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.
Again let me quote my own post… lets put aside for a second this distinction that you wish to draw between secularism and Islam… and just concentrate on the nitty gritties of Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan…
Do you disagree with any of the following:
[quote comment=”2801″]
Jinnah’s conception of Pakistan – as far as I have understood it- was as follows:
1. A state based on universal adult franchise where every citizen of the state would be equal citizen regardless of religion caste or creed (21st May 1947, 14th July 1947, 11th August 1947, March 1948 address to the people of the US via radio, March 1948 address to the people of Australia via radio and there are several others)
2. A state where a person’s religion does not matter and is not the business of the state. A state where faith is the personal business of a citizen (11th August 1947, 14th July 1947… several other pronouncements to the constituent assembly)
3. A state where there is no distinction in the eyes of law between Muslim and Non-Muslim…(17th December 1947)
4. A state where a Non-muslim/non-believer could become the constitutional head of the state… Jinnah reportedly struck off the words “in the name of god” from his oath of office not because he did not believe in god but because he wanted to lay down the principle that even a non-believer could become the head of the state in Pakistan.
5. A Pakistan “that would not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission”. Jinnah as a lawyer presumably was using these words in proper legal sense. A theocracy is a state which places scripture and doctrine over the will of the people… Contrary to this, Jinnah believed that the sovereignty rested with the people (as opposed to what our lawmakers said later)… thus by Jinnah’s standards.. Pakistan would qualify as exactly what he was opposed to.
[/quote]
If you agree with these issues… in my view, it is immaterial what you call such a state… a rose is rose by any name.
But for the record.. such a state legally and constitutionally falls in the purview of a secular state according to theory. If this is also an Islamic state, then your argument is that a secular state is an Islamic state.
Also… the historical development of secularism started in Cardinal Richellieu of France who was a Christian Priest as well as the Prime Minister… Anyone who deserves to be called the father of secularism is John Locke…
George Jacob Holyoake (born in 1817) is not the father of secularism by any definition, given that he hardly gave a theory that spoke of state organisation and given that completely secular states like the Rhode Island Colony had in been existence since the 1650s… the first amendment to the constitution of Unted States of America establishing the principle of separation of church and state came as early as 1789 … so to quote one definition as overriding definition is wrong.
Dear YLH
Thanks for your prompt response.You said:
[quote post=”26″]here is your view that secularism is essentially incompatible with Islam… when in my view it is not nor does it equal atheism. Bu[/quote]
That is certainly not my view.I rather prefer to burry my head in orignal source for referrence rather just beliving some XYZ’s defnition of anything.I quoted definition of SECULARISM given by founder or you say Baba-e-Secular George Jacob Holyoake in 1847 and did
spendwaste little time to learn more about reasons of secularism.You search google you will find about or else I can also give you link upon request.When the founders are clearly saying that secularism was introduced to protect aethists right then why one should believe in any other theory?Its like I ignore newton’s equations and theories and believe in some xyz.Sepration of Church and State,this is copied a lot by our educated desis to support secular govt but what do you understand about this?I am not sure but do you equate a Christian teaching equal to Islamic teaching?If yes then ok fine i would understand your source of information.If not then I really want to know that how secpration of church and state equal to sepration of masjid/madrasah and state.
Regarding Jinnah sahab,his speech you pointed in no 2 statment.I really dont find it a secularist statement anyway because even Quran also says similar things like There is no compulsion in religion and Lakum Denokum Waliyadin.Isn’t Islamic teaching capable to absord non-Muslims?
I think Jinnah was infinite time clear about secularism and Islam than current Pakistanis who always find difficulty to find freedom within relgiion.
Dear Adnan Siddiqui,
The problem here is your view that secularism is essentially incompatible with Islam… when in my view it is not nor does it equal atheism. But here lets discuss Jinnah’s idea of statehood …
When Jinnah spoke of Islamic Principles(and these references are few and far between) he spoke of equality fraternity and Justice… which are universal and secular principles… that they are Islamic principles (if they are and you believe they are) then Islam buttresses true principles of secularism.
Instead of quoting selectively and arguing about the words “secular” and “Islamic” … let us instead define what kind of state Jinnah wanted, without getting into the debate of whether this state is Islamic or secular …
Jinnah’s conception of Pakistan – as far as I have understood it- was as follows:
1. A state based on universal adult franchise where every citizen of the state would be equal citizen regardless of religion caste or creed (21st May 1947, 14th July 1947, 11th August 1947, March 1948 address to the people of the US via radio, March 1948 address to the people of Australia via radio and there are several others)
2. A state where a person’s religion does not matter and is not the business of the state. A state where faith is the personal business of a citizen (11th August 1947, 14th July 1947… several other pronouncements to the constituent assembly)
3. A state where there is no distinction in the eyes of law between Muslim and Non-Muslim…(17th December 1947)
4. A state where a Non-muslim/non-believer could become the constitutional head of the state… Jinnah reportedly struck off the words “in the name of god” from his oath of office not because he did not believe in god but because he wanted to lay down the principle that even a non-believer could become the head of the state in Pakistan.
5. A Pakistan “that would not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission”. Jinnah as a lawyer presumably was using these words in proper legal sense. A theocracy is a state which places scripture and doctrine over the will of the people… Contrary to this, Jinnah believed that the sovereignty rested with the people (as opposed to what our lawmakers said later)… thus by Jinnah’s standards.. Pakistan would qualify as exactly what he was opposed to.
Now consider…
Jinnah told several of his colleagues when asked… “Sharia?Whose Sharia”… the fact of the matter is that Jinnah was well aware that every time a doctrinal controversey is brought forth… it ends up dividing Muslims themselves.. recall his break with Gandhi was over the issue of religionization of the non-cooperation movement. Jinnah as the leader of the Muslims knew well that amongst his followers there are Shias and Sunnis and amongst them there are Ismailis, Ithna Asharis, Barelvis, Deobandis and above all, his staunchest supporters were Ahmadis…
Hence every time the issue of Sharia came up Jinnah vetoed it. He threw out Raja of Mahmudabad for raising doctrinal controversies which he felt would divide the Muslims. He vetoed Dr Kazi’s resolution in 1943 which wanted to commit Pakistan to Quran and Sunnah… He told his close colleagues, that Pakistan would be a modern state based on modern principles and reprimanded them for speaking in retrogressive terms… Now the statements you quote should be seen in their proper context. To Jinnah a modern egalitarian democratic state which is impartial to its citizens’ faith embodied essential Islamic principles.
Also consider…
Jinnah made it a point to appoint Jogindranath Mandal, a Hindu, first as the representative of Muslims on the interim government, then it was Mandal who opened the first legislative session of the new state of Pakistan- a unique honor, and finally Jinnah chose Jogindranath Mandal to become Pakistan’s first Law Minister..
And if the point wasn’t driven home, Jinnah got another Hindu to write Pakistan’s first national anthem which was played during Jinnah’s tenure…
The very fact that it was he who was asked to write the first national anthem of Pakistan within less than a week before its formal birth indicates the potentiality of its happening. It is interesting to recall that writing the national anthem of Pakistan was made at the behst of its founder Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The request was in conformity with his famous speech of 11th August 1947 in which he had said, “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.” His request to a secular Hindu poet filled into his vision of Pakistan. Alas he did not live long to put that vision into practice.
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31Aug 04-Print-Edition/163108200462.htm
There are several other nuggets which prove beyond a matter of any doubt as to what kind of state Jinnah wanted.
dear YLH.
Pardon me but I really dont understand what were you trying to say in such lengthy posts.
First you said:
[quote post=”26″]PS: The word “secularismâ€
Burpinder singh sahab,
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 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 ?
Yasser Latif Hamdani
PS: 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.