Book Review: Secular Jinnah & Pakistan: What the Nation Doesn't Know | PKKH

[QayPKKH]

Book Review: Secular Jinnah & Pakistan: What the Nation Doesn't Know | PKKH

PKKH Exclusive|By Muhammad Umer Toor

In Secular Jinnah: What the Nation Doesn’t Know (2010), Saleena Karim - sequel to her 2005 work, Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed - has given a mighty blow to many of the standard distortions and mythical arguments of a bunch of Secularist Pakistanis. She has, alone, taken on many stalwart secularist academics, beginning with the notorious secular-godfather, Justice Munir, who, as we’ll show, was the very perpetrator of a Secular Pakistan. In her previous work, she had exposed ‘Munir’s hoax’: a false quote attributed to Jinnah, which has subsequently been repeated so many times by secular establishment that it appears to have become a fact. In this new book, she has exhausted the subject, by writing and arguing about every facet of secular vs Muslim/Islamic debate which was not addressed in the previous work, such as the debate about Objectives Resolution.

Before we go into the branches of the book and the debate it deals with, let us show the very roots of the problem.

‘Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed’: A False Quote attributed to Quaid

First time I came to know about the author was when I was listening to a lecture by Dr Safdar Mehmood’s, ‘Pakistan: Reality or Illusion?’ convened by late Dr Israr Ahmed. The veteran historian mentioned that the core contribution of this book is the rebuttal of a false quote attributed to Jinnah by Justice Munir, first in his Munir Report 1953, and then his famous book, From Jinnah to Zia, 1980. Here goes the ‘false quote’:

The state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed. (Emphasis on ‘caste’ and ‘creed’ added)

This quote was supposedly from an interview of Quaid with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Munir didn’t provide ‘proper reference’ or date. Saleena extracted the ‘real version’ from the original newspaper archives in UK, which reads:

But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will be the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time. (Only ‘caste’ and ‘creed’ are to be found in both versions, rest all is altered)

Contrast the following interview of Jinnah with the false quote produced by Munir:

But before [Jinnah] left a correspondent asked him: ‘I presume from what you have said, Mr. Jinnah, that Pakistan will be a modern democratic state.’ Mr. Jinnah quickly replied: ‘When did I ever say that? I never said anything to that effect.’ (Emphasis added) [Source: Hindustan Times, 14 July 1947 (NV Vol. VI, p. 276 fn)]

Finally, to seal the accusation that the outlook of Jinnah was purely secular - which is far from truth: in his address on 25 january 1948 (Yusufi Vol. IV p.2670), he said:

Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and like. It is based on the highest principles of honour, integrity, fairplay and justice for. One God and the equality of manhood is one of the fundamental principles of Islam.

This is a clear-cut antithesis of secularism as an ideological and political ‘philosophy’.

Three-piece argument: Cornerstone of secular discourse

Based on the false quote, Munir developed the following ‘three-piece argument’ to prove that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan (when in fact he had relegated the privilege of determining the form of government to the people):

Munir quote rejects the clause in the Objective Resolution that sovereignty belongs to Allah on the assumption that Quaid advocated sovereignty of people.
He takes Jinnah’s 11 August 1947 speech to clearly proves that he wanted a secular Pakistan
He takes Jinnah’s anti-theocracy statements as ample proof for his vision of a secular Pakistan

Since ‘Munir’s quote’ is false, we are left with the other two parts which only prove that the Quaid did not want a sectarian, Church kind of government of exclusivist elites, be it a particular sect or else. This is why in 11 August 1947’s speech was given to send a message that a Hindu would have same rights as a citizen as a Muslim; this is why he opposed theocracy because it precludes participation of ‘people’ in running the affairs of the country.

‘Munir’s Legacy: the Butterfly Effect’

The false quote attributed to Jinnah and/or three-piece argument which has been repeated blindly by as many Islamophobic secularists as possible. These included such top-notch anti-Islamic-state-scholars as following (p. 74, Secular Jinnah 2010):

Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman
Ishtiaq Ahmed (a professor) in a journal article
Pervez A Hoodbhoy & Ahmed Hameed Nayyar in the paper Rewriting the History of Pakistan (‘revisionism posing as scholarship’)
Abdus Sattar Ghazzali (a journalist) in his book Islamic Pakistan: Illusions and Reality
(late) Ardeshir Cowasjee in his book Back to Jinnah

Saleena has added a special appendix which lists all works which have utilized the quote.

A Bird’s-eye-view: Chapter-wise

First chapter is a biographical essay on Jinnah’s transformation from being an Indian (and then Muslim) a politician to not being an Indian. It’s a 30-page long, gradual, step-by-step examination of Jinnah’s pre-partition political career, his worldview, his influences, and also how he was influenced by thoughts and comments of Iqbal. In short, Quaid believed in a purely non-sectarian, non-theocratic, Islamic world-view. Second chapter is the heart of the book: a full exposition of Munir’s hoax. The third and fourth chapter deal with the controversy surrounding Objectives Resolution before and after the Munir report (which contained false quote), respectively. The next chapter is also of central importance to the thesis of the book: how one false quote has influenced and gave life to pro-secularist camp - something the author calls, ‘the butterfly effect’. In her essay on 1940 resolution she terms it as ‘deferred secession’ and disproves the allegations that it was a mere ‘bargaining counter’ by quoting extensively from wide range references to Quaid (and Iqbal as well).

Then, she spends pages on Jinnah’s “position on the Pakistan idea, in terms of both the terrestrial and ‘ideological’ aspects.” Much of this information - regarding Quaid’s instance on not partitioning Punjab and Bengal - is known to many of us already; however it is crucial in dispelling many wrong charges on Jinnah of communalism, provincialism and the carnage that took place in the aftermath of the very partition that Quaid opposed. On ideological plane, ample evidence is given which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the foundation of Quaid’s worldview, and by extension that of Pakistan, was based on Islam. Islamic ideals were to be at the heart of political, social and institutional organization in the new country in the eyes of all founding fathers and mothers.

Chapter 9, “Lahore to Dehli,” is a story of how one man - M Ali Jinnah - led Muslims all over India not only as a politician, but also as an organizer, educator, media man, salesman, and think tank for Pakistan, who above all organized Muslims politically and institutionally (by setting up various committees comprising of many well-qualified, non-Muslim league professionals).

In congruence with the false quote, secular academia has reconstructed a mythical image of Quaid and his ideology. Author of the book has exposed each of these myths extensively in chapter 10

Iqbal & Jinnah: Two faces of a same coin

Since the ideas of Iqbal - about Islam and Muslim politics - are the heart of Pakistan, Saleena has spent a whole chapter elucidating Iqbal’s view and critique of secularism in favor of Islamic statehood. Secular propaganda machinery either tries to overlook this bond, or disapproves of it. One major problem with Church experience in Europe has been sectarianism. In chapter 6, writer graciously makes use of works of Dr Javed Iqbal to explain the importance of word deen which is used in Qur’an as opposed to word mazhab (which, according to J Iqbal, is used in the sense of individual faith, currently). Deen is like a sea in which all of us swim regardless of our differences, without relinquishing our ability to mutually deal with what is clearly outside of deen. To a purely secularist mind, dualism between worldly and spiritual affairs (represented by word religion) remains there, which in Islamic perspective doesn’t exist as such.

Conclusion

Saleena’s work is certainly a very reliable, resourceful and rigorous critique of secular establishment of misconstruction and tampering of Pakistani history. It has been welcomed and praised by many scholars of distinction. It has upheld what more than 90% of Pakistanis have upheld for more than 90% of time since Pakistan took its first breath: Jinnah, Iqbal Muslim League and above Muslim masses wanted a non-sectarian homeland for Muslims based on unique Islamic ideals against a secular, atheistic, nationalist worldview which dominated the world then and continues to do so. The strength of the work - which can hardly be overlooked - is painstaking effort at referencing every tiny bit of information. Thus, on the foundation of sound and correct premises has she built her arguments!

Muhammad Umer Toor is a wanna-be philosopher in distant future. Based in Lahore, with a BSc in Business, he blogs at[url]www.toorumer.blogspot.com[/url].* He can be reached at i.umer.toor@gmail.com

 

[rubyjackass]

@QayPKKH :
Thank you very much for the thread. I would have missed this very important book. The promo video is simply superb.
SECULAR JINNAH & PAKISTAN: WHAT THE NATION DOESN'T KNOW


I wonder why the book did not get attention in Pakistan. No reactions from the secular Quaid theorists either - whose camp counts Ayesha Jalal, Ardeshir Cowasjee, Pervez Hoodbhoy etc among them.

 

[rubyjackass]

Just found this reaction from Yasser Latif Hamdani.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

The gist of argument by Saleena seems to be that Quaid wanted an Islamic state and he made all the promises to minorities because Islam, being a tolerant religion, automatically grants these rights to all people irrespective of their faith or creed.

Hamdani puts the actual Jinnah quote(the one distorted by Justice Munir) and claims that it means Jinnah was secular.
And then he goes on...

In a nutshell, Jinnah’s vision was of an inclusive democratic state where religion would be the “personal faith of an individual” and each citizen would have the same opportunities in every field — including the highest offices in the land — without any distinction of religion. The example that Jinnah quoted was from the history of Great Britain where religious wars between Catholics and Protestants were brought to an end by a practical separation of church and state. Jinnah believed — and many of his colleagues like Zafrullah Khan agreed — that this was a vision that was compatible with Islam. It must be remembered that Jinnah made his August 11 speech where he explicitly declared that religion would be a personal matter after Kiran Shankar Roy in his speech asked Jinnah to declare Pakistan a secular state. Jinnah’s response was unambiguous, undiplomatic and entirely secular. In what was his most important policy speech, Jinnah made no mention of Islamic principles or even God. Later that day, Jogindranath Mandal, a Hindu lawyer from East Pakistan with absolutely no training in Islamic law, became the new state’s first law minister. If Jinnah wanted an Islamic state, he certainly did not lift a finger to make that happen.

He again rallies with the same Lahore speech as commandment ignoring all the other speeches which call for an Islamic state. He makes another convenient leap of logic when he assumes that a Hindu law minister can never pass a bill based on Sharia. And claims that Jinnah did not lift a finger to make an Islamic state. Even the Lahore speech does not contradict an Islamic state, since in the eyes of Iqbal and Jinnah, Islam grants equality to all people. Jinnah only precluded a theocracy not an Islamic state.


If we accept the 'secular Jinnah' theory, it is so difficult to make sense of the contradictions, twists and turns in the narrative of Jinnah's actions as apparent in Ayesha Jalal's book for example. For instance, one the one hand Ayesha Jalal quotes Jinnah calling Azad as 'Congress show boy', while arguing without a pause that Jinnah wanted a secular Muslim majority state. I just could not stomach the glaring hole in the argument.

 

[INDIC]

Although I don't believe Jinnah was secular but this articles lack ethics of Journalism, poorly written.

 

[rubyjackass]

Although I don't believe Jinnah was secular but this articles lack ethics of Journalism, poorly written.

Can you explain what is unethical about the article?

 

[INDIC]

Can you explain what is unethical about the article?

I already told its poorly written.

 

[ajpirzada]

The gist of argument by Saleena seems to be that Quaid wanted an Islamic state and he made all the promises to minorities because Islam, being a tolerant religion, automatically grants these rights to all people irrespective of their faith or creed.

i very much look at Jinnah from the same lenz. and it is only through this that i can find him consistent in his sayings. if we drop this line, then Jinnah was simply a politician with no ideology speaking whatever his audience wanted him to say.

Following are some of his other speeches after the creation of Pakistan

Siddiqui quoted Jinnah from a speech on January 25, 1948, at Karachi Bar Association saying: “I could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and made a propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat.” He advised the youth to read the contents of the resolution, which, in his view, ensures the country’s survival.
....
To define the basis for Pakistan, she quoted Jinnah from his various speeches and concluded at the one delivered at the Karachi Bar Association. “No doubt there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines, Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulates his life and his conduct even in politics and economics and the like.”

For Dr Sherwani, Jinnah’s speech at the bar aligns well with another one delivered on February 14, 1948 at the Sibi Durbar, where he said: “It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver, the Prophet (PBUH) of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles.”

As nation remembers Jinnah, speakers fear his


Following is the detailed text of Jinnah's Bar association speech cited above:

Karachi Bar Association given on March 25th, 1948
"Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundation of democracy… The Prophet was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and a great sovereign who ruled. No doubt, there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like. It is based upon highest principles of honour, integrity, fair play and justice for all. One God and the equality of man is one of the fundamental principles of Islam. In Islam there is no difference between man and man. The qualities of equality, liberty and fraternity are the fundamental principles in Islam."

Also in the same speech,

"What reason is there for anyone to fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity and on the basis of fair play and justice for everybody… Let us make it (the constitution of Pakistan). We shall make it and we will show it to the world."

so in my understanding, Jinnah wanted an Islamic state such that to him the idea of democracy, equality, justice and freedom were not only consistent but had their roots in the Islamic mode of governance.

Now obviously these priciples are very secular and if u ignore his speeches in which he mentioned Islam or Shariah explicitly you will simply take Jinnah to be a secular. On the other hand, we have got people who do not consider democracy to be islamic and within them some even go to an extent of calling Jinnah an non-muslim etc.

so having successfully developed a very genuine understanding, Jinnah left himself in a lot of trouble :p

 

[Wood]

Does Jinnah's ambition really matter any more? Only the Pakistanis who live today can shape their country's destiny. If democracy is given a run, the electorate can decide in favor of an Islamic Pakistan by voting for a religious party. Alternatively, they can decide to go the other way as well. Whatever they choose, it will be the will of its people and not that of Jinnah.

 

[INDIC]

Does Jinnah's ambition really matter any more? Only the Pakistanis who live today can shape their country's destiny. If democracy is given a run, the electorate can decide in favor of an Islamic Pakistan by voting for a religious party. Alternatively, they can decide to go the other way as well. Whatever they choose, it will be the will of its people and not that of Jinnah.

During Pakistan movement, Jinnah used inflamatory speeches against Hindus to convince Muslims for a Muslim homeland, by the time Pakistan was created the society was deeply polarised the and even if he wanted a secular Pakistan, that was impossible to achieve.

 

[Wood]

During Pakistan movement, Jinnah used inflamatory speeches against Hindus to convince Muslims for a Muslim homeland, by the time Pakistan was created the society was deeply polarised the and even if he wanted a secular Pakistan, that was impossible to achieve.

Jinnah's speeches were not the only reason for partition. Unlike the current information age, people from those times were more communal. Distrust between the communities was nurtured by the Raj and this was exploited by others to achieve Pakistan. But even if one comes to accept your theory that Jinnah manufactured the Pakistan movement all by himself, you will have to concede that he died soon after the partition. At least at that time, Pakistan was not called 'Islamic'.

 

[INDIC]

Jinnah's speeches were not the only reason for partition. Unlike the current information age, people from those times were more communal. Distrust between the communities was nurtured by the Raj and this was exploited by others to achieve Pakistan. But even if one comes to accept your theory that Jinnah manufactured the Pakistan movement all by himself, you will have to concede that he died soon after the partition. At least at that time, Pakistan was not called 'Islamic'.

I don't disagree with British's divide and rule policy but remember Muslim League had very weak base among Muslim before 1940. Their election performance was very bad in 1937 but in 1946 they achieved what they wanted. Although Jinnah failed to get border of Pakistan till Delhi including West Bengal- Assam.

 

[ajpirzada]

Just found this reaction from Yasser Latif Hamdani.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

im slightly confused at this. The writer of the Book seems to argue that the quote attributed to Jinnah does not exist. while the writer of this article bases his argument on the quote which is claimed to be dubious. Or is he quoting a different quote which is similar to Mr. Munir's quote?

 

[BATMAN]

Sorry,,, yet i have not read the OP but furthering the followup comments.

An interesting but factually written article...

Iqbal and democracy

Thursday, May 27, 2010 - In the present mayhem of democracy in Pakistan, people seem to have forgotten two verses of Allama Iqbal on the subject of “democracy” – one in Urdu and the other in Persian: The Urdu verse says: Jamhooriat ek tarze hukoomat hai ke jis main, Bandon ko gina karte hain tola nahin karte. It mans, democracy is a form of government in which people are counted but not weighed for their worth.

The Persian verse says: Guraiz as tarze Jamhoori ghulame pukhta kare shaw, Ke as maghze do sad khar fikre insani nami aayed. This means, avoid democratic system of government, because the combined thinking of two hundred donkeys can not produce the wisdom of one man. These are the poet’s comments on the so called democratic systems in which illiterate people elect their representatives of their tribes, “braderies” cast or creed and not on merit of the person who will represent them in parliament or assemblies. Pakistan comes in this category of democracies for the following reasons: Pakistani voters are by and large illiterate and cannot measure the merit of their candidates. They are largely the part of a feudal society and vote for the candidate of the choice of their landlord or the Sardar of their tribe. Democratic system works only in an educated society where people have an understanding of their rights and responsibilities. In corrupt countries like Pakistan rich candidates bribe their voters to get elected. All these factors have made the system of democracy unworkable in most developing countries including ours.

In a recent example, a PPP candidate Jamshaid Dasti from Muzaffargarh who was disqualified by none other than the Supreme Court of Pakistan on charges of contesting his previous election on the basis of a fake degree of MA Islamiat, filed his nomination papers in a bye- election for the same NA seat from which he was disqualified by the Apex Court. Strangely enough his papers were found in order by the Returning Officer despite his disqualification on the basis of a fake degree. Not only this, the country’s prime minister who also hails from Southern Punjab endorsed Dasti in a large public meeting as his party’s candidate, ignoring the Supreme Court decision without any qualms of conscience or weight of responsibility as the head of the country’s government.

He coined a spurious phrase “Awam ki Adalat”, meaning the vote bank of an illiterate candidate which should supersede the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s judgment. And, in fact, it did when Mr. Dasti won his seat in the National Assembly with 50,000 votes. The prime minister had already predicted his victory even before the first vote was cast. This is the kind of democracy which Iqbal ridiculed when he said “bandon ko gina karte hain, tola nahin karte.” It may be remembered that Mr. Dasti who had a fake degree in Islamiat didn’t even know the name of the first Surah of the Quran.

In fact, Islam is the first world religion which gave the basic concept of democracy which was, “good governance through consultation and election of the ruler (Khalifa) through Bayet (voting).” That is how the first germ of peoples’ rule was planted in the desert of Arabia in an age of the evil Roman and Persian Empires. There is no concept of kingship or dynastic monarchy or democracy in Islam. Likewise, the good governance should be based on social justice and the economic philosophy of equitable distribution of wealth among the masses. Concentration of wealth in a few hands has been strictly forbidden. The rich have been repeatedly ordered to share their wealth with the poor and the needy. In modern terms this is the blue print of an egalitarian society and a welfare State. The idea of a basic minimum educational qualification of BA degree for a candidate was added with good intentions that a candidate who aspires to represent the people in the elected bodies should at least be able to sign his or her name and read the documents which are still written in English. Although the standard of education in the country has gone down so much that the BA degree does not fulfill this requirement of basic education, but something is better than nothing. The great importance of education or learning in Islam can be gauged from the fact that the first revelation to the Holy Prophet in Ghar-e-Hira was about knowledge or Ilm, because he was “ummi”. God commanded the Holy Prophet to read. He said, “Read in the name of thy Lord who createth. Createth man from a clot. Read and thy Lord is the most Bounteous. Who teacheth by the

Pen. Teacheth man that which he knew not.” It is highly regrettable that Muslims have forsaken “Knowledge” and have lagged far behind in the race of progress and prosperity. Pakistan had several democratic governments in the past but they all failed because the so called democratic rulers were not educated or honest. Most of them were corrupt, insincere and lacked vision to make their country great. The democracy may be the” best revenge” but not in the present case.

The country is in the grip of the worst terrorism, economic chaos and energy crisis. The government is not bothered. It is not willing to reduce its criminally vast and unnecessary expenses, nor is it willing to introduce austerity measures to curb the extravagance of the rich. Millions of people pray to God in mosques everyday for their delivery from the miseries their government has thrown them in. God’s mercy is unbounded. He can rid the people from misery as and when he wanted, but he has set a criterion for this. He only helps those who help themselves. He says in the Holy Quran” God does not change the destiny of a nation, unless it tries to change it itself.” The message is clear. It is up to us to change our destiny.

 

[Wood]

I don't disagree with British's divide and rule policy but remember Muslim League had very weak base among Muslim before 1940. Their election performance was very bad in 1937 but in 1946 they achieved what they wanted. Although Jinnah failed to get border of Pakistan till Delhi including West Bengal- Assam.

There is no denying the phenomenal rise of the Muslim League. Jinnah had the ammunition to use, which he did. But still, what I contend is, does that matter today?

 

[ShahidT]

Does Jinnah's ambition really matter any more? Only the Pakistanis who live today can shape their country's destiny. If democracy is given a run, the electorate can decide in favor of an Islamic Pakistan by voting for a religious party. Alternatively, they can decide to go the other way as well. Whatever they choose, it will be the will of its people and not that of Jinnah.

yes it matters, they are the founding fathers of our nation. when a nation strays from its initial vision and becomes something else, then only bad things can befall it. we were meant to have a state whose institutions enshrine principles of khilafat e rashida. Pakistan cannot adopt some purely western type system that does not incorporate Islam into public life and governance, because that defeats the purpose and is against our people's wishes as well.

for the democratic process to work effectively you need a well informed, educated electorate, and people/parties contending that have a clean record with no ill intentions. despite massive illiteracy and miseducation, people are coming around to being more critical and informed. but there are still some parties whose affiliates spew hatred towards certain people and call for murder openly. they mostly get negligible number of votes but end up with enough power to achieve their limited ends unchecked because of alliances with the larger mainstream parties. besides, all elections in the past have been in namesake/just for show, or heavily rigged with disastrous consequences.

that's why if this election is fair, no fudging or funny stuff. then it will be the most important election in our history thus far. its a major test for Pakistan whether it will be impartial and honest, or back to the same old.