Pakistan's Founder Jinnah: Tragic Hero

[SecularNationalist]

Lately I have been reading several books about Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and I must say that this man is one of the most intriguing political figures I have ever encountered. It is easy to romanticise the lives of great political characters such as Attaturk, Castro, and Hio Chi Minh who also excelled as men of action. Jinnah, on the other hand, was primarily a barrister and all his battles were waged with words.

Some years ago, the former Foreign Minister of India and a member of India’s largest Hindu nationalist party, Mr Jaswant Singh, wrote a book about Jinnah which caused a storm in his country. Mr Singh the Hindu was in awe of his Muslim foe, and as a result of his book lionising Jinnah, he was declared a traitor to the nation and expelled from his party. The freedom of speech is clearly not valued in “the world’s largest democracy.”

The factors that brought about the creation of Pakistan were many. It would of course be an over-simplification to suggest that the partititon of India was solely a product of the British propensity to divide-and-rule which also gave us other explosive binaries such as Eire-Ulster, Israel-Palestine, and Iraq-Kuwait. In addition to this we also need to take into account the machinations of the subcontinental bourgeosie and the gentry: these were people who willed the creation of a separate Muslim homeland because they feared being quashed by the financial prowess of the Hindu majority in a united India. Hence their demand for a separate Muslim homeland rested on the desire to guard their economic interests rather than pure nationalist fervour. Interestingly, all the major religious movements of the Indian subcontinent were vehemently opposed to the creation of Pakistan.

One of the ideological foundation stones of Pakistan is the truly bizarre two-nation theory, engendered in the mind of Mohammad Iqbal. Strangely, this individual did not realise that in making religion the main criterion of nationhood, the right to separate homeland would also have to be extended to the Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists of India, but the provincial thinker that he was, he never dwelt on the implications of his theory. But here it is worth emphasising that the recourse to the two-nation theory as one of the ideological pillars of Pakistan is more than anything else a post factum justification for the creation of this country that should perhaps never have come into being.

If we consider the process that culminated in the creation of Pakistan, there are certain contradictions that should become apparent to us all. Jinnah did his utmost to persuade the princely states of what is today known Rajasthan to accede to Pakistan. This is a region with a Hindu majority. Furthermore, once Pakistan had been created, Jinnah reminded his countrymen that one’s creed must remain strictly a private affair:

“In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense because that is the personal faith of an individual, but in apolitical sense as citizens of one state.”

Given that Jinnah was also willing to include predominantly Hindu regions in his nation-state, the primary causes of the creation of this country were of a non-religious nature. We have already
mentioned the factors of the British inclination to divide-and-rule and the economic interests of the Muslim bourgeoisie and gentry. The third important factor that must be taken into account is the personality of this highly gifted man.

According to one apocryphal story popular amongst Hindus, Jinnah, whose ancestors were Hindus of the Lohana caste, wished to revert to Hinduism, but he was rebuffed by the Brahmins. Jinnah took offence and avenged himself on the Hindus by creating Pakistan. Although this story is almost
certainly a fabrication, it is also true in the sense that offers us a correct appraisal of his personality as a reactive man.

The dialectics that we can discern in the life of Jinnah is also present in the lives of many amongst us. We set out on a specific path intending to traverse it to its very end, but certain unforeseen and insurmountable obstacles or personal tragedies force us to pursue the contrary path with doubled determination. These are ingredients that can easily be seen in the life of Jinnah. His personal tragedy was the death of his young wife, and by all accounts he was deeply affected by the loss; this was a personal tragedy that also hardened him as a man. As for the obstacle that completely changed his political outlook, we must point to Gandhi’s deliberate utilisation of religion as a political tool. Jinnah, a staunch secularist, was infuriated by Gandhi’s religious oratory, and once Gandhi had set out on the path of the politics of religious identity, Jinnah was compelled by the circumstances do the same – and he did it much better than Gandhi.

One last factor that truly matters is that of personal ambition. There are two kinds of ambition worth dwelling on in this regard: on one the hand there is the kind of ambition that has solely private gain in sight, whereas on the other hand there is the kind of ambition that never loses sight of the common good. Even Ignatius Loyola insisted that the members of his order must aspire to great deeds for the greater glory of god; in other words, being ambitious in such a way that one benefits others than oneself is a virtuous act in conformity with the teachings of Christ. Jinnah was probably well aware that his being Muslim would prevent him from assuming the leadership of a party that was predominantly Hindu. Only by pursuing the politics of religious identity could he reach the summit. He did reach the summit, and his vanity certainly played a large part in this regard. To what extent his actions benefitted the subcontinental Muslims remains a moot point. Even so, the following words of Jinnah’s biographer contain no exaggeration whatsoever:

“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Armstrong]

I believe that he was neither a secularist in the Holyoakes meaning of the word nor an islamist in Zia's rendition of the latter - He was a pluralistic democrat who believed in equality, fair play and freedom for all but also in Iqbal's propositions of reconstructing Islamic paradigms in the light of modernity !

And no they are not mutually exclusive to each other; you can very well have a State where a person's value and worth has got nothing to do with his religious allegiance and still have a banking system in place which is conceived by leading economists and banking professionals to be mindful of the principles of ethics that Muslim civilizations came up with - historically contextualized and accordingly updated in the light of modernity, of course !

This is precisely how I view the 'apparent' dichotomy of him talking about freedoms and equality in one place while saying something of an explicitly Islamic nature elsewhere - I find the cynical argument of them being merely political gimmicks at best or a deliberate falsification at worst as being poorly and more so hurriedly argued.

I believe the confusion of looking at things purely through a secular vs islamist binary exists because :

(i) We fail to realize that Iqbal had more than an impressionable imprint on Jinnah. So much so that the latter kept in correspondence with the poet throughout and had those correspondences published as a book and was upset on finding out that his letters to Iqbal could not be obtained. That Jinnah went beyond mere pleasantries when reminiscing about Iqbal and spoke highly of Iqbal's philosophy and vision (including political vision summed up in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam) - This coming from a man who was dubbed by all alike as being cold, calculating and who carefully weighed everything he said....is a rare occurrence indeed.

(ii) Our inability to understand that secularism and pluralism are two different things and that the former was born out of the need of Western Civilization to contain the pervading influence of the Catholic Church and has no equivalent in Muslim History ever since we don't have an ecclesiastical order or at least didn't till the Iranian Revolution. While the latter, historically contextualized of course, has been the hallmark of almost every instance of a good government that Muslims remember throughout their History whether it be the Rashidun Caliphs, Haroon Rasheed or Salahuddin or even something closer to home such as Akbar or Sher Shah Surri. After all before the Fatwa-e-Alamgiri it was the Fiqh-e-Firoze-Shahi that was the law of the land coupled with local practices, common sense and a recognition of political realities !

@krash @Gufi @HRK @dexter @waz @Jungibaaz

 

[SecularNationalist]

I believe that he was neither a secularist in the Holyoakes meaning of the word nor an islamist in Zia's rendition of the latter - He was a pluralistic democrat who believed in equality, fair play and freedom for all but also in Iqbal's propositions of reconstructing Islamic paradigms in the light of modernity !

But one thing i am sure about s that he never wanted the Pakistan we have today where illiterate people are our so called dictators and defenders of faith.He never wanted to force islamic laws on us.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

But one thing i am sure about s that he never wanted the Pakistan we have today where illiterate people are our so called dictators and defenders of faith.He never wanted to force islamic laws on us.

On a realistic note, it matters no longer what Mr Jinnah wanted. All that the world sees is his legacy, namely Pakistan. If Pakistan becomes a model country, that will be Mr Jinnah's legacy. Currently and in its present condition, that is what the world perceives as being Mr Jinnah's legacy

 

[Kompromat]

The idiot calls the guy who invented the concept as a '3rd' rate thinker. Oxymoron if you ask me.

 

[Armstrong]

Theek hai @krash bhai koi lift hi nahin ?

 

[SecularNationalist]

Third-rate thinker?, i doubt that you can even read and write simple urdu let alone the difficult one in Iqbal's poetry, thats why the stupid comment. Jinnah could not deliver a speech to gathering without papar, led mostly an un-eventful and lazy political life, mostly confined to bedroom talks. What are the messages of Jinnah that are unique and are inspirational? i dont remember one. The man was addressing uneducated people in English language, what kind of baba cant communicate with his awaam ?. . A doctor should be able to speak and understand the language of his patient, so is the case with a leader.

I respect M.A jinnah and his ideology but iqbal was nothing more a poet and all that bull crap about jinnah getting inspiration from a iqbal on a two nation theory is nothing more than a fiction.

The idiot calls the guy who invented the concept as a '3rd' rate thinker. Oxymoron if you ask me.

Iqbal invented what ???

On a realistic note, it matters no longer what Mr Jinnah wanted. All that the world sees is his legacy, namely Pakistan. If Pakistan becomes a model country, that will be Mr Jinnah's legacy. Currently and in its present condition, that is what the world perceives as being Mr Jinnah's legacy

Without drowning our mullahs in the arabian sea we cannot become a pakistan of Mr jinnah.

 

[syedali73]

I respect M.A jinnah and his ideology but iqbal was nothing more a poet and all that bull crap about jinnah getting inspiration from a iqbal on a two nation theory is nothing more than a fiction.

Iqbal invented what ???

Without drowning our mullahs in the arabian sea we cannot become a pakistan of Mr jinnah.

So you are not aware about Quid-e-Azam's interactions with Allama Iqbal and all the correspondence that happened between them? Justice Javeid Iqbal (Allam Iqbal's son) is still alive. Try to catch him to learn first hand for obviously you are not the one who reads books.
---

28th May, 1937

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which reached me in due course. I am glad to hear that you will bear in mind what I wrote to you about the changes in the constitution and programme of the League. I have no doubt that you fully realise the gravity of the situation as far as Muslim India is concerned. The League will have to finally decide whether it will remain a body representing the upper classes of Indian Muslims or Muslim masses who have so far, with good reason, no interest in it. Personally I believe that a political organisation which gives no promise of improving the lot of the average Muslim cannot attract our masses.

Under the new constitution the higher posts go to the sons of [the] upper classes; the smaller go to the friends or relatives of the ministers. In other matters too our political institutions have never thought of improving the lot of Muslims generally. The problem of bread is becoming more and more acute. The Muslim has begun to feel that he has been going down and down during the last 200 years. Ordinarily he believes that his poverty is due to Hindu money-lending or capitalism. The perception that equality [is (?)] due to foreign rule has not yet fully come to him. But it is bound to come. The atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal [Nehru] is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is: how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League's activity to solve this question. If the League can give no such promises I am sure the Muslim masses will remain indifferent to it as before.

Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to every body. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for Muslims as well as to secure a peaceful India.

If such a thing is impossible in India the only other alternative is a civil war which as a matter of fact has been going on for some time in the shape of Hindu Muslim riots. I fear that in certain parts of the country, e.g. N.W. India, Palestine may be repeated..Also the insertion of Jawarhar Lal's socialism into the body-politic of Hinduism is likely to cause much bloodshed among the Hindus themselves. The issue between social democracy and Brahmanism is not dissimilar to the one between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Whether the fate of socialism will be the same as the fate of Buddhism in India I cannot say. But it is clear to my mind that if Hinduism accepts social democracy it must necessarily cease to be Hinduism.

For Islam the acceptance of social democracy in some suitable form and consistent with the legal pnncp!es of Islam is not a revolution but a return to the original punty of Islam. The modern problems therefore are far more easy to solve for the Musllms than for the Hindus. But as I have said above in order to make it possible for Muslim India to solve the problems it is necessary to redistribute the coun.ry and to provde one or more Muslim states with absolute majorities. Don't you think that the time for such a demand has already arrived? Perhaps this is the best reply you can give to the atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Anyhow I have given you my own thoughts in the hope that you will give them serious consideration either in your address or in the discussions of the coming session of the League. Muslim India hopes that at this serious juncture your genius will discover some way out of our present difficulties.

Yours Sincerely,
(Sd.) Mohammad. Iqbal

---

Private and Confidential
Lahore
June 21st, 1937

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which I received yesterday. I know you are a busy man; but I do hope you won't mind my writing to you so often, as you are the only Muslim in India today to whom the community has a right to look up for safe guidance through the storm which is coming to NorthWest India and perhaps to the whole of India. I tell you that we are actually living in a state of civil war which, but for the police and military, would become universal in no time.

During the last few months there has been a series of Hindu-Muslim riots in India. In North-West India alone there have been at least three riots during the last three months and at least four cases of vilification of the Prophet by Hindus and Sikhs. In each of these four cases, the vilifier has been murdered. There have also been cases of burning of the Qur'an in Sind. I have carefully studied the whole situation and believe that the real cause of these events is nither religious nor economic. It is purely political. I.e., the desire of the Sikhs and Hindus to intimidate Muslims even in the Muslim majority provinces. And the new constitution is such that even in the Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on non-Muslims.

The result is that the Muslim Ministry can take no proper action and are even driven to do injustice to Musiims partly to please those on whom they depend, and partly to show that they are absolutely impartial. Thus it is clear that we have our specific reasons to reject this constitution. It seems to me that the new constitution is devised only to placate the Hindus. In the Hindu majority provinces, the Hindus have of course absolute majorities, and can ignore Muslims altogether. In Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on Hindus. I have no doubt in my mind that this constitution is calculated to do infinite harm to the Indian Muslims. Apart from this it is no solution of the economic problem which is so acute among Muslims.

The only thing that the communal award grants to Muslims is the recognition of their political existence in India. But such a recognition granted to a people whom this constitution does not and cannot help in solving their problem of poverty can be of no value to them. The Congress. President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united HinduMuslim nation is impossible in India. In these cirecumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is a redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities. Many British statesmen also realise this, and the Hindu-Muslim riots which are rapidly coming in the wake of this constitution are sure further to open their eyes to the real situation in the country. I remember Lord Lothian told me before I left England that my scheme was the only possible solution of the troubles of India, but that may take 25 years to come.

Some Muslims in the Punjab are already suggesting the holding of [a] North-West Indian Muslim Conference, and the idea is rapidly spreading. I agree with you, however, that our community is not yet sufficiently organised and disciplined and perhaps the time for holding such a conference is not yet ripe. But I feel that it would be highly advisable for you to indicate in your address at least the line of action that the Muslims of North-West India would be finally driven to take.

To my mind the new constitution with its idea of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of nonMuslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are?

Personally I think that the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal ought at present to ignore Muslim[-minority] provinces. This is the best course to adopt in the interests of both Muslim majority and minority provinces. It will therefore be better to hold the coming session of the League in the Punjab, and not in a Muslim minority province. The month of August is bad in Lahore. I think you should seriously consider the advisability of holding the coming session at Lahore in the middle of October when the weather is quite good in Lahore. The interest in the All-India Muslim League is rapidly growing in the Punjab, and the holding of the coming session in Lahore is likely to give a fresh political awakening to the Punjab Muslims.

Yours sincerely,
(Sd). Mohammad Iqbal
Bar-at-Law

Foreword by Jinnah, Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah (Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah: A Collection of Iqbal's Letters to the Qaid-i ... - Sir Muhammad Iqbal - Google Books
March 1943

The letters which form the subject of this booklet were written to me by the sage, philosopher and national poet of Islam, the late Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, during the period May 1936 to November1937, a few months before his death. This period synchronises with a very eventful period in the history of Muslim India—between the establishment of the All-India Muslim League Central Parliamentary Board in June 1936 and the great historic sessions at Lucknow in October 1937.

If the Central Parliamentary Board with its Provincial Branches marked the first great attempt on the part of the Muslim League to rally round the Muslim opinion to contest the approaching elections, under the Government of India Act of 1935, for Provincial Legislature on the League ticket, the Lucknow Session indicated the first stage in the reorganization of the Muslim League on a popular basis and as the only authoritative and representative organisation of Muslim India. Both these high objects were attained in great part owing to the invaluable support that I obtained through the sincere efforts and patriotic and selfless activities of many friends like Sir Muhammad Iqbal, amongst others. The League gained from strength to strength in this short period. In each of the Provinces where League Parliamentary Board was established and the League parties were constituted we carried away about 60 to 70 per cent of the seats that were contested by the League candidates. Hundreds of District and Primary Leagues were established in almost every Province from the farthest corner of Madras to the North- West Frontier Province.

The League gave a staggering blow to the so-called Muslim Mass Contact Movement which was started by the Congress to disrupt Muslim ranks and to overawe League into submission. The League emerged triumphant in most of the by-elections and shattered the intrigues and machinations of those who hoped to create the impression that the Muslim League Organisation had no support of the Muslim people.

Within eighteen months before the Lucknow Session, the League had succeeded in organising Muslims as one party with an advanced and progressive programme and had brought under its influence even those provinces which for lack of time or preparation had not been sufficiently benefited by the activities of League Parliamentary Boards. The Lucknow Session furnished an unmistakable evidence of the popularity that League commanded among Muslims of all groups and ranks.

It was a great achievement for Muslim League that its lead came to be acknowledged by both the majority and minority Provinces. Sir Muhammad Iqbal played a very conspicuous part, though at the time not revealed to public, in bringing about this consummation. He had his own doubts about Sikandar-Jinnah Pact being carried out and he was anxious to see it translated into some tangible results without delay so as to dispel popular misapprehension about it, but unfortunately he has not lived to see that the Punjab has all round made a remarkable progress and now it is beyond doubt that the Muslims stand solidly behind the Muslim League Organisation.

With this brief historical background in mind, the letters can be read with great interest. It is, however, much to be regretted that my own replies to Iqbal are not available. During the period under reference I worked alone unassisted by the benefit of a personal staff and so did not retain duplicate copies of the numerous letters that I had to dispose of. I made enquiries from the Trustees of Iqbal's estate at Lahore and was informed that my letters are not traceable. Hence I had no alternative but to publish the letters without my replies as I think these letters are of very great historical importance, particularly those which explain his views in clear and unambiguous terms on the political future of Muslim India.

His views were substantially in consonance with my own and had finally led me to the same conclusions as a result of careful examination and study of the constitutional problems facing India, and found expression in due course in the united will of Muslim India as adumberated in the Lahore resolution of the All-India Muslim League, popularly known as the "Pakistan Resolution,” passed on 23rd March, 1940.

27th March 1943
M. A. Jinnah

 

[SecularNationalist]

So you are not aware about Quid-e-Azam's interactions with Allama Iqbal and all the correspondence that happened between them? Justice Javeid Iqbal (Allam Iqbal's son) is still alive. Try to catch him to learn first hand for obviously you are not the one who reads books.
---

28th May, 1937

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which reached me in due course. I am glad to hear that you will bear in mind what I wrote to you about the changes in the constitution and programme of the League. I have no doubt that you fully realise the gravity of the situation as far as Muslim India is concerned. The League will have to finally decide whether it will remain a body representing the upper classes of Indian Muslims or Muslim masses who have so far, with good reason, no interest in it. Personally I believe that a political organisation which gives no promise of improving the lot of the average Muslim cannot attract our masses.

Under the new constitution the higher posts go to the sons of [the] upper classes; the smaller go to the friends or relatives of the ministers. In other matters too our political institutions have never thought of improving the lot of Muslims generally. The problem of bread is becoming more and more acute. The Muslim has begun to feel that he has been going down and down during the last 200 years. Ordinarily he believes that his poverty is due to Hindu money-lending or capitalism. The perception that equality [is (?)] due to foreign rule has not yet fully come to him. But it is bound to come. The atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal [Nehru] is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is: how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League's activity to solve this question. If the League can give no such promises I am sure the Muslim masses will remain indifferent to it as before.

Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to every body. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for Muslims as well as to secure a peaceful India.

If such a thing is impossible in India the only other alternative is a civil war which as a matter of fact has been going on for some time in the shape of Hindu Muslim riots. I fear that in certain parts of the country, e.g. N.W. India, Palestine may be repeated..Also the insertion of Jawarhar Lal's socialism into the body-politic of Hinduism is likely to cause much bloodshed among the Hindus themselves. The issue between social democracy and Brahmanism is not dissimilar to the one between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Whether the fate of socialism will be the same as the fate of Buddhism in India I cannot say. But it is clear to my mind that if Hinduism accepts social democracy it must necessarily cease to be Hinduism.

For Islam the acceptance of social democracy in some suitable form and consistent with the legal pnncp!es of Islam is not a revolution but a return to the original punty of Islam. The modern problems therefore are far more easy to solve for the Musllms than for the Hindus. But as I have said above in order to make it possible for Muslim India to solve the problems it is necessary to redistribute the coun.ry and to provde one or more Muslim states with absolute majorities. Don't you think that the time for such a demand has already arrived? Perhaps this is the best reply you can give to the atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Anyhow I have given you my own thoughts in the hope that you will give them serious consideration either in your address or in the discussions of the coming session of the League. Muslim India hopes that at this serious juncture your genius will discover some way out of our present difficulties.

Yours Sincerely,
(Sd.) Mohammad. Iqbal

---

Private and Confidential
Lahore
June 21st, 1937

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which I received yesterday. I know you are a busy man; but I do hope you won't mind my writing to you so often, as you are the only Muslim in India today to whom the community has a right to look up for safe guidance through the storm which is coming to NorthWest India and perhaps to the whole of India. I tell you that we are actually living in a state of civil war which, but for the police and military, would become universal in no time.

During the last few months there has been a series of Hindu-Muslim riots in India. In North-West India alone there have been at least three riots during the last three months and at least four cases of vilification of the Prophet by Hindus and Sikhs. In each of these four cases, the vilifier has been murdered. There have also been cases of burning of the Qur'an in Sind. I have carefully studied the whole situation and believe that the real cause of these events is nither religious nor economic. It is purely political. I.e., the desire of the Sikhs and Hindus to intimidate Muslims even in the Muslim majority provinces. And the new constitution is such that even in the Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on non-Muslims.

The result is that the Muslim Ministry can take no proper action and are even driven to do injustice to Musiims partly to please those on whom they depend, and partly to show that they are absolutely impartial. Thus it is clear that we have our specific reasons to reject this constitution. It seems to me that the new constitution is devised only to placate the Hindus. In the Hindu majority provinces, the Hindus have of course absolute majorities, and can ignore Muslims altogether. In Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on Hindus. I have no doubt in my mind that this constitution is calculated to do infinite harm to the Indian Muslims. Apart from this it is no solution of the economic problem which is so acute among Muslims.

The only thing that the communal award grants to Muslims is the recognition of their political existence in India. But such a recognition granted to a people whom this constitution does not and cannot help in solving their problem of poverty can be of no value to them. The Congress. President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united HinduMuslim nation is impossible in India. In these cirecumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is a redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities. Many British statesmen also realise this, and the Hindu-Muslim riots which are rapidly coming in the wake of this constitution are sure further to open their eyes to the real situation in the country. I remember Lord Lothian told me before I left England that my scheme was the only possible solution of the troubles of India, but that may take 25 years to come.

Some Muslims in the Punjab are already suggesting the holding of [a] North-West Indian Muslim Conference, and the idea is rapidly spreading. I agree with you, however, that our community is not yet sufficiently organised and disciplined and perhaps the time for holding such a conference is not yet ripe. But I feel that it would be highly advisable for you to indicate in your address at least the line of action that the Muslims of North-West India would be finally driven to take.

To my mind the new constitution with its idea of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of nonMuslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are?

Personally I think that the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal ought at present to ignore Muslim[-minority] provinces. This is the best course to adopt in the interests of both Muslim majority and minority provinces. It will therefore be better to hold the coming session of the League in the Punjab, and not in a Muslim minority province. The month of August is bad in Lahore. I think you should seriously consider the advisability of holding the coming session at Lahore in the middle of October when the weather is quite good in Lahore. The interest in the All-India Muslim League is rapidly growing in the Punjab, and the holding of the coming session in Lahore is likely to give a fresh political awakening to the Punjab Muslims.

Yours sincerely,
(Sd). Mohammad Iqbal
Bar-at-Law

Foreword by Jinnah, Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah (Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah: A Collection of Iqbal's Letters to the Qaid-i ... - Sir Muhammad Iqbal - Google Books
March 1943

The letters which form the subject of this booklet were written to me by the sage, philosopher and national poet of Islam, the late Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, during the period May 1936 to November1937, a few months before his death. This period synchronises with a very eventful period in the history of Muslim India—between the establishment of the All-India Muslim League Central Parliamentary Board in June 1936 and the great historic sessions at Lucknow in October 1937.

If the Central Parliamentary Board with its Provincial Branches marked the first great attempt on the part of the Muslim League to rally round the Muslim opinion to contest the approaching elections, under the Government of India Act of 1935, for Provincial Legislature on the League ticket, the Lucknow Session indicated the first stage in the reorganization of the Muslim League on a popular basis and as the only authoritative and representative organisation of Muslim India. Both these high objects were attained in great part owing to the invaluable support that I obtained through the sincere efforts and patriotic and selfless activities of many friends like Sir Muhammad Iqbal, amongst others. The League gained from strength to strength in this short period. In each of the Provinces where League Parliamentary Board was established and the League parties were constituted we carried away about 60 to 70 per cent of the seats that were contested by the League candidates. Hundreds of District and Primary Leagues were established in almost every Province from the farthest corner of Madras to the North- West Frontier Province.

The League gave a staggering blow to the so-called Muslim Mass Contact Movement which was started by the Congress to disrupt Muslim ranks and to overawe League into submission. The League emerged triumphant in most of the by-elections and shattered the intrigues and machinations of those who hoped to create the impression that the Muslim League Organisation had no support of the Muslim people.

Within eighteen months before the Lucknow Session, the League had succeeded in organising Muslims as one party with an advanced and progressive programme and had brought under its influence even those provinces which for lack of time or preparation had not been sufficiently benefited by the activities of League Parliamentary Boards. The Lucknow Session furnished an unmistakable evidence of the popularity that League commanded among Muslims of all groups and ranks.

It was a great achievement for Muslim League that its lead came to be acknowledged by both the majority and minority Provinces. Sir Muhammad Iqbal played a very conspicuous part, though at the time not revealed to public, in bringing about this consummation. He had his own doubts about Sikandar-Jinnah Pact being carried out and he was anxious to see it translated into some tangible results without delay so as to dispel popular misapprehension about it, but unfortunately he has not lived to see that the Punjab has all round made a remarkable progress and now it is beyond doubt that the Muslims stand solidly behind the Muslim League Organisation.

With this brief historical background in mind, the letters can be read with great interest. It is, however, much to be regretted that my own replies to Iqbal are not available. During the period under reference I worked alone unassisted by the benefit of a personal staff and so did not retain duplicate copies of the numerous letters that I had to dispose of. I made enquiries from the Trustees of Iqbal's estate at Lahore and was informed that my letters are not traceable. Hence I had no alternative but to publish the letters without my replies as I think these letters are of very great historical importance, particularly those which explain his views in clear and unambiguous terms on the political future of Muslim India.

His views were substantially in consonance with my own and had finally led me to the same conclusions as a result of careful examination and study of the constitutional problems facing India, and found expression in due course in the united will of Muslim India as adumberated in the Lahore resolution of the All-India Muslim League, popularly known as the "Pakistan Resolution,” passed on 23rd March, 1940.

27th March 1943
M. A. Jinnah

Where did you get these letters?
The authenticity of these letters is highly questionable. Those who can wipe out the Jinnah speech about a secular Pakistan from the history records can easily produce these letters as well.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Lately I have been reading several books about Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and I must say that this man is one of the most intriguing political figures I have ever encountered. It is easy to romanticise the lives of great political characters such as Attaturk, Castro, and Hio Chi Minh who also excelled as men of action. Jinnah, on the other hand, was primarily a barrister and all his battles were waged with words.

Some years ago, the former Foreign Minister of India and a member of India’s largest Hindu nationalist party, Mr Jaswant Singh, wrote a book about Jinnah which caused a storm in his country. Mr Singh the Hindu was in awe of his Muslim foe, and as a result of his book lionising Jinnah, he was declared a traitor to the nation and expelled from his party. The freedom of speech is clearly not valued in “the world’s largest democracy.”

The factors that brought about the creation of Pakistan were many. It would of course be an over-simplification to suggest that the partititon of India was solely a product of the British propensity to divide-and-rule which also gave us other explosive binaries such as Eire-Ulster, Israel-Palestine, and Iraq-Kuwait. In addition to this we also need to take into account the machinations of the subcontinental bourgeosie and the gentry: these were people who willed the creation of a separate Muslim homeland because they feared being quashed by the financial prowess of the Hindu majority in a united India. Hence their demand for a separate Muslim homeland rested on the desire to guard their economic interests rather than pure nationalist fervour. Interestingly, all the major religious movements of the Indian subcontinent were vehemently opposed to the creation of Pakistan.

One of the ideological foundation stones of Pakistan is the truly bizarre two-nation theory, engendered in the mind of Mohammad Iqbal. Strangely, this individual did not realise that in making religion the main criterion of nationhood, the right to separate homeland would also have to be extended to the Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists of India, but the provincial thinker that he was, he never dwelt on the implications of his theory. But here it is worth emphasising that the recourse to the two-nation theory as one of the ideological pillars of Pakistan is more than anything else a post factum justification for the creation of this country that should perhaps never have come into being.

If we consider the process that culminated in the creation of Pakistan, there are certain contradictions that should become apparent to us all. Jinnah did his utmost to persuade the princely states of what is today known Rajasthan to accede to Pakistan. This is a region with a Hindu majority. Furthermore, once Pakistan had been created, Jinnah reminded his countrymen that one’s creed must remain strictly a private affair:

“In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense because that is the personal faith of an individual, but in apolitical sense as citizens of one state.”

Given that Jinnah was also willing to include predominantly Hindu regions in his nation-state, the primary causes of the creation of this country were of a non-religious nature. We have already
mentioned the factors of the British inclination to divide-and-rule and the economic interests of the Muslim bourgeoisie and gentry. The third important factor that must be taken into account is the personality of this highly gifted man.

According to one apocryphal story popular amongst Hindus, Jinnah, whose ancestors were Hindus of the Lohana caste, wished to revert to Hinduism, but he was rebuffed by the Brahmins. Jinnah took offence and avenged himself on the Hindus by creating Pakistan. Although this story is almost
certainly a fabrication, it is also true in the sense that offers us a correct appraisal of his personality as a reactive man.

The dialectics that we can discern in the life of Jinnah is also present in the lives of many amongst us. We set out on a specific path intending to traverse it to its very end, but certain unforeseen and insurmountable obstacles or personal tragedies force us to pursue the contrary path with doubled determination. These are ingredients that can easily be seen in the life of Jinnah. His personal tragedy was the death of his young wife, and by all accounts he was deeply affected by the loss; this was a personal tragedy that also hardened him as a man. As for the obstacle that completely changed his political outlook, we must point to Gandhi’s deliberate utilisation of religion as a political tool. Jinnah, a staunch secularist, was infuriated by Gandhi’s religious oratory, and once Gandhi had set out on the path of the politics of religious identity, Jinnah was compelled by the circumstances do the same – and he did it much better than Gandhi.

One last factor that truly matters is that of personal ambition. There are two kinds of ambition worth dwelling on in this regard: on one the hand there is the kind of ambition that has solely private gain in sight, whereas on the other hand there is the kind of ambition that never loses sight of the common good. Even Ignatius Loyola insisted that the members of his order must aspire to great deeds for the greater glory of god; in other words, being ambitious in such a way that one benefits others than oneself is a virtuous act in conformity with the teachings of Christ. Jinnah was probably well aware that his being Muslim would prevent him from assuming the leadership of a party that was predominantly Hindu. Only by pursuing the politics of religious identity could he reach the summit. He did reach the summit, and his vanity certainly played a large part in this regard. To what extent his actions benefitted the subcontinental Muslims remains a moot point. Even so, the following words of Jinnah’s biographer contain no exaggeration whatsoever:

“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”

is this your own piece of work or you copy pasted from elsewhere? in case of later give references to author and the site.
Also please clarify. I have edited objectionable remarks to our national poet which are not allowed no matter how liberal or left wing you are.

I respect M.A jinnah and his ideology but iqbal was nothing more a poet and all that bull crap about jinnah getting inspiration from a iqbal on a two nation theory is nothing more than a fiction.


Iqbal invented what ???


Without drowning our mullahs in the arabian sea we cannot become a pakistan of Mr jinnah.

Third-rate thinker?, i doubt that you can even read and write simple urdu let alone the difficult one in Iqbal's poetry, thats why the stupid comment. Jinnah could not deliver a speech to gathering without papar, led mostly an un-eventful and lazy political life, mostly confined to bedroom talks. What are the messages of Jinnah that are unique and are inspirational? i dont remember one. The man was addressing uneducated people in English language, what kind of baba cant communicate with his awaam ?. . A doctor should be able to speak and understand the language of his patient, so is the case with a leader.

if the chronic haters that dwell most of their lives on the web from the east ever happen to come to this thread then they will be thanking you and @Samandri for your colourful use of words of our founding fathers.

there is a difference between criticism and insult
try to learn that

 

[krash]

One of the ideological foundation stones of Pakistan is the truly bizarre two-nation theory, engendered in the mind of a third-rate thinker known as Mohammad Iqbal. Strangely, this individual did not realise that in making religion the main criterion of nationhood, the right to separate homeland would also have to be extended to the Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists of India, but the provincial thinker that he was, he never dwelt on the implications of his theory. But here it is worth emphasising that the recourse to the two-nation theory as one of the ideological pillars of Pakistan is more than anything else a post factum justification for the creation of this country that should perhaps never have come into being.

Hardly so. The "two-nation theory" is built upon the then prevailing irreconcilable differences between the Hindus and Muslims of the then subcontinent. No where was it said that since Muslims are not Hindus they must acquire a separate homeland, that being of a different faith entitled the Muslims separate nationhood, but that divides between the Muslims and the Hindus were such, their interests so divergent that given the socio-economic differences between the two peoples the very sizeable Muslim minority would be left helpless and voiceless against the Hindu majority post partition. And this wasn't just some fancy of a few Muslim politicos, Ibn Battuta wrote about these irreconcilable differences hundreds of years before the British came. Mr. Jinnah's political career gives you a very vivid view of what the situation was, how he tried till the end to keep India united but given the obvious endangerment of legitimate Muslim interests he was left with no other option but Pakistan. The man signed the British plan in Simla. Pakistan wasn't made for Islam nor for the Indian Muslims, it was made so that the Muslims of India would not be over-powered and then subjugated by the majority, everyone else was also welcomed in this country as much as the Muslims.

ps: Being Muslim was the marker which lead to these differences. A quick study of the French Canadians will give you a better understanding. Those people are only different in language, until one observes a little closely.

If we consider the process that culminated in the creation of Pakistan, there are certain contradictions that should become apparent to us all. Jinnah did his utmost to persuade the princely states of what is today known Rajasthan to accede to Pakistan. This is a region with a Hindu majority. Furthermore, once Pakistan had been created, Jinnah reminded his countrymen that one’s creed must remain strictly a private affair:

“In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in a religious sense because that is the personal faith of an individual, but in apolitical sense as citizens of one state.”

Given that Jinnah was also willing to include predominantly Hindu regions in his nation-state, the primary causes of the creation of this country were of a non-religious nature.

Like I said before, the primary cause for the creation of this country were the welfare and then the safeguarding of the interests of the massive Muslim population of the then British India who's future and well being were in danger due to the irreconcilable differences stemming from religion between them and the majority.

I don't get how people still don't get this.

We have already
mentioned the factors of the British inclination to divide-and-rule

This again is nonsense peddled through Hindu refusal to accept the then realities.

Mountbatten was sent with explicit instructions to leave India united, it's all documented. Then the Simla Conference, the Wavell Plan and Jinnah's signing of it are all undeniable proofs of it. Had the British wanted to divide India to render it impotent they would have surely divided it further into smaller parts. They definitely had excuses for it. Apart from that, the people endorsing this view never give you any example of when the British actually acted to exact this plan, except that Jinnah was a British spy. On the other hand, one has tonnes upon tonnes of proof showing how Mountbatten was clearly "partial" towards Congress, generally, and Nehru, specifically.

Very amusingly the author in his complete lack of knowledge gives the examples of Palestine-Israel and Iraq to substantiate his claim of the British divide and rule policy. Palestine and Israel were not divided but instead the whole area was left under the control of one implanted population (Israel) to then take care of the division and interests of the other. This has lead to how many deaths and how many years of violence? Then there's Iraq which in all its history was never a united entity as the British left it. The west arbitrarily divided the Ottoman Empire between themselves, grouping up provinces and territories which were never ruled as one because they could not be ruled as one. And then they left them just like that, leaving just one group of people to rule over all the rest. Tell me, do you know the number of minorities that have been brutally slaughtered in Iraq due to this (Let alone what more has been happening in the other middle-eastern countries due to this exact same reason)? There are literally reports after reports and analyses after analyses on these mistakes of the British Empire out there. All of them reach the same conclusion that these countries were left artificially united which has lead to immeasurable devastation. Ironically, both these examples serve better for what a united India could have been like, had it not been for Mr. Jinnah.

Jinnah was probably well aware that his being Muslim would prevent him from assuming the leadership of a party that was predominantly Hindu. Only by pursuing the politics of religious identity could he reach the summit. He did reach the summit, and his vanity certainly played a large part in this regard. To what extent his actions benefitted the subcontinental Muslims remains a moot point.

Grossly incorrect again. Let alone the example of Maulana Azad being raised to the presidency of Congress, there are at least half a dozen examples which I can think of when Mr. Jinnah out rightly rejected offers of power in exchange for compromising his ideals/cause. The first was the British offer of the governorship of Bombay. This was way before Pakistan was thought of. Later, and more to the point, Jinnah was offered the Prime-Ministership of the united India, if he chose to let go of his demand of an independent Pakistan, by Congress at the suggestion of Nehru which he obviously refused. This is documented. This quashes any claims of Mr. Jinnah being out for power. Ironically, Mr. Gandhi himself testified to it by stating to Nehru that Mr. Jinnah would never accept the Prime-Ministership offer because he would never compromise on his principles.

Then there's this whole story of how he was one of the richest men in India, famous for being incorruptible in his ideals and principles, left politics and India due to Gandhi's politics, had to be persuaded strongly to re-enter, worked for a united India till 1945, singed the British plan for a united India, etc. etc. Some people really need to read more before they pick up a pen.

I believe that he was neither a secularist in the Holyoakes meaning of the word nor an islamist in Zia's rendition of the latter - He was a pluralistic democrat who believed in equality, fair play and freedom for all but also in Iqbal's propositions of reconstructing Islamic paradigms in the light of modernity !

And no they are not mutually exclusive to each other; you can very well have a State where a person's value and worth has got nothing to do with his religious allegiance and still have a banking system in place which is conceived by leading economists and banking professionals to be mindful of the principles of ethics that Muslim civilizations came up with - historically contextualized and accordingly updated in the light of modernity, of course !

This is precisely how I view the 'apparent' dichotomy of him talking about freedoms and equality in one place while saying something of an explicitly Islamic nature elsewhere - I find the cynical argument of them being merely political gimmicks at best or a deliberate falsification at worst as being poorly and more so hurriedly argued.

I believe the confusion of looking at things purely through a secular vs islamist binary exists because :

(i) We fail to realize that Iqbal had more than an impressionable imprint on Jinnah. So much so that the latter kept in correspondence with the poet throughout and had those correspondences published as a book and was upset on finding out that his letters to Iqbal could not be obtained. That Jinnah went beyond mere pleasantries when reminiscing about Iqbal and spoke highly of Iqbal's philosophy and vision (including political vision summed up in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam) - This coming from a man who was dubbed by all alike as being cold, calculating and who carefully weighed everything he said....is a rare occurrence indeed.

(ii) Our inability to understand that secularism and pluralism are two different things and that the former was born out of the need of Western Civilization to contain the pervading influence of the Catholic Church and has no equivalent in Muslim History ever since we don't have an ecclesiastical order or at least didn't till the Iranian Revolution. While the latter, historically contextualized of course, has been the hallmark of almost every instance of a good government that Muslims remember throughout their History whether it be the Rashidun Caliphs, Haroon Rasheed or Salahuddin or even something closer to home such as Akbar or Sher Shah Surri. After all before the Fatwa-e-Alamgiri it was the Fiqh-e-Firoze-Shahi that was the law of the land coupled with local practices, common sense and a recognition of political realities !

@krash @Gufi @HRK @dexter @waz @Jungibaaz

I could not agree more.

Theek hai @krash bhai koi lift hi nahin ?

Aisa kaisay hou sakta hai? I didn't get the notification before.

is this your own piece of work or you copy pasted from elsewhere? in case of later give references to author and the site.
Also please clarify. I have edited objectionable remarks to our national poet which are not allowed no matter how liberal or left wing you are.






if the chronic haters that dwell most of their lives on the web from the east ever happen to come to this thread then they will be thanking you and @Samandri for your colourful use of words of our founding fathers.

there is a difference between criticism and insult
try to learn that

I suggest that we leave these ignorant posts so that they may be answered and destroyed thoroughly. For example whoever wrote the below quoted post has absolutely no clue what Mr. Jinnah was and what he did,

Third-rate thinker?, i doubt that you can even read and write simple urdu let alone the difficult one in Iqbal's poetry, thats why the stupid comment. Jinnah could not deliver a speech to gathering without papar, led mostly an un-eventful and lazy political life, mostly confined to bedroom talks. What are the messages of Jinnah that are unique and are inspirational? i dont remember one. The man was addressing uneducated people in English language, what kind of baba cant communicate with his awaam ?. . A doctor should be able to speak and understand the language of his patient, so is the case with a leader.

Uneducated hate pedallers are very easy to rip apart.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

how he tried till the end to keep India united but given the obvious endangerment of legitimate Muslim interests he was left with no other option but Pakistan. The man signed the British plan in Simla. Pakistan wasn't made for Islam nor for the Indian Muslims, it was made so that the Muslims of India would not be over-powered and then subjugated by the majority, everyone else was also welcomed in this country as much as the Muslims.

the last person I quoted is @Samandri he has issues with Jinnah

 

[nana41]

But one thing i am sure about s that he never wanted the Pakistan we have today where illiterate people are our so called dictators and defenders of faith.He never wanted to force islamic laws on us.

RAW taking full advantage of disastrous situation created by "illiterate people and dictators" and making anti Pakistan propaganda by making good use of its assets disguised as "Secular" and "Nationalist" Pilot Officer .
LONG LIVE GEN.RAHEEL SHAREEF

 

[Armstrong]

I could not agree more.

Agree some more....thorraa sa makhan waghera bhi lagaoo bhai !

Aisa kaisay hou sakta hai? I didn't get the notification before.

Quaid-e-Azam is someone I love with all my heart so I am very emotional about him !

Besides it doesn't hurt that he was a Butt Sahib at heart !

 

[krash]

the last person I quoted is @Samandri he has issues with Jinnah

Well I don't blame him. It's impossible not be jealous of Mr. Jinnah's devilishly handsome looks and devastating charisma.

Third-rate thinker?, i doubt that you can even read and write simple urdu let alone the difficult one in Iqbal's poetry, thats why the stupid comment. Jinnah could not deliver a speech to gathering without papar, led mostly an un-eventful and lazy political life, mostly confined to bedroom talks. What are the messages of Jinnah that are unique and are inspirational? i dont remember one. The man was addressing uneducated people in English language, what kind of baba cant communicate with his awaam ?. . A doctor should be able to speak and understand the language of his patient, so is the case with a leader.

@Samandri, as for your above post,

Speeches that matter, that will be recorded and referred to till the end of time, which will inspire and guide the countless future generations of a whole nation are not delivered impromptu. The are deliberated over and meticulously constructed over and over again. Then they are written down and delivered to the very word. But what would you know about that...you are in the habit of running your tongue off on nothing but nonsensical bull excreta...

His life was un-eventful to the extent that he was born into poverty, rose to riches by the sweat on his brow, gathered unparalleled fame for being incorruptible, staunch to the truth, unwavering in principle, intimidating to his foes and his colonial rulers, bestowed the knighthood which he did not accept, was bowed to by princes, politicians, lords and every person of note alike, made followers out of a hapless nation of millions and carved the then largest Muslim state against the workings of the colonial masters and the majority population of the region single efin handedly all without ever breaking a law, without ever letting anyone point a finger at him, essentially with just his words. I see what you are talking about.

The reason you don't remember a single message of his is because either you never heard or read him or you are ignorant to the extreme where your hatred trumps the very truth which his enemies acknowledge and testify, which keeps on smashing you in the face like a brick wall.

Correct, he spoke in English, no one understood him, yet they all amassed in millions behind him, hooked to his every word, bending to his every command and electing and celebrating him as their only undisputed leader. He was the doctor who alone understood the ailment of his oblivious awam, who alone had the cure for them.

I've told of this before but hey, who ever gets tired of hearing Mr. Jinnah's stories? Once he was travelling to somewhere by train. His train met an unscheduled delay at a busy rural station. The crowds at the station were as if a herd of restless bleating sheep, disorganized and making undue commotion. The man after a little while of enduring this came out to the door of his carriage car, raised his hand and said "quiet". No one knew what he had said but there wasn't a noise at that station until his train left. True leaders are the ones whom their people follow unquestionably with their hearts.

Agree some more....thorraa sa makhan waghera bhi lagaoo bhai !

Lala kya baat hai! Kamal kardia! Mein sadqay jaun! Itna sach pehle kabhi kisi ne na kaha.

Quaid-e-Azam is someone I love with all my heart so I am very emotional about him !

Besides it doesn't hurt that he was a Butt Sahib at heart !

Hahaha. Yes but the best thing about the man is that he has made it so easy for us to defend him and his actions against the scores of blind morons that I only get to revel in the joy of destroying his haters. What a man he was.