). When I think of this, I remember the Pakistani gentleman I met in Italy. He was in Italy on political asylum- he escaped during ul-Huq’s rule. When he asked me “what” I was, I told him that I was of Indian descent. He looked at me and said, “No you are not.” I was quite young back then and didn’t fully understand all that went into our history, and so to explain himself, he said, “You are not Indian. You are Gujarati. And I am Punjabi. “Pakistan” and “India” are constructions by the powerful elite- they do not exist.” (You can certainly take issue with what he was saying, but I do think that to a certain extent, he was correct in saying this. But no doubt that some people have internalized their national identities, no matter how much they are constructed).
In the end, I do believe that Jinnah and Nehru were intelligent men who cared deeply about the nation(s) and tried to make the best of whatever mess that the British left. At the same time, I do feel like there have been mishappen results.
(In the interests of full disclosure, to help you “place” me so that you can understand why I wrote the above, I am of Gujarati-Indian descent with a Hindu upbringing who for the past 13 years has lived with a Punjabi Sikh family and through them, a “community” of Punjabis from both sides of the border who have become like a second family to me. And though my comments above are critical of the project of making “Pakistan”, I am equally critical of project called “India” and by no means am I an Indian nationalist in the traditional sense).
***
Last question I have, which may veer off topic: I have heard many, many Indians who lament Partition and feel saddened at the idea that India was divided (especially my grandparents who fought during Independence and believed that Hindustan was for all Hindustanis, not just Hindu Hindustanis, etc). Is there a similar sentiment in Pakistan?
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.
Yaar Adnan,
You may call Biryani Daal Chawal but it shall always be Biryani… my point exactly.
All the statements quoted here are from 1947-1948- last year of the Quaid’s life.
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…founded an organisation of his own, the Anjuman-us-asfia. The organisation promised to support the Muslim League on condition that Shariat would be enforced in Pakistan. To this Jinnah agreed. As a result the Pir of Manki Sharif declared jehad to achieve Pakistan and ordered the members of his anjuman to support the League in the 1946 elections.
Jinnah’s letter to Pir Manki Sharif in which he promised that the Shariah will be applied to the affairs of the Muslim community is quoted in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, Volume 5, 1949, p. 46.; Thus from 1940 onwards, the distinction between a Muslim national state and an Islamic state became increasingly blurred, and in the popular mind such distinctions did not matter much.
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.
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?