Adil Najam
Mohamed Ali Jinnah, it seems, was not a “real freedom fighter” and he did “nothing for Islam.” (On Jinnah, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
So says the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). And by what logic does Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his party come to this conclusion? According to the party spokesman: “Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering.”
I am left rather speechless. So, here is the news item from Daily Times (February 9, 2007) that reports on the matter:
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) will celebrate 2007 by paying tribute to the heroes who played an important role in the independence of Pakistan ignoring Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his companions, JUI officials told Daily Times on Thursday. They said that the party would hold conventions in Peshawar and other cities of the NWFP in March to highlight the services of “real freedom fighters”
“The decision to this effect was taken at the meeting of the JUI executive council in Lahore a couple of days ago. National Assembly Opposition Leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman presided over the meeting,” they added. JUI information secretary Maulana Amjad Khan said that Jinnah and his companions would not be commemorated because they had not done anything for Islam. “Jinnah was not imprisoned during the independence struggle. That is why he did nothing worth remembering,” Khan added.
He said the JUI would remember only those leaders who had sacrificed their lives for the creation of Pakistan or who had been imprisoned by the British Raj. JUI leader Qari Nazir Ahmed said the party would remember Hussain Maulana Ahmed Madni, Maulana Qasim Nanotri, Maulana Ubaid Ullah Sindhi, Maulana Mehmoodul Hassan, Syed Ahmed Shaheed, Shah Ismael Shaheed, Mauala Rasheed Ahmed and other leaders, who had rendered great sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan. “Maulana Qasim Nanotri established the Madrasa Darul Uloom Deoband. The institute produced a large number of freedom fighters,” Qari Nazir added. He said a schedule for conventions in the Punjab had not been decided yet. JUI Lahore chapter ameer Maulana Muhibun Nabi said the party would also arrange programmes in Lahore in this connection.
Interesting, by the way, that it seems that to be a “real freedom fighter” you have ‘Maulana’ prefixed before your name or a ‘Shaheed’ as a suffix.
Note: My thank to Watandost for alerting me to this rewriting of history.
YLH: Very well articulated. Arguments made with logic and not with raw emotions or false pretences. We need more men and women of clear thinking and less of emotional rants; men and women from all thoughts, backgrounds and ideologies and not just what we think. I personally do not like a mix of religion and politics; any religion. But I do believe that all citizens of Pakistan must be allowed to express their opinion freely. And to call some one ‘Mullah’ in a derogatory fashion is not nice. A civilized behavior is to call a person in a manor he or she wishes to be called. What do we achieve by name calling. Nothing. If you want to be respected, respect others. What happened sixty years ago must be relegated to the history. We Pakistanis have to ask our self one big question. What have we done for the country lately. “Ask not what the country……”
Let us make some elementary points that need to be made:
1. Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam Fazlurrahman group is the ideological successor of Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind’s NWFP faction led by Mufti Mahmood. Mufti Mahmood, like Ghaffar Khan and others, opposed the creation of Pakistan. Therefore, it is not surprising that they have chosen this move and levelled the accusation that since Jinnah was not imprisoned he did nothing- this is an old Indian accusation.
2. Jinnah’s approach against the British was constitutional through out. He did not rabble rouse and he did not break the law. He was a parliamentarian and as a parliamentarian he sought to gain self rule for India through constitutional non-violent means. This is the essence of Jinnah… he was constitutional before he was anything else – while we- his nation- are thoroughly unconstitutional. But my point is that his getting arrested was hardly the issue. He was a critic not a rebel… even though the British tried twice to deport Jinnah to Burma but failed because he always did everyting legally.
3. Neena’s comment that the two nation theory got buffed with the creation of Bangladesh is an invalid one. The two nation theory was not a theory in exclusion to all else. It was one of the many imagined identities that were brought into play against the concept of one centralised Indian republic. However, Jinnah was very willing to accept a Bangladesh in 1947… which was proposed by Suhrawardy, Sarat Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy… this idea was vetoed by Nehru. Read Stanley Wolpert’s Shameful flight. How then can the same thing that Jinnah had agreed to in 1947, mean an end to his ideas in 1971.
4. Pakistan’s future lies legitimately in becoming a secular democracy as envisaged by Jinnah … where religion and identity would no longer be an issue. At the very least, Jinnah’s struggle was to end all identity/religious conflict. Therefore, all Pakistanis should unite against the Mullah Menace Alliance and reclaim Pakistan … Jinnah’s Pakistan that is.
No pun intended, but I believe we all criticize likes of Jammati Mullahas, gen. Zia and mostly hypocrites and moral less. They gave Islam bad name by using religion for their ill activities.
[quote post=”566″]curse the ideology and two nation theory of Pakistan[/quote]
Two nation theory got buffed after the creation of Bangladesh.
This is great! This is a great opportunity. If the government failed to leverage the opportunity at the time when the Mullah’s opposed the Women Rights Bill, the government should leverage this one and kick the extreme Mullahs out. And clean up the country.
Ironically those who opposed Pakistan’e creation are not different than those who favored its establishment. Can any secularist tell me what was irking them in India when they didn’t want a new religous state?
Both parties rejected and supported for their own intrest rather for the people of Pakistan. Only an ignorant and retard would reject the fact that Pakistan was ruled mostly by non-religious people than religious parties and these non-religious[or I say enlightened class] didn’t even get ashamed after splitting Pakistan into two factions. As I already mentioned that people like Altaf Hussain and Rasool Bakhs Paleejo publicly refused the existance of Pakistan and curse the ideology and two nation theory of Pakistan but since these guys have no relation with Islam or “beard” therefore so called “educated” class prefer to ignore them and pick an instance where they even find a slightest element of Islam so that they get another chance to offtend religion. After all this is all about secularism.
It’s better for all of us and for our future generations that we don’t play with history anymore. In past our aged generation of Pakistan played an important role to destroy Pakistani youth by giving their own pathetic interpetition of Pakistan’s existance. We shouldn’t repeat same mistake otherwise future generations who would be infinite times smarter than us would curse us heavily.
[quote post=”566″]I know that quran says ‘there is no compulsion in religion’.[/quote]
that particular Surah was sent to condemn the idea of forced converstion that is a Muslim can’t force a non-muslim to accept Islam and this surah has no relation with the fictitious western definition of secularism.
The Quranic surah which talks about religious tolerence is last verse of Surah Kafiroon, You have your path and I have mine.