Did Bangladesh become the country Jinnah wanted to Create?

[desi]

Is Bangladesh on it's way to becoming the progressive, secular state Jinnah envisioned?

From: The Express Tribune Blogs


Maybe Bangladesh has become the country Jinnah wanted to create
March 16, 2013

When East Pakistan decided to break away from West Pakistan in 1971, one of the leading factors was the lack of importance accorded by West Pakistan’s bureaucracy and intelligentsia towards the other part of the country. It is not a surprise that the attitude did not change even after the separation of Pakistan’s two wings.

Pakistan’s textbooks are still silent over the atrocities committed by our armed forces and their proxies in 1971. Although West Pakistan may have forgotten, but the people who were subjected to the inhumane behaviour just because they dreamt of a better future, remember it all too vividly.

The demand to prosecute the criminals from 1971 has reverberated in Bangladesh over the years. It was only in 2009 that an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was formed set up in Bangladesh to investigate and prosecute suspects for the atrocities committed in 1971.

It should also be noted that Bangladesh’s original constitution of 1972 had declared it a secular state but the 8th amendment, put in effect by General Hussain Mohammad Ershad in 1988, declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh. Interestingly, Pakistan also had a notorious 8th amendment to the 1973 constitution, giving the power to dissolve assemblies to the president, put in place by none other than General Ziaul Haq.

In 2010, the Bangladesh High Court declared the constitutional amendment that had changed the country’s secular status to that of an Islamic state was done without lawful authority. This is still pending in the Supreme Court.

It is against this background that the current Shahbag movement should be seen. It started on February 5, 2013 – the day Bangladesh’s ICT awarded a life sentence to Abdul Quader Molla nicknamed ‘Butcher of Mirpur’ for his part in the mass murder and rape of Bengalis in 1971. He is a senior leader of Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami.

A few days earlier, Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, also a senior leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, was sentenced to death on February 28 for war crimes committed during the 1971 Liberation War.

Bangladeshi youth has taken it upon themselves to protest the leniency of the decision awarded to Molla and have taken to gathering at a Dhaka city compound in droves since the past few weeks.

The youth instead has demanded an “exemplary punishment”. They also demand to ban the Jamaat-e-Islami from politics and to boycott institutions supporting or affiliated with Jamaat-e-Islami.

This is a unique moment in modern history of the youth rising up against an Islamist religio-political party due to their agenda.

There is, however, little to no coverage of this historic uprising in Pakistan.

What disappoints me is the fact that there is no imminent chance of any similar movement in our country.

Just the other day, hundreds of homes belonging to Christians were burnt by a frenzied mob supposedly avenging blasphemy. Similar treatment was meted out to Christian localities in Gojra and Shantinagar, in 2009 and 1997 respectively.

In the last one and a half years, hundreds of Shias have been killed hither and thither in Pakistan, just because of their religious beliefs. To achieve anything even close to the Shahbag movement, religion and politics will need to be separated and kept apart.

There is widespread confusion about the term ‘secular’ in the educated class of Pakistan. Being secular, however, does not mean anti-religion per se, as is thought by our masses; it means freedom to choose your religion and not interfere in other people’s religion.

The first person to translate secularism as “la-deeniyat” or atheism was the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami in one of his books written in 1939.

Things have deteriorated so badly in our country that no political party is willing to stand up to religious fundamentalists as elections approach.

A trend has been observed in different countries that the emerging middle classes usually patronise the religious lot, giving them political leverage. This trend has been bucked in Bangladesh’s case and they have chosen a different path. However, what remains to be seen is whether or not the mobilised Bangladeshi youth in Shahbag Square are gathering in support of out-and-out secularism or just animosity towards the Jamaat mixed with nationalistic feelings.

Whatever the case may be, Bangladesh has decided that it won’t let the country be hijacked by politicians peddling their agendas in the name of religion.

Maybe Bangladesh has become the country Mr Jinnah wanted to create.

 

[BDforever]

Is Bangladesh on it's way to becoming the progressive, secular state Jinnah envisioned?

From: The Express Tribune Blogs


Maybe Bangladesh has become the country Jinnah wanted to create
March 16, 2013

When East Pakistan decided to break away from West Pakistan in 1971, one of the leading factors was the lack of importance accorded by West Pakistan’s bureaucracy and intelligentsia towards the other part of the country. It is not a surprise that the attitude did not change even after the separation of Pakistan’s two wings.

Pakistan’s textbooks are still silent over the atrocities committed by our armed forces and their proxies in 1971. Although West Pakistan may have forgotten, but the people who were subjected to the inhumane behaviour just because they dreamt of a better future, remember it all too vividly.

The demand to prosecute the criminals from 1971 has reverberated in Bangladesh over the years. It was only in 2009 that an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was formed set up in Bangladesh to investigate and prosecute suspects for the atrocities committed in 1971.

It should also be noted that Bangladesh’s original constitution of 1972 had declared it a secular state but the 8th amendment, put in effect by General Hussain Mohammad Ershad in 1988, declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh. Interestingly, Pakistan also had a notorious 8th amendment to the 1973 constitution, giving the power to dissolve assemblies to the president, put in place by none other than General Ziaul Haq.

In 2010, the Bangladesh High Court declared the constitutional amendment that had changed the country’s secular status to that of an Islamic state was done without lawful authority. This is still pending in the Supreme Court.

It is against this background that the current Shahbag movement should be seen. It started on February 5, 2013 – the day Bangladesh’s ICT awarded a life sentence to Abdul Quader Molla nicknamed ‘Butcher of Mirpur’ for his part in the mass murder and rape of Bengalis in 1971. He is a senior leader of Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami.

A few days earlier, Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, also a senior leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, was sentenced to death on February 28 for war crimes committed during the 1971 Liberation War.

Bangladeshi youth has taken it upon themselves to protest the leniency of the decision awarded to Molla and have taken to gathering at a Dhaka city compound in droves since the past few weeks.

The youth instead has demanded an “exemplary punishment”. They also demand to ban the Jamaat-e-Islami from politics and to boycott institutions supporting or affiliated with Jamaat-e-Islami.

This is a unique moment in modern history of the youth rising up against an Islamist religio-political party due to their agenda.

There is, however, little to no coverage of this historic uprising in Pakistan.

What disappoints me is the fact that there is no imminent chance of any similar movement in our country.

Just the other day, hundreds of homes belonging to Christians were burnt by a frenzied mob supposedly avenging blasphemy. Similar treatment was meted out to Christian localities in Gojra and Shantinagar, in 2009 and 1997 respectively.

In the last one and a half years, hundreds of Shias have been killed hither and thither in Pakistan, just because of their religious beliefs. To achieve anything even close to the Shahbag movement, religion and politics will need to be separated and kept apart.

There is widespread confusion about the term ‘secular’ in the educated class of Pakistan. Being secular, however, does not mean anti-religion per se, as is thought by our masses; it means freedom to choose your religion and not interfere in other people’s religion.

The first person to translate secularism as “la-deeniyat” or atheism was the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami in one of his books written in 1939.

Things have deteriorated so badly in our country that no political party is willing to stand up to religious fundamentalists as elections approach.

A trend has been observed in different countries that the emerging middle classes usually patronise the religious lot, giving them political leverage. This trend has been bucked in Bangladesh’s case and they have chosen a different path. However, what remains to be seen is whether or not the mobilised Bangladeshi youth in Shahbag Square are gathering in support of out-and-out secularism or just animosity towards the Jamaat mixed with nationalistic feelings.

Whatever the case may be, Bangladesh has decided that it won’t let the country be hijacked by politicians peddling their agendas in the name of religion.

Maybe Bangladesh has become the country Mr Jinnah wanted to create.

fantastic article ,just loved it did you write it ?

welcome to PDF

 

[Karachiite]

 

[DarkPrince]

BD never was secular

official status is jus official not reality

 

[desi]

BDforever - Thanks for visiting my post. It was written by Abdul Majeed, I found in the blogs section of the Express Tribune. Worth a read I thought.

 

[BDforever]

 

[karan21]

I think not yet, Bangaldesh is still in the process of becoming one. Jinnah was a great man and wished for a great pakistan, but today it is only India in the entire sub continent that is 100% secular with Muslim, christian and sikh Presidents and Prime Ministers. Indias will accept anyone as their leader if he or she is taleted enough. This is real secularism.

Pakistan is infact going the opposite way as for now.

 

[Gentelman]

fantastic article ,just loved it did you write it ?

welcome to PDF

thats fron Express Tribune..

 

[ShahidT]

well, bangladesh is on the right track. but you have to understand that Quaid was an idealist who wanted Islam as the basis of society and governance, with full freedom for minorities to practice their faith and participate in building the country. both are not mutually exclusive, unlike what some would have you believe. bangladesh also has not definitively reached that state yet, its a constant peaceful struggle to achieve it.

 

[A1Kaid]

I think Turkiye is more like the country Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted to resemble.

 

[BDforever]

BOOooooooooooooo

 

[Rig Vedic]

Jinnah was a great man and wished for a great pakistan

There are too many Indians who show this feeble Dhimmi thinking.

Here is a Pakistani who is not afraid of speaking plainly -

Jinnah’s Pakistan

By Yaqoob Khan BangashPublished: March 18, 2013

Over the past few days, I have regularly heard the refrain “This is not Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Even the people protesting the events at Badami Bagh, Lahore, carried banners yearning for “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. A few months ago, the MQM was also aiming to hold a referendum, asking people if they wanted the “Taliban’s Pakistan”, or “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Often, people with a liberal bent in Pakistan quote Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech and want Pakistan to be modelled on the vision presented in it. But let me tell you the bitter truth: this is Jinnah’s Pakistan!

Why? First, simply because except for the lone August 11 speech, there is nothing much in Jinnah’s utterances, which points towards a secular or even mildly religious state. The August 11, 1947 speech was a rare, only once presented, vision. No wonder then that the Government of Pakistan, through secretary general Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, initially censored the rather liberal parts of the speech. Certainly, this change of mind on Jinnah’s part was a shock for many in the Muslim League, especially since here was a person who, not so long ago, had promised Islamic rule! In his address to the Muslims of India on Eid in 1945, for example, Jinnah had noted: “Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually”. Many such speeches can be quoted, which clearly indicated that Jinnah had promised a country based on Islamic principles — rather than secular ones — to the people. No surprise then that Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar pointed out in the debate over the Objectives Resolution in March 1949 that while Jinnah had made some promises to the minorities, he had also made some promises to the majority, and the introduction of an Islamic state was one of them. The debate over an Islamic system still continues.

Secondly, Jinnah was quite clear that the Muslims of India were one compact community and that their sole representative was the Muslim League. Therefore, any dissension from the Muslim League mantle meant that non-Muslim League Muslims could not even call themselves Muslims, at least politically. The best example of this closed door policy was when Jinnah insisted that the Congress could not include a Muslim member in its list of ministers (even though Maulana Azad was its president) since only the Muslim League had the right to nominate Muslims to the interim government in 1946. Thus, one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, (and others) were prevented from joining the government. With such a control over who is a “real” Muslim (though primarily political at this juncture), it was not inconceivable that such notions would continue after independence and soon permeate the religious realm — and this is exactly what has happened.

Thirdly, Jinnah himself gave the example of undemocratic government. Not only did Jinnah preside over cabinet meetings (remember Pervez Musharraf?), one of his first acts after independence was to dismiss the popularly-elected government of Dr Khan Sahib in the then-NWFP on August 22, 1947. While it was a foregone conclusion that a League ministry would soon take over in the province, the manner in which the dismissal was done created precedence. Jinnah did not wait for the assembly itself to bring a motion of no confidence against the premier and nor did he call for new elections, both of which would have been clearly democratic and would have certainly brought in a Muslim League government. Instead, he simply got the Congress ministry dismissed and a Muslim League ministry installed — this procedural change was very significant at this early stage and set an example. Jinnah was also, extraordinarily, a minister in his own government, setting a clear precedence for future heads of state (followed by Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf) to be very comfortable being heads of state and ministers at the same time.

Therefore, Jinnah’s Pakistan is an Islamic state, which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like and is not very democratic. Imagining it in any other way is living in a dreamland and refusing to accept the reality. However, this does not mean that Pakistan is unworkable. Pakistan might be saddled with issues of the past, but surely we can accept and solve them, if we want.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2013.

 

[jayron]

I don't think Jinnah was a great man. He was just another politician who played with people's emotions to get ahead . His decisions caused the death of millions and sowed the seed of haterd in the subcontinent.
By appointing himself the leader after pakistan's creation , he also gave democracy a bad start.

 

[1ndy]

Who said Jinnah was a great man? He was an opportunist.

 

[baajey]

There are too many Indians who show this feeble Dhimmi thinking.

Here is a Pakistani who is not afraid of speaking plainly -

Jinnah’s Pakistan

By Yaqoob Khan BangashPublished: March 18, 2013

Over the past few days, I have regularly heard the refrain “This is not Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Even the people protesting the events at Badami Bagh, Lahore, carried banners yearning for “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. A few months ago, the MQM was also aiming to hold a referendum, asking people if they wanted the “Taliban’s Pakistan”, or “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Often, people with a liberal bent in Pakistan quote Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech and want Pakistan to be modelled on the vision presented in it. But let me tell you the bitter truth: this is Jinnah’s Pakistan!

Why? First, simply because except for the lone August 11 speech, there is nothing much in Jinnah’s utterances, which points towards a secular or even mildly religious state. The August 11, 1947 speech was a rare, only once presented, vision. No wonder then that the Government of Pakistan, through secretary general Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, initially censored the rather liberal parts of the speech. Certainly, this change of mind on Jinnah’s part was a shock for many in the Muslim League, especially since here was a person who, not so long ago, had promised Islamic rule! In his address to the Muslims of India on Eid in 1945, for example, Jinnah had noted: “Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually”. Many such speeches can be quoted, which clearly indicated that Jinnah had promised a country based on Islamic principles — rather than secular ones — to the people. No surprise then that Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar pointed out in the debate over the Objectives Resolution in March 1949 that while Jinnah had made some promises to the minorities, he had also made some promises to the majority, and the introduction of an Islamic state was one of them. The debate over an Islamic system still continues.

Secondly, Jinnah was quite clear that the Muslims of India were one compact community and that their sole representative was the Muslim League. Therefore, any dissension from the Muslim League mantle meant that non-Muslim League Muslims could not even call themselves Muslims, at least politically. The best example of this closed door policy was when Jinnah insisted that the Congress could not include a Muslim member in its list of ministers (even though Maulana Azad was its president) since only the Muslim League had the right to nominate Muslims to the interim government in 1946. Thus, one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, (and others) were prevented from joining the government. With such a control over who is a “real” Muslim (though primarily political at this juncture), it was not inconceivable that such notions would continue after independence and soon permeate the religious realm — and this is exactly what has happened.

Thirdly, Jinnah himself gave the example of undemocratic government. Not only did Jinnah preside over cabinet meetings (remember Pervez Musharraf?), one of his first acts after independence was to dismiss the popularly-elected government of Dr Khan Sahib in the then-NWFP on August 22, 1947. While it was a foregone conclusion that a League ministry would soon take over in the province, the manner in which the dismissal was done created precedence. Jinnah did not wait for the assembly itself to bring a motion of no confidence against the premier and nor did he call for new elections, both of which would have been clearly democratic and would have certainly brought in a Muslim League government. Instead, he simply got the Congress ministry dismissed and a Muslim League ministry installed — this procedural change was very significant at this early stage and set an example. Jinnah was also, extraordinarily, a minister in his own government, setting a clear precedence for future heads of state (followed by Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf) to be very comfortable being heads of state and ministers at the same time.

Therefore, Jinnah’s Pakistan is an Islamic state, which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like and is not very democratic. Imagining it in any other way is living in a dreamland and refusing to accept the reality. However, this does not mean that Pakistan is unworkable. Pakistan might be saddled with issues of the past, but surely we can accept and solve them, if we want.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2013.

the validity of my perception about Mr. Jinnah is countering serious doubts after this article.