Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Jinnah’s Pakistan?
Jinnah’s Pakistan?
Dawn
THE following excerpts beg comments from all those who have been or are now occupying the power seats of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
From Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s presidential address at the All-India Muslim League session in Delhi in April 1943: “The minorities are entitled to get a definite assurance or to ask: `Where do we stand in the Pakistan that you visualise?` That is an issue of giving a definite and clear assurance to the minorities. We have done it. We have passed a resolution that the minorities must be protected and safeguarded to the fullest extent, and as I said before, any civilised government will do it and ought to do it. So far as we are concerned, our own history and our prophet have given the clearest proof that non-Muslims have been treated not only justly and fairly but generously.” (Rizwan Ahmed, ed., Sayings of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah , Karachi: Pakistan Movement Center, 1986, p. 30.)
While discussing Pakistan in an interview given to a representative of the Associated Press of America on November 8, 1946: “Hindu minorities in Pakistan can rest assured that their rights will be protected. No civilised government can be run successfully without giving minorities a complete sense of security and confidence. They must be made to feel that they have a hand in government and to this end must have adequate representation in it. Pakistan will give it.”
(Ahmed, Sayings , p. 65.)
In Jinnah`s interview given to a Reuters correspondent on May 21, 1947, he assured the minorities of Pakistan “that they will be protected and safeguarded. For they will be so many citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.” He had no doubt in his mind that they “will be treated justly and fairly and the collective conscience of parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them.”
(Sailesh Bandopadhaya, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan , New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1991, p. 326.)
From Jinnah`s address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947: “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, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, 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 people 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 place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has got nothing to do with the business of the state…. 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 Catholics and Protestants do not exist; 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.” ( Dawn , Independence Day Supplement, August 14, 1999.)
Jinnah`s interview with a Reuter`s correspondent on October 25, 1947: “Every citizen is expected to be loyal to the state and to owe allegiance to it. The arm of the law should be strong enough to deal with any person or section or body or people that is disloyal to the state. We do not, however, prescribe any schoolboy tests of their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan: if there is war would you shoot a Hindu?” (Ahmed, Sayings , p. 42.)
Jinnah`s broadcast to the people of Australia on February 19, 1948: “The great majority of us are … members of the Muslim brotherhood of Islam in which we are equal in right, dignity and self respect. Consequently we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we welcome in closest association with us all those who, of whatever creed, are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan.” (Ahmed, Sayings , p. 69.)
arfc@cyber.net.pk
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: net, Pakistan, state
53 Responses to "Jinnah’s Pakistan?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- JB
said Here is the reality and the sooner Pakistanis and... - AKB
said DAMN THESE LIBERAL MULLAHS!!
.
Dharun Ravi Sen... - AKB said @ ahem
I have never seen a bigger idiot than y...
- RajTOO
said Tajender,
you copy and paste machine, do you even... - tajender
said rajtoo like anyother brhmnst u have nothing except... - RajTOO said Tajender is a pure Paki. Just because he copies an...
- ahem
said to rex
Monotheism is inherently totalitarian an... - ahem said tajender reveals himself as a tamilian muslim....
- RajTOO said Rex Minor wrote:
And I was under the...
- Rex Minor said PS
sorry for the wrong spells! I must not miss th...
No they haven’t. They have only lied and lied…
Putting his own perception of Pakistan, the country he founded, across to the people of Australia, Jinnah states clearly: ” But make no mistake – Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.” [19 February 1948]
The people of Australia obviously made no mistake in understanding the vision of Jinnah. Well then who did? We did. We made the grave and unforgivable mistake of allowing our country – which was never meant to be “a theocracy or anything like it” – to drift helplessly in the direction of a “theocracy”.
Yes, we made the mistake and we are therefore condemned to bear the consequences of our guilt.
@Nusrat Pasha:
“We made the grave and unforgivable mistake of allowing our country – which was never meant to be “a theocracy or anything like it” – to drift helplessly in the direction of a “theocracy”. ”
AND THE CREDIT GOES TO……PPP PM ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO!!!!!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!
Jinnah states clearly: ” But make no mistake – Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.”
Right on – pakistan is not theocracy – it’s actually worse than that…
@Major
You seem to enjoy when a neighbor’s house is burning. I feel sorry for you.
How come Fellow Pakistani ?
Are you alluding to the legislation that took place during his regime ?
I wonder if any purpose is served at this stage of Pakistan’s history to debate what Jinnah said or did not. It is more relevant to think of where the state of Pakistan went wrong in its journey so far. There is much that Pakistan did which it should not have, much that it should have but failed to do, and much that it continues to do that it should not.
It is high time such an exercise was undertaken by the wise people of Pakistan under the leadership of a statesman the society should throw up.
maybe it’s due to my kuffar ahmediya brain that i am unable to grasp it, can some one here please explain – if jiinah intended to live in harmony with the non-muslims, then why carve out a separate state for muslims in the first place?
unless, he preferred to live with non-muslims only if they were a small minority? for show only? you know, so that the good old quaid could show those uppity goras, who so loved nehru and gandhi, that like them he, too, was liberal.
Nusrat
In that case, I am afraid, you’ll have to go all the way back to 1916 when Jinnah was named “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” and track what went wrong from thereon.
@ nusrat (January 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm)
Respected Namesake,
One would have to agree with Delirium’s comment of January 18, 2011 at 3:50 pm.
The Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity was also a strong advocate of the rights of minorities. The rights of the Muslims were not his only concern. He was intensely worried about the Scheduled Castes as well. In 1934, while addressing the All India Muslim League session at New Delhi, he said, “in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans.”
In his struggle for the rights of the Indian Muslim minority, during the latter phases of his struggle, his efforts remained confined to securing greater concessions for the precariously posed group of Muslim-majority states, and this he sought within an undivided India. He was quick to endorse the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which if had been similarly endorsed by the Congress would have left the Indian Subcontinent in a different situation.
Even after the failure of the CMP, when the option of an independent Pakistan emerged as the only natural option, Jinnah’s concept of Pakistan and Hindustan was vividly of two independent, secular and friendly neighbours. In November 1946, merely nine months prior to independence, this is what he said:
“The two states [Pakistan and India] will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America.”
Have we, as a nation, been able to live up to Jinnah’s aspirations? No we have not.
Regards
Nusrat Pasha
nusrat pasha – thank you so much for the response. it’s very helpful.
lovely name, btw.
@ Nusrat
Ahmadi’s supported Pakistan tooth and nail, infact it was on the behest of Mirza Basheer-u-din that Mr Ibrahim Dard (Imam, Southfields mosque) persuaded Jinnah to return to India and lead the case for Pakistan.
The idea of Pakistan was to secure rights for the ever disadvantaged Muslim community of India, a tool through which equal rights and oppurtunities for the Muslim community can be achieved.
Please read your history and you shall get the answers you require.
@ Nusrat
Look up:
Sir Zafarullah Khan
Sahabzada Abdul Qayyum
Mian Mohammed Salik
Mirza Muzaffar Ahmed
Ibrahim Dard
Dr Abdus Salam
Gen Akhtar Hussan Malik
Gen Abdul Ali Malik
Gen Iftikhar Janjua
Major Munir Ahmad
Zafar Chaudhary
etc
To get an idea of the work that was into Pakistan by Ahmadi’s.
Similarly
After the creation of Pakistan, the Ahmadiyya community offered to the Pakistan Army 15000 soldiers and 199 Officers who were well trained in the battlefield during the Second World War. They offered unique sacrifices in the cause of the motherland. In this article, only a sampling of their valiant and splendid services can be mentioned.
@ Nusrat
Look up:
Sir Zafarullah Khan
Sahabzada Abdul Qayyum
Mian Mohammed Salik
Mirza Muzaffar Ahmed
Ibrahim Dard
Dr Abdus Salam
Gen Akhtar Hussan Malik
Gen Abdul Ali Malik
Gen Iftikhar Janjua
Major Munir Ahmad
Zafar Chaudhary
etc
To get an idea of the work that was into Pakistan by Ahmadi’s.
Similarly
After the creation of Pakistan, the Ahmadiyya community offered to the Pakistan Army 15000 soldiers and 199 Officers who were well trained in the battlefield during the Second World War.
http://spiritualchange.blogsome.com/2010/06/07/ahmadis-will-keep-sacrificing-for-their-country-and-for-humanity/
@ Talha (January 18, 2011 at 8:52 pm)
If I may ask, were you responding to “nusrat” or to “Nusrat Pasha”?
@ nusrat (January 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm)
“…..it’s due to my kuffar ahmediya brain that i am unable to grasp it…..”
If I may ask, have you used the word “ahmediya” as a proper noun denoting a certain community or as an adjective used by some well-wishers as a synonym of the word “heretic”?
From Major: quote:
Birth of a Liberal Pakistan!! (approximately after 70 years of screwing)
January 18, 2011 by Major
After Salman Taseer’s assassination (about which one of my fourth cousins had something to say), I read several articles lamenting the death of liberal Pakistan. These many excellent articles that you would have definitely read were probably written by a middle aged donkey resting somewhere in Peshawar. I base it on the fact that I get a profound impression of an (intellectually) lazy, gas emanating being typing out identical articles and concluded that the only possible explanation is an unemployed donkey. Who takes on foreign (Indian and the West) nom-de-plumes occasionally.
By now you probably figured that I disagree with those articles. If you hadn’t, let me formally state it. I formally disagree with those articles. So atleast by now, you probably figured that I disagree with those articles. Well, Good.
So what do I soch you pooch?
Salman’s taseer assassination, wimmens and gentlemards, heralds the arrival of an egalitarian Pakistan!
“But Why!” you pooch?
Here is why. Liberalism, wimmens and gentlemards, is a belief in social justice rooted in individual liberty and equal rights. So how did social justice and equal rights prevalent before Salman Taseer’s assassination die on that day? Actually it didnt. Before going back to the begining, for dramatic effect let me start with the end. The day Salman taseer got assasinated, the elite suddenly realized that they cannot do what they wished, such as down a few or have their way with the blasphemy law, without the danger of their incensed security guard or domestic help firing off a clip in their direction. This, I suspect, the aforementioned muddle headed donkey has mistaken for the death of “liberalism”. What has instead died, I humbly submit, is the power over the common man which was usurped and weilded for so long by the the elites.
And that is because power has been democratized. And that is because everyone has a gun. Ergo, the power to shape the future and destiny of Pakistan, which used to lie with the elites is suddenly with the masses. Because every one of them has a gun, and unlike the elites, they seem quite comfortable firing it to protect their beliefs.
A round of applause for AK-facilitated egalitarianism!!
So what of this elusive little-understood animal (like the Yeti and “Silent Majority” of Pakistan) called Liberalism? More importantly what is and why Liberalism? Liberalism wimmens and gentlemards, among other things, is to ensure social mobility and equal participation in governance. And social mobility in yesteryears depended on access to capital producing goods. Like Land. Ergo, if Liberalism had existed before Salman Taseer’s assasination, Land reforms would have been implmented. Pray tell me how did that go? As you would have guessed:
Fantastically!! We had the Provincial Tenancy Act of 1950!!
Since yours sachly fancies himself as a story teller more than a lawyer (and is allergic to the word “WHEREAS” in all caps that every legal document seems to have) instead of describing the law, let me tell you a story. There are 1.7 million landless agricultural workers in Pakistan and in January 2002 The honorable High court of Sindh dismissed petitions for the release of bonded laborers citing this very same act and declaring bonded laborers to be a “dispute” between Landlords and peasants. Covered by the Tenancy act. So much for equal rights and social mobility based on capital producing goods. So, did the “liberalism” enabled by tenancy act die with Salman Taseer’s assassination?
No!
Did the egalitarianism of the threat of a few peasants banding together, declaring their landlord to be a blasphemer and shooting him in the head become a real possibility after Salman Taseer’s assasination?
Emphatic yes!!
So wimmens and gentlemards, I submit that egalitarianism has taken birth!!
Let us take the second aspect of social mobility. Education. The less said about this, the better. But let me belabor the point. Education in Pakistan has become a propaganda tool of the state. To supply canon fodder for the various Jihads. Afghanistan. Cashmere. And dont forget Dagestan. Before Salman Taseer’s assasination, it used to be the case that only the likes of Khaled Ahmed had a monopoly over dissemination of his (incoherent) opinion in English about how Pakistan is the guardian of Indian Muslims. Now after Salman Taseer’s assassination, Khaled Ahmed’s interpretation of the Nationhood of Pakistan is being challenged, (in an egalitarian way, let me hasten to add) by the products of our emiment education system who insist that the Nation of Pakistan means strict adherence to Blasphemy law. Now pray tell me, why does this diversity of opinion indicate the death of Liberalism?
Ladies and Gentlemards, a round of applause for free speech and the right to dissent (with an AK if the need arises) !!
What am I getting at here? Salman Taseer’s assassination is a tragedy. This piece is not about him, but about the other tragedy. The so-called “intellectuals” who are hemoragging columns after columns lamenting their inability to continue business as usual and realizing to their horror that their long neglect of Pakistan’s population and radicalization of the successive generations brought about by their hatred of India and the west and desire to maintain status quo has in fact enabled the opposite. That the very base of their authoritarian power to shape the future and destiny of Pakistan has eroded. They are simply using the death of a governor to lament the death of their authoritarian power over the masses. The very masses they neglected, manipulated and whose world view they grotesquely mutilated for their short sighted needs.
The future belongs to this grotesque semi educated, poor, landless, hatred infused, mullah directed armed Yahoos. And they are coming for you. To shape a society where more people are equal and have a right to shape their country’s future as they deem fit.
In short, a Liberal Pakistan. Ergo, Liberalism in Pakistan is quite fine. The elites who claim to practice it on the other hand….are F’ed.
LONG LIVE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE!! LONG LIVE EGALITARIANISM IN PAKISTAN!!
PS> For an excellent writeup about Land reforms in Pakistan by Shahid Saeed, please see here:
PS> My fourth cousin’s goat suggests that the elites immediately jumping into the “Lets all find ideas to prevent blasphemy & uphold the blasphemy law” bandwagon is further proof of their aversion to Liberalism *and* AKs. So they should probably STFU and not write more articles lamenting the death of liberalism.
@ Bin Ismail
I am replying to Nusrat, not Nusrat Pasha.
Humanity – you should feel sorry for people who are burning their own house, not the neighbor who has always warned them not to play with fire in the first place. Don’t castigate people who may appear crude in their style but have been right all along.
Save your sympathy for people who are true victims, but not for people who have ultimately fallen in to the hole they dug for others…
Nusrat,
The same reason why Jamaat-Ahmaddiya was the staunchest supporter of the creation of Pakistan and of Jinnah.
Jinnah spent 30 odd years preaching Indian Unity or did you miss that bit?
Let’s say Jinnah was the Ambassador for Indian Unity for 30 years. He then had apprehensions about the status and security of Muslims in a Hindu majority India, and as his apprehensions could not be laid to rest, he decided to go for Pakistan, an independent state!
So but for his ‘Angst’ about the Hindu majority, he would otherwise have wanted Pakistan to remain in India.
As efforts are underway to resuscitate Jinnah here, looking at the status of Muslims in India (read “security”) and the state of Pakistan (read “security”), would he speak out in favor of a re-merger?
Would Jinnah have been a Pan-Subcontinentalist today?
Jinnah was always a Pan-Subcontinentalist. His idea of Pakistan was not outside the Indian whole. Even after partition he continued to refer to Pakistan as “India”. Read the 11th August speech carefully.
As for Muslims in India… I don’t want to get into the security debate on that but let us not get ahead of ourselves.
@Major
“Save your sympathy for people who are true victims, but not for people who have ultimately fallen in to the hole they dug for others…”
Lets not be so harsh, lest we become the people whose actions we detest. It is easy to love friends. The real challenge is to love an enemy. Those who have been pushed into the hole that was dug by a few are victims of ignorance and avarice. These kids could very well have been your child and mine.
Can you blame a 12 year old kid, who is programmed to become a combustible human being? One has to extend a compassionate hand to pull these victims out and show them hope and possibilities. Love is an irresistible force and the desire to live is embedded deep in our psyche. Your and my helping hand may pull out from the ditch a child. The act of compassion alone may arouse the realization of self-worth and prevent a human potential from being wasted.
“Love is the steadfast commitment to the wellbeing of others” – Cornel West
YLH wrote: Jinnah was always a Pan-Subcontinentalist. His idea of Pakistan was not outside the Indian whole. Even after partition he continued to refer to Pakistan as “India”. Read the 11th August speech carefully.
If Jinnah was a Pan-Subcontinentalist and an Ambassador for Hindu-Muslim Unity, than that is perhaps his legacy’s strongest suit one needs to revisit.
True a certain thinking, perhaps apprehension, made everything take a wrong turn in Subcontinental history. Jinnah’s legacy, sans his doubts about the ability for peaceful coexistence of Hindus and Muslims, could be his strongest suit yet.
Of course, people in Pakistan, would consider his role in the Foundation of Pakistan, as his biggest legacy, and the reality of Pakistan wound give people ample cause to see it so, and the vested interests which develop in the lifetime of a state, would also be of this opinion. Perhaps the overwhelming reality of his Pakistan legacy makes all blind to his far more significant legacy – that of his Pan-Subcontinentalism and his role as Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim amity.
His legacy of Pakistan is itself built on doubts about Pakistan’s viability and his fears that he may have opened a Pandora’s box of Islamism, and perhaps for this reason his Pakistan is facing the present crisis.
But Jinnah’s Legacy of pre-Partition Pan-Subcontinentalism and Hindu-Muslim amity is a far more sturdy ground for the Foundation of a different citadel – A Citadel of Pan-Subcontinentalism – a citadel that could be victorious, where the old citadel, the Citadel of moderate Islam – Pakistan, fell to the hordes of obscurantism.
Think it over. Jinnah has more than one legacy!
From the Aug 11, 1947 speech:- “India”
1. “The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering – I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse – is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so. ”
2. 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 everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all.
3. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.
4. 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, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, 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 people long long ago.
5. 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.
Jinnah’s references to India after the formation of Pakistan were to pre-partition undivided India. He insisted on referring to post-partition India always as Hindustan. Post-partition, his references to India as if he were part of it does not therefore automatically demonstrate his pan-sub continentalism at that time at least. It could merely reflect the fact that he considered his own country at least an equal if not more worthy successor to British India. Of course, he hardly had the locus standi to dictate what a sovereign India called itself, or the power to influence what others referred to it as.
@ Samachar
I found the article that you posted by Major above seriously flawed. It equates liberals and the ruling classes as one thing in Pakistan. They are not. Far from it. Being socially liberal is not the same thing as being politically liberal. The ruling classes may have been/ are socially liberal but that’s as far as it goes. Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Habib Jalib etc were liberals or free thinkers – the ruling classes locked them up. The ruling classes were never liberal and they were the ones’ who’s economic interests were protected by the system, including the courts.
Liberals never had a true platform in Pakistan. They could n’t because the army decided what the national security state agenda would be soon after partition. Keep liberals and liberalism out of this. This is a turf fight between the socially liberal but politically self serving and conservative ruling classes and the islamists, in particular in Punjab.
The guy took up a gun against Taseer not to fight against the ruling classes for any economic reason. The mullah has never asked for social or economic justice. He took up the gun to implement his intolerance. Taseer was from the ruling class but what about the shoppers in Moon market? What about the scholars who condemned terror and were killed for it?
Liberals are right to condemn intolerance.
Good read from Major but obfuscating and misleading analysis.
@Pan-Subcontinentalism (January 20, 2011 at 10:04 pm)
“…..Jinnah has more than one legacy!…..”
Indeed. More than one legacy and more than one unfulfilled dream too. His dream of a Secular and modern Pakistan awaits fulfillment.
Another unfulfilled dream: “The two states [Pakistan and India] will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Monroe Doctrine more solid than in America.” (Jinnah, November 1946)
The above words do indeed exhibit his Pan-Subcontinentalism.
Regards.
@Bin Ismail
YLH says that Pakistan was Jinnah’s second choice, that he would have preferred to have kept what later became Pakistan, as part of India. He created Pakistan, because he felt in a United India, the Muslims may not find justice and belonging. So Pakistan was a product of disappointment, and not a vision.
Once Pakistan became a reality, Jinnah did not create a new vision for Pakistan, but simply borrowed the India vision and tried to impose it onto Pakistan, for he fundamentally believed in the Indian idea too, just not in its implementability given the political situation in the Subcontinent, prevailing at the time. But it seems he had his doubts that the India Idea would take hold in Pakistan, due to the circumstances of its own birth, and the quality of the influential elements in Pakistan.
His Pakistan vision was nothing other than his India vision, which he had held on to all along. But for that vision, one needed the level of heterogeneity and diverse interests, which were available only in the Subcontinent as a whole, or in India, interests which could balance each other. In Pakistan, one got only one overwhelming constituency, or two with much the same interests.
Considering that his vision may not be realizable in Pakistan, wouldn’t it be prudent for those, who hold Jinnah in high esteem, to try to realize his Vision in its original form, as something that could be implemented only at the Subcontinent level.
Major sounds like the kind of bc (u should understand) that makes me realise how lucky we are to have Pakistan.
It is often stated that Pakistan did not get the heterogeneity in population to put in place a liberal system. This is a spurious argument. I have pointed out months ago, and somebody else did in another thread recently that Pakistan was endowed with a pretty heterogenous population at birth. There were two very different wings of the country, culturally, in terms of language and in every way. There was plenty of linguistic diversity within the western wing as well. There were more religious minorities as a % of population in Pakistan at its birth than India at its birth. While it reduced drastically in both wings of the country, the proportion of minorities remained higher in Pakistan in 1951 than India’s corresponding proportion in 1951. Pakistan today is overwhelmingly Muslim, but was not so at birth. In fact, it was less a Muslim country at birth in terms of population proportion than India was a Hindu country.
The problem was that while there was plenty of religious, linguistic and ethnic diversity in Pakistan, it was not embraced fully, either by most of its leaders, or its people.
“And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”
This statement from the Aug. 11 speech itself should put to rest the debate about Jinnah’s first and second choice.
Explain.
@Pan-Subcontinentalism (January 21, 2011 at 2:55 am)
Allow me to share my opinion, on this matter, with you:
1. Jinnah was a realist and a pragmatist. Jinnah’s first choice and vision did not remain static. They both evolved with the evolution of the overall Subcontinental political scenario, from an undivided India to greater autonomy to an independent Pakistan.
2. Jinnah also believed that Hindustan, now Republic of India, did not and should not enjoy a monopoly over the usage of the term “India”, a term which to him was common heritage.
3. He was a pro-minority statesman and a strict advocate of secular statecraft. He stood for the equality of rights and responsibilities of all citizens and upheld the principles of Justice and Fairplay. He would have stood for the same principles even if India remained undivided. He would have stood for the same principles if the CMP had been adopted. He stood for these principles as Pakistan finally came into existence. His principles of statecraft did not change.
So, yes, while his choice and vision did undergo evolution, his principles of statecraft remained unchanged. His noble principles, in my opinion, are his greatest legacy.
Regards
Bin Ismail
Well, these statements show that Jinnah truly and honestly believed in an independent Pakistan. That he saw as the only real viable and workable solution for India’s putative constitutional problems.
I have no argument with you if you say that, despite that, Jinnah convinced the ML to accept the CMP. That I see as his compromise acceptance, which Congress did not see as a workable compromise.
I personally feel, and liberal Pakistanis such as yourself may differ on reasonable grounds, that claims that Jinnah really didn’t want an independent Pakistan, but used that repeatedly made demand only as a strategic leverage, actually do disservice to the man. Without getting into an analysis of each and everything he said, we can use simple logic. A bargaining counter, according to thefreedictionary.com, is some concession one is prepared to make to reach a successful agreement in negotiations. The key word here is concession. It means that what one is conceding away, one will, given a chance, accept as one’s first choice. On the other hand, if one knows that what one is demanding is harmful to both one’s own interests as well as that of the other party, but still makes that demand to meet one’s real objectives, then there’s another word for that which also starts with “b”. The honest and upright man Jinnah was, I don’t think he was engaged in the latter. This is why I feel all those claims about an independent Pakistan being his second choice actually do disservice to the man.
People can of course differ on this on reasonable grounds. I am prepared to hear a counter argument.
So what did Jinnah want. I think, at least towards the end, he wanted an independent Muslim identity state. Nothing more, but nothing less.
Jinnah was an identity Muslim, the way most Hindus are identity Hindu. An identity Hindu can and do call himself a Hindu without ever setting foot in a temple. Andre Beteille, who is a sociology professor in the Delhi School of Economics, describes it like this:
“… for him what is important is being a Hindu and not adhering to a particular creed or living by it…. I am sometimes asked about my religion. What my interrogators want to know is not what my beliefs and practices are, but what my identity is. When I say that I have no religion, they are not easily convinced. Some go on to say, “But you must be a Christian.” When I say I am not, the more persistent among them ask, “But what about your father, was he not a Christian?” They are willing to go up sufficiently high in my genealogy until they find someone who was indeed a Christian. That reinforces their conviction that I must be one.”
In and around identity Hindu politicians, Jinnah was a truly identity Muslim politician. After ’37, the demand for a identity Muslim state probably started as an election tactic. But in the end, with all the bitterness with Congress, and under the influence of ideologues, it probably metamorphosed into a honest demand. I see nothing wrong in that, especially if you believe that India was going to be a identity Hindu state, except that Islam, like all Abrahamic religions, leaves little room for an identity Muslim. Either Jinnah, because he was not a practising Muslim, didn’t fully grasp that fact, or he was for the time being prepared to overlook it for political expediency. (May be he was confident that if he himself remained at the helms, he would somehow manage it.)
I have no quarrel with you when you say that the current Pakistan is not what Jinnah envisioned. In fact his own life’s work in India is a testimony to that claim, and only the completely uneducated would need further convincing. So in that sense Jinnah certainly did not want *this* Pakistan. But to say however that he didn’t truly want an independent Pakistan at all is to me being unfair to the man’s legacy.
I am sorry for the somewhat longish post.
NC,
But to say however that he didn’t truly want an independent Pakistan at all is to me being unfair to the man’s legacy.
Let me put it this way. What you said above is true. Yet he wud have been willing to settle for an united India under certain T&Cs.
Regards
Majumdar,
Those terms and conditions are unacceptable. I am glad that Partition happened. I am glad that the Islamist proletariat is gaining strength in Pakistan.
This is what Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef had to say about Pakistan:
“Pakistan, which plays a key role in Asia, is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody’s language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, saying that they are defending Islam and Islamic countries. They milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of the Kashmiri jihad. But behind the curtain they have been betraying everyone.”
These words perfectly describe the Pakistani “Liberal” Elite. The sooner it is destroyed, the better it is for all of us.
@ Hola
So a [edited] Indian has decided to use the words of a Bastard Taliban spokesman.
Show some damn respect [edited].
No-communal,
I am afraid the quote does no such thing. It is part of a speech and if you see the remainder of the quotes put up by Samachar you will see that Jinnah is referring to Pakistan as part of India.
1. Jinnah wanted a Pakistan but what was its relationship going t0 be with the rest of India is the question. When Jinnah put up his maximum demands before the Cabinet Mission, it was a confederation – read the League 6 May statement. What CMP was a federation not a confederation. So in that sense CMP was a compromise.
2. By United India, Jinnah meant a centralised Congress dominated state with one center of power.
3. Pan-Subcontinentalism if such a thing exists need not re-create a United Indian state but rather a sense of several nation states existing in peace, harmony and side by side each other in this subcontinent of ours.
So either you haven’t understood what I argue… or you haven’t understood context of the discussion.
Majumdar
“Let me put it this way. What you said above is true. Yet he wud have been willing to settle for an united India under certain T&Cs.”
Yes, I also said that.
“…despite that, Jinnah convinced the ML to accept the CMP. That I see as his compromise acceptance, which Congress did not see as a workable compromise.”
“which Congress did not see as a workable compromise.”
Then why did they-the Congress- accept the CMP in the first place? To fool the League ?
Girish wrote: It is often stated that Pakistan did not get the heterogeneity in population to put in place a liberal system. This is a spurious argument.
…
The problem was that while there was plenty of religious, linguistic and ethnic diversity in Pakistan, it was not embraced fully, either by most of its leaders, or its people.
If I may clarify, I meant the heterogeneity level, that would have allowed others to balance the radicalization urges of the Muslims of Pakistan – someone in a position to balance those pressures.
@Bin Ismail
Jinnah’s vision did change with time. That is the reason, on the question of unity of India, he too has more than one legacy – the Pan-Subcontinentalist Legacy and the Separatist Legacy (or the Pakistan Legacy).
The graft of his Secular Statesmanship Legacy onto his Pakistan Legacy has proven to be a failure.
Some may not see, Pakistan’s current predicament as a failure, but just as challenging phase. These are the optimists. They believe it is possible to roll-back the Islamization of the Pakistani polity. However there are other voices, IMHO, more realist voices, who say that without radical steps, the roll-back is next to impossibility.
I am of the opinion, that the possibility of a secular Pakistan is dead. As such the choice of “what kind of Pakistan” is not on offer anymore.
If one wants an alternate evolution of the Pakistani region, people would have to make a big leap of faith and direction. The process to convince the people to make that leap, can be made more palatable by letting them know, that they will land on hallow ground – ground already visited by the Qaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah – ground already covered by his other Legacy – the undivided India legacy, the Pan-Subcontinentalist Legacy.
There is a poisonous truth to drink – the forces of radicalization that have been unleashed in Pakistan, will eat away everything that is liberal and secular in Pakistan. There is no force neither ideological nor military – neither the USA, nor the Pakistani Army, nor the Feudals and their militias, nor the Chinese who can put a leash on this beast, either due to lack of capacity or due to lack of will.
The inadequacy of Pakistani Liberalism as a counterforce to Pakistani Islamism lies not primarily in its values, but rather in two aspects:
a) Shared Identity
b) Coercive Force
On both accounts the Pakistani Liberals are on the back foot. The shared identity – Pakistani Identity – I am afraid has already been hijacked and the Pakistani Liberals can hang on to it, only at the edges. The process started at the time of the Objectives Resolution and has continued since. The Shared Identity with the Pakistani Islamists from this point onwards only make the Pakistani Liberal cause both weak and ideologically imprisoned.
As far as Coercive Force is concerned, one hope of the Pakistani Liberals is that the Pakistani Army would stand by it. I think, the Pakistanis can judge by themselves how much truth is in there. Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s death did make a few things clear on this score.
So what I am urging the Pakistani Liberals to do is to consider Pan-Subcontinentalism as a candidate for their passion and loyalty.
Pan-Subcontinentalism is more than just an alternate theoretical vision. It is a Nationalism. It is something Jinnah once possessed. It is his other forgotten Legacy. And as I see it, it is the only thing on the shelf which can go head to head against Islamist forces in Pakistan and win.
And before someone thinks that it is the same thing as being pro-Indian, I would like to say, Pan-Subcontinentalism is something far far bigger! It is about imposing an Idealistic Vision on the whole of the Subcontinent, regardless of how India stands on the issue.
If one discounts Islam for a second, if Pakistan is about the people of the Indus living together, as PMA suggested, then Pan-Subcontinentalism is about people of the Subcontinent living together in peace, and in principle not much different ideologically!
Regards
@Milestogo
Pan-Subcontinentalism is a state of mind, it is how the heart sees where one belongs, it is an ideological orientation.
It allows the Subcontinental Muslims the free space to define their own version of Islam viz-a-viz the Arabic form – Subcontinental Islam. Having the requirements, that such an Islam should be able to co-exist in peace with all the people of the Subcontinent, it would naturally have a different focus, than the intolerant version of Islam that has overrun Pakistan.
The half a billion Subcontinental Muslims is the biggest concentration of Muslims in the world. Such a union would give the Subcontinental Muslims a dominant voice in the Muslim affairs of the world.
Regards
@ Pan-Subcontinentalism (January 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm)
“…..That is the reason, on the question of unity of India, he too has more than one legacy – the Pan-Subcontinentalist Legacy and the Separatist Legacy (or the Pakistan Legacy)…..”
In my opinion, these two legacies should not be compartmentalized separately. Along the timeline, as I submitted earlier, one simply evolved into the other. At their own respective points in time, both appear to be in harmony with the environment prevailing at those junctures. One simply evolved into the other.
“…..I am of the opinion, that the possibility of a secular Pakistan is dead…..”
Although, you may sound more rational and I may sound unduly optimistic, yet I believe that a reaction to the present mess will indeed lead to the dawn of a Secular and viable Pakistan.
“…..It is about imposing an Idealistic Vision on the whole of the Subcontinent, regardless of how India stands on the issue…..”
The Idealistic Vision of Pan-Subcontinentalism, in my opinion, on the political plane, will begin with a secularization of politics and political activity in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At the level of the respective societies, the first step would be to nurture respect for the other’s religious beliefs. Mere tolerance is not good enough – not for us Sub Continentals. The followers of the various denominations inhabiting this region must first learn to show respect, in a sustained fashion, for the sensibilities of the other.
Regards.
Bin Ismail wrote: In my opinion, these two legacies should not be compartmentalized separately. Along the timeline, as I submitted earlier, one simply evolved into the other. At their own respective points in time, both appear to be in harmony with the environment prevailing at those junctures. One simply evolved into the other.
There is a reason for compartmentalization. Compartmentalization enables choice. It allows instrumentalization of his legacy, which is the effort of many here – to put Jinnah’s legacy to use. The perspective you mention may be realistic, but it does not serve any purpose.
Bin Ismail wrote: Although, you may sound more rational and I may sound unduly optimistic, yet I believe that a reaction to the present mess will indeed lead to the dawn of a Secular and viable Pakistan.
It may lead, but things don’t happen by themselves. One needs to present people with a forceful alternate vision, one builds the resources to take on the forces of darkness, and then one has to take them on. As things stand now, the forces of moderation are on the back-foot and being pushed back over the cliff.
Bin Ismail wrote: The Idealistic Vision of Pan-Subcontinentalism, in my opinion, on the political plane, will begin with a secularization of politics and political activity in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At the level of the respective societies, the first step would be to nurture respect for the other’s religious beliefs. Mere tolerance is not good enough – not for us Sub Continentals. The followers of the various denominations inhabiting this region must first learn to show respect, in a sustained fashion, for the sensibilities of the other
There is a lot of distance that religious communities need to travel towards each other. However one should not accept everything that is sold in the name of religion. Religion in context of Pan-Subcontinentalism is discussed on my blog – (IV Law)
Bin Ismail wrote: In my opinion, these two legacies should not be compartmentalized separately. Along the timeline, as I submitted earlier, one simply evolved into the other. At their own respective points in time, both appear to be in harmony with the environment prevailing at those junctures. One simply evolved into the other.
There is a reason for compartmentalization. Compartmentalization enables choice. It allows instrumentalization of his legacy, which is the effort of many here – to put Jinnah’s legacy to use. The perspective you mention may be realistic, but it does not serve any purpose.
Bin Ismail wrote: Although, you may sound more rational and I may sound unduly optimistic, yet I believe that a reaction to the present mess will indeed lead to the dawn of a Secular and viable Pakistan.
It may lead, but things don’t happen by themselves. One needs to present people with a forceful alternate vision, one builds the resources to take on the forces of darkness, and then one has to take them on. As things stand now, the forces of moderation are on the back-foot and being pushed back over the cliff.
Bin Ismail wrote: The Idealistic Vision of Pan-Subcontinentalism, in my opinion, on the political plane, will begin with a secularization of politics and political activity in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At the level of the respective societies, the first step would be to nurture respect for the other’s religious beliefs. Mere tolerance is not good enough – not for us Sub Continentals. The followers of the various denominations inhabiting this region must first learn to show respect, in a sustained fashion, for the sensibilities of the other
There is a lot of distance that religious communities need to travel towards each other. However one should not accept everything that is sold in the name of religion. Religion in context of Pan-Subcontinentalism is discussed on my blog – (IV Law)
Pakistan’ religion does not look at diversity kindly. It does not realize diversity (including atheism, polytheism and agnosticism) as a necessity, but only as something to be tolerated till it vanishes. This religion regards the one who accelerates this disappearance of diversity as its god-beloved hero.
Absolutism, finalism and totalitarianism are inherent to this religion. It is the recipe and the fertile breeding ground for fascism.
@Pan-Subcontinentalism (January 22, 2011 at 2:47 am)
It is very seldom that I click on to a name or pseudonym appearing as a link. I suppose I lack curiosity, even the useful kind. Had you not been kind enough to point out, “..Religion in context of Pan-Subcontinentalism is discussed on my blog – (IV Law)..”, I would have remained unaware of the blog.
I would have to endorse your words, “..There is a lot of distance that religious communities need to travel towards each other..”. This distance, a long distance, needs to be covered, at the levels of the respective societies of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. This travel will go a long way to improving the atmosphere of the Subcontinent – the “fiza” – as we call it in Urdu. The other, and no less significant travel would be to achieve an absolute segregation of Politics and Religion at the level of political activity, and again in all these three countries.
Regards.
@Bin Ismail
Perhaps the starting point of any nearing towards another religion is to accept the right of the other to practice his religion and not hold somebody’s religion against the other when weighing in on one’s sympathy and affection towards the other.
Any religion has its spectrum of believers and preachers, and at any given time there is a level of perversion of it, also selling under the same label as the religion itself. One can call it perversion, or one can call them by its various tendencies like segregation from other faiths, fascism, sexism, uber-emotionalism (e.g. blasphemy, etc.), war-mongering, terrorism, etc. So at times when society has allowed these regressive tendencies to take hold over religion, and allowed religion to be associated with these regressive tendencies in the consciousness of other faiths, it is unrealistic to expect, respect from other faiths.
Respect would be forthcoming from other faiths only when a society purges itself of these regressive tendencies in their faith.
However in principle, faiths should show tolerance and respect for all faiths which distance themselves from these regressive tendencies.
So irrespective of when faiths find themselves in a position to show mutual respect, one should at least take the initiative to show understanding, tolerance, respect and indeed acceptance for the other’s culture and tradition, which may or may not be rooted in religion.
Regards
@Pan-Subcontinentalism (January 22, 2011 at 8:47 pm)
“…..Any religion has its spectrum of believers and preachers, and at any given time there is a level of perversion of it, also selling under the same label as the religion itself…..”
That was eloquently put, I must say. And thank you for sharing these noble thoughts.
Regards.