Quotes by Jinnah.

[EagleEyes]

Not what I learn from the Pakistani media though!

The Christians and the blasphemy issues etc

And the Ahmediyas.

Also the ranting of that Parliamentarian who is hellbent on declaring the Shia as kaffirs!

I rather not go into it and I am sure you read the Pakistani newspapers!

There are a few nuts in Pakistan, just like there are in India who solely want to get all the Muslims of India get kicked out of India.

The cases appear to be minor, where as happiness and freedom they enjoy in Pakistan remains hidden.

 

[F.O.X]

Presidential Address at Special Pakistan Session of Punjab Muslim Students Federation, Lahore, March 2 1941(excerpts)

..Remember! you have got to achieve, in the first instance, the goal, namely, that you want "Muslim India" to be under our government. That you have to achieve, and you cannot achieve that by merely passing resolutions. You realise, what it means. Of course, we have declared on hundreds of platforms that we are not a minority. Quite right, we are not a minority; although, much to my regret, I say that Hindu leadership is still harping on the same old story that we are a minority and that they are willing to give all the safeguards according to the principle laid down by the League of Nations. I read this formula to-day laid down by a great Hindu leader, who spoke at the Hindu Minorities Conference that was going on yesterday in this city. Let me tell my friends, the Hindu leaders, that the League of Nations is dead. Don't you know that yet?

Let me tell them, they are living at least a quarter of a century behind. Not only that, but you do not realise that the entire face of the world is being changed from week to week and from month to month in the European and other fields of battle. Cannot this conservative community, this exclusive community modernise and change its intentions and views? But it is as clear as daylight that we are not a minority. We are a nation. And a nation must have territory. What is the use of merely saying that we are a nation? Nation does not live in the air. It lives on the land, it must govern land, and it must have territorial state and that is what you want to get.

Remember! it is not a small job. It is the biggest job that you have ever undertaken in your life since the fall of the Moghal Empire. You realise that it requires all the necessary ingredients and preparation in order to achieve and realise that goal. You will allow me to say, do not be carried away by sentiments, do not be carried away by slogans. How is a nation made? When it has fallen, how is a nation revived? These are the questions.

We come under the category of the fallen. We have seen the worst days, although I am glad that there is a distinct and definite revival and renaissance of the Muslim nation in this country. We, therefore, are now in this position. We are just awake. We are just opening our eyes. We have just got that consciousness when we are looking around. You are yet a sick man; you are still an invalid; you have got to go through the convalescent period before you can become perfectly healthy, strong and go-about. How are you going to make your people to come up to that state and preparedness when you will be able to achieve your goal? There is no royal road. You must, my young friends in the first instance, apply your minds to the nation-building departments. You will say, what is it? What are the nation-building departments? Let me tell you what they are. You see that there are at least three main pillars which go to make a nation worthy of possessing a territory and running the government.

One is education. Without education you are in the same position as we were in this pandal last night in darkness! With education you will be in the same position as you are the broad daylight.

Next, no nation and no people can ever do anything very much without making themselves economically powerful in commerce, trade and industry.

And lastly, when you have got that light of knowledge by means of education and when you have made yourselves strong economically, commerically and industrially, then you have got to prepare yourselves for your defence- defence against external aggress and to maintain internal security.

Therefore, these are the three main pillars upon which a nation rests and the strength of the nation remains in proportion to your readiness and your preparedness with these three main pillars.

Today in these three main pillars you are at the bottom of the class. Educationally there is a great deal of leeway to be made up. Economically and financially the Muslim is poverty-striken and on the verge of bankruptcy all over India. As to the defence even the little opportunities that are available under the present system of government the Muslims are very poor in number. Therefore, my young friends, I see you have got some resolutions which are very good resolutions indeed. You want to take up some of these matters along with your people.

Here is the programme for you. Do not talk merely in a language, what shall I say, of bravado and arrogance, because I am convinced that we have no need to talk in that language, and we have no need to talk in a language of threats. Why? Because, to begin with, our cause is honest, just and a right one. That is the first reason. The second reason is that those who are strong and those who have acquired self-confidence and self-reliance they do not need to indulge in unnecessary threats and arrogant language.

Let us, therefore, try as far as possible to reason and to persuade our opponents. Of course, I know that our reasoning and all our persuasion does not always succeed, but we must make every possible effort. Let us not create unnecessary bitterness against those who are at present the opponents of this Pakistan Lahore resolution. Why should we? I am confident that those very opponents of ours will realise that this is the only solution and the best solution of India's most complex problem for which there is no parallel in the world. Our opponents, wherever they may be, and the three forces and parties in this country other than Muslims, we are concerned with our Lahore resolution- the British Government, the Indian Princes and the Hindus- let me tell you that it is in the interests of these three very important and vital elements of the sub-continent of India, and they will themselves realise that what we are saying is the only solution.

...

As regards future, ladies and gentlemen, I have tried my very best to give every possible attention, and as far as possible, bereft of any bias or prejudice and as far as it is humanly possible I have tried to examine the arguments against the Lahore resolution. So far as we are concerned: we stand by the Lahore resolution and we want it as soon as circumstances permit or immediately after the war. That is what we want. Our demand is not from Hindus because the Hindus never took the whole of India. It was the Muslims who took India and ruled for 700 years. It was the British who took India from the Mussalmans. So, we are not asking the Hindus to give us anything. Our demand is made to the British, who are in possession. It is an utter nonsense to say that Hindustan belongs to the Hindus.

They also say that Muslims were Hindus at one time. These nonsensical arguments are advanced by their leaders. They say, supposing an Englishman becomes a Muslim in England, he does not ask for Pakistan. Have you got not eyes to see and don't you have brains to understand that an Englishman, if he changes his religion in England, he, by changing his religion, still remains a member of the same society, with the same culture, same social life and everything remains exactly the same when an Englishman changes his faith? But can't you see that a Muslim, when he was converted, granted that he was converted more than a thousand years ago, bulk of the, then according to your Hindu religion and philosophy, he becomes an outcaste and he becomes a malecha (untouchable) and the Hindus cease to have anything to do with him socially, religiously and culturally or in any other way? He, therefore, belongs to a different order, not only religious but social, and he has lived in that distinctly separate and antagonistic social order, religiously, socially, and culturally.

It is now more than a thousand years that the bulk of the Muslims have lived in a different world, in a different society, in a different philosophy and a different faith. Can you possibly compare this with that nonsensical talk that mere change of faith is no ground for a demand for Pakistan? Can't you see the fundamental difference? Now, therefore, I do not think really that any honest man can possibly dispute the fact that the Muslims are a nation by themselves, distinctly separate from the Hindus. Suppose they are, and I have no doubt in my mind. There are hundreds of Hindus who honestly think so and there are hundreds of Hindus who believe in this and who have come to me and who have often said that this is the only solution, viz., the Lahore resolution. Therefore, it is no use arguing this point any further. But how is the propaganda carried on against it? The propaganda is carried on and, as I have told you, I have tried to understand the arguments against it, without any prejudice as far as possible for a human being to do so. What is the argument?

I will start with Mr. Gandhi. He says that it is a vivisection of India. It gives you at once a feeling of horror. Is it really to frighten the Muslims not to commit the vivisection of India? Is it really to frighten the Hindus that their motherland is vivisected by these wretched Muslims? Here is a question that may arise. May I know when was India one? Was it ever one? Why use this word 'vivisection'? Then his disciple Mr. Rajagopalacharya goes one step further and says - and he started by saying that it was cutting the baby into two! I say to him, my dear fellow, where is the baby who is going to be cut into two? He was not satisfied with that and he thought that it was not enough and then he went further and said that it is when two Hindu brothers are quarrelling, one wants to cut the mother cow into two halves! Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have always very great respect for the religious feelings and sentiments of any community. But if the foremost politician of the type of Rajagopalacharya should rouse the feelings, the religious feelings of Hindus, by giving this analogy what I was proposing to cut the mother cow into two, it can only be described as a forlorn hope on their part when they have no other cogent argument to advance. Then we are told that it is against Islam!

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a learned Maulana or Maulvi. Nor do I claim to be learned in theology. But I also know a little of my faith and I am a humble and proud follower of my faith. May I know in the name of Heavens, how is this Lahore resolution against Islam? Why is it against Islam? But that is an argument that has been advanced again by a man of no less a position than Mr. Rajagopalacharya.

Next we are told that it is not in the interests of Muslims themselves. I say to my Hindu friends, please do not bother about us. We thank you most profusely by pointing out to us our interests. We are prepared to take the consequences of our considered resolution. Please look after yourselves.

The next argument is that it is economically not a practical scheme. I have been watching, and believe me, I tried to read anything that has been said by Hindu leaders anywhere - I may have missed to somewhere - I have not yet heard barring the slogan that economically it is not a practical proposition because Punjab is a bankrupt province, Sind is a bankrupt province, Baluchistan is zero, North West Frontier Province is a bankrupt province and therefore economically it is not a practicable scheme. Why not? Can't you see that at present the main source of revenue, the bulk of revenue of this continent, is in the hands of the centre? If there is a partition, if there are independent zones, as we are defining, then those zones will get for themselves the revenue direct and it will not go to the centre, because there will be no centre for India. Why do you bother about this? If the worse comes to the worse, like a sensible man we will cut our coat according to our cloth.

Next, what about the Hindu minorities in the Muslim zones? What about it? What do you suggest? They do not suggest anything. What about the Muslim minority in the Hindu zones? But I have suggested something. I say that my proposal is that the Hindu minority in the Muslim zone must be safeguarded fully as a minority and I say that the Muslim minority in the Hindu zone must be safeguarded fully as a minority.

Do you suggest as an argument that because the Hindu minority or minorities in the Muslim zones will be minorities, therefore the 90 million Muslims of India should remain as a minority in an artificial "one India" with unitary form of central government, so that you can dominate over them all including those zones where they are in a solid majority? That is an absurd and very misleading argument, which is advanced in some quarters.

Then we are told- and this is of course not often that it is brought out- we are told lastly that if India is divided then the Muslims will run over the whole country and the Hindus will not be safe! My dear friends, you will be at least 200 million Hindus in India, if not more, and the poor Muslims in the North-West zone and the Eastern zone will not be more than 70 millions.

Are you afraid that if these 70 millions of Muslims are allowed in their own homelands to fully and freely function and develop according to their own genius, according to their own laws and according to their own culture, social life and religion; and if they become independent states, do you say that you are afraid that these 70 millions will run over the whole of the country?

Then, may I ask the question, how will you then avoid the danger of these 90 millions running over the whole country by having a paper constitution of united India? Do you want a paper constitution of United India when 90 millions of - what shall I say - dangerous people will be there? Then do you want that the British Government should police the Hindu raj in this country so that you can gradually, slowly but surely strangulate the Muslims with the help of the British bayonet? Is that what you want?

I ask my Hindu friends and those leaders, can you conceive that the British people and the British nation will degrade themselves and dishonour themselves to remain here and police your raj and with their bayonet allow you to strangle the Muslims in this country? Then what do you want? That is the question. Now I say, if the Hindus want peace, please examine our proposals impartially and honestly. Give up all these slogans, these catchwords, these stunts: you will never succeed. Let us, therefore, examine it dispassionately and as practical men in the light of history and various constitutons prevailing in various countries, and I feel that partition will be really in the best interests of all of us-not only the Muslims but also the Hindus and the ruling Princes and the British.

Now I have examined almost every argument that has been advanced so far. If we are agreed on the partition of India, let me tell you, and I firmly believe and it is supported by reason, the Muslims and Hindus will live peacefully and as friendly neighbours. I assure you and it seems to me obvious that Muslim India will constitute the postguard of the frontiers of India. Do you think for a single moment that Afghanistan will allow Iran to govern Afghanistan? Do you for a moment think that Afghanistan or Iran will allow Turkey to rule over them? Do you for a single moment think that even in a small continent like Arabia- where you have different sovereign states of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and so on- any one of them will given up their sovereign territorial government in favour of any body else? Why must you assume that when the Muslims have established their own independent sovereign state in the North-West zone, somebody else will be allowed to come over and rule over us, because he must rule over me before he rules over Hindu India? Therefore Muslim India will guard so far as the frontier is concerned and I hope the Hindus will guard so far as the South and Western India is concerned. We join together as good friends and neighbours and say to the world "Hands off India."

I say there is an opportunity which is presented to India at this juncture in the history of our people which if lost may not come again for a long time. Let us be practical and face facts and put our heads together and find a solution of this problem on the lines of Pakistan. It is no use threatening people; it is not use saying this word Pakistan is "misused by some people.". Every intelligent man in this country knows and understands what we mean by Pakistan. If there is any mischief-maker, who want to create mischief, God alone can stop him: I cannot stop him. Everybody who has got any intelligence, who is honest, understands perfectly well what we mean when we say Pakistan: we mean the Lahore resolution.

There is one other matter to which I would like to refer, and that is with regard to the great Sikh community. Ladies and gentlemen, it is somewhat difficult to understand why some of our Sikh friends entertain fears and apprehensions. I do ask them to examine this proposal carefully and calmly. The position of the Sikh community will be far, far better in the scheme that we are suggesting- in the Lahore resolution-than their position in the united India federal constituton. It is not obvious, in the first instance, that the Sikhs will form an important community in the Punjab, and as an important community in the Punjab will they not play a very big part in the affairs of the province of the Punjab in any legislature that may be constituted for the Punjab as one of the units of Pakistan? Will they not play an equally big part in the Pakistan federation being an important community in this province? What will be their position in the united India federal constitution? It will be a drop in the ocean! It is so even to-day. Let me tell my Sikh friends, if they can hear my voice, that even today in the present Legislature the Sikhs do not count for anything. What can one man do out of a hundred? What will any member do when there are 350 members and you have got two or three members? Not only you will be nowhere but you will be a drop in the ocean under the scheme of united India.

My Sikh friends cannot escape the inexorable rule that they are a minority in the Punjab and you cannot be quarrelling, you cannot by threats and intimidation reverse the fundamental order that the Muslims are a majority in this zone. I want to tell my Sikh friends that my position in my Presidency(of Bombay) will be according to their fears, if I believe in them, hundred times worse, because in my presidency we are only 8 per cent Muslims and the remaining nearly 90 per cent are Hindus, whereas, in this province Sikhs are 13 per cent, while there is another community, Hindus, who are 28 per cent. Therefore you will be better off than I am in the Bombay presidency, yet I am not afraid! Therefore I do want people really to examine these facts and their pros and cons.

There is only one thing more which I want to say and it is this. It is quite obvious that no federal constitution was ever framed or enacted without the agreement and consent of the units entering into the federal scheme of their own free will and accord. The only solution for the Muslims of India, which will stand the test of trial and time, is that India should be partitioned so that both the communities can develop freely and fully according to their own genius economically, socially, culturally and politically. The struggle is for the fullest opportunities and for expression of the Muslim national will. The vital contest in which we are engaged is not only for the material gain but also for the very existence of the soul of the Muslim nation.

Hence I have said often that it is a matter of life and death to the Mussalmans and is not a counter for bargaining. Muslims have become fully conscious of this. If we lose in this struggle all is lost. Let our motto be, as the Dutch proverb says,-
'Money is lost nothing is lost:
Courage is lost much is lost:
Honour is lost most is lost:
Soul is lost all is lost.'


Regards
Wilco

 

[F.O.X]

CMP(5) Jinnah's discussions with the Cabinet Mission on April 4 1946, before the Plan was issued

The Delegation invited Mr. Jinnah in the first place to give them his reasons why he thought it better for the future of India that India should have a Pakistan.

Mr. Jinnah said that throughout her history from the days of Chandra Gupta there had never been any Government of India in the sense of a single Government. The Muslim Moghul Empire had had the largest control but even in those days the Mahrattas and the Rajputs were not under Muslim rule. When the British came they gradually established their rule in a large part of India but, even then, India was only one-third united. The big States and sovereign States were constitutionally and legally already Pakistans.

The only limitation of this is the Paramount Power of the Crown. The effect of Paramountcy is that the Paramount Power in the last resort maintains internal order in the States but as a counterpart of this has a duty to prevent gross maladministration. Nowadays we talk of British India and say India is one. Mr. Jinnah considered that that could not stand examination for a moment. India is really many and is held by the British as one.

Now we have strong Hindu-Muslim tension. This began to develop at the first transfer of a small amount of power about 1906. The British Government to meet it gave separate electorates. The same troubles arose at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the British Government gave a constitution which they thought best suited to India. In the discussions of 1930-35 no agreement could be reached on the communal question and the British Government gave a decision. No doubt the present constitution was an advance and gave more contact with power than ever before, but it showed that the grave apprehensions of Muslims had come true. In the 1935 discussions the Muslims insisted that Sind should be separated and the Frontier made a full Province so that there would be at least four Muslim majority Provinces. All this was decided by the British Government.

Now we have come to the stage when the British Government say they will give complete independence to India inside or outside the Empire. To whom is the government of this sub-continent, with its fundamental differences, to be transferred? It is no use saying "transfer power and we will settle who exercises it afterwards." The question is how to transfer power.

The differences in India are far greater than between European countries and, compared to those, are of a vital and fundamental character. Even Ireland provides no parallel.

The Muslims have a different conception of life from the Hindus. They admire different qualities in their heroes; they have a different culture based on Arabic and Persian instead of on Sanskrit origins. Their social customs are entirely different. A Hindu will wash his hands after shaking hands with a Muslim. No Hindu will let Mr. Jinnah have a room in his building. Hindu society and philosophy are the most exclusive in the world. Muslims and Hindus have been side by side in India for a thousand years but if you go into any Indian city you will see separate Hindu and Muslim quarters. They have different names and use a different calendar. The Hindus worship the cow and even today in certain States a 10-year sentence is imposed for killing a cow. This means nothing to the Muslims. You cannot make a nation unless there are essential united factors.

How are you to put 100 millions of Muslims together with 250 millions whose way of life is so different. No Government can ever work on such a basis and if this is forced upon India it must lead us to disaster. No Government can survive unless there is a dominant element which can provide a "steel frame". At present this frame is provided by the British who have always retained the key posts. It is true that this is beginning to cease but already the consequences are apparent. Only one Indian has been a Chief Justice, Sir Shadi Lal in the Punjab. The post of Chief Presidency Magistrate in Bombay has always been held by a British officer because the situation there is so delicate that an un-impartial officer can cause great trouble.

The present Government of India is, of course, not a Parliamentary Government but is a bureaucratic system under which ultimately the British are responsible. Indians can vent their feelings in the Central Legislature but it is powerless. The British could never have run the administration without their own officers in the key positions in the Civil Service, the Police and the Army. Little progress has been made in the Indianisation of these key posts. It has already become difficult because Hindu officials everywhere(of this there is unimpeachable evidence) have both sympathy and feeling for the Hindus and Muslim officials for the Muslims. Every day this is noticeable and becoming more prominent.

Therefore you must have a "steel frame" for an independent India. Mr. Jinnah could see none and had therefore definitely come to the conclusion, after years of experience that there is no other solution than the division of India. Any scheme for this has obvious objections which can be raised against it. But there must be division so that in each of the two parts there will be a dominant community which can provide the "steel frame". Where you have three Muslims and one Hindu your "steel frame" is there.

Sir S. Cripps asked whether 51 per cent. Muslims to 49 per cent of others would provide a "steel frame". Mr. Jinnah said that there would then be no "steel frame". You must choose the area with a clear and dominant majority. It need not necessarily be as high to three to one. If there were no "steel frame", the Civil Service, the Police and the Army would not stand loyally to the Cabinet and the Legislature and the State could not survive. Fortunately, in India the Muslims have their homelands and so let us divide India.

Sir S. Cripps asked whether Mr. Jinnah thought the difference between the Hindu and the Muslim in Bengal was greater than the difference between the Pathan and the Muslim in Sind. Mr. Jinnah said that the fundamentals were common to Muslims all over India. He had traveled everywhere and he knew. The Muslims believed in one God. They believed in equality of men and in human brotherhood. The Hindus believe in none of those principles. Wherever a Muslim goes in India he would not say that everyone understood him but a very large body of Mussulmans do. Even in the remote rural areas of Bengal the Muslims understood him.

Mr. Alexander asked whether the difference was essentially racial or religious. Mr. Jinnah said that he readily admitted that 70 per cent. of Muslims were converts from Hindus. A large body were converted before any Muslim conqueror arrived. Muslim missionaries came from Arabia and converted large numbers of Hindus, not singly but by whole sub-Castes together, 10 to 20 thousand people at a time. These Muslim converts were made outcasts by the Hindus. They were thrown out of every department of social life. Therefore you find millions who have stood for centuries under the umbrella of a totally different civilization of their own. There are in India two different civilizations with deep roots side by side. They are totally different. The only solution is to have two "steel frames", one in Hindustan and one in Pakistan.

His Excellency the Viceroy said that he thought that Mr. Jinnah had once agreed with him that from the point of view of practical economic considerations one India would be desirable if that were possible. Mr. Jinnah said that if he had said that it was only in the sense that it was an ideal but an impracticable ideal like a world federation. Sir S. Cripps said that a federation of Europeans for example was quite different. That was bringing together separate sovereign States but India already had common governmental institutions.

Mr. Jinnah said that this unity was not a unity of the people. It was imposed by the British Government. He agreed that common railways, customs, and so forth were convenient but the question was by what Government would those services be controlled. If we have Pakistan and Hindustan it does not follow that they will be in isolation. He certainly contemplated treaties and agreements governing such matters. As soon as the fundamentals of Pakistan are agreed to these things can be settled.

The Secretary of State said that up to a point he accepted the view that India was united at present by British control and by the British Army, Navy and Air Force. But he would not go so far as to say that it was solely so united. He thought that Hindus and Muslims had not only acquiesced in but had cooperated in supporting that unity. The Cabinet Mission had come to decide the ways and means by which the domination of British authority in India was to come to an end. Therefore they had to decide in whose keeping the repository of force is to be given. What they wanted to know was whether there was any agreement as to the repository to which this power should be transferred.

In pursuance of that we ask Congress, the Muslim League and the Princes whether they themselves can work out an agreed solution. The Congress say "unite India" as the solution, but do also say that they cannot compel any large section. The Rulers say they might join an all-India federation. Mr. Jinnah, however, says there must be two Indias with nothing more than treaties and agreements between them. The British Government consider that if they were to withdraw their forces and their Government from India they are entitled to know what the situation in India is. Will they find themselves faced with a major head on collision between the two main communities? If we can find no answer except that situation we shall have to consider what we shall do, but it should be understood that the British would not stay here to pull chestnuts out of the fire.

The Cabinet Mission also came as the representatives of one of the world's great powers. They had to look at the position in India as part of the world situation and they had a vital interest in the preservation of peace in this large area of the world. They were entitled to ask whether India would be able to stand up for itself in the world. It would not be able to stand up at all at sea and as a land power only to some extent.

Therefore the British Government presume that they will be invited to assist in India's defence since the logic of events will make this necessary. We shall then have to consider the conditions on which we should be prepared to do this and we might expect some return, for example, India's help in the defence of adjacent territories, such as Malaya, Burma and Ceylon. But also there must be a solution of India's affairs which makes effective provisions for India's own defence against external aggression, and the British Government are entitled to know whether the new set-up in India will be of a kind with which we can in practice co-operate.

The Cabinet Mission are not here to dispute as to whether there should be one or two Indias. They ask the Muslims and the Hindus to consider these matters but, before they do withdraw, the British wish to find out how far the Hindus and Muslims are agreed. If they were to withdraw before an agreement and when India was still in its present state, the consequences would be disastrous. He therefore thought that before the British withdrew the greatest possible efforts should be made by Indians to reach agreement amongst themselves. Mr. Jinnah said that the Muslim League started on the basis that there was going to be Hindustan and Pakistan, [?each] one of them a completely sovereign State. As regards defence, he contemplated, of course, that some arrangement should be made between the two but this could only be on the basis of two sovereign States with treaty relations. The same sort of relations subsisted between the United Kingdom and the Dominions.

His Excellency the Viceroy pointed out that the Indian case was different in that the defence of the North-East Frontier required defence in depth which must be organized in both States. Mr. Jinnah said that only made it the more inevitable that there should be suitable treaty relations between the two. The Viceroy said that no two foreign States had ever made successful mutual arrangements in peace time for their defence, and Sir S. Cripps pointed out that in the case of the Dominions there were Prime Ministers Conferences and common foreign policy all of which operated under the nexus of allegiance to the Crown.

Mr. Jinnah said that they must assume that they would be handing over power to responsible people. The Muslims had not decided that they would have nothing to do with the British Commonwealth. It might be in the mutual interests of Pakistan and Great Britain for them to remain within it. It was an accepted basis that Hindustan and Pakistan must have common defence arrangements, but he could not agree to any machinery which would derogate the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Sir S. Cripps said that a treaty derogated from sovereignty but Mr. Jinnah contented that a treaty was a voluntary exercise of sovereignty which remains unimpaired since the treaty could be terminated. It was pointed out that the United Nations Organization involved the permanent surrender of sovereignty.

The Secretary of State asked Mr. Jinnah why he objected to work in with some all-India machinery for defence. Mr. Jinnah asked what sort of machinery was envisaged. Sir S. Cripps said some common organization with a secretariat, Chiefs of Staff, and which had a machinery by which policy and administration could be concerted. It would be an advisory body except in so far as there were agreement. The United Nations Organization has executive authority but only where there is agreement on the Security Council. Mr. Jinnah said he saw no reason why Pakistan and Hindustan should not join the United Nations and uses its machinery.

The Secretary of State said that the Mission was here to explore the position. They were exploring the possibility of Pakistan and its viability both in peace and war. If Mr. Jinnah could not convince the Delegation of the defensibility of Pakistan he was rather driving the Mission into the solution of handing over authority to a United India. Mr. Jinnah said that if he had not convinced the Delegation he could not do so. He could not agree to anything which would derogate from the sovereignty of Pakistan. He was not there to persuade the Cabinet Mission or as a plaintiff. India was neither united not divided -it was a British possession. Great Britain proposed to transfer power; he had been asked to say how he thought this could be done. The only way in his opinion it could be done with safety was by division. On certain matters he could say that he would make agreements.

Sir S. Cripps said, could Mr. Jinnah not suggest the content of a treaty? For example, would Mr. Jinnah agree that there should be provision for mutual defence? Mr. Jinnah said that he would agree to defensive alliance. Sir S. Cripps said, would he agree to mutual consultation in regard to foreign policy? Mr. Jinnah said that would naturally be covered. Sir Stafford asked what the position was about inter-running communications of all kinds. Mr. Jinnah said that could be arranged. He was not able to express any view about sea customs.

Sir S. Cripps said that if we were to try to persuade the Congress to meet Mr. Jinnah's views it would be important to specific on these matters, but Mr. Jinnah said that he could not consider anything more unless a proposal was made to him. The Government and the Congress had powerful secretariats which could do that kind of work better than the Muslim League.

His Excellency the Viceroy asked Mr. Jinnah what were the boundaries of Pakistan as he(Mr. Jinnah) conceived it. Mr. Jinnah said that he wanted a viable Pakistan which would not be carved up or mutilated. He drew the line on the five Provinces, but said he was quite willing to consider mutual adjustments. But Pakistan must be a live State economically. He was not insisting on including a large number of Hindus in Pakistan but if it were said to him that only the number of heads could be considered, he could not agree to that. Sir S. Cripps said that on any principle of self-determination the counting of heads must be a primary factor.

The Secretary of State pointed out that the inclusion of any considerable area in which there was majority of non-Muslims might very well not strengthen but weaken the viability of Pakistan. Mr. Jinnah said that he was not opposing the view but said that suppose it were suggested that Calcutta should be added to Bihar he would say that that was an impossibility. He contemplated that there would be territorial adjustments, but he could not agree that Calcutta could be taken away merely because it was a Hindu-majority city. Much of the Hindu population of Calcutta was not indigenous but brought there from outside. Sir S. Cripps said that the Hindus might say it was impossible for them to live without Calcutta but Mr. Jinnah replied that they had Bombay and Madras and could have a new port in Orissa. Pakistan without Calcutta would be like asking a man to live without his heart.
He did not want to keep Hindus in Pakistan against their will and they could migrate but he could not reduce the area of Pakistan below the point on which the State could live. Sir S. Cripps pointed to the danger that if there were large Hindu elements they would form a dominant political element making for instability because the Muslims would be divided amongst themselves on social and economic questions and the Hindus might secure the balance. Areas like Burdwan might develop a secessionist movement.

Mr. Jinnah said that he agreed that areas like Burdwan, if they were not essential to the economic life, could go into Pakistan[?Hindustan]. In reply to a suggestion that Calcutta should be a free port through which goods would enter both countries free of duty and administered by a condominium, Mr. Jinnah asked what examples of this there were in the world. The cases of Danzig, Shanghai and Fiume were mentioned but Mr. Jinnah pointed out that all these had been imposed and maintained by force. What he wanted was a nucleus Muslim territory surrounded by sufficient additional territory to make it economically viable.

Regards
Wilco

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Good.

But what did he say to the Constituent Assembly?

Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

August 11, 1947

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!

I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me - the greatest honour that is possible to confer - by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India's constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

I have received a message from the United States of America addressed to me. It reads:

I have the honour to communicate to you, in Your Excellency's capacity as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, the following message which I have just received from the Secretary of State of the United States:

On the occasion of of the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly for Pakistan, I extend to you and to the members of the Assembly, the best wishes of the Government and the people of the United States for the successful conclusion of the great work you are about to undertake

 

[F.O.X]

But what did he say to the Constituent Assembly?

Any doubt in that ??


Regards
Wilco

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Any doubt in that ??


Regards
Wilco

"But what did he say to the Constituent Assembly?" is an Aporia.

Elenctic, what?

I am sure you read just below that what Jinnah had said!

 

[Moin91]

"Develop a sound sence of dicipline,Character,Initiative and a solid Academic Background.You must devote yourself whole-heartedly to your studies, for that is your first obligation to yourselves, your parents and to the State.You must learn to obey for only then you can learn to command".
QUAID-E-AZAM MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH
(Islamic College, Peshawar - 12th April, 1948)

Quaid-E-Azam Zinda bad

 

[F.O.X]

- Jinnah's conversations with Major Woodrow Wyatt

Comment
Major Woodrow Wyatt was a Labour MP who was "Personal assistant to Sir Stafford Cripps while on Mission". The first conversation took place in January 1946 and the second in May 1946. Note Wyatt's suggestion to Jinnah about what resolution the Muslim League should pass including the intent to use the 'strong right arm', in the second document.

In the months before the Mission arrived in India, Major Wyatt spoke with both Jinnah and Nehru. A record of his talk with Jinnah which presages Jinnah's positions in the months ahead.

From The Transfer of Power 1942-7, Vol VI The post-war phase:new moves by the Labour Government, 1st August 1945-22 March 1946, Eds, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon, 1976.

Enclosure to no 357- Note by Major Rankin (full text)
Woodrow Wyatt /Jinnah talk 8th January 1946

Woodrow Wyatt had a long talk with Jinnah today the substance of which he repeated to me as follows:-

1. Interim Government.
Jinnah will not take part in any interim Government without-
(a) a prior declaration accepting the principle of Pakistan, tho' he would not ask at that stage for any discussion or commitment on details.

(b) Parity of the Muslim League with all other parties, i.e., out of 14 portfolios 7 must be Muslim League. This he said follows from the acceptance of the principle of Pakistan.

2. Constitution-making Body
Jinnah will insist on 2 C.M.Bs. The drawing of the frontier between Pakistan and Hindustan will be a matter for negotiation between the two C.M.Bs: he quoted rather vaguely as precedents the drawing of the Chekoslovak-Polish and the Yugoslav-Italian frontiers after the last war. He did not envisage "predominantly non-Muslim areas like the Ambala Division" remaining in Pakistan but insisted that Pakistan must be "a living state economically and culturally".

3. Any attempt to impose a unified constitution or to accept a majority decision by a single C.M.B would be resisted, if necessary by force.

4. Pakistan would remain within the Empire with a British Governor-General. British Industry and Commerce would be encouraged in order to develop Pakistan which would be far behind Hindustan economically.

5. Relations with Hindustan would be purely diplomatic: there would be no common currency, transportation system, army, etc.

6. All this was said in very definite fashion; and Wyatt received the impression(no doubt as he was intended to) that Jinnah would not budge from this position. Jinnah thought the Hindus would accept it as it would give them three-quarters of India "which is more than they have ever had before".

---

Comment
After the Cabinet Mission Plan/Statement was released on May 16th, the question was whether Jinnah would accept it or not.

Here Major Wyatt suggests to Jinnah what should be in the Muslim League Resolution to be passed on June 6th.[Text of actual June 6 resolution in CMP(4)].

The Transfer of Power 1942-7 Vol VII The Cabinet Mission. Eds, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon.

373, page 684 (full text)
Note by Major Wyatt
25 May 1946

NOTE OF CONVERSATION WITH MR. JINNAH, FRIDAY, MAY 24th 1946

1. He is very nervous and I do not think he is much looking forward to his meeting with the Muslim League Working Committee and All India Council.

2. He was very anxious to know if all the comings and goings between the Congress leaders and the Cabinet Mission were having the effect of modifying the Statement in any way. I told him that it was most unlikely that the Statement would be modified.

3. He considered that the Statement was not a practicable proposition. The machinery envisaged would not work and could not work mainly because there was no spirit of co-operation on the Congress side. The Mission had obviously not even fully appreciated the situation in India. What was required was a surgical operation. This Statement would settle nothing. He did not think the British were badly intentioned but they would have to learn by experience. There are only two ways of learning things, either by experience or by taking the advice of someone who knows something about it. If he thought that the Mission would not breach his confidence, he would make them some suggestions as to how they should proceed and put the Statement on one side. But he was not sure that he could have complete confidence in the Mission.

I told him that the Mission would not breach his confidence, but that they were most unlikely to alter their Statement in any way. He at once said, "Well, then it is no use my making any suggestions". These undeclared suggestions were connected with the difficulty which he conceived the British felt over the defence of India. From a previous conversation with him I believe that what he wanted to suggest was his idea that the British should remain as the binding force in the Indian Centre for some 15 years and deal with defence and foreign affairs for Pakistan and Hindustan consulting the Prime Ministers of each State.

4. He was perplexed about the interpretation of paragraph 15(v)[of the Cabinet Mission Plan - CMP(3)]. He thought that it should have been so worded as to read that "Provinces grouped in sections should be free to form groups..". I told him that in my view that was the effect of paragraph 15(v). The provinces would be compulsorily grouped together in their sections at the Constituent Assembly and they would then be free to form groups or no.

He fully appreciated that if the representatives of Assam and North West Frontier Province did not take part in the work of their sections they could not be forced to do so and the sections would have to proceed without them, although this did not alter the fact that Assam and the North West Frontier Province would not be able to opt out of their group until the new constitution had been made.

5. He said that the preamble to the Mission's Statement had bitterly hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Not only that, it was inconsistent with the rest of the Statement. This onslaught was quite unnecessary and had been done in order to placate Congress. Indeed, the word Pakistan was an anathema throughout the Statement. This preamble made matters even more difficult for him than before.

6. His general criticism of the Statement was that it had not settled any of the fundamentals. For example:-

(a) The Muslim group of Provinces had not got parity with the others at the centre.

(b) There was no real protection for the Muslims in the Constituent Assembly, because from the very start the chairman would be a Hindu, unless the Muslims were to say that the election of the chairman was a communal issue, in which case the Constituent Assembly would break down straight away.

(c) The position of the States was left far too vague.

(d) Provinces had not been given the right to secede after 10 years although the Congress had always been willing to give the right to secede and had raised no real objection this time at Simla.

(e) The Union had been given the power to raise money. This was not a communal issue and would inevitably lead to taxation from the Centre with other subjects being added on the short list of the Union Government.

7. He explained to the Viceroy why there should be entirely separate Constituent Assemblies which only met together for the purpose of deciding the structure of the Union Government.

He thought the Viceroy had understood. This was a psychological matter and the Mission had created a single Constituent Assembly working in three sections only to please the Congress, ignoring Muslim feeling.

8. The only real safeguard for the Muslims was parity between Federations. The method of voting on communal issues would not work as there would always be dispute as to what was a communal issue and what was not.

9. He could not understand why the Muslim provinces had been split into two groups. He agreed that it was something to have the groups at all and without them he could not even have looked at the Scheme.

10. He disliked the Advisory Committee on which the Muslims would be in a minority, and as far as he could see would be unable to prevent the Union Constituent Assembly incorporating its recommendations as a part of the constitution of the Union Government, thus added another subject to those dealt with by the Union Government. ??

11. He dilated at considerable length on the attitude of Congress who had not conceded anything during the Simla Conference and would never approach the Constituent Assembly in a spirit of co-operation. They would aim the whole time to use their majority to steam-roller the Muslim League and sidetrack the provision as to safeguarding the Muslims on communal issues. It was inconceivable that such a Constituent Assembly could work at all.

12. He will not come down to Delhi until June 1st or 2nd. He can say nothing further until he has consulted the Muslim League Working Committee and Council. He is being bombarded with telegrams from his supporters protesting against the Statement and the Muslim reaction is very strong against it. My own impression is that he definitely wants to see where he is with the Muslim League before giving a decision on the Statement and he wants them to have time in which to absorb the two shocks which they have been given.
(a) His own letter agreeing to a Union Government
(b) The preamble to the Mission's Statement.

He is particularly hurt that the Mission have seized on this concession(which was an enormous one from his stand point) and have not taken his offer as a whole. None of the provisios that went with it have been accepted. I pointed out to him that everything that Congress had asked for had not been accepted either but he did not seem particularly convinced.

13. I asked him, in view of the foregoing, whether he thought that the Muslim League Working Committee might possibly pass a resolution on the following lines:-
The British had exceeded their brief in pronouncing on the merits of Pakistan. They had no business to turn down what millions of people wanted. Their analysis of Pakistan was outrageous. But the Muslims had never expected the British to give them Pakistan. They had never expected anyone to give them Pakistan. They knew they had to get it by their own strong right arm.

The scheme outlined in the Cabinet Mission's Statement was impracticable and could not work. But nevertheless in order to show that they would give it a trial, although they knew that the machinery could not function, they would accept the Statement and would not go out of their way to sabotage the procedure-but they would accept the Statement as the first step on the road to Pakistan.

At this proposition he was delighted and said "That's it, you've got it", and I am completely convinced that that is what the Muslim League will do.
14. He will demand parity in the Interim Government if he decides to come into it.



Regards
Wilco

 

[EagleEyes]

Pakistan of 2007: What Would Have Mr. Jinnah Wanted?
Athar Osama

I am taking on the challenge of writing this piece with great trepidition, but utmost sincerity, and would like to state upfront that I truely believe that all of us, Pakistanis, including myself, owe a mountain of debt and gratitude to Qauid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah for giving us our freedoms in this country we call our homeland. Having said that, though, I would also beg to venture a bit further to say that while it was our solemn duty to establish the Pakistan of Quaid’s dreams in 1947–for that was the Pakistan for which hundreds of millions rallied behind him and over a million of us died, it is perhaps time now to dispassionately re-evalute that aspiration and take a more realistic view of our circumstances.

In the intervening 60 years, the reality of Pakistan’s politics and society has turned out to be everything but Quaid’s dream. We, as a nation and as people, have wandered around aimlessly looking for an identity and a raison detre for our existence and our quest to find our destiny has often been hijacked by unscruplous politicians, religious leaders, and miltiary dictators luring us with their own versions of Quaid’s dream. All political leaders–from the extreme right to the extreme left, from the theocrats to the democrats, from Islamists to the secularists–claim to be the custodians of Quaid’s Pakistan.
While nobody really knows what Quaid’s vision for Pakistan actually was for he said many things, on many occasions, and for many different audiences and it is easy to distort what he said to support one’s own version, we know one thing for sure. Quaid’s vision could not be all of what it is claimed to be at the same time. The struggle to interpret and re-interpret what Quaid may have said continues to this day…

This year, the 60th Independence day of Pakistan as well, it has been fashionable to refer back to the Quaid’s vision, the Quaid’s dream, or the Quaid’s Pakistan. But is it time that we lay the Quaid’s vision of 1940s–whatever it may have been–aside for a minute and take a more realistic view of it? Shouldn’t we take off the glasses that our forefathers should have worn sixty years ago, but didn’t, and look at the reality of Pakistan as it stands today?

In foreign policy, for instance, there are two main schools of thought–the idealists who see the world through an ideal, often moral, prism and the realists for whom the realpolitik determines the course of one’s decisions. I believe that when in comes to Pakistan, we have been too much of an idealist but not enough of the activists. We also, to this day, fail to look at Pakistan from a realistic standpoint.

Is it feasible today, for instance, to develop an ideal theocracy or an ideal secular democracy in Pakistan without really rupturing the social fabric of the country and alienting and disenfranschising a vast majority of its population? Far too often in the past, we have let the best become the enemy of the good with the result that in our desire to create the ideal Pakistan–Quaid’s Pakistan–we have ended up losing an opportunity to create a “good enough” Pakistan–a Pakistan that works for most of us.

I don’t claim to know what Quaid’s vision of Pakistan really was. I read his statements being used by the proponents of both Islamic and a Secular states. But I do know this. I know that above everything else, Quaid would have wanted us, all Pakistanis, to live in peace, harmony, and prosperity and would have been happy if we could decide for ourselves, today, how we want to live our lives. Does it really matter what Pakistan was supposed to be 60 years ago? That Pakistan never materialized in the first place. But it does certainly matter what we can make of it today, and it is our greatest duty to make the best of what we have. Learning about Pakistan’s history and what Quaid thought and did, and why he did it, is an important input into the process but the ultimate choice of what Pakistan needs to be rests with all of us, the people of Pakistan.

The problem with those who argue in the favor of both extremes–a Theocratic Islamic State or a Modern Secular Democracy–is that each of these groups has its own hidden agenda and neither of them is willing give the people of Pakistan the true choice and control of their own destiny. In an online poll carried out through the Understanding Pakistan Project, we found a virtual tie between those who want to establish an Islamic Democracy (46&#37 and those who would like to see a Modern Secular Democracy (44%) in Pakistan.

While neither of these groups are even in a simple numerical majority, it is safe to say, however, that the people of Pakistan (as represented by those who responded to this poll) choose democracy over any other form of government by an overwhelming majority. They also probably want it to be moderated and enshrined with the values of Islam–perhaps a brand of democracy unique to the Pakistani people? Whether Islamic Democracy is an oxymoron or whether, as argued by many notable Muslim scholars, democracy is an inherently Islamic concept is a debate beyond the scope of this post but the writing is clear on the wall!

What this system of governance would look like and what role would Islam play in Pakistan’s democracy is a decision best taken by the people of Pakistan in an open, comprehensive, and transparent manner. This is also perhaps the most important conversation that we Pakistanis need to have today.

Ultimately, Pakistan should be what its people want it to be and would be most comfortable living with, and not what an opportunististic religious or political leader would like us to believe what it must be. I have complete faith in the wisdom of the Pakistani people, for no matter how uneducated they may be, they know what is best for them and are willing to vote for it in an open and fair contest.

Let the poor people of Pakistan, for once in their lives, decide their own fates and not impose it upon them. All power to the people, not only in letter (like Pakistan Peoples Party) but also in spirit. I am sure Quaid would definitely wanted that to happen.

May this 58th anniversary of Quaid’s death bring us nearer to that goal…

Pakistan Zindabad !

About the Author: Dr. Athar Osama is a public policy analyst and an amateur historian of Pakistan’s political and constitutional history. He also the Founder of the Understanding Pakistan Project.

Pakistan of 2007: What Would Have Mr. Jinnah Wanted? : ALL THINGS PAKISTAN

 

[F.O.X]

Jinnah: Mr.Ghandi never says what he means & he never means what he says.
(addressing to ML )


Regards
Wilco

 

[Majnun]

You can ask that question to Muhammed Ali Cinnah. But I can make a guess; maybe he founded a modern young Turkish Republic to Turkish muslims and saved them from medieval darkness.

Ataturk founded a nation for Turks. He was a great Muslim. According to Stanley Wolpert's biography of Jinnah, he talked so much of Ataturk that his daughter called him Grey Wolf.

 

[Nabeel Khalid]

You can ask that question to Muhammed Ali Cinnah. But I can make a guess; maybe he founded a modern young Turkish Republic to Turkish muslims and saved them from medieval darkness.

Exactly. The Kalipahte was to be destroyed after World War I in any case by the winning colonials/ western allies. Moreover, even before the war, it had become more of a joke. Its rulers were corrupt and incompetent. They were the reason why the Ottomon Empire lost the war. The Calipahte had lost its former glory. Greeks had occupied most of today's Turkey. So after the war, it became inevitable to loose it as well as the Mullahs who supported it. Mustafa Kamal Attaturk, came in and did the right thing, what any great leader would dream of doing for his country, to save his citizens. He even fought land battels against the Greeks and drove them out of the mainland. Otherwise, Turkey as we know today, would have been lost forever! By secularizing Turkey, he for the time ensured that the Mullahs won't bother a new born state like they have been bothering us (Pakistanis) for the past 60 years!

 

[Nabeel Khalid]

Jinnah was a lot like Atta Turk in many ways. I wonder why he didn't do with the Mullahs, the way Atta Turk did. The Mullahs before creation of Pakistan never supported it or the Muslim League. They cursed the Quaid, even incited a number of attacks against his life. (See the movie: Jinnah). Yet, after Paksitan's creation, these fanatics were one of the first people to came running to our country and started spreading their version of "Islam". They should have stayed home in India, died there like dogs.

 

[Menes]

Great quotes..

What was his opinion concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict??

 

[pkpatriotic]