Islamization of Jinnah.
- Thread starter M. Sarmad
- Start date
- Status
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Case for SECULAR Pakistan
The price paid by Pakistan for rejecting secularism
By I. A. Rehman
Perhaps the greatest injustice done to the Quaid-e-Azam in the state founded under his leadership is that his August 11, 1947 address to the Constituent Assembly is treated as a charter of non-Muslim citizens' rights only, whereas in reality it lays down the fundamentals of Pakistan's ideal, its constitution and the path to the entire population's goal of self-realisation. Most of Pakistan's crises of governance have largely been caused by repudiation of the ideal defined by the Quaid.
Why did the Quaid's colleagues and aides fail to appreciate the import of his words? Most probably, they could not get over two misunderstandings. First, they thought the Indian Muslims' choice of their religious marker, out of the several cultural markers of their identity, as the decisive marker in order to escape non-Muslim domination, would survive the creation of a Muslim-majority Pakistan.
They did not heed the warnings that once Pakistan was achieved all other non-religious identities (linguistic, social and cultural) and politico-economic interests of the communities inhabiting the new state would be revived in force. They persuaded themselves to believe that the religious-cultural marker that had superseded the other markers during the freedom struggle would continue to be effective after independence too. The people were pushed into a barren controversy whether Pakistan was created in the name of Islam (the inappropriate controversy continues to this day) while the real issue was religion's (any religion's) proven incapacity to provide an unbreakable bond of unity in a multi-national state.
The second misunderstanding was the assumption, contrary to historical as well as theological evidence, that Islam had provided for a state model a Muslim people could disregard only at the cost of betraying their faith. This debate also remains unresolved to this day.
As soon as Pakistan came into being and the reference to the religious identity of its Muslim (majority) population became irrelevant, as confirmed by the Quaid on August 11, 1947, all other identities of the various communities (they could be called nationalities or nations even) comprising Pakistan started asserting themselves. The country's leadership, which had been overwhelmed by the partition problems, chose to fall back on the religious marker that had served it well in the pre-partition days. This started happening in the Quaid's lifetime and the process accelerated after his death.
The Quaid-i-Azam's ideal of a secular sovereign Pakistan received a fatal blow when the Constituent Assembly adopted the Objectives Resolution. Whereas the Lahore Resolution of 1940 had called for states whose constituent units were to be 'sovereign', the Objectives Resolution compromised sovereign status of the state of Pakistan itself. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, the moving spirit behind the resolution, presumably thought otherwise – that the resolution did not affect the parliament's sovereign rights. This view is supported by the fact that Pakistan's first draft constitution (Basic Principles Committee's report of 1950) presented by Liaquat Ali Khan himself was secular – the name of the state was simply 'Pakistan', no office (President included) was reserved for Muslims, there was no reference to any Islamic advisory body nor to the scrapping of laws contrary to the injunctions of Islam. This report was rejected partly because it did not meet the Bengali Pakistanis' national aspirations and partly because the clerics did not find the draft Islamic enough. The Objectives Resolution had begun to be interpreted in a way different from Liaquat Ali Khan's claim.
Speaking on the Objectives Resolution, a non-Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly had warned the majority party of the appearance of an adventurer who might claim to be ordained by God Almighty and enforce his will in Allah's name. A mere 28 years later, this dark warning came true with the ascent to power of Gen. Ziaul Haq who changed Jinnah's secular Pakistan into a religious state according to his own flawed view of Islam and statecraft both, though critical concessions to the orthodoxy had been made by several rulers during the intervening years.
Each constitutional proposal after 1950 marked a step away from secularism. General Ayub made a feeble attempt in 1962 to change the name of the state from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Republic of Pakistan but as a dictator he did not have the public support he needed for the success of his scheme. Besides, he had undermined his position by dropping the chapter on fundamental rights from his constitution of 1962. He was also guilty of offering the clerics monopoly over politics by banishing politicians and giving them, the mullahs, the only political stage that had survived the martial law (the mosque). Bhutto tried to pre-empt the clerics by adopting Islam as the state religion and throwing the Ahmadis out of the Islamic fold but even he did not surrender the parliament's exclusive right to make laws.
This crucial step -- robbing the parliament of its exclusive right to make laws -- was taken by Gen. Ziaul Haq when he created the Shariat Courts that may have given a couple of good decisions but which are responsible for the blasphemy law, the bar on land reforms and the huge embarrassment caused by the cases on rajam and interest-related laws.
One unwelcome consequence of the efforts to Islamise Pakistan's laws and practices was the rise of divisive forces. The authors of the 1956 constitution could not agree on the system of franchise and left the matter to the two provincial assemblies. East Pakistan opted for joint electorate while West Pakistan considered retention of separate electorates essential for the preservation of the state's Islamic identity. A government notification in early 1958 enforced joint electorate throughout the country but the smouldering controversy gave Gen. Zia the handle he needed to bring back separate electorates in 1985, and the consequences are known.
This fresh division of Pakistanis on the basis of belief was inevitably followed by divisions in the Muslim community on the basis of sects. The majority sect claimed the right to impose its version of the Islamic state while another sect claimed this right on the strength of its material resources and its fire-power. The tussle has made Pakistan a battleground for a bloody and unending sectarian strife.
The misplaced reliance on the religious marker and the consequent rejection of the demands of secularism made many political issues intractable. The refusal to grant Bengali and the languages of other nationalities their due status, the move to adopt Arabic as one of the official languages, the formation of One Unit, the shift away from territorial nationalism and in favour of a religion-based nationalism, and the treatment of the military operations in East Bengal as a holy war for Islam – all these aberrations can be traced to the basic mistake of preferring a religious state to a secular one.
Among other things the Objectives Resolution gave rise to the concept of two sovereignties -- a lower level sovereignty of the state and the ultimate sovereignty of God. There was never any doubt about the latter enjoying the power to supersede the former, and the only question was as to who would decide the matter in case of conflict between the writs of the two sovereigns. Till 1979 this was the job of the parliament. Gen. Zia replaced the parliament with the Shariat Courts. Many Muslim groups and individuals -- militants, some businessmen and a majority of those who do not wish to respect the man-made laws -- say they have a right to violate Pakistani laws because they claim to follow God's injunctions. Thus, a suicide bomber considers it his religious duty to kill Muslims in mosques because in his eyes they are kafirs or worse (munafiqeen). Anyone can get away with any crime by claiming to be obeying Divine commands. A large number of Pakistanis (including Gen. Musharraf in 1999) saw nothing wrong with Taliban if they only wanted to establish the kingdom of God. Today, militants swearing by pristine Islam are recognised as the greatest threat to Pakistan's integrity.
The theory of the religious state has also given rise to the dangerous idea of the country's ideological frontiers. Unimaginably heavy is the price the people have had to pay for the rise of forces that have appropriated to themselves the right to defend the state's ideological frontiers and the much maligned civilians, especially the pest known as politicians, can have no role in this holy task.
The question as to what might have happened if Pakistan had stayed on the secular path lies in the realm of conjecture and Muslims are told to avoid speculation. But one thing is clear -- the quest for a theocratic dispensation is bound to cause Pakistan harm one is afraid to imagine. History records only one outcome when religion is used to resist an oppressed people's nationalism. As a Dhaka editor told Ayub Khan in 1965, "the more of a religious polity you talk of, the smaller will become the size of Pakistan you will be left with". His diagnosis was confirmed in 1971. Are we determined to go on proving him right?
@FaujHistorian @Secur @jaibi @Alpha1 @Jazzbot @danish falcon
The price paid by Pakistan for rejecting secularism
By I. A. Rehman
Perhaps the greatest injustice done to the Quaid-e-Azam in the state founded under his leadership is that his August 11, 1947 address to the Constituent Assembly is treated as a charter of non-Muslim citizens' rights only, whereas in reality it lays down the fundamentals of Pakistan's ideal, its constitution and the path to the entire population's goal of self-realisation. Most of Pakistan's crises of governance have largely been caused by repudiation of the ideal defined by the Quaid.
Why did the Quaid's colleagues and aides fail to appreciate the import of his words? Most probably, they could not get over two misunderstandings. First, they thought the Indian Muslims' choice of their religious marker, out of the several cultural markers of their identity, as the decisive marker in order to escape non-Muslim domination, would survive the creation of a Muslim-majority Pakistan.
They did not heed the warnings that once Pakistan was achieved all other non-religious identities (linguistic, social and cultural) and politico-economic interests of the communities inhabiting the new state would be revived in force. They persuaded themselves to believe that the religious-cultural marker that had superseded the other markers during the freedom struggle would continue to be effective after independence too. The people were pushed into a barren controversy whether Pakistan was created in the name of Islam (the inappropriate controversy continues to this day) while the real issue was religion's (any religion's) proven incapacity to provide an unbreakable bond of unity in a multi-national state.
The second misunderstanding was the assumption, contrary to historical as well as theological evidence, that Islam had provided for a state model a Muslim people could disregard only at the cost of betraying their faith. This debate also remains unresolved to this day.
As soon as Pakistan came into being and the reference to the religious identity of its Muslim (majority) population became irrelevant, as confirmed by the Quaid on August 11, 1947, all other identities of the various communities (they could be called nationalities or nations even) comprising Pakistan started asserting themselves. The country's leadership, which had been overwhelmed by the partition problems, chose to fall back on the religious marker that had served it well in the pre-partition days. This started happening in the Quaid's lifetime and the process accelerated after his death.
The Quaid-i-Azam's ideal of a secular sovereign Pakistan received a fatal blow when the Constituent Assembly adopted the Objectives Resolution. Whereas the Lahore Resolution of 1940 had called for states whose constituent units were to be 'sovereign', the Objectives Resolution compromised sovereign status of the state of Pakistan itself. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, the moving spirit behind the resolution, presumably thought otherwise – that the resolution did not affect the parliament's sovereign rights. This view is supported by the fact that Pakistan's first draft constitution (Basic Principles Committee's report of 1950) presented by Liaquat Ali Khan himself was secular – the name of the state was simply 'Pakistan', no office (President included) was reserved for Muslims, there was no reference to any Islamic advisory body nor to the scrapping of laws contrary to the injunctions of Islam. This report was rejected partly because it did not meet the Bengali Pakistanis' national aspirations and partly because the clerics did not find the draft Islamic enough. The Objectives Resolution had begun to be interpreted in a way different from Liaquat Ali Khan's claim.
Speaking on the Objectives Resolution, a non-Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly had warned the majority party of the appearance of an adventurer who might claim to be ordained by God Almighty and enforce his will in Allah's name. A mere 28 years later, this dark warning came true with the ascent to power of Gen. Ziaul Haq who changed Jinnah's secular Pakistan into a religious state according to his own flawed view of Islam and statecraft both, though critical concessions to the orthodoxy had been made by several rulers during the intervening years.
Each constitutional proposal after 1950 marked a step away from secularism. General Ayub made a feeble attempt in 1962 to change the name of the state from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Republic of Pakistan but as a dictator he did not have the public support he needed for the success of his scheme. Besides, he had undermined his position by dropping the chapter on fundamental rights from his constitution of 1962. He was also guilty of offering the clerics monopoly over politics by banishing politicians and giving them, the mullahs, the only political stage that had survived the martial law (the mosque). Bhutto tried to pre-empt the clerics by adopting Islam as the state religion and throwing the Ahmadis out of the Islamic fold but even he did not surrender the parliament's exclusive right to make laws.
This crucial step -- robbing the parliament of its exclusive right to make laws -- was taken by Gen. Ziaul Haq when he created the Shariat Courts that may have given a couple of good decisions but which are responsible for the blasphemy law, the bar on land reforms and the huge embarrassment caused by the cases on rajam and interest-related laws.
One unwelcome consequence of the efforts to Islamise Pakistan's laws and practices was the rise of divisive forces. The authors of the 1956 constitution could not agree on the system of franchise and left the matter to the two provincial assemblies. East Pakistan opted for joint electorate while West Pakistan considered retention of separate electorates essential for the preservation of the state's Islamic identity. A government notification in early 1958 enforced joint electorate throughout the country but the smouldering controversy gave Gen. Zia the handle he needed to bring back separate electorates in 1985, and the consequences are known.
This fresh division of Pakistanis on the basis of belief was inevitably followed by divisions in the Muslim community on the basis of sects. The majority sect claimed the right to impose its version of the Islamic state while another sect claimed this right on the strength of its material resources and its fire-power. The tussle has made Pakistan a battleground for a bloody and unending sectarian strife.
The misplaced reliance on the religious marker and the consequent rejection of the demands of secularism made many political issues intractable. The refusal to grant Bengali and the languages of other nationalities their due status, the move to adopt Arabic as one of the official languages, the formation of One Unit, the shift away from territorial nationalism and in favour of a religion-based nationalism, and the treatment of the military operations in East Bengal as a holy war for Islam – all these aberrations can be traced to the basic mistake of preferring a religious state to a secular one.
Among other things the Objectives Resolution gave rise to the concept of two sovereignties -- a lower level sovereignty of the state and the ultimate sovereignty of God. There was never any doubt about the latter enjoying the power to supersede the former, and the only question was as to who would decide the matter in case of conflict between the writs of the two sovereigns. Till 1979 this was the job of the parliament. Gen. Zia replaced the parliament with the Shariat Courts. Many Muslim groups and individuals -- militants, some businessmen and a majority of those who do not wish to respect the man-made laws -- say they have a right to violate Pakistani laws because they claim to follow God's injunctions. Thus, a suicide bomber considers it his religious duty to kill Muslims in mosques because in his eyes they are kafirs or worse (munafiqeen). Anyone can get away with any crime by claiming to be obeying Divine commands. A large number of Pakistanis (including Gen. Musharraf in 1999) saw nothing wrong with Taliban if they only wanted to establish the kingdom of God. Today, militants swearing by pristine Islam are recognised as the greatest threat to Pakistan's integrity.
The theory of the religious state has also given rise to the dangerous idea of the country's ideological frontiers. Unimaginably heavy is the price the people have had to pay for the rise of forces that have appropriated to themselves the right to defend the state's ideological frontiers and the much maligned civilians, especially the pest known as politicians, can have no role in this holy task.
The question as to what might have happened if Pakistan had stayed on the secular path lies in the realm of conjecture and Muslims are told to avoid speculation. But one thing is clear -- the quest for a theocratic dispensation is bound to cause Pakistan harm one is afraid to imagine. History records only one outcome when religion is used to resist an oppressed people's nationalism. As a Dhaka editor told Ayub Khan in 1965, "the more of a religious polity you talk of, the smaller will become the size of Pakistan you will be left with". His diagnosis was confirmed in 1971. Are we determined to go on proving him right?
@FaujHistorian @Secur @jaibi @Alpha1 @Jazzbot @danish falcon
Last edited:
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
"Jinnah became irrelevant after Objectives resolution"
-- Dr Mubarak Ali, eminent historian and scholar
By Mazhar Khan Jadoon
The News on Sunday: How do you view secularism as having evolved in the particular case of India where the kings did not run their empires on the clergy's instructions but according to political exigencies?
Mubarak Ali: Secularism has been in evolution since medieval times and if you go back to the ancient Ashoka period in India, you will find the ruling pattern to be entirely secular. It was a requirement for all the empires in India, including the Mughal Empire, to be secular and tolerant towards different religions under their rule. Ghauris,
Mughals, Durranis and all other emperors had to opt for a secular approach to keep their vast dynasties intact. Clergy was not allowed to interfere in state matters and all the decisions were taken according to practical political exigencies. Allauddin Khilji was one of the great rulers of India who did tremendous welfare work for his people. Once he asked the Qazi whether his acts were according to Shariah or not. The Qazi said no. Khilji told Qazi, "I am illiterate and I don't know whether my acts are according to Shariah or not, but what I am sure of is that I work for the betterment of my people."
TNS: Does secularism have any place in Muslim history?
MA: Yes. Almost all the rulers in Muslim history applied the model of secularism during their rule. During the Abbasid period, ulema were not allowed to interfere in the political affairs of state and the caliph was not allowed to meddle in religious affairs. The Abbasid came to power with the help of Iranians who wanted the caliph to remain secular while the clergy at that time wanted the caliph to adhere to Islamic laws and impose Shariah. The conflict was resolved with the signing of a pact regarding state and religion being separate. Great historian Ziauddin Burney, in his book Fatwa-e-Jahandari, also emphasises that state and religion should be kept separate.
TNS: What about the political role of Sufia in this region?
MA: There are many Sufi orders in the subcontinent. Sufia were very successful in spreading Islam, as many aspects of Sufi belief had parallels in Indian philosophical literature. The Sufis' tolerant approach towards other religions made it easier for Hindus and other communities in India to accept Islam and Muslims. The Sufia played a crucial role in bridging the distance between Islam and the indigenous traditions.
TNS: How has India being secular helped the cause of Indian Muslims?
MA: Though Indian state is secular and its constitution provides equal rights to all citizens irrespective of their religion, Indian society is not at all secular. Secularism of mind takes time and the process is on. The attempts by successive political leadership in the country to integrate Indian society under a secular code are strongly resisted by Hindu extremist groups like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Muslims in India favour secularism because it will ensure maximum religious freedom for them in a Hindu-dominated society.
The Partition of India in 1947 triggered large-scale sectarian strife and bloodshed. Since then, India has been experiencing violence sparked off by underlying tensions between sections of the Hindu and Muslim communities. These conflicts mainly stem from the ideologies of Hindu nationalism versus Islamic extremism that exist in certain sections of the Indian population.
TNS: Was Muhammad Ali Jinnah secular? People managing the dominant discourse have questioned his August 11 speech as a reversal from his earlier stance. How would you assess Jinnah's politics?
MA: Yes, Jinnah was secular and an honest and upright leader and politician. But, why are we following Jinnah now when he is part of history? We should look into the merits and demerits of secularism instead of bickering over what Jinnah had said in his August 11 speech. Instead of brooding on the past, we should act like a vibrant society by keeping our approach futuristic.
TNS: How do you view the post-partition political developments in Pakistan that progressively Islamised the state, starting with the Objectives Resolution?
MA: The Objectives Resolution decided the fate of Pakistan as an Islamic country. Jinnah became irrelevant with the passage of the Objectives Resolution by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1949. The resolution, proposed by the then prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, proclaimed that the future constitution of Pakistan would not be modelled entirely on a European pattern, but on the ideology of Islam. But most of the Islamic provisions were introduced in the 1973 Constitution and Islam became the religion of state.
TNS: Is it true that the dominant military and religious elements are supporting each other to Islamise the society?
MA: Till the time of President Ayub Khan, Pakistan army remained secular and it used to follow the tradition of a colonial institution. The army became religious during the Zia regime. Yes, the impression that army and religious elements are in agreement over an Islamic outlook of Pakistan is somewhat correct.
-- Dr Mubarak Ali, eminent historian and scholar
By Mazhar Khan Jadoon
The News on Sunday: How do you view secularism as having evolved in the particular case of India where the kings did not run their empires on the clergy's instructions but according to political exigencies?
Mubarak Ali: Secularism has been in evolution since medieval times and if you go back to the ancient Ashoka period in India, you will find the ruling pattern to be entirely secular. It was a requirement for all the empires in India, including the Mughal Empire, to be secular and tolerant towards different religions under their rule. Ghauris,
TNS: Does secularism have any place in Muslim history?
MA: Yes. Almost all the rulers in Muslim history applied the model of secularism during their rule. During the Abbasid period, ulema were not allowed to interfere in the political affairs of state and the caliph was not allowed to meddle in religious affairs. The Abbasid came to power with the help of Iranians who wanted the caliph to remain secular while the clergy at that time wanted the caliph to adhere to Islamic laws and impose Shariah. The conflict was resolved with the signing of a pact regarding state and religion being separate. Great historian Ziauddin Burney, in his book Fatwa-e-Jahandari, also emphasises that state and religion should be kept separate.
TNS: What about the political role of Sufia in this region?
MA: There are many Sufi orders in the subcontinent. Sufia were very successful in spreading Islam, as many aspects of Sufi belief had parallels in Indian philosophical literature. The Sufis' tolerant approach towards other religions made it easier for Hindus and other communities in India to accept Islam and Muslims. The Sufia played a crucial role in bridging the distance between Islam and the indigenous traditions.
TNS: How has India being secular helped the cause of Indian Muslims?
MA: Though Indian state is secular and its constitution provides equal rights to all citizens irrespective of their religion, Indian society is not at all secular. Secularism of mind takes time and the process is on. The attempts by successive political leadership in the country to integrate Indian society under a secular code are strongly resisted by Hindu extremist groups like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Muslims in India favour secularism because it will ensure maximum religious freedom for them in a Hindu-dominated society.
The Partition of India in 1947 triggered large-scale sectarian strife and bloodshed. Since then, India has been experiencing violence sparked off by underlying tensions between sections of the Hindu and Muslim communities. These conflicts mainly stem from the ideologies of Hindu nationalism versus Islamic extremism that exist in certain sections of the Indian population.
TNS: Was Muhammad Ali Jinnah secular? People managing the dominant discourse have questioned his August 11 speech as a reversal from his earlier stance. How would you assess Jinnah's politics?
MA: Yes, Jinnah was secular and an honest and upright leader and politician. But, why are we following Jinnah now when he is part of history? We should look into the merits and demerits of secularism instead of bickering over what Jinnah had said in his August 11 speech. Instead of brooding on the past, we should act like a vibrant society by keeping our approach futuristic.
TNS: How do you view the post-partition political developments in Pakistan that progressively Islamised the state, starting with the Objectives Resolution?
MA: The Objectives Resolution decided the fate of Pakistan as an Islamic country. Jinnah became irrelevant with the passage of the Objectives Resolution by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1949. The resolution, proposed by the then prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, proclaimed that the future constitution of Pakistan would not be modelled entirely on a European pattern, but on the ideology of Islam. But most of the Islamic provisions were introduced in the 1973 Constitution and Islam became the religion of state.
TNS: Is it true that the dominant military and religious elements are supporting each other to Islamise the society?
MA: Till the time of President Ayub Khan, Pakistan army remained secular and it used to follow the tradition of a colonial institution. The army became religious during the Zia regime. Yes, the impression that army and religious elements are in agreement over an Islamic outlook of Pakistan is somewhat correct.
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Jinah never wanted a secular Pakistan its the biggest lie who claim that Jinah wanted a secular Pakistan they only bring up one speech if these people who are telling either lies or half even less than half truth should publish all the speeches of Jinah starting from 23rd March 1940 till his death than we I would ask after reading those speeches weather Jinah wanted a secular Pakistan or one based on Islamic Laws and Principals which he understood very well
Last edited:
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
In fact , it is quite opposite to Jinnah`s vision !!
Now if you can argue without copy pasting loads of BS , we can discuss that
Leader
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 29,159
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
How ?
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Mr we would discuss when you and others like you will show gutts and will post all the speeches of Jinah from 1940 to before 11th September 1948 and bring all the speeches and publish them every secular will have a huge slap on his face and I added some quotes in my previous post read that
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Leader
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 29,159
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
there is no solid point you shared, its all cosmetic, had Jinnah been vocal for a secular state, he would have left no ambiguity. he would have said it himself in clear words.
and then again what is wrong with objective's resolution? Its perfectly in accordance with vision of Jinnah. Pakistan was meant to be a test place to try out a new Islamic system in contemporary world.. and Objective Resolution being its foundation..
RAMPAGE
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 5,855
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
In fact he said it himself , and in clear words .
Hector Bolitho writes that the 11th August speech by Jinnah was the greatest speech of his life . According to Bolitho , Quaid said that Hindus and Muslims were to be equal citizens of the state as a fundamental principle !! (This most important part of speech which makes Jinnah`s political will absolutely clear , is surprisingly missing in the official archives)
You can call it cosmetic or whatever you want , but Jinnah was absolutely clear on this
Pakistan was meant to be "A state for better socio-economic and political chances for the Muslims of Subcontinent" , Conservatives (after the death of jinnah) , mixed it with a totally different idea of "A state for protection and propagation of Islamic religion"
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
You are the only one confused here , no need to troll
OrionHunter
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,818
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Interesting read.....
The search for Jinnah's vision of Pakistan
By Shahzeb Jillani BBC News, Karachi
BBC News - The search for Jinnah's vision of Pakistan
The search for Jinnah's vision of Pakistan
By Shahzeb Jillani BBC News, Karachi
BBC News - The search for Jinnah's vision of Pakistan
SarthakGanguly
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,416
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
@Azlan Haider While I agree that Jinnah was no Islamist by any stretch of the imagination, don't you think several of his speeches were completely contradictory?
Like what you quoted is true, but what @Zarvan quoted is true as well.
Like what you quoted is true, but what @Zarvan quoted is true as well.
- Status
Similar threads
