Jinnah's Pakistan - Then and Now

[haywards]

Islam is the only solution for Pakistan and Islamic System will be established

It is less islamic now?

 

[Zarvan]

It is less islamic now?

What was Islamic will always remain Islamic

 

[muse]

The Jinnah debate
Yasser Latif Hamdani



Ayesha Jalal, probably the finest historian that this country has produced in 64 years, said in a recent interview that the Jinnah discourse as Ahmad Ali Khalid put it in his article ‘The Jinnah discourse’ (Daily Times, August 24, 2011) makes her hopeful that Pakistan will at some point hark back to the original vision that Quaid-e-Azam gave this country. As Mr Khalid put it in his well argued piece, the reason why the impulse for secularism in Pakistan survives in Pakistan is the deep structure that Jinnah, like any founding father, forms for this country.

In a country torn apart by ethnic and religious strife, Jinnah is only important marker for a nebulous inclusive Pakistani identity. This is not something unique to us. In the US you still find the legacy of founding fathers deeply and bitterly contested even though the last of them died some 180 years ago. In India, a country far more advanced democratically, the recent debate on Anna Hazare and his attempts to clothe himself in Gandhi’s image is also the same thing. Therefore, every time one reads an article by a self-professed liberal taking all the pains to discredit Jinnah as a legitimate marker in Pakistanis’ attempt to create a more humane and inclusive society, they are only shooting themselves in the foot. Their argument is based on out of context snippets borrowed rather liberally from the ideologues that the Jamaat-e-Islami (which had bitterly opposed the creation of Pakistan) have cobbled together to make a case for an Islamic state that is distinct from anything Jinnah had in mind. I addressed this argument in some detail in a paper titled ‘Was Jinnah secular?’ available online on the blogzine Pakteahouse.net as well as my article ‘The importance of Jinnah’ (Daily Times, August 15, 2011). Needless to say — in my view — it is a completely morally and factually bankrupt argument. Jinnah did not ever say Pakistan was to be based on Islamic texts. On the contrary, Jinnah repeatedly said that Pakistan’s future government would be based on the general will of the people who would be completely sovereign regardless of religion, caste or creed. Jinnah’s Eid message in 1945, when Pakistan was by no means a certainty (only a year later Jinnah agreed to a federated three-tiered united India), cannot trump what he said and did as the father of the nation and its first governor general.

Jinnah’s references to Islam — few and far between and far too few for someone who was trying to unite a minority community defined by religion — were an attempt to endorse through religion the idea of modernity and democracy for his people in a language they understood. His references to religion were far fewer than say those of the great Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who repeatedly said that Islam was a rational religion and throughout the Turkish War of Independence used Islamic slogans, opened Turkish Grand National Assembly’s meetings with eloquent Arabic prayers for the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and declared that Islam was the national religion of the Turks. Indeed one of the first things that Ataturk did — after the declaration of the Republic in 1924 — was to introduce Islam as a state religion, something that he overturned in 1928 after addressing the Turkish parliament in a mammoth six-day address. In comparison Jinnah vetoed several attempts to introduce a state religion for Pakistan. At the height of the Pakistan Movement, in Delhi session of the Muslim League, Jinnah called the attempt by a certain section in the Muslim League to commit through resolution the future government of Pakistan to an Islamic governance based on Quran, Sunnah, hadith and the edicts of the rightly guided caliphs nothing less than censure for any Leaguer. He reaffirmed that Pakistan’s people will be sovereign in Pakistan. Unlike Shahid Ilyas’s claim (‘Basing secularism on Jinnah’, Daily Times, August 23, 2011), Jinnah did not give God the premier place in society.

Most of Jinnah’s political life, which spanned over four decades, was dedicated to the service of the people of India, Hindus and Muslims alike, and their progress. His contributions as a legislator were always progressive. He helped pass the Child Marriages Restraint Act 1929 for which he was bitterly attacked by the religious class amongst Muslims. Much of his efforts during the 1910s and 1920s were directed towards the Indianisation of the army and greater indigenous control over economic policy. He spent a considerable amount of time attempting to get the British government to recognise universal education as a basic human right. He was a long time supporter of the bill to allow inter-communal marriage, which was — without renunciation of their respective faiths — banned in British India. At another time, he warned against the misuse of the proposed 295-A (the forerunner of blasphemy law) to quell dissent. His advocacy for human rights and civil liberties — again entirely on non-communal basis — was noted and appreciated by all. It was for these reasons and more that Jinnah alone in a galaxy of political stars of the time was called the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. His political career — beyond just words — was in practice completely secular. No biographer of Jinnah, be it in India or the west, has ever concluded otherwise.

Pakistan’s idea itself was not what has been transmitted to us — the dream of a pan-Islamic poet galvanised by a Quaid. Instead it was — as Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who understood the demand for Pakistan better than anyone else, wrote in an editorial published on March 23, 1949 in Pakistan Times — an attempt to end vertical division by introducing horizontal division amongst two major peoples of the subcontinent so that they could achieve a degree of harmony and collaborate with each other as equal stakeholders in this great subcontinent. This has not come to pass and Jinnah’s politics is not and should not be beyond criticism but that criticism should not be based on ideological snippets cobbled together as a consequence of the state’s right wing bias post-General Zia. The irony is that instead of coming up with a well reasoned critique of Jinnah’s politics, self-professed liberals merely parrot the rhetorical revision Jinnah has been subjected to by the Nazaria-i-Pakistan (ideology of Pakistan) crowd.

More importantly, any attempt to enlist Islamist rhetoric to prove — always unconvincingly — that Jinnah was not secular or did not want secular Pakistan ignoring everything Jinnah did from the moment he entered active politics in 1906, is itself counterproductive, if indeed the stated goal of a rational secular state is really what these writers are sincerely wedded to. If someone mentions Jinnah as an inspiration for a secular state, it should not discourage from seeking their inspiration elsewhere. What motivation is there then for these writers to attack anyone speaking of Jinnah is only something they can answer for as Shakespeare made Mark Antony say: “What private griefs they have, alas, I know not.”

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website myLaw: A Contextual Network for Lawyers and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and Pak Tea House. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

 

[Zarvan]

The Jinnah debate
Yasser Latif Hamdani



Ayesha Jalal, probably the finest historian that this country has produced in 64 years, said in a recent interview that the Jinnah discourse as Ahmad Ali Khalid put it in his article ‘The Jinnah discourse’ (Daily Times, August 24, 2011) makes her hopeful that Pakistan will at some point hark back to the original vision that Quaid-e-Azam gave this country. As Mr Khalid put it in his well argued piece, the reason why the impulse for secularism in Pakistan survives in Pakistan is the deep structure that Jinnah, like any founding father, forms for this country.

In a country torn apart by ethnic and religious strife, Jinnah is only important marker for a nebulous inclusive Pakistani identity. This is not something unique to us. In the US you still find the legacy of founding fathers deeply and bitterly contested even though the last of them died some 180 years ago. In India, a country far more advanced democratically, the recent debate on Anna Hazare and his attempts to clothe himself in Gandhi’s image is also the same thing. Therefore, every time one reads an article by a self-professed liberal taking all the pains to discredit Jinnah as a legitimate marker in Pakistanis’ attempt to create a more humane and inclusive society, they are only shooting themselves in the foot. Their argument is based on out of context snippets borrowed rather liberally from the ideologues that the Jamaat-e-Islami (which had bitterly opposed the creation of Pakistan) have cobbled together to make a case for an Islamic state that is distinct from anything Jinnah had in mind. I addressed this argument in some detail in a paper titled ‘Was Jinnah secular?’ available online on the blogzine Pakteahouse.net as well as my article ‘The importance of Jinnah’ (Daily Times, August 15, 2011). Needless to say — in my view — it is a completely morally and factually bankrupt argument. Jinnah did not ever say Pakistan was to be based on Islamic texts. On the contrary, Jinnah repeatedly said that Pakistan’s future government would be based on the general will of the people who would be completely sovereign regardless of religion, caste or creed. Jinnah’s Eid message in 1945, when Pakistan was by no means a certainty (only a year later Jinnah agreed to a federated three-tiered united India), cannot trump what he said and did as the father of the nation and its first governor general.

Jinnah’s references to Islam — few and far between and far too few for someone who was trying to unite a minority community defined by religion — were an attempt to endorse through religion the idea of modernity and democracy for his people in a language they understood. His references to religion were far fewer than say those of the great Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who repeatedly said that Islam was a rational religion and throughout the Turkish War of Independence used Islamic slogans, opened Turkish Grand National Assembly’s meetings with eloquent Arabic prayers for the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and declared that Islam was the national religion of the Turks. Indeed one of the first things that Ataturk did — after the declaration of the Republic in 1924 — was to introduce Islam as a state religion, something that he overturned in 1928 after addressing the Turkish parliament in a mammoth six-day address. In comparison Jinnah vetoed several attempts to introduce a state religion for Pakistan. At the height of the Pakistan Movement, in Delhi session of the Muslim League, Jinnah called the attempt by a certain section in the Muslim League to commit through resolution the future government of Pakistan to an Islamic governance based on Quran, Sunnah, hadith and the edicts of the rightly guided caliphs nothing less than censure for any Leaguer. He reaffirmed that Pakistan’s people will be sovereign in Pakistan. Unlike Shahid Ilyas’s claim (‘Basing secularism on Jinnah’, Daily Times, August 23, 2011), Jinnah did not give God the premier place in society.

Most of Jinnah’s political life, which spanned over four decades, was dedicated to the service of the people of India, Hindus and Muslims alike, and their progress. His contributions as a legislator were always progressive. He helped pass the Child Marriages Restraint Act 1929 for which he was bitterly attacked by the religious class amongst Muslims. Much of his efforts during the 1910s and 1920s were directed towards the Indianisation of the army and greater indigenous control over economic policy. He spent a considerable amount of time attempting to get the British government to recognise universal education as a basic human right. He was a long time supporter of the bill to allow inter-communal marriage, which was — without renunciation of their respective faiths — banned in British India. At another time, he warned against the misuse of the proposed 295-A (the forerunner of blasphemy law) to quell dissent. His advocacy for human rights and civil liberties — again entirely on non-communal basis — was noted and appreciated by all. It was for these reasons and more that Jinnah alone in a galaxy of political stars of the time was called the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. His political career — beyond just words — was in practice completely secular. No biographer of Jinnah, be it in India or the west, has ever concluded otherwise.

Pakistan’s idea itself was not what has been transmitted to us — the dream of a pan-Islamic poet galvanised by a Quaid. Instead it was — as Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who understood the demand for Pakistan better than anyone else, wrote in an editorial published on March 23, 1949 in Pakistan Times — an attempt to end vertical division by introducing horizontal division amongst two major peoples of the subcontinent so that they could achieve a degree of harmony and collaborate with each other as equal stakeholders in this great subcontinent. This has not come to pass and Jinnah’s politics is not and should not be beyond criticism but that criticism should not be based on ideological snippets cobbled together as a consequence of the state’s right wing bias post-General Zia. The irony is that instead of coming up with a well reasoned critique of Jinnah’s politics, self-professed liberals merely parrot the rhetorical revision Jinnah has been subjected to by the Nazaria-i-Pakistan (ideology of Pakistan) crowd.

More importantly, any attempt to enlist Islamist rhetoric to prove — always unconvincingly — that Jinnah was not secular or did not want secular Pakistan ignoring everything Jinnah did from the moment he entered active politics in 1906, is itself counterproductive, if indeed the stated goal of a rational secular state is really what these writers are sincerely wedded to. If someone mentions Jinnah as an inspiration for a secular state, it should not discourage from seeking their inspiration elsewhere. What motivation is there then for these writers to attack anyone speaking of Jinnah is only something they can answer for as Shakespeare made Mark Antony say: “What private griefs they have, alas, I know not.”

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website myLaw: A Contextual Network for Lawyers and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and Pak Tea House. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

The writer is a stupid based in Lahore

In a message to NWFP Muslim Students Federation in April 1943, he said:

“You have asked me to give a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”

In an Eid message to the nation in 1945, he said:

“Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. Everyone except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code; it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all, to those of each individual; from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (S) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Holy Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines and rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society in every department of life, collectively and individually.”

 

[Sinnerman108]

Tell me, How many of you think Jinnah had any precedence over the Idea of Pakistan ?

Did he Originate the Idea of Pakistan ?

He only adapted this Idea very late in his political career.

So while discussion the Idea and theory of Pakistan, why not check what Allama Iqbal had to say about the Muslim state ?

 

[VelocuR]

We doubt Pakistan's future vision or clear definition of vision. Let's have fun killing each other for no reasons, our standards today in Pakistan apart from Jinnah's guidances is to kill all of them everyday, that's common first thing to do. We proudly to say Pakistan itself homegrown terrorsts bad reputation country instead faith, discipline, unity, and honest.


Pakistan must replaced what Soviet Union's failed policy to become Russia.

 

[muse]

Moving beyond Jinnah’s Pakistan
Fahd Ali



Pakistan just celebrated its 64th Independence Day. As usual the day was marked with promises to make Pakistan the greatest nation (and country) the world has ever witnessed. It is ironic that nobody paused for a second to reflect that the country is, at present, struggling to be even a mediocre one. I guess birthdays are a reason for drunken optimism, however unrealistic it may be. Each year August is also the month when both the conservatives and liberals in Pakistan invoke Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan to suit their (respective) ideological aspirations.

It is indeed an interesting crossing where both liberal and conservative minds meet — only to move apart. Jinnah’s vision is invoked by each side to lament the current state of the country and discuss the potential this nation possesses. But before I muse any further on this, let me ask a (seemingly rhetorical) question. What is Jinnah’s Pakistan? If we were to only look at geography then Jinnah’s Pakistan came into existence with eastern and western wings. That Pakistan ceased to exist in December 1971. What we have now is a Pakistan that was left over from that war. This current Pakistan’s 60 percent population is under the age of 30, which means that they were born in 1980 and after. None of these people were born in Jinnah’s Pakistan, which makes them the citizens of what was left over from the war in 1971. But since the idea of Jinnah’s Pakistan is invoked so frequently it must be something that goes beyond geography. For this piece I will just stick to the vision that liberals in the country present.

In that vein, by Jinnah’s Pakistan liberals mostly mean a secular and pluralistic Pakistan (which is also capitalistic but then that is something that everybody takes for granted). And the most cited instance of this vision is Jinnah’s speech of August 11, 1947 made to the then Constituent Assembly. It is quite interesting that a friend recently pointed out a section of the speech that hardly ever gets a mention in mainstream media. Jinnah’s suggestion to the members of the assembly is to forget the past and cooperate with each other in order to succeed. In the next sentence he tells them to change their past so that “there will be no end to the progress you will make” (Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan).

It is that part where Jinnah asks the members to forget their past in order to start afresh that I find quite telling. A question that arises immediately: is it even possible to forget our past? In some ways perhaps Jinnah’s statement reflects the enormity of the burden that he felt by creating a nation-state that he accepted only half-heartedly. Ironically, by making that statement Jinnah was attempting to do away with the communal politics that had brought him (and the rest of the country) to that point. Some would find that intellectually dishonest but maybe Jinnah was not really concerned with intellectual dishonesty at that time since he could see the Pandora’s Box that he had opened up through a decade and a half of communal politics. So, in a way, Jinnah’s statement signifies his attempt to escape from the reality (and consequences) of his own politics.

My attempt here is not to present this argument in order to eventually decide whether Pakistan was a mistake. Pakistan was the result of forces unleashed by a number of actors (foremost among them was Jinnah) — forces that nobody was eventually able to control. Hence, passing judgement on the creation of Pakistan is an exercise in futility for me. It is inconsequential and 64 years down the road it does not really matter. And neither does Jinnah’s Pakistan! Do not get me wrong when I make this argument. I am not arguing against a secular and progressive Pakistan. I am only arguing that there is no need to justify such a vision by invoking Jinnah. In fact, I personally do not agree with Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. We only tend to highlight the secularist aspects of it but tend to ignore that Jinnah strongly believed in a capitalist Pakistan firmly allied with the US. The present day Pakistan seems to, at least, have achieved the latter part of Jinnah’s vision.

As I mentioned above, the state that Jinnah founded disappeared from the world map in 1971. What we have left is definitely not Jinnah’s Pakistan. What exists right now in the name of the Pakistani state is an institution that oppresses its citizens, discriminates against them on the basis of religion, usurps their rights, and rewards the coterie of a few, which consists of the civil-military bureaucracy and politicians. I know that the particular state that exists right now has to be dismantled. Brick by brick, institution by institution, law by law — this structure needs to be razed so that we can make the space to construct a new and better Pakistan. I do not have to invoke Jinnah (or his vision) to work towards a pluralistic polity in Pakistan. So yes, I also want a secular, progressive, and democratic Pakistan. But I also want a Pakistan where democracy is not limited to casting votes but is also practiced at the workplace, where production is not appropriated by a few but is shared and enjoyed by society. If that is also Jinnah’s vision, well then, great!

The writer is studying towards his doctorate in Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City. He blogs at دارو کےافکار and can be reached at fahdali@gmail.com

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Listen , when I am in Pakistan, I walk to a resturant and order a nihari and naan , and Seikh kababs .... I feel fulfilled

When I go walk in streets and sunshine falls and warms my body up and I don't have to answer to any stupid TSA agent ... great

When you walk in your own country and it rains moon soon rain , followed by family get togethers I say it was all worth it

When its prayers time , I go out pray with no questions asked

When its cricket time , I turn on TV and watch the players smack the ball out ... I say mission completed

When its Baqra eid , and you get to eat freshly cooked meal from the sacrificial animal you know what wonderful

Pakistan has achieved alot more ... obviously million times more .....


When you turn the tv on you see Pakistani Heros and role models - superb


You know the best part , when you see the little green flags in streets and little kids celebrating
you never forget that feeling ....because you are free

When you see an airplane in sky you try to see if its PIA ... and then you smile you know you are at home ....

You know you are in right place when you see a person helping a stranger and its not odd like in New York - you know you are in Pakistan.

Sure there is lack of Energy but by 2014 it will be taken care of pipeline on the way

We were free at creation and we are free now ...

We got social issues then again who doesn't

 

[T-Faz]

Good, now google again to find the whole reason why Gandhi went on a long fast.

Right, so I am Googling it while you go on from your memory.

I have read the book that you quoted in your post, not the whole book but just few page from 458 onwards, cause I think only here the writer has mentioned all those tears the Quaid shed when he saw the Hindus in a dreadful condition in refugee camps. Tell me the page numbers where the practical measures Jinnah undertook to help the Hindus are mentioned. You didn't read my last post carefully. I said that the whole Urban Sindh was purified of Hindus, only in those areas of interior Sindhi which were not overrun by the refugees from India still have a sizeable amount of Hindu community.

All the information is available for you to see but I knowing you, you would hardly be able to see it.

I guess false flagging comes natural to some but I wasted my time when I discussed this with you.

 

[muse]

Listen , when I am in Pakistan, I walk to a resturant and order a nihari and naan , and Seikh kababs .... I feel fulfilled

When I go walk in streets and sunshine falls and warms my body up and I don't have to answer to any stupid TSA agent ... great

When you walk in your own country and it rains moon soon rain , followed by family get togethers I say it was all worth it

When its prayers time , I go out pray with no questions asked

When its cricket time , I turn on TV and watch the players smack the ball out ... I say mission completed

When its Baqra eid , and you get to eat freshly cooked meal from the sacrificial animal you know what wonderful

Pakistan has achieved alot more ... obviously million times more .....


When you turn the tv on you see Pakistani Heros and role models - superb


You know the best part , when you see the little green flags in streets and little kids celebrating
you never forget that feeling ....because you are free

When you see an airplane in sky you try to see if its PIA ... and then you smile you know you are at home ....

You know you are in right place when you see a person helping a stranger and its not odd like in New York - you know you are in Pakistan.

Sure there is lack of Energy but by 2014 it will be taken care of pipeline on the way

We were free at creation and we are free now ...

We got social issues then again who doesn't

These should be lyrics, to a Samaba lounge beat - yeah, I can see that.

 

[muse]

Azad

I found your post very compelling and I'm dedicating this to you:

Peter Gabriel - Solsbury Hill + lyrics - YouTube

I hope you will find in it the spirit you express and I hope you will have what you need to be happy -

 

[Mughal1]

Parwez on ptv about iqbal and jinnah

Parwez interviewed by jang reporters.

 

[Mani2020]

If anyone ever has a doubt about Mr.Jinnah or his personality i advice him to listen late Ashfaq Ahmed's comments about Mr.Jinnah and advice to Pakistanis in one of his famous program used to be aired on PTV with the name of "Zavia"


Here is the chunk of that program

 

[muse]

I would encourage all to read the pieces presented in this thread - they represent a national conversation and readers will note that we are going closer to the kernel, the center of what ails Pakistan and your informed participation in this national conversation is most welcome - Some have argued for a Pakistani system (Ok so I have) and that I have argued means a new constitution:


1973 constitution is theocratic in form and substance
Yasser Latif Hamdani


While there is no consensus on whether Pakistan was envisaged as an Islamic or a secular state, there is remarkable consensus that Pakistan was not meant by the founding fathers to be a theocracy. Indeed, most Pakistanis insist that Pakistan was not envisaged as and is not a theocratic state but as a modern Islamic democratic state.

Without getting into the Islam vs secularism debate, let us attempt to determine whether Pakistan, under its present constitution, is a theocracy or not. Theocracy is, to put it simply, the rule by divine sanction. In constitutional terms, a theocracy means a state which, to begin with, has a state religion. That is not enough, however, to make a theocracy. In addition to a state religion, a theocracy is a state where religion takes precedence over all else and where every action of the state is to be determined by religious divines. In other words, it is a state where people are not sovereign but, instead, God’s sovereignty is explicitly recognised. It is also a state that creates a bar to elected office against citizens based on their religious beliefs.

While the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan establishes religious freedom as a fundamental right, it fulfills all the criteria of a theocratic constitution. It vests sovereignty ultimately in God not just over Pakistan but the entire universe. It establishes Islam as the state religion without explaining what a state religion entails. Not only does it create an explicit bar against non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan holding the offices of president, prime minister and judges of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC), it establishes two bodies — one advisory and the other judicial — to ensure conformity with Islamic injunctions. The actual practical damage that this has done the country was apparent when the FSC imposed a particular school of thought of interpretation of Islam in the 1990s bringing the entire banking system to a complete halt. In an even more insidious use of religion, the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) undid land reforms in Pakistan, thereby undoing the little progress effected by the government in curbing the menace of large feudal landholdings.

Similarly, by taking it upon itself to decide who is Muslim and who is not, the state appropriated a role that is unprecedented in Islamic history but is readily available in papal and Christian ecclesiastical history. It is a throwback to the England of King Henry the VIII whose reign saw religious persecution of Catholics and Jews or even earlier to Isabella and Ferdinand’s Spain, which carried out the Inquisition. In contrast, Islamic history affords no example of mass excommunication of an entire community. As far as the post-Zia theocratic state’s penchant for abusing a particular minority sect in the state’s passport and ID card forms, the closest precedent in Islamic history was that of Banu Ummaya’s ‘tabarra’ (obligation of disassociation) against the family of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

Therefore, as an honest, if not reasonable, people, we ought to recognise that Pakistan today is a theocratic state in form and in substance and that in its current form the 1973 constitution envisages a theocratic state modelled not on any golden principles of Islam but two things, i.e. fanatical fervour that was the hallmark of Christian Europe before the age of enlightenment and the murderers and persecutors of Hussain (AS).

In February 1948, the founder of this nation said that Pakistan should not be a theocratic state to be run by priests with a divine mission. This has turned out to be wishful thinking. Pakistan has been run over and into the ground by the very same priests the Quaid-e-Azam warned against. Every part of our life is now regulated by edicts of poorly educated mindless zombies who sell religion for a living. Unless and until Pakistan decisively makes a break with this unholy clergy that cannot agree on even the definition of a Muslim and that continues to keep our people embroiled in needless debates, it will continue to fail itself. This country, said to have been created in the name of Islam (a claim more myth than fact), might be brought to an end in its name as well.

So what is that irreducible minimum that is required for a state to be non-theocratic? First of all, the opposite of a theocracy is a democracy. This means that the general will of the people ought to trump religious doctrines. If the general will of the people is to ban alcohol, then it should be so across the board for all citizens regardless of religion, caste or creed. If, on the other hand, the general will of the people is to de-criminalise homosexuality for example, then that too should be accepted. The underlying assumption is that a state of a 95 percent Muslim population will always make laws that do not clash with Islam. However, this assumption should not be imposed by the force of law. It is in this context one views with alarm the Supreme Court’s observation that it would not allow the National Assembly to declare Pakistan a secular republic if it so desired. In other words, this amounts to a censure on every Pakistani, a clipping of the wings as it were.

It is entirely possible for Pakistan to remain an Islamic Republic and yet escape the label of theocracy but, in order to do that, it will have to safeguard the right of the people of Pakistan to — if they so wished — abolish the Islamic Republic and replace it with a secular one. Secondly, while the state may continue to seek inspiration for Islam as the civic religion of the people of Pakistan, it cannot and should not bar any citizen of Pakistan from any constitutional office including the president and prime minister of Pakistan. These are the minimum criteria for qualifying as a non-theocratic state.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website myLaw: A Contextual Network for Lawyers and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and Pak Tea House. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

 

[Zarvan]

The Quaid in his speech broadcast on 13, November 1939 said, “Man has indeed been called God’s Caliph in the Quran and if that description of man is to be of any significance it imposes upon us a duty to follow the Quran, to behave towards others as God behaves towards his mankind.” In the same speech he further said, “All social regeneration and political freedom must finally depend on something that has deeper meaning in life. And that, if you allow me to say so, is Islam and Islamic spirit.” The Quaid when asked by the students to give a message said, “You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the greatest message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”