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

[Bang Galore]

But there was some serious damage done to Muslims because of this kind of secularism. When India gained independence, Muslims were allowed to have their own personal law. Though there was a corresponding Hindu law, it banned a whole lot of retrograde practices from the Hindu religion like polygamy. Nobody dared or cared to cleanse the Islamic law similarly. Today majority conversions to Islam from our elite are for polygamy. Muslim women are not eligible for alimony. They are confined to their burqas. A lot of them go to college now but only to get a piece of paper called degree before getting married. Most muslims shy away from several benefits of modernity- like insurance, banking, in some places even from vaccination - because these are against Islam. I guess the moral is that freedom can sometimes lead to backwardness.

That(the muslim law /absence of uniform civil code) is such a tragedy. The Hindu law works because it is Hindu only in name, it is not based on religious scriptures. Not having a uniform civil law is such a major drawback in our "secular" country.

Btw, I agree with you on the burka, it is widely used as a method to control women and almost certainly guarantees backwardness of thought since the very nature of such a garment prevents any concept of equality of the sexes.

 

[ajpirzada]

True. The sad part is that the secular-Jinnah theorists will let Jinnah be called a hypocrite rather than admit that he fought for an Islamic state. They connect what Jinnah said in the 20s to what he wanted for Pakistan. They ignore the fact that Jinnah changed a lot in this period. For example, he changed his stance to separate electorate for Muslims(They sideline this as a move to gain support for Muslim League, in other words, populism!! They ignore how hypocritical Jinnah would look if he chose to be populist on such an important issue. Still they close their eyes and ears and live in their paradise).

And then they quote people like Jaswant Singh to make their case!! They are lazy when they do not analyze what were the views of Jinnah and Iqbal on Islam. Jaswant Singh might be excused of not wanting to read about Islamic philosophy, but what about these people?

I myself read history from their narratives and took Jinnah to be a hypocrite for a very long time. Also the secular-Jinnah theorists have no one answer to the silver bullet: 'Why did Jinnah want to separate from India if he wanted a secular country?' That alone should prove their arguments to be hollow. All the answers to this question seem so artificially constructed.


Thanks for the quotes. However there is a confusion in the dates you mentioned. At one place you mention March 25th for Karachi Bar Association speech, whereas Jan 25th seems to be actual date.

'Democracy considered unIslamic' is a recent phenomenon, most likely imported from Sodie along with the ****** curriculum during Afghan war. We need to consider how Jinnah or Iqbal viewed democracy then. Not the recent Khilafat narrative.

i ended up buying her book and reading it to figure out wat she is trying to say.. very interestingly tells the whole dilemma within pakistan regarding the ideology.

wat she is saying is that CJ Munir in his report did not use that as a quote but infact his words were what he understood from Jinnah's actual interview. But later in his book "From Jinnah to Zia" (1979) he used these very same words from his earlier report and under quotation mark attributed them to Jinnah. Her understanding is that CJ Munir must have translated there words from an Urdu source which itself was a translation from an original English script. I liked this for the fact that despite her being critical or munir, she did not call him intellectually dishonest.

Then she makes an attempt in one of the chapters to analyse the impact of this false quotation on the ideology debate in pakistan. Her conclusion is that the Secularists have since 1979 adopted a three pronged strategy to prove Jinnah to be secular. 1) his august 1947 speech which speaks of equality, freedom and justice etc; 2) Munir quote which uses the term 'modern democratic state' and 'sovereignty resting with people' - giving a clear impression of a secular democracy of the western type; 3) Jinnah's words that Pakistan will not be theocracy - used under the presumption that Islam is not consistent with democracy. She has given significant list of academic work in which Munir quote has been used as a step build on the secular Jinnah argument.

She has provided wealth of quotation from Jinnah, Iqbal and the debates which took place between the Muslim League leaders and the Opposition during the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan which were of similar nature where ML leaders were unanimous on the 'Constitution' being embedded in Islamic ideals while the opposition (all of which was non-muslim) adamant on adopting secular democracy of the west. The debates clearly show the then ML leaders were clear that theocracy had no justification in Islam and it was a creed of western civilization. At the same time Islam gave full religious, economic and political freedom to all the citizens of the state irrespective of their creed etc.

 

[ajpirzada]

for example, the opposition criticized that why was the statement:
'sovereignty over the entire universie belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred tust'
included in the Objective Resolution as it opened the doors for theocracy.

To this the them PM of Pak, Liaquat Ali Khan explained, '... it has been made clear in the Resolution that the State shall exercise all its power and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. ... This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy. It is true that in its literal sense, theocracy means a Government of God; in this sense, however, it is patent that the entire universe is a theocracy, for is there any corner in the entire creation where His authority does not exist? But in the technical sense, theocracy has come to mean a government of ordained priests .. who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position. I cannot overemphasize the fact that such an idea is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, there, the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam.'

 

[rubyjackass]

@ajpirzada:
Thanks for explaining the importance of the quote better. I thought The Munir Report was the only place where Justice Munir mentioned it. In his report, he just paraphrases Jinnah but does not quote. I thought the author was little unfair to Munir there. So the real issue is with Munir's book.

The author's research is amazing. I have seen very few people with such obsession for detail. She should be an academic. The argument makes a lot of sense. It is straight forward, simple, consistence and above all logical. Compare this with Ayesha Jalal's biography of Jinnah. More that solving the confusion behind Jinnah's action, it adds to it. The book also underrates people who followed Jinnah with dedication. Good or bad, the hard ground work for the Muslim League was achieved by these leaders. The rest of the secularist Jinnah theorists take it a step ahead and call Jinnah's Islamist followers as opportunists, when all they did was to follow Jinnah faithfully. Even the Objectives Resolution is being vilified today as disgrace to Jinnah's vision when the truth is that Jinnah would have endorsed the resolution completely. The resolution does not contradict anything in Jinnah's August 11 speech. It even has a point about minorities.


On a different subject, when did Liaqat Ali Khan say the words regarding the Objectives Resolution? I am guessing in some Constituent Assembly debate. Is there a source for all such proceedings?

 

[ajpirzada]

@ajpirzada:
Thanks for explaining the importance of the quote better. I thought The Munir Report was the only place where Justice Munir mentioned it. In his report, he just paraphrases Jinnah but does not quote. I thought the author was little unfair to Munir there. So the real issue is with Munir's book.

The author's research is amazing. I have seen very few people with such obsession for detail. She should be an academic. The argument makes a lot of sense. It is straight forward, simple, consistence and above all logical. Compare this with Ayesha Jalal's biography of Jinnah. More that solving the confusion behind Jinnah's action, it adds to it. The book also underrates people who followed Jinnah with dedication. Good or bad, the hard ground work for the Muslim League was achieved by these leaders. The rest of the secularist Jinnah theorists take it a step ahead and call Jinnah's Islamist followers as opportunists, when all they did was to follow Jinnah faithfully. Even the Objectives Resolution is being vilified today as disgrace to Jinnah's vision when the truth is that Jinnah would have endorsed the resolution completely. The resolution does not contradict anything in Jinnah's August 11 speech. It even has a point about minorities.


On a different subject, when did Liaqat Ali Khan say the words regarding the Objectives Resolution? I am guessing in some Constituent Assembly debate. Is there a source for all such proceedings?

ill get back to you with the source. it was there in the book as far as i remember.

 

[ajpirzada]

@rubyjackass here is the reference as it is in the book: Liaquat Ali Khan, 7 March 1949 (CAP Debates Vol. V, p.3)

 

[kalu_miah]

This might be relevant in this thread:

http://www.saglobalaffairs.com/book-reviews/413-the-real-mr-jinnah.pdf