Adil Najam
What an amazingly poignant and powerful advertisement. And how timely.
Published in Dawn (11 August, 2006) as a full page ad for the radio station City FM 89 it highlights what I believe to be one of Mr. Jinnah’s most evocative and inspiring speeches. Certainly one that is most relevant to Pakistan’s present as well as future. The key quote is printed right below his photograph:
“You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”
Of course, his vision was not always followed. But on this, the eve of Pakistan’s Independence Day, there could not be a more timely moment to remind ourselves what the vision was.
City FM 89 also has a full day of special music planned for August 14, which by the looks of its sounds very enticing. For example, I would love to find out what their list of the ‘Top 50 Pakistani Songs’ look like. Whatever that list might look like, it is bound to have multiple entries from the incomparable Shahenshah-e-ghazal: Mehdi Hassan.
And that brings me to the second advertisement I saw, also in Dawn (12 August, 2006). This ad also spoke to my sensibilities.
First, this advert from Mobilink pays tribute to one of our greatest artists. That is something we do not do often enough; and do not do very well when we do it.
Moreover, the Urdu verse at the top — yeh watan hamara hai, hum hain pasbaan iss kay — comes from what I think is one of the most moving Pakistani national songs ever (commentary and link to the song here; more ATP posts on this here and here).
Most of song is in the ‘words’ of Mr. Jinnah so that ‘humara‘ (ours) in that line is ‘tumhara‘ (yours) in the song. But the intent is quite clear: we have to make of this country what we make of it. Even as a kid, this song always mesmerized me both for how Mehdi Hassan sang it and even more so for the words…. hum tou mehz unwaaN thay, asl daastaN tum ho!
Unlike so many other milli naghmay which were really naara baazi set to music, this one had a clear and powerful message. It seemed to me that Jinnah was saying to all of us: ‘guys, my time is up, I have done what I could, now its your turn; do the best you can and make the best of what you have.’ Of course, neither he nor the song was saying exactly that. But that is what I took from the song.
It was always a poignant song, but also an uncomfortable song. Because one always knew that we had not really lived up to the responsibility placed on us.
Here are a few posts I wrote to different friends on the issue of Jinnah, secularism etc… I am sure it will amply answer the objections raised by those who quote Jinnah’s references to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to deny his secularism.
The word “secularism” and its understanding is what the problem is… secularism means “separation of church and state”. In legal terms a secular state is one which has no state religion… in political science terms a secular democracy is one which places parliament above all religious institutions. It can also mean that the state would be ruled by non-clerical elements… and it can also mean that state treats every religion equally and impartially. At times states can be secular in one way or the other. At times states can be theocratic approaching secularism and at times they can be secular approching theocracy. But ultimately secularism can only be guaranteed in a democratic society.
Every secular state in the world has a civic religion- the ethos of its cultural majority. The US, a secular country, is overwhelmingly judaeo-christian in a civic sense… Secular India was always expected to be a Hindu Majority country.. where Hindus, by being the virtue of majority, would be define the culture of India… hence- no matter how secular India gets… the official Indian greeting will always be “Namaste” with folded hands… similarly Pakistan being a Muslim Majority country would always have “Assalamualaikum” as its greeting … regardless of how secular or Islamic it is…
It is natural… and does not say anything about secularism in its truest sense- a separation of church and state. It begs a question about what then is the purpose of making it such an awesome deal. Truth be told… secularism in the end favors and is to the advantage of the majority… because it is always the majority which-by the sheer weight of its religious dogma- stands to be crushed…
In Ottoman Turkey at the close of the 19th century- just as an example- Non-muslims were the most prosperous communities under the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamit. Andrew Mango in his book on Ataturk draws a very cosmpolitan picture of Istanbul… the overwhelming question he says was not that the country was going down… but whether Muslims would even have a place in the country. Muslims, because of restrictions of Islam and Islamic law, were left far behind …. In sharp contrast… Secular Turkey was 99% Muslim and Muslims of Turkey were forced to adopt modern education, commerce etc… leading to an enrichment for the Muslim Majority which had been hitherto impossible…
Malaysia… the other great prosperous Muslim nation… interesting is closer in my estimate to Ottoman Turkey… or what Ottoman Turkey had been had it managed to evolve into a constitutional monarchy that Midhet Pasa had implemented in the 1830s…
Again… secularism has very different meanings in different context. What is important is constitutional democracy, a fair judicial system and affirmative action for minorities… I am convinced that the Indian constitution attempts to do that… and to certain extent Pakistani constitution too… so I think this whole question is, as is, irrelevant.
Ceteris Paribus… to other issues.
First of all let us clarify one thing. Jinnah’s secularism is not a Pakistani claim nor merely a claim… every historian- including all Indian historians of partition- consider Jinnah a secularist. H M Seervai, S K Majumdar, Irfan Habib, Ajeet Javed, Bandopadhaya, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Patrick French, Sumit Sarkar, H V Hodson, Richard Symonds, Ainslee T Embree etc all consider him secular and his ideal for Pakistan … an inclusive pluralistic democracy. I want to make it clear at the outset because I have had enough of people telling me about my claims…. Secularism means a separation of church and state and to bring together an inclusivist system… Jinnah’s entire life was a struggle to that end… whether today Indians or Pakistanis wish to deny it or not… I will tackle in a minute of Muslim nationalism in a minute…
Now it is amazing that you say ” If Mr Jinnah was even a fraction of the secularist that you claim he was, then whatever his apprehensions regarding Hindu majority, he should have stayed, and fought”… for did Jinnah not give 35 of his 42 year old political life to the cause of a United India and Hindu Muslim Unity… As for the downtrodden etc… Jinnah’s contributions both inside of the assembly and outside of it for the untouchables and scheduled castes etc are well documented… he worked for them both as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian and as a politician… however… in my opinion the most touching tribute to Quaid-e-Azam came from an untouchable leader who said:
“All religions hold that God sends suitable people into the world to work out his plans from time to time and at critical junctures. I regard Mr Jinnah as the man who has been called upon to correct the wrong ways in which the people of India have been led by the leadership of Mr Gandhi. Congress took a wrong turn when it adopted wholesale the non cooperation programme of Mr Gandhi and assumed an attitude of open hostility towards Britain and tried to infusew the minds of people a spirit of defiance of law and civil disobedience more of less thinly veiled under a formula of truth and non violence. Moreover by Mahatmafying Mr Gandhi it appealed to the idolatorous sperstition of the Hindus, thus converting the religious adherence of the Hindu section of the population to the Mahatma into political support of his non cooperation movement.While this strategy was of some avail in hustling the British Government to yield more and more it divided the people into Hindu and non hind! u sectionsIn these circumstances a man was needed to stand up to congress and tell its leaders that their organization however powerful numerically and financially doesnot represent the whole of India. I admire Mr Jinnah and feel grateful to him because in advocating the cause of the Muslims he is championing the cause of all the classes that are in danger of bein crushed under the steam roller of the caste Hindu majority, acting under the inspiration and orders of Mr Gandhi ”
Even Gandhi once commented that he thought Jinnah was planning on uniting all the Non-Hindu and Non-Congress elements under one flag … which is what Jinnah did on 22nd December 1939… the day when he was joined by leaders of all communities, including B R Ambedkar in a day of deliverance from Congress rule…
But this is all irrelevant… because Jinnah did speak for the Muslims … first as a minority and then as a nation. But the question of Muslim identity has been an old one and historically all Muslim peoples every where do tend to have strong sense of identity…. Jinnah as a representative democratic parliamentary politician could not afford to ignore the mass sentiment (which may I add Muslims had every right to- it is a universal human right to freedom of expression and identity)…. it become irrelevant whether Mr Jinnah was himself as conscious of this identity… as a representative politician, he understood his role… and his constituency… and his constituency was very clear. And what a great inspiration he was to the people… he managed to bring into politics women and unite all sects of Islam under his typically modern and non-religious leadership… the contribution of the Pakistan Movement to the Muslim women’s movement and their education and development is well recognised… Jinnah uplifted the Muslims … told them to adopt modern professions, go to universities, delve in commerce, become poltically aware and yes… to vote as one block. What did the “secular” Congress do? It coopted the same Mullahs who said women should stay in doors and that Muslims should not go into modern professions… see the difference? Secularism means different things in different contexts… the modernisation and the liberation of the Muslim masses… that Pakistan movement and the Pakistan idea brought (though temporarily halted in the 1980s by General Zia whose family was from the same mullah mold that supported the Congress) … resulted in real and material bourgeoisie development of the Muslim community… this is secularism. Secularism is not dictating to people what their identity should be… but taking an existing identity and molding it into an ever evolving modernity…
Now it doesn’t matter if you, Mr Joshi, feel that you can’t reconcile yourself to the idea that in the 1940s a great majority of the 100 Million Indians who called themselves Muslims came to see themselves as a nation for however brief a period… and then rejected the Mullahs and chose leaders who were cosmpolitan and non-religious…
The fact of the matter is the 87% of the Muslim electorate voted for the Muslim League in 1946… ignoring the Muslim League’s demand and refusing to budge from its position that Congress did … may have been the cool thing to do … but then accept that it was Congress’ decision and its insistence on partition of Bengal and Punjab that led to violence in 1947 and not the creation of Pakistan… it can’t be “heads Congress wins tails Muslim Leagues loses”…
The fact of the matter is that AIML’s idea involved the creation of two semi independent republics under one Union… which would have avoided the bloodshed and the hostility and solved India’s age old problem as well as keeping the subcontinent united… to continously blame the violence of partition on Pakistan is merely an ignorance of history….
I suggest you read H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”.
As I must have repeated myself so many times… for Pakistan to be created… India need not have been partitioned. India was partitioned because Congress decided it was “my way or the highway”. Muslim League’s idea of Pakistan was of two semi independent states in a confederation. The creation of these semi-independent Indian states in one confederation of India would have balanced out the historic Hindu-Muslim conflict that had consumed so much of Jinnah’s life …. The partition of August 1947 was- whether Indians (and Pakistanis) admit it or not- as much a partition of the Pakistan idea as it was of British India.
Also … your comment about minorities… let me say this. Despite the fact that Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as expressed in his speeches as the governor general has not been fully implemented… a minority essentially in Pakistan has two votes to every Muslim’s one. Not only that but a minority woman Pakistani has three votes to a Muslim man’s one vote.
There are many institutional problems with minorities in Pakistan…. most of them of 1980s origin… but if you ever visit Pakistan you will discover that the minorities in Pakistan… especially Hindus of Karachi are not that badly treated…. but infact make up a significant portion of the upper middle class… there is material equality for many minorities even if there is no constitutional equality… Some of the richest people in Pakistan are non-Muslims … and some of the most educated and progressive people in the country are non-muslims… this is not to say that I defend the discrimination that exists… but we must also recognise the facts. And for all your great lectures on Indian equality…. even today you are trying to force Vande Mataram (which is bad not because it is an ode to homeland – even Sohni Dharti is an ode to homeland… it is bad because it is from an anti-Muslim novel called “Anand Math” by Bankim Chatterjee which praises the British and calls them the saviours against evil Muslims)… violence is rampant against minorities… and people are burnt alive for being non-Hindus… not to say Pakistan is perfect… but then why such self righteousness about our problems ?
Separation of church and state is a very tricky issue. The U.S. claims to have it but it obviously does not. I believe that all of the things that we call morals have been in some form or another derived from religion. There is no law or morality without religion.
oh yo already mentioned state’s association with secularism but it’s also true that sepration of church from state is actually very supportive for atheist community.
but I also know that its not good to declare Jinnah a secularist due to “has nothing to do with the business of the stat”.I could really agree with you if JInnah had not given that two particular speech.
As i cleared earlier the so called and controversal “Secularism” exist in every religion so why to take it as a seprate branch?
Read his two speeches again and I quote the main words below:
… is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principle
Its a “crystal clear”.If you are not even able to interpret BOLD words according to merit then I really can’t argue with you more.You are free to declare him whatever you want but offcourse Jinnah’s words are more noticeable than anyone else
WHy are you afraid of “Islam” as long as you re a muslim?
Not unIslamic, Not atheist. Just secular.
Sorry the Jinnah’s words dont reflect that
BTW doesnt secularism deals with “SEPRATION of CHURCH and state” *grin* ?
None of the quotes you give suggest that Quaid wanted an Islamic government BASED on shariah principles.
Do you have any idea about “SHARIAH” ?I would like that you elaborate SHARIAH to Adil’s blog readers since I often infact most of the time see that our copycat muslims comeup against Shariah just by keeping in mind stuff like “Choppinf off hands”.
JInnah’s words are always misinterpreted as any Religion’s book words.Let me quote Jinnah’s word.
You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.
I don’t understand how this statment was taken as he was willing to make a secular state.While the term *secular* itself is very controversal as the message given by secularism is very common in Islam,christianity and Judaism,specialy pretty clear two Islamic resources Quran and Hadith.Allow me to quote one of Jinnah;s speech to learn about his mindset.
The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. The life of the Prophet (PBUH) was simple according to those times. He was successful in everything that he put his hand to from as a businessman to as a ruler. The Prophet (PBUH) was the greatest man that the world had ever seen. Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundations of democracy(Prophet’s birthday at the Karachi Bar Association on 25th January 1948)
Jinnah was pretty clear,even more clearer than our modern ignorant muslims who think that Islam has nothing to do with democracy while Islam always preached about democracy which obviously are unable to grasp at all.
Another speech by Jinnah Sahab which stengthens further about his clear views about new state.
It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles
(Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947 )
Crystal clear isn’t it??nothing to read between lines.Jinnah was well aware about Islam and life of the Prophet(SAW) and His teaching.