What's new

Jinnah's secularism was about pluralism: YLH

SoulSpokesman

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
-15
Country
India
Location
India
@waz @RiazHaq @VCheng @Joe Shearer @Wood @UKBengali

Excellent speech by my dear friend Yasser Latif Hamdani and a nice article by Dawn as well. The only jarring note was YLH saying "Jinnah was greater than Gandhi". This is like saying that "Roger Federer was greater than Rohan Bopanna". Obvious, avoidable and completely unnecessary IMHO.


KARACHI: “Sadly and tragically, we are nowhere near Jinnah’s idea of a modern nation state,” said Yasser Latif Hamdani, who is a well-known human rights lawyer, writer and author of several books, including Jinnah: A Life.

He was giving a talk on ‘Jinnah and the Idea of a Modern Nation State’ at the Quaid-i-Azam House Museum here on Friday.

He said that just this morning he was at the Sindh High Court where he was witness to a negative declaration in the case of a Hindu individual, who was being judged as a second-class citizen. “It goes completely contradictory to the nation state Jinnah wanted,” he said.

“Jinnah’s idea of secularism was in pluralism. He even had his Aug 10, 1947 oath altered by omitting the word ‘swear’ and ‘so help me God’. There was no mention of God in the oath to keep religion and state separate. He felt that any person with merit should lead Pakistan,” he pointed out.

“We all know of his speech where he said ‘You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan.’ But the most important words in that speech are: ‘Even now there are some states in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class … we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.’

“He would have never stood for state religion. So what was the idea of Pakistan? Jinnah’s idea was not dependant on Partition. There could still be Pakistan in United India. The idea that is dividing India and Islam may sound good here, but it is a bad story to tell internationally. India sells Gandhi and his ideals of secularism and pluralism abroad. Jinnah was greater than Gandhi, but he has a negative image,” said Mr Hamdani.

“Jinnah was not completely decided on Partition. The division of the subcontinent was not etched in stone, and this narrative needs to come out in Pakistan Studies,” he said.

Earlier, senior vice chairman of the Board of Management (BoM) of the Quaid-i-Azam House Museum, and Jinnah’s grandnephew Liaquat Merchant said: “In order to understand the reasons of the creation of Pakistan and that Pakistan will never die, you have to cross that bridge that is ‘Jinnah’. Only then will you understand Pakistan, the Pakistan Movement and the creation of Pakistan.”

Mr Merchant also said that there was a large collection of books on Jinnah, which was still not enough. “Any book on Jinnah is a welcome addition,” he said, while also lauding the efforts of the former minister of finance of India, Jaswant Singh, for writing his book Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.

He said there was also a need for book in quest of Jinnah. “There should be a book about him as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian and statesman, as a Congress leader, a book on Jinnah’s role in the Pakistan Movement, him as the governor general of Pakistan, him as the protector of minorities, as a champion of human rights and Jinnah on education as he willed most of his money to educational institutions both in India and Pakistan,” he said.

BoM secretary general Sadeed A. Malik and member Ameena Saiyid also spoke on the occasion.

Regards
 
This is like saying that "Roger Federer was greater than Rohan Bopanna". Obvious, avoidable and completely unnecessary IMHO.

I guess you wanted to say "this is like saying rohan was greater than roger"
 
@Rollno21 @-=virus=-

By no means. I wrote what I meant.

Regards
I don't like Gandhi ,but in no way Jinnah will come any where close to Gandhi.Jinnah was like many other leaders during independence struggle.

What Gandhi did was something remarkable which no other leader in pre independent india could do. There were many who started independence movement but none galvanized the whole countrymen from all sections of the society across the length and breath of india under a come cause like he did.

For pakistanies Jinnah might be a great leader but when you look at the whole picture he is no where near when compared to Gandhi.
 
@Rollno21

Gandhi is hated and despised by many- especially in India and also among black people throughout the world for his vile, racist views. Jinnah sahib is still the country's idol, although it has not lived upto his ideals.

Regards
 
@Rollno21

Gandhi is hated and despised by many- especially in India and also among black people throughout the world for his vile, racist views. Jinnah sahib is still the country's idol, although it has not lived upto his ideals.

Regards
I don't know how well traveled you are ,I don't know where you get it and make sweeping statement , among both of them Gandhi is still the most recognized and respected leader in the world. Gandhi comes at the top influential people of the century. And all these are not some random statement like you made ,I can show proof to any of the points I made if you point out. I would appreciate you too do the same.
 
No one outside of Pakistan sees Jinnah as a great leader, even a lot of people in Pakistan aren't fond of Jinnah but don't say it out loud as they would get killed. If Jinnah was truly "secular", Hindus and Sikhs wouldn't have been systematically driven out of the country at 1947. Jinnah only invoked secularism when it was convenient for him, Pakistan wasn't built on values of tolerance and inclusion, that was evident when nationwide anti Ahmadiyya and Hindu pogroms broke out in the 50s shortly after Pakistan was made. The Muslim League themselves were a communal party of demagogues who didn't contribute a single thing to the freedom struggle, they even made alliances with Hindu extremist parties.
 
@Rollno21 @-=virus=-

By no means. I wrote what I meant.

Regards
ok, fair. Jinnah's original idea for his mulk may have been that, but things have certainly not gone as he had envisioned if you look at the respective minorities of the 2 mulks, one clearly sees them thriving and having grown considerably from the % at the time of batwara, and in the other, they've been more or less wiped out.

Wahan ki awaam me kattarbaazi shuru se hi caked in baked thi, yahan par toh abhi shuru hui hai thori bhot.. yet not all BJP voters care too much about the religious stuff, only a small percent of them are actual shakha going folk, and some of them even eat the beefs.. :o: would you believe it ?

Also, the author, Yasser Hamdani.. friend of yours ? how ? :blink:
 
No one outside of Pakistan sees Jinnah as a great leader, even a lot of people in Pakistan aren't fond of Jinnah
You were dropped as a baby or what? Lol, single most retarted thing I have heard in a while
Just don't say that in front of people...
but don't say it out loud as they would get killed. If Jinnah was truly "secular", Hindus and Sikhs wouldn't have been systematically driven out of the country at 1947.
He wasn't a theocrat but he was a Muslim nationalist - you can believe in state secularism while also being a Muslim nationalist
Under ottoman empire where they had a mix of ottoman and Shariah laws, Greeks, Armenian and Kurds we're very much integrated in society

But no one except for Muslims survived Turkish secularism- they faced similar situation like ours, Balkans, Greece, parts of Russia (not most as Muslims in Russia make up a good%) and Muslims of Armenia were driven into Turkey and Turkish secular nationalists drove out all these people because they believed they're traitors


The only place where people were driven out was in Punjab- Punjab makes up what 40% of the country and vica versa HP, IP and haryana have very little Muslim presence due to partition voilance- most of northern Punjab urban and semi urban areas are made up of just voilance refugees, first wave was Kashmiri escaping dogra rule, second wave was partition victims coming from Indian punjab, haryana and than in minority UP, Bihar - proper native Borns in northern Punjab exist but they're probably a slight majority, a lot of people have violent backstories

Pakhtunkhwa, gilgit and Balochistan never really had any minority population , Sindh saw very little voilance
Jinnah only invoked secularism when it was convenient for him, Pakistan wasn't built on values of tolerance and inclusion,
Pakistan probably wasn't exactly built on that but our people were not that- living in Pakistan we are probably amongst the most open hearted people groups if I compare it to different nationalities I meet even in the US but we also into honor systems/ revenge and shit, so don't know what to think of this

I saw a map on Reddit about pre-40s cammunal voilance and after South India we had the least amount of cammunal violence in British India and UP areas had the most

I am searching for it for like a good 10 minutes but just can't get a hold of it, if anyone else can it'll be cool
that was evident when nationwide anti Ahmadiyya and Hindu pogroms broke out in the 50s shortly after Pakistan was made. The Muslim League themselves were a communal party of demagogues who didn't contribute a single thing to the freedom struggle, they even made alliances with Hindu extremist parties.
Are you @Ferzique
 
Last edited:
To most Indians, Gandhi is a greater leader than Quaid e Azam. To most Pakistanis, it is reverse. As simple as that.
 
In other words, we have created what WE wanted to create, not what Jinnah wanted. Makes sense to me, nothing sad or tragic about it. 100% intentional.
Jinnah and his team played a part in inciting riots that murdered and displaced thousands of Hindus in Pakistan, Christians were always treated like subhumans and were only needed for menial jobs like cleaning gutters to serve the majority, Shias and Ahmadis were always hated or looked down upon and sectarian violence wasn't uncommon in the 1950s, I think this is what Jinnah exactly wanted. He never actually meant to build a country on the values of secularism, tolerance, and inclusiveness, that was evident since day one.
 
@Maula Jatt

He wasn't a theocrat but he was a Muslim nationalist - you can believe in state secularism while also being a Muslim nationalist

That is precisely what YLH and many other secular Pakistanis ( and for whatever it is worth I) have argued for almost a couple of decades now. "Muslim" as an identity is as bona fide as say English or Turkish or Russian.

@Zornix

even a lot of people in Pakistan aren't fond of Jinnah but don't say it out loud as they would get killed.

Not true on many counts.

Only a few Pakistanis- deluded left- libbus like Hoodbhoy and some hard core Islamists like Diesel's pop hate him, but they say it without fear. Most Pakistanis venerate Jinnah sahib although they dont believe in what he stood for.

As a matter of fact, far larger percentage of Pakistanis love Jinnah than Indians love Gandhi. Most Indian Hindus hate Gandhi, and many now support the ideology of those who killed him.

Regards
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom