Okay apologies in advance if someone has discussed this before but I'm a lazy foOk so I can't go through 12 pages worth of tantrums !
Forgive my insolence to suggest as such, but after going through numerous speeches of Jinnah, the works of Iqbal and the numerous works on either, I feel compelled to conclude that both the Secularists and the Islamists either truly fail to understand the Man as he was or they deliberately tell half-truths to reinvent him in their own image. The Islamic character of Pakistan is an undeniable thing and is ever present in Jinnah's words over and over again. The same Islamic character is ever present in Iqbal's works and the many things written by either's contemporaries who actually knew the man. However, what is also undeniable is Jinnah's deep, deep desire for impartiality and sense of justice for all.
Jinnah's Pakistan, as I have understood it to be, was supposed to be a progressive, liberal and democratic state with a dominant Islamic Culture. Which is to say a religiously and legally impartial and pluralistic society which is characterized by freedom for all and favors for none. However, before this gets misconstrued as Secularism, one must understand that in a Secular society any intrusion of religion into politics is politically blasphemous. And yet as Muslims, who believe in the Quran, there is a unique collective consciousness that Islam expects us to follow. That same Islam espouses some frameworks for Good Governance, for an Equitable Economic Model, for Jurisprudence and Standards of Propriety. All of these frameworks are exactly that; frameworks and little more; whatever came after them is an interpretation of theirs and hence manifests themselves in oft heard off words like Islamic Socialism, Modaraba, Islamic Welfare States, Names of the Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and Opinions on Islamic Ethics and Morals etc. Hence, it wouldn't be unfair to say that Islam expects Muslims to incorporate some fundamental points in their Systems of Governance to bring them more in line with, what it perceives to be, a more fair and just system. In short, it tends to be hard for Muslims to obey the Quran when it talks about the obligation to pray, to fast, to give alms etc. and to ignore the same hallowed Scripture's injunctions when it talks about rooting out Rib'ah from our Economic Systems etc. Hence, Secularism in its 'Laicite' form maybe be unacceptable to Muslims whereby religion is not only ignored when it talks about societal injunctions but is also actively castigated. However, it is also an undeniable truth that Islam has been grossly abused and tainted by the actions of those who appeared to be some of her biggest proponents and as such, like all systems out there, this also has a massive potential for abuse.
What then did I mean when I said, previously, that Jinnah wanted a religiously and legally, impartial and pluralistic state ? I believe the legal impartiality and pluralism is self-evident but perhaps religious impartiality and pluralism needs a bit further exposition. I understood from Jinnah's many speeches, the 11th August one in particular, that his words echo, in a modern sense, the Prophet's Constitution of Medina. But what does religious impartiality means if not a Govt. without a religion of its own ? I believe that in itself is a fallacious argument because the Govt. is run by the People or more appropriately its elected Representatives and so whatever they do is what they Govt. does or doesn't do; and unless those elected Representatives can be devoid of religion the Govt. which is a reflection of their actions, would be crippled or elevated by the same prejudices or golden rules, those Governing would adhere to. And religious impartiality here implies a lack of discrimination on the basis of religion which is to say that the best man for the job gets to the top irrespective of their looks, genome type, religious or cultural affiliations. And yet the Islamic culture of Pakistan would be protected for that is the right of the Majority, though this will not come at the expense of trampling over the rights of our much cherished religious or ethnic minorities who must be given ample constitutional safeguards against their just apprehensions. If the Muslims want Shariah to dictate their laws and Islamic education to be taught to their Children, then so be it; but the Christians, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Atheists etc. must have the right to be subjected to laws and education as per their own socio-political and economic belief system. So in essence religion will be treated like any other belief system out there that isn't hushed up when in an official or legislative capacity but integrated in the individual and communal affairs of the People, or in other words - Religious Pluralism, i.e if a Christian comes forth to table a resolution demanding incorporation of some aspect of Justinian Law in the laws that govern them or a Jew tabling a resolution demanding some changes to a by-law because it goes against some aspect of Talmudic Law, would be perfectly encouraged and not frowned upon ! In short God isn't personal only...he is also communal !
However, this poses another dilemma : Whose Islam ? Yours, Mine, Mullah Omar's...whose ? Iqbal in his 'Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam', delegates the responsibility of Ijtihad (Human Reasoning to form a legal opinion) and Ijma (Consensus of Opinion to form a legal opinion) not to the Ullema but to the Parliament since the modern day notion of a Nation-State and Citizenry has taken root. However, his conceptualization of Democracy has a meritocratic character to it in much the same way Singapore emphasis the worth of man to bring forth talented leaders. And lastly, for Iqbal and I believe Jinnah too the golden words of the Quran : There is no compulsion in religion, were a cornerstone of their philosophies on Governance.
Additionally, I can see that the Two Nation Theory (TNT if you will) has been talked about. Might I suggest that instead of going for the usual chest thumping by either side one might conduct an academic exercise to trace its origins and subsequent evolution since the backdrop of 1857 till Pakistan was created; for such an endeavor would be much more beneficial. Though I would try to describe briefly something on which countless millions of pages have been written and is, ironically enough, least understood by Pakistanis themselves; the TNT was, in short, an exclamation that Muslims have a unique collective consciousness of their own that they've derived from the Quran and the Sunnah and they should have the space to express it. If that had happened in India...there wouldn't be a Pakistan...but perhaps our fault lines were far too deep !
P.S We have indeed failed Jinnah, because Pakistan, as I understand it, was supposed to be a religiously and legally, impartial and pluralistic state, with strong constitutional guarantees against discrimination for all and a strong emphasis on freedom and good governance ! However this recent debate pitting one ism against the other is not only counterproductive it also completely side steps some of the bigger issues out there, because most of our problems stem not from the ideological nature of the State but by our abysmal Governance. The Old Pensioners who have to stand hours in line to collect their Pensions or the Women who are subjected to Honor Killings, are neither made worse off by the religiosity of the State nor would their suffering be elevated by its secularity. Take care of Governance and the rest will take care of itself !
