nfpqaued11112012

Illustration by Abro

Today many Pakistanis are aware of Jinnah’s August 11, 1947, speech in which he clearly explains Pakistan to be a democratic Muslim majority country where religion has nothing to do with the business of the state.

Well-known historians have all maintained that to Jinnah the Muslims of undivided India were a separate cultural entity requiring their own homeland.

Jinnah’s desire to see this through was born from his awkwardness with the idea of a post-colonial India subjugated by the ‘Hindu-dominated’ Indian National Congress: even though the Congress was almost entirely secular.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that Jinnah’s push to carve out a separate Muslim country was made in order to construct an Islamic state.

For years Pakistanis have debated about how Jinnah went about claiming Pakistan. Was he able to think it through, or did he fail to perceive the vulnerability of his claim?

Many also believe that his claim in this respect was too open-ended. That’s why it was easily exploited by some who eventually turned it into a monolithic entity and a militaristic bastion of Islam.

It is ironic that the first Pakistani head of state to sincerely try to realise Jinnah’s concept of Pakistan was a military dictator. Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s regime (1959-69) still remains perhaps the most secular in the country’s history.

Apart from, of course, sidelining the democratic aspects of Jinnah’s concept, Ayub otherwise went about defining (through legislation) his understanding of Jinnah’s Pakistan.

To him it was about a secular Muslim majority state sustained by the genius of entrepreneurial action, a strong military, and the spirit of modernistic and progressive Islam of the likes of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal and Jinnah.

However, in a naturally pluralistic society like Pakistan with multiple ethnicities, religions and Islamic sects, if one takes out democracy from the above equation, one would get (as Ayub did) ethnic strife, religious reactionary-ism and class conflict.

The class-based and multi-ethnic commotion in this respect opened windows of opportunity for well-organised leftist groups who were not only successful in forcing Ayub out (1969), but they also eschewed the religious opposition to the Field Marshal’s government.

Left parties like the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), National Awami Party (NAP), and student groups like the National Students Federation (NSF), in the former West Pakistan, achieved this by attacking Ayub’s ‘pro-rich policies’ (state-facilitated capitalism), and, on the other hand, neutralised the Islamic fundamentalists by adding a new twist to Jinnah’s image.

For example, the PPP advocated Jinnah to be a progressive democrat whose thinking was close to the ideas of ‘Islamic socialism’ first purported (in the region) by such leaders of the Pakistan Movement, as Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, and Iqbal.

After the breakaway of East Pakistan in 1971, and the coming to power of the PPP (led by Z A. Bhutto), the authoritarian centre-right secularism of the Ayub era (and concept of Jinnah), moved towards the populist left.

But the Bhutto regime was highly mutable. Though it remained populist, it regularly shifted from left to right on an issue to issue basis.

A study of Jinnah’s quotes used on state-owned media of the period suggests a regime trying to push Jinnah as a democrat who was not secular in the western sense, but a progressive Muslim whose faith was pluralistic in essence and ‘awami’ (populist).

Such quotes, that became a mainstay just before the main 9pm news bulletin on the state-owned PTV, suddenly changed track when Bhutto was toppled in a reactionary military coup by General Ziaul Haq (July 1977).

From 1977 onwards, no more was Jinnah being bounced between Ayubian secularists and Bhutto’s Islamic Socialists. He now became the property of the ‘Islam-pasand’ (pro-Islamic state) lot.

PTV and Radio Pakistan were ordered to only use those quotes from Jinnah’s speeches that contained the word ‘Islam’.

A concentrated effort was made to remould him into a leader who conceived Pakistan as an Islamic state with a strong military.

In 1978, the order of Jinnah’s celebrated motto, ‘Unity, Faith, Discipline,’ was reshuffled to put the word ‘faith’ first instead of the middle.

Then Zia’s information ministry suddenly unearthed a diary kept by Jinnah in which he had supposedly expressed his desire to see Pakistan as a country run on Islamic laws (instead of democracy), and emphasised the political and ideological role of the military. The diary turned out to be a desperate forgery.

Also, Jinnah’s August 11 speech was expunged from the school textbooks, as if it never existed.


Comments are closed.

Comments (188)

abc
November 12, 2012 7:36 pm
"Pakistan has been going through a war for the last 30 years, external and internal, and managed to survive." Correction!!!!! for the last 65 years. The great resilient Pakistan lost half of its country within the first 35 years of its inception, and seems to be going strong to repeat itself in the next 35 years. Good going by India's "ideological leader".
Yemeen Zuberi
November 12, 2012 5:49 pm
the truth is that Jinnah lived his life as an Englishman, he never hid or lied about his drinking and pork eating. He never cheated his wife, though he paid less attention to her. Gandhi deprived his wife sex for no solid reason, while Nehru never liked his own wife but others'. Please read Stainley Walpert's Jinnah of Pakistan/Summer by Alex von Tunzelmann/ Paul Johnson's Modern Times.
Yemeen Zuberi
November 12, 2012 5:41 pm
Ravi you and those whose thumbs are up, please read Indian Summer by Alex von Tunzelmann.
ROHIT PANDEY
November 12, 2012 4:53 pm
My two cents- Muslims are safer in secular societies than in Islamic ones. That would mean secularism should be constant quest of Muslim societies. Kemal Ataturk left behind an armed force-the Turkish Army= to achieve that? And,Pakistan should likewise do something to move towards Turkish way of doing things?
Akram
November 12, 2012 4:50 pm
you have not understood the issue, the issue was not that Muslims cannot live with hindus, it was that we Muslims are a nation in our own right and we should not have to live in our own land as a minority with rule from some far off hindu dominated land. If you understood indian history better you would understand the indian subcontinent has always been a collection of sovereign independent states. The concept of a 'united india' is essentially a creation of the British by force. Yet indians cannot read their own history and realise they are propagating essentially a British concept. they think india has always been one country, it has not! read your history!
Hariharan.S
November 12, 2012 4:41 pm
Abbas, You should also remember that Medina in 7th century was a small city that if u walk for 15 mins from one corner of the city,you can reach the other corner... Its not difficult to rule such a city if the ruler is a just man... Besides,how come you cannot accept Democracy and republic where representative of us form the law,but believe in a dictatorial ruler who was making his own laws everyday as he wished.... Besides the martyrdom of Socrates under Demos is similar to the martyrdom of 'Asma' bint Marwan under Prophet...Both were murdered for challenging against the present system.. Besides,if you despise democracy and republic so much,why are u still in Canada and enjoying their social security benefits..You can move to Syria where u have a dictator
ROHIT PANDEY
November 12, 2012 4:40 pm
Well,it does not seem to be the vision of majority of Pakistanis,the Taliban or the mullahs?
Hariharan.S
November 12, 2012 4:25 pm
I find it very hard that noone in Pakistan has the guts to question the policies of Jinnah...Even the fearless NFP In India,there are many Indians who question the policies of Gandhi,who is considered a saint everywhere in the world because in a free country you have the rights to express dissent... All Pakistani moderates are trying to find solace in the August 11 speech to prove that Jinnah was a secularist,when his DIRECT DAY ACTION proves totally contrary.. C'mon Pakistanis,stop defending Jinnah and two nation theory...
GoodCop
November 12, 2012 3:11 pm
I think you meant to say present day Pakistan..because in India people of all faiths go to their respective worship places without any bomb blasts or mass killings..
muhammad
November 12, 2012 2:21 pm
I am really amazed by the illiterate literates who are still living in utopia which Islam you are talking about and please also let us know that which interpretation of Quran and Sunnah is acceptable to all in Pakistan
muhammad
November 12, 2012 2:15 pm
Then why Quaid-e-Azam was labelled as Kafir-e-Azam by the than clergy and still a considerable section of our clergy say that Quaid-e-Azam was an infidel
babu
November 12, 2012 11:52 am
agreed capt saab,how fast can any muslim nation ,achieve your idea,seriously i only see regression ,but in my heart i pray for your dream to come true.
Abdul Rehman
November 12, 2012 11:18 am
Umm, all "intellectuals" who keep on portraying Quaid-e-Azam as a secularist should see the speech of October 1947 in which he called Pakistan a Bulwark of Islam. Of course, our "intellectuals" conveniently forget to mention that, though always mention the forged diary.
ip
November 12, 2012 9:14 am
Good Lord...!
ROHIT PANDEY
November 12, 2012 8:44 am
Unless Pakistanis/Muslims reshape their thinking about their religion and role of religion in public life the state of affairs in Pakistan is hardly likely to improve. Muslim societies in their seek of a better life are going to go through a series of schools of hard knocks before they modernize! TOO MUCH of religion and TOO LITTLE of rationality.
Faraz
November 12, 2012 7:50 am
"The problem in running a country on sharia law is that it denies people any meaning in their lives." Can you share the meaning of your life?
Faraz
November 12, 2012 7:42 am
Yes.. I'm sure about India and Bangladesh..
Indian
November 12, 2012 7:34 am
I feel Muslims are happy enough to live with fellow Hindus in India than Hindus living with fellow Muslims in Pakistan.The reason is Muslim population in India is rising and many Muslims occupy top positions in Secular and not Hindu Indian democracy,unfortunately that is not true with Hindus living in Pakistan.Hence I would say the fellow Hindus in Pakistan who are treated unequally as second or nth grade citizens to come to India and lead a successful,peaceful and prosperous life.
Faraz
November 12, 2012 7:31 am
All Indian historians agree.. right?
Faraz
November 12, 2012 7:28 am
Personally, I believe muslims would be much more happy in a state governed by muslims.
Cynical
November 12, 2012 7:25 am
A refreshingly bold perspective. Sounds sensible too.
Muhammad Asif
November 12, 2012 7:22 am
"Jinnah did envision that the PAKISTAN HE CREATED would be a HEAVEN FOR THE MUSLIMS to LIVE IN PEACE with any type of aqliats in Pakistan": Agreed bro, you got it right, a heaven for Muslims, not a Muslim State. If it were to be, most of Ulema-i-Hind including JI of Modudi would have backed Jinnah for Pakistan, which they did not.
Faraz
November 12, 2012 7:22 am
:)
Pakistan
November 12, 2012 6:53 am
It was not Islamic(Taliban) Pakistan,but a Pakistan where Muslims can have equal opportunity as Hindus,this was the vision of Jinnah's Pakistan.
observer
November 12, 2012 3:28 am
My comment was directed at someone using nickname Kumar (not a Muslim name for sure). My comment also did not suggest that MG Ghandhi was murdered by a Muslim. Then why your correction? I wish you read things properly before passing comments.
JustSaying
November 12, 2012 3:27 am
The United States then must be a very uneducated country. It has started all the wars of the last 61years.
observer
November 12, 2012 3:21 am
Isn't good an understatement?
observer
November 12, 2012 3:17 am
I strongly wish there is a debate about true value and use of Objectives Resolution. It paves the way towards a theocratic state. It is about time to define boldly and clearly that Objectives Resolution should be taken out of 1973 Constitution (both preamble and main body of the Constitution). Also, institutions like Islamic Ideology Council, Sahriat courts, and the alike are not truly useful any more. Hence justice must be done to all such steps taken mainly in Zia era.
observer
November 12, 2012 3:08 am
Pardeep, you know what: if Pakistan was not created on Aug 14, 1947 I can assure you we would still be fighting for a country. So, Jinnah was a sage and a true visionary to strike when the iron was hot (that is, to accept Pakistan with some not-so-suitable borders).
sunny
November 12, 2012 3:00 am
Exactly! Let us live in peace. I hope Dawn will let my post to appear. It is deleting all my innocent posts like this.
Anwar Amjad
November 12, 2012 2:53 am
It does not sound logical to create a secular country Pakistan out of secular India. It defeats the very objective for which this country was created. Pakistan was created to provide a homeland to the Muslims. Of course it never meant that non-Muslims could not live in the country. It is correct that Quaid-i-Azam said that people would be free to practice their religion which is in accordance with the teachings of Islam too. He, however, never said that Pakistan would be a secular country. He never objected to the slogan ‘Pakistan ka matlab kia’ which was very popular at that time and chanted in his presence also. If you just read the preamble of the constitution, it becomes clear that the constitution of Pakistan is Quran and Sunnah. Somehow, it now reflects the will of the people and the attempts by a handful of secular-minded self-styled intellectuals will only stir up more troubles. Let us deal with more constructive issues.
observer
November 12, 2012 2:51 am
Thank you Dawn for publishing my comment as above. I do admit the comment is selfish, insecure, emotional, and somewhat harsh. But it is guaranteed to be my deep, honest feeling. My apologies to those that find it offensive. I am deeply hurt every single day when I read about killings and oppression happening in Pakistan. That is the reason why everybody finds it so convenient to speak against my country. Even Afghanistan spares no opportunity to bash Pakistan. Inshallah Pakistanis will learn from this down phase and emerge as a better nation. Please Pakistani nation, learn to value the independece we have and work towards a better country.
Pia
November 12, 2012 1:15 am
Where do Muslims get all this stuff?
Lahore_Mass_Transit
November 12, 2012 1:08 am
So you mean Democratic Republic of Congo is an oxymoron :-) This is a selective definition of Republic that is devised to remain confused It was an agreement not a Constitution if you know the difference Secular means where affairs of the State are kept seperate from the Religion of its people. To have that distinction , many more centuries of hard work is required.
Joe
November 12, 2012 12:44 am
Your doctrine should be read in madrassahs to show innocent youths the version of history that is dictated by "absolute truth". Ooops, it already is there.
abbastoronto
November 12, 2012 12:40 am
Myths, once created, get their own lives. A few of such are that Gandhi freed India from the English, or that the division of India was based on religion, or that Pakistan is doomed. In 1947, while India was already semi-industrialized, Pakistan was an industrial backwater. Compared to 180 textile mills alone in 1899 in India, Pakistan had only 7 in 1947 (3 jute, 4 rice, all in East Bengal). During 1914-45 while Europe was de-industrializing itself and committing suicide (killed 120,000,000 of its own in 31 years, concentration camps, gulags, forced collectivization), India was rebuilding. During the ½ half of 20th century English Capital poured into India, and the country grew at such a fast pace that by 1945 Manchester could no longer compete with Calcutta neither on quality nor or price. The Crown felt that the English Capital with India Labour was destroying the English industry because Indian goods were coming into Britain free of tariffs. Something like this is happening now where American Capital with help of Chinese labour is de-industrializing America. So the Crown left in order to save England, and promptly imposed tariffs on Indian goods thus giving England a 20 year breather until they joined the European Community. In 1947 there was sizable Indian industrial oligarchy that fed the Freedom Movement. And they wanted Democracy – winner takes all. Republic means giving each his due - proportional representation. Just as the USA was founded as a Republic against the Democracy of Frederick Lord North, Pakistan was founded as a Republic against the Democracy of Nehru. A better name for the 2-Nation Theory is in fact a 2-Party Theory. Democracies are for stratified societies like UK, Canada, caste Hindu India. The egalitarian minded favour Republics - USA, France, Pakistan, PRC. In losing Pakistan India lost more than just land. It lost a patriot like Jinnah, the forward looking eyes of India. Without a Jinnah and his Muslims, India became blind. After Partition, misguided and short-sighted Nehru put India into a straitjacket a la USSR until Pakistanis engineered to destroy the Soviet Union in the 1980s, freeing India from its ideological masters to pursue free enterprise. It has not yet dawned on Our Indian friends that in South Asia, Pakistan has been the ideological leader. Here are some firsts. 1. Free Enterprise - Pakistan 1947, India 2000 2. Free Trade - Pakistan 1947, India 2000 3. Alliance with the West - Pakistan 1950, India 2000 4. Friendship with China - Pakistan 1960, India ??? 5. Distancing from Socialism - Pakistan 1947, India 1990 6. Distancing from dying Corporate Capitalist West - Pakistan 2000, India ???? India follows Pakistan some 50 years later. Pakistan has been going through a war for the last 30 years, external and internal, and managed to survive. No Democracy, India, UK, or Canada could do that. The fundamentals of Pakistan are solid, and once the common Civil War between Agrarian Economy and Exchange Economy comes to an end it will shoot like a rocket. England underwent through such a Civil War under Cromwell, France during Revolution, America during mid 19th century, Russia and China in beginning 20th century, and India under Nehru (who remarkably dealt with it). These wars are neither bloodless nor short, but always end up in the City order of businessmen winning over the Feudal-military complex. It will be the same in Pakistan. Jinnah was a firm believer in a United India. But Nehru/Patel pushed him out. Without Pakistan, India went blind . Just imagine with Pakistani Eyes and Indian Muscle, what we can achieve together. It is never too late. Jinnah would be happy if that happened.
sja
November 12, 2012 12:36 am
Yes as always, something to REFIGURE and something to DISFIGURE, alongwith envision, smoke fusion, cornerstone, blind vision, sectarian divisions, discard religion, secular vision, separation, aggression, suppression, and as you said "Today, with Pakistan facing the deadly spectre of Islamist terrorism, growing societal conservatism, a free (and somewhat anarchic) media, an activistic judiciary and the steady resurgence of the secular Muslim intellectual: all trying to figure (or refigure) Jinnah, something unprecedented happened.""""""------------------ in Urdu it is very summed up ------ EK HI HAMMMAMMM MAIN SAB NANGAAAAY. There is no concept of self evaluation, that would include you NFP too, what have we done to PAKISTAN, and now they want referendum, to refigure, but first they disfigure, dismantle, and break and Play with JINNAH's Pakistan, and then they demand, to refigure or disfigure or divide more of what if left of JINNAH's ORIGINAL PAKISTAN. It is all about VISION that ALLAMA IQBAL and JINNAH HAD, that was made into envision, for a big division, and now to revision for a referendum and NFP refigure ---ment. or whatever.
Bitter_Truth
November 12, 2012 12:16 am
The truth is always bitter. 'Islam-means-peace' in writing will not make it any better, but show to the world, Then all the prejudices would naturally will erase.
sja
November 12, 2012 12:14 am
and like Britishers eat our cakes tooo.
Ahmad Rana
November 12, 2012 12:05 am
Jinnah was personally secular, indeed. But that doesn't mean that he did not lead the cause of a fundamentalist Islamic state. He was a lawyer by training, and took up the case of an Islamic state. Being a professional lawyer, his personal ideology/ philosophy did not influence the cause he took up. He was 'hired', or to put it in politically correct terms (at least in Pakistan), 'persuaded' by the likes of Iqbal (who himself was a genius, but suffered from identity crisis - read Aik falsafa-zada syed zadey ke naam in Zarb-e-kaleem: Main asal ka khas Somanti; Shikwah etc. etc.) to lead the cause for a fundamentalist Islamic state. He took it up, and being a genius and an obsessive-compulsive professional, delivered. So stop apologizing on his behalf, and accept that creation of Pakistan was a setback to secularism for Indian Muslims. Accepting the fact also doesn't mean that Pakistanis have to backtrack, and somehow re-unite with Hindustan. It was a choice that Indian Muslims made. They took a different path, and whether they like it or not, they're now set on this path. There are fundamental differences between Islamic and Hindu cultures. Even though it can be argued that the present day Hindustan comprises of a much larger variety of distinct cultures, and one more sub-culture wouldn't have done it any harm, being a philosophically inferior culture, Indian Islam would have, in time, merged back into larger, secular culture of India. That didn't happen, and now the path that Pakistani society has taken is different from that of the Hindustanis. Their society has to go through the turmoil that it is going through right now, and come to equilibrium in its own time. Wishing that since Jinnah was secular, Pakistan should also become secular is not going to help. Just personal opinion. -Ahmad
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:54 pm
Indians do have a snooty, superior attitude they learned from the British. Muslims believe others should be directed according to their religious insights. All ultra religious people are masters at both defining and limiting God's will. These religious pecking orders leave God no room to breathe on His own.
Judeo-Christian Foundation__US
November 11, 2012 11:52 pm
11 September 2012 2130 hrs. Declaration of War We, the citizens of the Free and Independent Republic of America do hereby announce on this 11th day of September, 2012, on the 21st and one-half hour, a pronouncement and acknowledgement of a Declaration of War against Islam. We, the citizens of the Free and Independent Republic of America shall defend our nation, our constitutional government, our Judeo-Christian foundation, our citizens, our borders and all assets herein. This Proclamation includes the defense of our allied nations and their citizens, as well. Any and all entities, cumulative or acting individually against the aforementioned, will be deemed enemy combatants of the Free and Independent Republic of America, considered aiding and abedding the enemy and will be addressed and engaged accordingly. Signed, The Citizen’s of the Free and Independent Republic of America
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:42 pm
There are always two nations. The Republicans make a living for themselves, and the Democrats make a living for others.
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:38 pm
No. He did not, because like most true Muslims he made the mistake of believing that everyone is good. He dreamed of Pakistan as a utopian future for all. . "East is East and West is West and never the two shall meet. KIPLING
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:21 pm
"The whole Nazi stuff was being inculcated into us at school," One of his teachers had made pupils draw a large swastika in pencil on the first page of their exercise book. On another page they had to draw up a list of Germany's enemies - chief among them, Britain, Russia and the US." . "Now pupils let us draw up a list of Islam's enemies."
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:14 pm
The Mahatma Gandhi was not murdered by a Muslim.
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:10 pm
"War games are preparation for a time when war is no longer a game." Jan de Hartog
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:06 pm
We hear you. . Britain had a deal with the Iranians for oil all the way back in 1901, when the Anglo-Iranian Oil company was chartered.
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 11:01 pm
You will have to go back to the time of Caliph Othman to find the Rightly Guided Police.
Cyrus Howell
November 11, 2012 10:54 pm
Fortunately, the Saudi Royal Family don't do anything un-Islamic.