This is not my Quaid’s Pakistan

[Solomon2]

There are all sorts of people in the world, in some "civilized" western countries the whole society exhibits such naked racism that one visible community can't even enter the hotels, restaurants, buses, etc. used by the racist majority................and in some other people in my country don't want to share the utensils / crockery. And they are all deplorable.

In short, you excuse yourself from making any time or effort to make your own country a better place, yes?

 

[BATMAN]

This is not my Quaid’s Pakistan

Indeed it is not Quaid's Pakistan, it is Zardari's Pakistan, next elections we'll learn its Imran Khan's Pakistan and than after it will be Balawal's turn.

 

[Thorough Pro]

and how did you got that impression? Didn't I say racism of any kind/anywhere is deplorable? and the fact that the article is by a Pakistani, shows that a majority of Pakistani populace is against such social behaviour. and YES! there is much to be done.

In short, you excuse yourself from making any time or effort to make your own country a better place, yes?

 

[Solomon2]

and how did you got that impression? Didn't I say racism of any kind/anywhere is deplorable? and the fact that the article is by a Pakistani, shows that a majority of Pakistani populace is against such social behaviour. and YES! there is much to be done.

Go on, please give us a few examples of your anti-racism activities.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Call me what ever you can I will clear myself in front of RASOOL SAW on the day of judgement and also Jinah will clear himself of all those who accuse him of betraying Islam and trying to go for secular Pakistan mr show gutts do research read all his speeches which he gave and also interviews after 11th August speech

Which interviews are you talking about ?
And why "after" 11th August speech ... ??

In his 11th August Speech , Jinnah said :
"If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter what community he belongs to, no matter what his colour, caste or creed, is first, second, and last a citizen of this State, with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no 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, Vaishnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. You may be free to go to your temples, mosques or any other place of worship; you may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State.... We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State...." [G. Allana, Historical Documents, pp. 545-6].


It is important to remember that this speech was not made by the Quaid-i-Azam at a press conference nor in any reception given in his honour; but was the official proclamation of the policy of the new State, made in its Constituent Assembly, in the presence of the members who were expected to draw the constitution for the Islamic State of Pakistan and to define the fundamental rights of her people. The question arises from what position was Jinnah making these statements? He was the undisputed leader of Pakistan; the father of the nation, the elected President of the Muslim League Party which claimed to represent the Muslims of the entire subcontinent. What is important, he was also the Governor General of Pakistan, and finally, the elected President of the Constituent Assembly. There was no responsible organ of the Government or the ruling party which Jinnah did not represent. He was reading from a prepared text. This was probably the first written speech that an experienced barrister and parliamentarian like Jinnah had delivered; he knew that it was a very important and historic speech because it enunciated the policy of the new State. This speech surely destroys the absurd claims of Islamists that Jinnah desired a hardcore Islamic Constitution .



Towards the end of his speech he sums up his policy:

.... Now I think that 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

Iskander Mirza wrote:

Before we all left Delhi, I said to the Quaid-i-Azam one day, "Sir, we are all agreed to go to Pakistan; but what kind of polity are you going to have? Are you going to have an Islamic State?" "Nonsense," he replied, "I am going to have a modern State."

When the conservatives moved the "Islamist Objectives Resolution" in the constituent assembly after the death of Jinnah , the Hindu members of constituent assembly of Pakistan strongly opposed it as being against Jinnah`s vision

Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said:

“What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan – the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.”


Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had “unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state.”


Bhupendra Kumar Datta said:
"were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape….”

Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Deputy Leader of the House, while defending the Resolution said:
“It was remarked by some honorable members that the interpretation which the mover of this Resolution has given is satisfactory and quite good, but Mr. B.C. Mandal says: “Well tomorrow you may die, I may die, and the posterity may misinterpret it.” First of all, I may tell him and those who have got some wrong notions about the interpretation of this resolution that this resolution itself is not a constitution.

And the posterity surely misinterpreted it to its worse !!!

Justice Mohammad Munir, who chaired the committee made after 1953 Punjab unrest, says that
“if during Quaid-i-Azam’s life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it "

According to Munir, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differ in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam’s views e.g:

1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice
their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.


Munir Report (1954) also said that the form of government in Pakistan cannot be described as democratic, if that clause of the Objectives Resolution reads as follows: ” Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.” -

The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path.

Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price.

The irony is Mullahs were severely opposed to the idea of creation of Pakistan and they used to call Quaid e Azam as Kaafir e Azam :

The same Jinnah about whom these Mullahs used to say :

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora
Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam.

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman , he is a great leader or a great
non-believer)

And after the creation of Pakistan the same Quaid e Azam became a die hard Muslim in their eyes !!! These Mullahs really are hypocrites and opportunists ....

@jaibi kindly add this topic to your list too as this is a very important issue and should be dealt with in full detail

 

[Zarvan]

Which interviews are you talking about ?
And why "after" 11th August speech ... ??

In his 11th August Speech , Jinnah said :
"If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter what community he belongs to, no matter what his colour, caste or creed, is first, second, and last a citizen of this State, with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no 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, Vaishnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. You may be free to go to your temples, mosques or any other place of worship; you may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State.... We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State...." [G. Allana, Historical Documents, pp. 545-6].


It is important to remember that this speech was not made by the Quaid-i-Azam at a press conference nor in any reception given in his honour; but was the official proclamation of the policy of the new State, made in its Constituent Assembly, in the presence of the members who were expected to draw the constitution for the Islamic State of Pakistan and to define the fundamental rights of her people. The question arises from what position was Jinnah making these statements? He was the undisputed leader of Pakistan; the father of the nation, the elected President of the Muslim League Party which claimed to represent the Muslims of the entire subcontinent. What is important, he was also the Governor General of Pakistan, and finally, the elected President of the Constituent Assembly. There was no responsible organ of the Government or the ruling party which Jinnah did not represent. He was reading from a prepared text. This was probably the first written speech that an experienced barrister and parliamentarian like Jinnah had delivered; he knew that it was a very important and historic speech because it enunciated the policy of the new State. This speech surely destroys the absurd claims of Islamists that Jinnah desired a hardcore Islamic Constitution

Towards the end of his speech he sums up his policy:

.... Now I think that 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

Iskander Mirza wrote:

Before we all left Delhi, I said to the Quaid-i-Azam one day, "Sir, we are all agreed to go to Pakistan; but what kind of polity are you going to have? Are you going to have an Islamic State?" "Nonsense," he replied, "I am going to have a modern State."

When the conservatives moved the "Islamist Objectives Resolution" in the constituent assembly after the death of Jinnah , the Hindu members of constituent assembly of Pakistan strongly opposed it as being against Jinnah`s vision

Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said:

“What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan – the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.”


Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had “unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state.”


Bhupendra Kumar Datta said:
"were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape….”

Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Deputy Leader of the House, while defending the Resolution said:
“It was remarked by some honorable members that the interpretation which the mover of this Resolution has given is satisfactory and quite good, but Mr. B.C. Mandal says: “Well tomorrow you may die, I may die, and the posterity may misinterpret it.” First of all, I may tell him and those who have got some wrong notions about the interpretation of this resolution that this resolution itself is not a constitution.

And the posterity surely misinterpreted it to its worse !!!

Justice Mohammad Munir, who chaired the committee made after 1953 Punjab unrest, says that
“if during Quaid-i-Azam’s life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it "

According to Munir, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differ in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam’s views e.g:

1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice
their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.


Munir Report (1954) also said that the form of government in Pakistan cannot be described as democratic, if that clause of the Objectives Resolution reads as follows: ” Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.” -

The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path.

Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price.

@jaibi kindly add this topic to your list too as this is a very important issue and should be dealt with in full detail

@Azlan Haider Jinah gave several speeches after 9/11 and he had cleared in those speeches that he never wanted secular Pakistan till his death in every speech Pakistan was never meant to be secular two nation theory and secularism can never go hand in hand and Mr that is only one speech which you quote please quote all the speeches of Jinah before 11th August and after 11th august

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Azlan Haider Jinah gave several speeches after 9/11 and he had cleared in those speeches that he never wanted secular Pakistan till his death in every speech Pakistan was never meant to be secular two nation theory and secularism can never go hand in hand and Mr that is only one speech which you quote please quote all the speeches of Jinah before 11th August and after 11th august

Brother did you even read my post before replying ?? and you have posted the same pics over again !!
Do you know that Quaid`s definition of Islam was totally opposite to the present day Mullah definition ??..
And he was not a religious man by any definition ,
and if he were , he would have been some Ayatullah owing to his Shia beliefs and in any case the argument of Sunni Islamists gets blown away ...

 

[Zarvan]

Brother did you even read my post before replying ?? and you have posted the same pics over again !!
Do you know that Quaid`s definition of Islam was totally opposite to the present day Mullah definition ??..
And he was not a religious man by any definition ,
and if he were , he would have been some Ayatullah owing to his Shia beliefs and in any case the argument of Sunni Islamists gets blown away ...

Mr Islam is Islam and what Jinah said doesn't matter what matter is what ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW have said those things said by Jinah which are according to Islam will be accepted others will be rejected simple as that and if Jinah was so innocent that he thought he is making land for Muslims but issue of Islam and Shariah would never rise or people will not demand for it than how he became leader that is a serious question Mr what I am saying is Jinah never wanted a secular Pakistan that is clear and if you read all his speeches before 11th august and after 11 august that will make it clear to you what he wanted and people will are working to publish them and soon they will be available but still what matter is what ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW said not what Jinah or Iqbal said every other person will be judged according to orders of ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW

 

[M. Sarmad]

Mr Islam is Islam and what Jinah said doesn't matter what matter is what ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW have said those things said by Jinah which are according to Islam will be accepted others will be rejected simple as that and if Jinah was so innocent that he thought he is making land for Muslims but issue of Islam and Shariah would never rise or people will not demand for it than how he became leader that is a serious question

This is what this discussion is about...
Unfortunately what Jinnah said or wanted DID not matter , and the Mullahs were able to hijack our Muslim Country and convert it into a Islamic State
And you have just proved the point ......

 

[Zarvan]

This is what this discussion is about...
Unfortunately what Jinnah said or wanted DID not matter , and the Mullahs were able to hijack our Muslim Country and convert it into a Islamic State
And you have just proved the point ......

Mr what ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW have said that is always what matters what ever some one else say if that is according to Quran and Sunnah we accept others we reject even if its our parents Mr that is order of Islam Jinah never wanted a secular Pakistan he always wanted Pakistan with Islamic Law and show gutts and post all his speeches before 11th August and after 11th August it will clear to every one that Jinah always wanted a Islamic Pakistan Mr and soon these speeches will be out to give a big slap on the face of secular traitors of Islam and Pakistan

 

[M. Sarmad]

Mr what ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW have said that is always what matters

No doubt .... But the problem is how do we know that the holy prophet (pbuh) actually said what is being attributed to him !!!

show gutts and post all his speeches before 11th August and after 11th August it will clear to every one that Jinah always wanted a Islamic Pakistan Mr and soon these speeches will be out to give a big slap on the face of secular traitors of Islam and Pakistan

okay ..... we will see what you are able to come up with ... till then , enjoy this "snack" from Pak tea house :

Was Jinnah secular? | Pak Tea House

I have argued repeatedly and I stick by the position that Jinnah wanted a state that can only be described in modern parlance as a secular democratic state. My claim is not based on 11 August 1947 alone and in fact I will go as far as to say that Jinnah’s vision of the state would have been secular even if he had not made that extraordinary pronouncement where he merely put it in black and white.

My claim is based on all of the following:

1. Jinnah’s record as a legislator in the central Indian legislature spanning over four decades.
2. Jinnah’s role in the Indian Independence movement and in trying to forge a united Indian nationality which earned him the title of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”.
3. Jinnah’s record after he took over the Muslim League as its president.
4. Jinnah’s clear pronouncements as the Governor General and the first president of the constituent assembly.
5. The symbolism deployed by Jinnah in his choice of his cabinet...................................

 

[Zarvan]

No doubt .... But the problem is how do we know that the holy prophet (pbuh) actually said what is being attributed to him !!!



okay ..... we will see what you are able to come up with ... till then , enjoy this "snack" from Pak tea house :


Many people (though not all) on all sides of the ideology divide in Pakistan take umbrage with the description of Mahomed Ali Jinnah – the anglicized founder of Pakistan- as a secular leader or a secularist. Islamists in Pakistan say that he wanted an Islamic state. Islamic modernists say he wanted a modern Islamic democratic state (whatever that means), some people from the left say he was a communalist who was not secular because he championed Muslim separatism (albeit only in the last 11 years of his life). All of these groups agree that if Jinnah had been secular, it would not have been necessary to make a separate state. All of them – unconvincingly and inaccurately- claim that those who lay claim to a secular Jinnah are basing it on a solitary speech of Jinnah made on 11 August 1947. A slightly different claim is made by the Wali Khan group- which is ideologically consistent if historically errant- which claims that Jinnah wanted a secular state and that his push for Pakistan was the result of British manipulation and divide and rule which made him utilize Islamist rhetoric for the creation of Pakistan. While respecting all these points of view, I disagree with all of them and through this article I will explain why.

I have argued repeatedly and I stick by the position that Jinnah wanted a state that can only be described in modern parlance as a secular democratic state. My claim is not based on 11 August 1947 alone and in fact I will go as far as to say that Jinnah’s vision of the state would have been secular even if he had not made that extraordinary pronouncement where he merely put it in black and white.

My claim is based on all of the following:

Jinnah’s record as a legislator in the central Indian legislature spanning over four decades.
Jinnah’s role in the Indian Independence movement and in trying to forge a united Indian nationality which earned him the title of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”.
Jinnah’s record after he took over the Muslim League as its president.
Jinnah’s clear pronouncements as the Governor General and the first president of the constituent assembly.
The symbolism deployed by Jinnah in his choice of his cabinet.
Record as a legislator and a leader of the Indian Independence Movement:

Jinnah started his political career as a liberal nationalist and a moderate in Indian National Congress in 1906. His opposition to the Muslim delegation’s demands in 1906 placed before Lord Minto is well known and documented. He opposed initially the separate electorate in principle as being divisive only to reconcile later with it as a necessary and temporary evil which would be dispensed with in due course. For a detailed discussion on Jinnah’s politics I encourage everyone to read “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” by Ian Bryant Wells, probably the best book written on Jinnah’s early politics – which should serve as a prequel to Dr. Ayesha Jalal’s brilliant “Sole Spokesman. Together these two form the essential “Jinnah reader”.

What is not well known is that after the acceptance of the separate electorate principle by the British government, Jinnah tried to move an amendment allowing non-Muslim candidates on Muslim seats arguing forcefully that the Muslim electorate should not be deprived of quality candidates just because of their faith. In other words Jinnah argued – without contradiction – that non-Muslims could represent Muslims and Muslim interests as well as any Muslim. Much later in his life he proved exactly that by appointing a Scheduled Case Hindu on a Muslim League seat.

As a legislator, Jinnah always put progress above faith. In1912, Jinnah alienated many of his Muslim supporters by giving his wholehearted support to the Special Marriage Amendment Bill, which sought to provide mixed religion marriages legal protection. He argued that the bill would provide equality but he was opposed by many members on the grounds that the bill contravened the Koran. Undaunted Jinnah asked the law member who had opposed the bill if he “would deny that there is a certain class of educated and enlightened people who rightly think that a gravest injustice is done to them as long as liberty of conscience is held from them”.

This was a position through out his life believe it or not. Rubbishing the idea that Muslim sensibilities would be hurt, he asked:

“Is this the first time in the history of legislation in this country that this Council has been called upon to override Musalman Law or modify it to suit the time? The Council has over ridden and modified the Musalman law in many respects.”[1]

[An aside: This is a very important issue not that personal choices are relevant. It also lends us an important insight into Jinnah and debunks another myth. Many Pakistan ideology and Islam-hawks in Pakistan claim that Jinnah objected to his daughter’s marriage to a parsi on grounds of faith. This is only partially true. If Jinnah was all bothered about faith, he would not have ensured that his daughter grew up in a British boarding school and learned in British (not Muslim culture). If Jinnah’s anglicization was deliberate, his daughter is in very real terms English and there is absolutely no indication in Jinnah’s life that he tried to have his daughter schooled in religious dogma. His objection to his daughter’s marriage was on legal grounds. The law in India did not allow interfaith marriage unless one of the spouses converted to the other faith or both renounced their faith. For a leader and politician waging the battle for Muslim community interests, and increasingly a target of Mullahs already questioning his lifestyle and his minority Shia faith, this would have been embarrassing.]

In 1919 Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question. This is as clear a representation of Jinnah’s life long belief in secularism as any:

EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.

Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.

Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].

Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—I do.

Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.

Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.

Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.

Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course.—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.

Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do; a very.—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.

Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.

Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moslems of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.

Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.

Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.

Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.

EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT

Q. 3853.—. . . .Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.

Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them.—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, “How do you account for this?” and he told me, “As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it.”

Q. 3855.—That is [a] useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that [that] the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.

Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right.

Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done?

Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it.—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint. Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.

EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON

Q. 3892.—. . . .You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized?—1 can only give you certain facts: I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.

Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it. [2]

Leader of the Muslim League and the Governor General of Pakistan:

The great paradox for Pakistan’s imagined Islamic nationhood is that had Jinnah not adopted a secular – i.e. non-theological- policy- he would have never managed to bring all Muslims together on one platform. The doctrinal differences between Muslims were far too great to make for any real unity. Nor was Islamic rhetoric or Muslim unity alone able to bring the Muslims marching behind the Muslim League. The painful and long process by which Jinnah forged an apparent unity is indicative of his masterful political skill. What Jinnah wanted has been long a subject of controversy but there is abundant evidence that Jinnah did not want a complete separation or partition.

The classic consociationalist theory Jinnah put forth was to secure adequate and effective representation for Muslims, having seen in close quarters the sidelining of the League in UP despite being the largest Muslim party there. Therefore Jinnah’s lawyerly arguments – a regurgitation of a small pamphlet called “Confederacy of India” (originally named Pakistan but changed at Jinnah’s insistence) by “a Punjabi” called Kifayet Ali- as he placed them in front of the League in his famous 23 March 1940 address cannot by any stretch of imagination be used to argue that he wanted an Islamic state. I strongly recommend K K Aziz’s long essay (including an interview with Kifayet Ali) on “Confederacy of India” which can be found in his short works published by Vanguard Books. In any event the Lahore Resolution did not refer to “Islam” or “Islamic state” even once. This is significant for a resolution that was imagining a different country. At the very least it was clear that there was no one fixed vision of Pakistan that the League agreed on.

The very call for national – instead of territorial- right of self determination indicated a national compact between communities and was not a clarion call for an Islamic utopia. His objective was a political space where Muslims were not limited by their faith which to Jinnah was a significant accident of birth. Ironically, that is precisely what Pakistan has been doing for the last 30 odd years.

Raja of Mahmudabad’s evidence is significant. The Raja started off by saying that since the Lahore resolution had been passed earlier that year, if and when Pakistan was formed, it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunna and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.[3]

Jinnah’s appeal to Islam was entirely ambiguous and never concrete. In fact he always very conveniently managed to sideline the issue of Sharia, especially in 1943 when a bunch of Muslim Leaguers tried to pass off a resolution to commit Pakistan to Islam. Jinnah vetoed it and called it a censure on every Muslim Leaguer. [4]

On 21st May, 1947, Jinnah described clearly what kind of state he envisaged in Pakistan:

The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time… The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect. They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life. [5]

In an interview with Duncan Hooper he said:

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent assembly, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’[6]

In his address to the people of the United States of America, Jinnah said:

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.[7]

Speaking to Parsi gathering in Karachi in February 1948, he said:

I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be unmindful of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible. [8]

On 22nd March 1948, meeting with Hindu Legislators in an effort to stem their exodus to India, he said:

We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis. [9]

On 23rd March 1948 meeting the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’, he said:

We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.[10]

Speaking to Quetta Parsis in June 1948, he said:

Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan. [11]

Symbolism was also very important. As mentioned earlier, Jogindranath Mandal, a Scheduled Caste federation politician and lawyer from Bengal, was first appointed on League’s behalf to represent Muslims of India in the interim government. After partition he was nominated by Jinnah to chair the inaugural session of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. He was then nominated to the first cabinet as Pakistan’s first law minister. This is a very significant fact. If Pakistan was to be an Islamic state, why was a Hindu being appointed the minister of law? Jogindranath Mandal was not only a scheduled caste Hindu but he was entirely unversed in Islamic law (unlike Rana Bhagwandas). Another significant thing was Jinnah’s decision to get a Hindu to write Pakistan’s first national anthem. This was done presumably to show that Pakistan was not exclusivist state for Muslims alone.

Jinnah’s “Islamic” rhetoric and a Secular Pakistan



Jinnah’s references to Islam were – contrary to the tall claims made by those Ulema who ironically had the time opposed the creation of Pakistan- few and far between. It was usually an Eid message or a speech at convocation where Jinnah referred to Islam. Three such quotes that these Ulema bring up include Jinnah’s speech on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi, his letter to Pir of Manki Sharif and his alleged speech in Peshawar’s Islamia College.

Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like. [12]

The latter part is quoted out of context to prove that Jinnah did not want a secular state, when a closer reading shows that this is erroneous. Take the example of Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman in the United States. He is a practicing religious Muslim. For him Islam is a code of conduct. He is also a member of the Congress of United States of America and a patriotic American. His life and conduct in politics and economics are all regulated by his adherence to Islam. Jinnah’s opposite number in the Congress Party, Maulana Azad, was another example of an extremely conservative Muslim whose every action was driven by and regulated by Islam. In contrast Jinnah himself had a very liberal understanding of the code of Islam – if indeed he followed it. The point is that Jinnah’s reference to code for every Muslim was on a personal level. It does not speak of a state or any other thing like that. How then can this statement be taken to mean that Pakistan would be an Islamic state or a theocracy especially when read together with other speeches and statements quoted above? It also bears remembering that whenever Jinnah spoke of “Islamic principles” he qualified the statement with “democracy”, “equality”, “fairplay”, “brotherhood of man” and “social justice”.

Another often quoted example is Jinnah’s letter to Pir of Manki Sharif. The Pir had asked Jinnah if lives of Muslims shall be subject to Shariat? What Jinnah had promised was that affairs of the Muslim community would be subject to Shariat i.e. the Muslim personal law. No where did Jinnah promise to make Shariat the civil and criminal law of Pakistan. Shariat in British India referred to Personal Law. It is this law that is still in force in India.

Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 of India reads:

2. Application of Personal Law of Muslims.- Notwithstanding any customs or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardiaship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than chartities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in case where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). [13]



This is the law in secular India today. Muslims of India are governed by Shariat in their affairs as a community. Does it affect Indian secularism in anyway? Communal Personal laws are an accepted part of English Jurisprudence. So it does not quite follow that Mr. Jinnah was referring to anything but this when he promised Pir of Manki Sharif that the affairs of Muslim community (not nation interestingly) shall be run by Shariat in Pakistan and that no Muslim would be forced to accept any unIslamic law, which implies – for those who use this double-edged sword to prove the impossible- that there was an element of choice that a Muslim may accept an unIslamic law out of his or her free will. This would obviously make it consistent with Jinnah’s life long support to mixed marriages bill.

And finally the issue of the alleged “laboratory of Islam” speech: without getting into the controversy of whether Jinnah actually did say it and assume that he did. Considering his Peshawar audience, this was almost revolutionary. After all was Islam not be “final” and “complete”? Was Jinnah talking of experimentation i.e. Ijtehad? Was he under Qadiani influence? It certainly does not mean that Jinnah wanted a conservative Islamic state.

The argument that Jinnah was secular does not mean necessarily a secularism of the French or Ataturk kind (even though Jinnah admired Ataturk greatly and described Ataturk’s Turkey as an exemplary Muslim state). Jinnah’s secularism was of the English variety schooled and crafted by British liberalism which was far more tolerant of religion.

Indeed he referred to English history in his land mark 11th August speech. If Pakistan is the citadel of Islam in South Asia, as some claim, England was the bastion of Protestantism in Europe. It is – technically- a protestant country today. Yet it is a perfect secular democracy because it does not have a state religion and every elected office in the country is open to every subject of the Queen regardless of religion, caste or creed. Now let us consider what Jinnah said:

“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.”

It was the perfect summation of English secularism. It was also Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. Jinnah’s Pakistan to sum it up was to be

An inclusive democracy
An impartial state without a state religion
A state which ensured rule of law and equality of citizenship to all its citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.
A state where a person’s religion was to be a personal matter.
No one- even those quoting Jinnah’s so called Islamic references- can deny these four postulates which Jinnah expressed repeatedly again and again. This is the essence of a secular state. This is why Jinnah was a liberal secular democrat in my view.

NOTES:

[1] p. 21, Ian Bryant Wells, Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, Permanent Black New Delhi

[2] 412c

[3] http://www.dawn.com/events/pml/review38.htm

[4] See Jinnah’s speech at the Delhi Session of the Muslim League of 1943 after Dr. A H Kazi tried to introduce a resolution committing Pakistan to Khilafat-e- Rashda. See Footnote on Page 96 of Ayesha Jalal’s “Sole Spokesman” published OUP.

[5] p.845, Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project

[6] p. 61, Jinnah Speeches and Statements 1947-1948, Oxford 1997

[7] p. 125 Ibid

[8] p.102-103 Ibid

[9] p. 153 Ibid

[10] p. 154 Ibid

[11] p. 223 Ibid

[12] p. 98 Ibid

[13] The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

Was Jinnah secular? | Pak Tea House

Mr this shows how big lies you are coming up with Mr even Iqbal initally talked about nationalism and other things but he changed later and yes Jinah was first great propagate of Hindu Muslim Unity and but he changed later and first of that proof is his speech of 23rd March 1940 the two nation theory Mr and after that till his death he was all for separate Muslim land and for Islamic Law and if you read Iqbal inital poetry he was also for India but he realized mentality of Hindus and so did Jinah so show gutts and bring all the speeches of Jinah starting from 23rd March 1940 till his death this would be enough to slap the face of secular and what ALLAH and his PROPHET SAW have said is as clear as water and available to us in form of Quran and Books of Hadees and Sunnah and Islamic History and that would be implemented

"The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither inter-marry, nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspirations from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

Today Pakistani Nation is observing the 64th death anniversary of Great Quaid Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan. When I open news websites and read different so-called political leaders views about Quaid and what was the vision of our great Quaid for the Pakistan. So I decided to write something on it.

Quaid was very much worried about the fate of Muslims under the Indian role after British. He was very much confirmed that Muslims and Hindus never live together in future. So he decided to get a separate homeland for Muslims. He has a very clear and concrete vision about Pakistan.

In an interview to American press in July 1942, when asked by a journalist whether the Muslims were a nation or not, Quaid-e-Azam replied, "We are a nation with our own individual culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and norms, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, in short, we have our own unique outlook on life and of life. By all cannons of international law we are a nation".

A conflict has aroused in Pakistan about whether Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state or an Islamic state. His views as expressed in his policy speech on August 11, 1947 said:

“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 entirely 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 no 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 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".

While this may seem to be an indication that Jinnah wanted a secular state, he also referred to Islam and Islamic principles in February 1948:

"The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan”.

It has been argued by many people that in this speech Jinnah wanted to point out that Pakistan would be a secular state as mostly people think that an Islamic state is a theocratic state. This perception, however, is wrong and is misinterpreted; the reason is that a true Islamic state is not a theocratic state, as stated by Jinnah in his speech.

On the opening ceremony of the state bank of Pakistan Jinnah pointed out that the financial setup of the state should be based on Islamic economic system.

In 1948 in the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan he said that we must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.

It appears that Jinnah felt the state of Pakistan should stand upon Islamic tradition in culture, civilization and national identity rather than on the principles of Islam as a theocratic state.

In 1937, Jinnah further defended his ideology of equality in his speech to the All-India Muslim League in Lucknow where he stated, "Settlement can only be achieved between equals." He also had a negation to Nehru's statement which argued that the only two parties that mattered in India were the British Raj and Indian National Congress (INC). Jinnah stated that the Muslim League was the third and "equal partner" within Indian politics.

Quaid has a very clear idea and vision about the Pakistan and he never want to see Pakistan a secular country. Many people argued that great Quaid was a secular which is not true. Here I would like to quote only one example which is necessary to clear that he wasn’t a secular. He once said that I am working for Muslims because I want that when I meet Allah hereafter death He would say “Well done Mr. Jinnah”.

On August 6, 1939, Quaid said: “I was born Muslim; I am a Muslim and shall die a Muslim.” At another time he said: “I am no Maulana or a Maulvi but I also know a little of my faith.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah was brought up in a Muslim family, adhered to the tenants of Islam, was repeatedly elected to the Indian Council/Legislative Assembly on a seat reserved for a Muslim, succeeded in getting a number of bills concerning the Muslims passed from the Legislative Assembly, advocated Hindu-Muslim unity, always stressed for safeguards for the Muslims including their demand for a federal form of government as envisaged by the Nehru Report. In his negotiations with the government and parlays with the Indian Congress, he always stoutly advocated the Muslim cause.

Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan is very clear: he wanted Pakistan to be modern, progressive, dynamic, forward looking and a democratic country with equal rights for all its citizens irrespective of their casts, creed or religion.

In August 1941, Quaid-e-Azam gave an interview to the students of the Osmania University. While giving the answer of "What are the essential features of religion and a religious state?" Quaid said, when I hear the word “religion,” my mind thinks at once, according to the English language and British usage, of private relations between man and God. But I know full well that according to Islam, the word is not restricted to the English connotation. I am neither a Maulwi nor a Mullah, nor do I claim knowledge of theology. But I have studied in my own way the Holy Quran and Islamic tenets. This magnificent book is full of guidance respecting all human life, whether spiritual, or economic, political or social, leaving no aspect untouched”.

Quaid-e-Azam further said while describing the distinctive feature of the Islamic state that “there is a special feature of the Islamic state which must not be overlooked. There, obedience is due to God and God alone, which takes practical shape in the observance of the Quranic principles and commands. In Islam, obedience is due neither to a king, nor to a parliament, nor to any other organization. It is the Quranic provisions which determine the limits of our freedom and restrictions in political and social spheres. In other words, the Isla



mic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions".

There will be no economic exploitation by the capitalists in an Islamic state. In his presidential address delivered to the annual session of the All India Muslim League, in Delhi on April 24, 1943, he said:

“Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere to the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it. If they are wise, they will have to adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of life. If they don’t, God help them, we shall not help them.”

In light of the above, we can see that Quaid-e-Azam was neither for Western-style democracy nor for Mulla-style theocracy. He essentially advocated what may be called Islamic social democracy. But tell this to secularists or to Islamists. They would never believe it. No wonder truth is stranger than fiction.

- See more at: Jinnah's vision for Pakistan a secular state or Islamic?

I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organization in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Mr this shows how big lies you are coming up with Mr even Iqbal initally talked about nationalism and other things but he changed later and yes Jinah was first great propagate of Hindu Muslim Unity and but he changed later and first of that proof is his speech of 23rd March 1940 the two nation theory Mr and after that till his death he was all for separate Muslim land and for Islamic Law and if you read Iqbal inital poetry he was also for India but he realized mentality of Hindus and so did Jinah so show gutts and bring all the speeches of Jinah starting from 23rd March 1940 till his death this would be enough to slap the face of secular and what ALLAH and his PROPHET SAW have said is as clear as water and available to us in form of Quran and Books of Hadees and Sunnah and Islamic History and that would be implemented
"The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither inter-marry, nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspirations from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

^^School level Pakistan Studies !!!!

In light of the above, we can see that Quaid-e-Azam was neither for Western-style democracy nor for Mulla-style theocracy. He essentially advocated what may be called Islamic social democracy. But tell this to secularists or to Islamists. They would never believe it. No wonder truth is stranger than fiction.

No doubt Islamic social(ist) democracy in which muslims and non muslims have "equal" rights and every one is free to practice his religion was what Jinnah wanted , but the Mullahs did not let it happen ........
Thanks for proving the point once again
Anyways what is your definition of secularism ?? just curious

 

[Zarvan]

INTRODUCTION
The history of mankind shows that the people who change the course of events by shaping the destiny of their nation are taken as heroes and leaders. One can therefore define “national political leadership as the power exercised by an individual to push members of the polity towards action in a particular direction.”1 Haiman explains leadership as an effort on the part of a leader to direct the behaviour of others towards a particular end. He further adds: “the qualities, characteristics and skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he is to function as a leader.”2

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah excels the criterion of a national hero and leader by dint of his intellectual capacity, a deep understanding of the political situation in the then British India and his excellent leadership qualities, which enabled him to lead a movement that transformed the Muslim Community of South Asia into a Pakistani nation. He was truly a leader of stature who left a strong imprint on the course of history. One can identify three distinct phases of his leadership career. The first phase was conterminous with period of his association with the Congress i.e. from 1906 to 1920. The second phase, which ended in 1937 and marked the beginning of his confrontation with Congress, was the main feature. The third phase, the epoch-making one, had changed the destiny of the nation, lasted from 1937 to 1947.

In the first phase, Jinnah worked for the national freedom through Hindu-Muslim unity, with the belief that the two major communities would share the power after freedom. The nationalist Jinnah with firm Muslim identity was the main feature of this phase. The second phase comprises of two main features, the rights and interests for self determination, and getting recognition from Hindus of the Muslim entity and individuality in Indian politics. His quest for Hindu-Muslim unity, through a national pact continued all through the second phase and even in the beginning of the third one, it ended finally in about 1937-38.3 Freedom still remained the core aim but there was a dramatic change in the perception. Now the struggle was based on the idea of a separate nationalism and the partition of India. His success can be explained in terms of the combination of his drive and authority, his integrity and ability to inspire loyalty in the lieutenants, with exhilaration of the call for Pakistan.4 However in seeking power for Muslims and taking up the demand for Pakistan he took up a charismatic goal--a goal which had not only lying close to their (Muslims) hearts, ever since they had lost political power to the British, but had also haunted them.5

Iqbal projected the vision of a ‘New World’, for the Muslims of Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. He was the pioneer to see the vision of separate homeland for the Muslims-Pakistan. It was he who convinced the Quaid to do his best for the Muslims. Jinnah, however, with his own political genius and his expert views on politics, partition issues, on economics, industry, and on the manifold problems of state carried the torch of wisdom to the culmination of this great vision. He himself was Pakistan and he put his heart and brain into the ideology.6

He had a complete programme for his nation and visualized the basic issues and expressed his thoughts which are discussed here under:

DEMOCRACY AND ISLAM
What was Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan? Would Pakistan be a modern democracy or a closed theocracy? Would non-Muslims be safe in it? These are some of the questions which have been asked more often than not. Since he did not write a book, the main sources of his thinking are his speeches and statements. By keeping them in mind we may be able to grasp his vision for the state he had created.

All through the struggle, the Quaid manifested a great and firm belief in the democratic principles. A democratic journey started with the resolution of Sindh Assembly7 demanding the separation of Muslims areas from Hindu majority areas. After passing through long and many hurdles, Quaid gave it a practicle shape in 1947. All his decisions were the reflection of the party decisions. His firm belief in Islam and democratic system was evident. The main sources of his inspiration and guidance for the national effort were Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). About Islam the Quaid said:

“It is not only a religion but it contains law, philosophy and politics. In fact, it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as an all-embracing word. We do not mean any ill will. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity.”8

In his message on the occasion of ‘Id-ul-Fitr in October 1941, he explained:

“Islam lays great emphasis on the social side of things. Every day, the rich and the poor, the great and the small living in a locality are brought five times in a day in the mosque in the terms of perfect equality of mankind and thereby the foundation of a healthy social relationship is laid and established through prayer. At the end of Ramazan comes the new moon, the crescent as a signal for a mass gathering on the ‘Id day again in perfect equality of mankind which effects the entire Muslim world.”9

In an ‘Id message in September 1945, the Quaid-i-Azam pointed out; The Quran is the general code for the Muslims, a religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code. It regulates every thing, from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life, from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body, from the rights of all to those of each individual from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace by upon Him) has enjoined on us that every Musalman should posses a copy of the Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or ritual and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective and individual.10

The Quaid while addressing the Bar Association of Karachi on the Holy Prophet’s birthday on 25th January 1948, said:

“Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago….Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fair play for every body……..let us make it (the future Constitution of Pakistan). The Prophet was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was great sovereign who ruled.”11

The Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon Him) was successful in everything that he put his hand to from businessman to ruler. He was the greatest man that the world has ever seen. Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundations of democracy. With regard to the form of government in Pakistan, the Quaid said:

“It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of contract set for us by our own great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideas and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that discussions and consultations shall guide our decisions in the affairs of state.”12

Millat and the people can only frame the Constitution of Pakistan. The constitution and government will be what the people will decide.13 The Quaid was great believer of democracy. Addressing at the Session of All-India Muslim League, Delhi, 24th April, 1943, he said: “I am sure that democracy is in our blood. It is in our marrows. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made circulation of that blood cold? But now the situation has changed.”14

Pakistan was not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a Divine mission. There were many non-Muslims--Hindus, Christians and Parsees in Pakistan, but they were all Pakistanis and would enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizen and would play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.15

Another issue of great concern was to define the status of minorities in Pakistan, because in the absence of constitution, there was unrest and propaganda about the issue. But the Quaid had no confusion about this. He appointed J.N. Mandal as the Minister for Law and Labour.16

In his Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly he remarked:

“You are free, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has noting to do with the business of the State…….We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State……Now, I think that 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 Mulsims 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.”17

To provide safeguards to the minorities was another important point of his great consideration. As he said, “I am going to constitute my self the protector-general of the Hindu minority in Pakistan.”18 He joined the Christmas celebrations as a guest in 1947. He met the Hindu and Parsee delegations at Karachi and Quetta respectively, and assured them of his intention to safeguard their interest.19

Mountbatten made an interesting point in his formal speech to the Constituent Assembly on 14th August, 1947. He quoted the example of Akbar, the Great Mughal, as the model of a tolerant Muslim ruler. The Quaid, while replying, presented the more inspiring model to follow; it was that of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon Him). The Quaid said that the tolerance and goodwill that great emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims was not of recent origin. It dated back to thirteen centuries ago when our Holy Prophet not only by words but also by deeds treated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims is replete with those human and great principles which should be followed and practiced.20

This is vision of an Islamic society which would be equitable, compassionate and tolerant and from which the ‘cancer’ of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement and inefficiency would be eradicated. Although the Quaid had pointed out the flaws in Western style democracy, yet he always admired mutual consultation and public opinion. He never liked the title like ‘Moulana Jinnah’ or ‘Shahinshah-i-Pakistan’.

He often called for counsel, advice and even criticism. I want you to criticize it (the Muslim League) openly as its friends, in fact, as one whose heart in beating with Muslim nation.21 He was a true democrat because he never was anything else.

NATURE OF POLITY
The Movement of Pakistan was a peoples’ movement, involving mass participation. Yet, if the creation of Pakistan, as it is rightly insisted, was made possible by the mass support of the Muslims of the sub-continent and was the product of historical forces, it is nevertheless a fact that the battle for Pakistan was fought almost single handedly by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Quaid. The order of the Quaid’s mission compelled a blind following of people and his integrity was their total trust.22

Notwithstanding anything else, the most important and difficult task faced by the hastened state of Pakistan was to define its exact character. Although the struggle had created basic unity among different groups, yet such questions as the form of federation, form of government and status of minorities, etc. remained unanswered. Here the Quaid’s statements, became our guiding principles.

The Federating Principles: In an interview given to the representative of the Associated Press of America on 8th November 1945, the Quaid said that the theory of Pakistan guaranteed that the federated units of the national government would have all the autonomy that you will find in the Constitutions of the United States of America, Canada and Australia. But certain vital powers will remain vested in the Central Government.23

Although the Quaid firmly believed in a strong centre, yet according to him, the actual source of strength was the will of people.24 According to Quaid the will of the people could be ascertained only through the system of direct elections as a reused of which the appropriate man could be taken as the representative of the people.25

Another important feature, which he discussed, was the establishment of political parties. He was neither in favour of one party government, nor a partyless system. He visualized a system of competing political parties working within the constitution and democratic framework.26

Provincialism was a great curse. The Quaid had a clear perception over this issue. He said, “Islam has taught us this and I think you will agree with me that whatever else you may be and whatever you are, you are a Muslim. You belong to a nation now; you have now carved out a territory, a vast territory, it is all yours, it does not belong to a Punjabi or a Sindhi or a Pathan, or a Bengali, it is yours.”27 The Quaid always remained impartial. He himself was neither a Punjabi nor a Sindhi.

Fundamental rights to all, was another important matter of concern near the Quaid. It was generally said that it was the US Constitution which gives the basic fundamental written rights to citizens but the Quaid believed that it is the Quran where one could find all the details of human rights. According to Quaid-i-Azam the demand and struggle for Pakistan had proved mainly that there was a danger of denial of these fundamental human rights in the Indian sub-continent.28

Independent judiciary was the basic need of time as it was the only platform to judge the status of common man, because it alone could protect and enforce all the rights. Throughout his life, the Quaid believed that the law courts alone should decide the question of citizen’s right.29

On 6th February, 1919 while taking part in discussion in the Legislative Council, Jinnah said, “I am a firm believer that no man’s liberty should be taken away for a single minute without a proper inquiry.”30 On 28th January, 1925 speaking in the Central Legislative Council he said, “my liberty, should not be taken away without a judicial trial in proper court where I have all the rights to defend my self.”31

Commitment to democracy was the basic spirit behind Quaid’s whole life. Discussions, debates, dialogues, arguments and logic were the weapons that he used in convincing his political opponents and the foreign power that the British should go honourably from the sub-continent. His long parliamentary career with the principled experience as a lawyer made him to believe that it was the legislative supremacy that could safeguard the future of democracy.

CONSTITUTIONALISM
The term has two related meanings. One, concerning Constitutionalism as practice, and the other as the positive valuation of practice.32 Constitutionalism as practice is the ordering of political processes and institutions on the basis of a constitution. The term valuation refers to the idea of those who wish to preserve or introduce the political supremacy of a constitution within a particular state. stress is laid on the ‘Rule of Law’ as a fundamental concept from, which Constitutionalism is derived.33

Constitutionalism is the product of the European political experience, which recognizes the principle that governments are derived from the will of people organized the principle into societies which are mindful of their rights as well as obligations.34 Quaid’s aim was to build Pakistan into a constitutional democracy. He believed that there was no contradiction between an Islamic State and a polity governed according to modern democratic principles. Constitutionalism is at the very heart of Islamic teachings. Fairness, justice, compassion and honesty are all tenets of Islam.

The Muslims, it is worth which to remember, had all along been taken for granted as a peaceful community because they had, except during the Khilafat Movement, restricted themselves to Constitutionalism and had never taken to streets or even threatened the British with a revolutionary movement.35

To build a new country, to establish a stable government and to have a programme for development…was the ambition. But Pakistan faced civil strife, the struggle with India in Kashmir, the influx of millions of terrified refugees, the lack of experienced administration, an empty treasury and almost no material resources; the task was indeed difficult.36

Quaid was the strong believer of ‘Rule of Law’. His firm stand on the Rowlet Act. 191937 and winning the objective without any bloodshed offer a unique example watched by history. He being the lawyer had a clear mind and firm belief in constitutional measures. Time only proved his style for struggle.

In April (1947) Lord Mountbatten issued a Peace Appeal; Gandhi and Quaid-i-Azam signed it. It was broadcast from Delhi. But the Sikhs raised funds to get arms and ammunition in order to do away with the Muslims. Muslims also appealed to the Quaid-i-Azam, to allow them to react. But the Quaid remarked;

“I cannot be a hypocrite. I have just signed the Peace Apeal and I expect Muslims to observe the spirit of the appeal.”38

The Redcliff Award also showed Quaid’s firm stand on the performance. Their negative attitude and action forced the Muslims to try to convince the Quaid to show any reaction or protest against the violation, but he said, “No, we agreed to arbitration, we must abide by that arbitration.”39

So throughout his struggle, he believed in positive and constitutional approach. He always demanded for reforms to change the ruling pattern of British Government. Participation of local people in the power structure, and the laws, which may provide some safeguards to the separate identity of Muslims, were the themes of his struggle.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC JUSTICE
Pakistan was to be a state with liberal Muslim posture having strong belief in democratic values. The spirit behind the theme was to provide socio-economic justice to the Muslims who faced the crucial moments of Hindu exploitation under British rule. The Quaid was fully aware of these circumstances. He had always, strongly believed to enforce the basic principle of Islamic economic system in Pakistan. It was closer in its spirit to modern concept of welfare state. It base was to opt the moderate way, just to avoid the excessiveness of uncontrolled economy and that of socialist doctrine. The Quaid believed that economic development and economic power were the most important of all the departments of life.

His vision was based on the geo-economic importance of Pakistan. If Pakistan wished to play its proper role in the world, it must develop its industrial potential side by side with its agriculture he believed.40

On the occasion of laying the foundation stone of the building of the Valika Textile Mills Ltd, he expressed:

“…….I thought that in planning your factory, you have provided for proper residential accommodation and other amenities for the workers, for no industry can thrive without contented labour.”41

Speaking at a public reception at Chittagong; the Quaid said: “Pakistan should be based on sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasis equality and brotherhood of man….These are the basic points of our religion, culture and civilization.”

He further said:

“The people of Pakistan will not mind making sacrifices in order to make our state in the future a really strong and stable state so that we can handle more effectively and with ease our programme, specially for the uplift of the masses.”42

The Quaid-i-Azam had strong reservations about Western capitalist model of economy. He remarked that:

“The economic system of the West has created almost insolvable problems for humanity…..The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our way and present the world an economic system, based on true Islamic concept of equality and social justice.”43

The paramount objective of Pakistan’s economic policy was to do a lot for the poor. The Quaid envisaged; “The Muslims were asking for Pakistan. If the government did not mean the equality of manhood, what would be the use of it? The purpose of whole struggle was that we want to do everything that is possible for the poor.”44

FOREIGN POLICY
At the time of independence there were two factors in Pakistan’s foreign policy. Firstly, her geographical position, especially her contiguity to India; secondly, her feeling of kinship with other Muslim countries.45 Pakistan, though a new country, has stepped naturally into international life with the confidence derived from the enjoyment of a great Islamic heritage of practical experience.46

The original pattern of external relations given by Quaid-i-Azam is still valid today. Pakistan joined the United Nations in September 1947, as a new member. Pakistani leadership was emphasizing friendship with all, promotion of peace and harmony, support to the oppressed people of the world, and a strict observance of the principles of international conduct, as enshrined in the UN Charter. The Quaid expressed a strong desire to develop friendly relations with other states on the eve of his meeting with the special representative of the King of Afghanistan in December 1947. Similar views were reiterated when the first ambassadors of Burma (January 1948), France (January 1948), the US (February 1948), and Turkey (March 1948) presented their credentials.47 Outlining the goals of foreign policy, he declared:

“Our foreign policy is one of the friendliness and goodwill towards the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the principle of honesty and fairplay in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed people of the world, and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.”48

The Quaid had an unflinching faith in the earnest human effort. He had great faith in Muslims and their sheer dedication, desiring no aid or assistance from the outsiders. After Pakistan came into being, he said in reply to the speech of the American Ambassador, “The people of Pakistan desire nothing that is not their own, nothing more than the goodwill and friendship of all the free nations of the World.”49

The Quaid also emphasized the need for harmony, unity of purpose and complete understanding among all the people of Asia, particularly of the Muslims, as that would be a great contribution to the peace and prosperity of the World.50

In his message to the nation on the occasion of the inauguration of the Pakistan Broadcasting Service on August 15, 1947, he said:

“Our object should be peace within and peace without. We want to live peacefully and maintain cordial and friendly relations with our immediate neighbors and with the World at large. We have no aggressive designs against any one. We stand by the United Nations Charter and will gladly make our full contribution to the peace and prosperity of the World.”51

The Quaid, in an interview given to a Swiss journalist, on March 11, 1948, in answer to the question whether there is any hope of India and Pakistan coming to a peaceful settlement of their own with regard to their differences, he said:

“Yes, provided the Indian Government will shed the superiority complex and will deal with Pakistan on an equal footing and fully appreciate the realities.”52

He was the great supporter of the cause of self – determination and the movement for liberation whether it might be in Palestine, Indonesia or Kashmir.

DEFENCE POLICY
Although Pakistan’s foreign policy was based on full support of peace and adherence to the U.N. Charter, yet in the presence of an aggressive and hostile neighbour, it could not afford to neglect its defence. A weak and defenceless country in this imperfect World invites aggression from others. The best way to remove the temptation from those who thought that Pakistan was weak and they could bully and attack her was and indeed still is to build a strong deterrent force.53

On January 23, 1948, while addressing the establishment of H.M.P.S ‘Dilawar’, the Quaid said:

“It was the need of the time to be fully prepared against the aggressive designs. Nature’s inexorable law is the survival of the fittest. Pakistan’s armed forces, were the custodians of the life, property and honour of the people of Pakistan: they were the most vital of all Pakistan’s services.”54

CIVIL SERVICES
It was the normal practice of the colonial power (the British) to use the administration to control the people in order to prolong their stay. They did it very positively. They organized civil services not only to frame the policies but to implement them also. Quaid’s aim was to change the mind-set of this institution. For that purpose he suggested:

“Are we going to allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the immensity of the task that is confronting us and let our new-born state founder under the cruel and dastardly blows stuck by our enemies?

This is challenge to our very existence and if we are to survive as a nation and are to translate our dreams about Pakistan into reality we shall have to grapple with the problems facing us with redoubled zeal and energy.”55

Giving guidelines to the civil servants, the Quaid advised thus:

“Whatever community, cast or creed you belong to, you are now the servants of Pakistan. The days have gone when the country was ruled by the bureaucracy. It is people’s government, responsible to the people more or less on democratic lines and parliamentary practice.” He made some basic points that: “You have to do your duty as servants; you are not concerned with this political or that political party, that is not your business.”

“The other important thing was that of your conduct and dealing with the people in various departments in which you may be; wipe off the past reputation; you are not rulers. You do not belong to the ruling class; you are their servants and friends, maintain the highest standard of honour, integrity, justice and fair play.”56

It is obvious from his point of view that he believed in the supremacy of common man. He was focusing the point that this institution may serve the common people in spite of serving the elite.

EDUCATION
Education is not only an important pillar for development but also the basic condition for the success of democracy. The Muslims are religiously bound to get education. This is necessary in order to lay sound basis for political culture, political socialization and recruitment of political system of the country. Quaid had complete belief in students throughout the movement for independence.

Pakistan’s educational policy, therefore, aim at must not only distributing of degrees but it must have its emphasis on development projects. Pakistani students could learn banking, commerce, trade, etc. New industries and commercial firms could provide new chance to the young. The need was for mobilizing the people and building up the character of future generations. There was an urgent need for training the people in scientific and technical education in order to build up the economic life of the country. The Quaid focused that it should not be forgotten that Pakistan had to compete with the world which was moving very fast in that direction.58

While delivering a speech at a public meeting, at Dacca on 21st March, 1948, he advised the students in these words:

“I look forward to you as the makers of Pakistan, do not be exploited and do not be misled. Create amongst yourself complete unity and solidarity,…..Your main occupation should be….in fairness to yourself, in fairness to your parents, in fairness to the State…..to devote your attention to your studies.59

While giving the guidelines for future he expressed: (Reply to address presented by the students of Islamia College on 12th April, 1948.)

“You must learn to distinguish between your love for your Province and your love and duty to the State as a whole. Our duty to the State takes us a stage beyond provincialism. It demands a broader sense of vision, and greater sense of patriotism. Our duty to the State often demands that we must be ready to submerge our individual or provincial interests unto the common cause for common good. Our duty to the State comes first; our duty to our Province, to our district, to our town and to our village and ourselves comes next. Remember we are building up a State, which is going to play its full part in the destinies of the whole Islamic World….We must develop a sense of patriotism, which should galvanize and weld us all into one strong nation.”60

He exhorted the students to keep away from politics during their studies. After completing it, however, they had to play an important role in nation building activities.

STATUS OF WOMEN
Quaid-i-Azam championed the cause of womanhood and advocated for women an equal share with men in social and national life. The following quotation throws ample light on the views of the father of the Nation:

“In the great task of building the nation and to maintain its solidarity, women have a most valuable part to play. They are the prime architects of the character of the youth who constitute the backbone of the State. I know that in the long struggle for the achievement of Pakistan, Muslim women have stood solidly behind their men. In the bigger struggle for the building up of Pakistan that now lies ahead let it not be said that the women of Pakistan had lagged behind or failed in their duty.”61

He always appreciated the role of women in Pakistan Movement. He always took his sister, Miss Fatimah Jinnah, everywhere he had to go. He did so because he believed that an ignorant women could not bring up the child properly. If Muslims wanted to do some thing then they must give proper status to the women.

COMMENTS
The Quaid’s personality is a reflection of a leader with strong ideas and firm beliefs in struggle through constitutional reforms. His vision and leadership changed the destiny of his nation, geography of the sub-continent had introduced new trends to get independence without using destructive measures as bloodshed or going to the jail.

He emphasized a liberal and tolerant Islam, socio-economic justice, a participatory and democratic polity, constitutionalism, rule of law, equality of opportunities irrespective of caste, creed, religion or sex, and opportunities for education and development of natural and inherent qualities of the people. The people should think and act as Pakistanis and the State must have a sound foreign and defence policy, he mentioned.

Search for national identity and integration is the main problem in the way of political development. Scholars have traced several distinguished trends which appear to be associated with the process of political development, such as, increased complexity, specialization of political role, institution, the enlargement of an educated political elite and the increased politicization of the population through mass parties. So, the emergence of national, rather than parochial, political issues and of interests concerned with these issues, urbanization, economic growth and the increasing interrelationship of the political, social and economic spheres of society are some of the aspects which might develop our country into a strong and modern Islamic state.

The Quaid emphasized on the following three workable principles to meet with such complex situations:

UNITY, FAITH AND DISCIPLINE
Unity can solve the problem of fragmentation in Pakistani society. The curse of provincialism, parochialism and ethnicity can be solved only through the promotion of unity. A strong Faith and strict discipline can inculcate and promote the feelings of nationhood in the citizens.

Islam has given the basic guidelines for every sphere of life. Being the true follower of these guidelines, the Quaid visualized Pakistan as a liberal Islamic democratic polity with socio-economic justice. Political participation, interest articulation and interest aggregation must be performed through constitutional institutions and processes. The State should perform the function of political communication by giving the full rights of criticism and opposition to all its citizens.

Rule of Law must be manifested through all activities performed by the government. Status of minorities and women must be safeguarded by the State.

For the future the Quaid said:

“Nature has given you everything. You have got unlimited resources. The foundations of your State have been laid, and it is now for you to build, and build as quickly as you can. So go ahead I wish you God Speed.”62

Reference: Pakistan Vision (Quaid-i-Azam Number) Vol. II, Nos. 1 & 2,Jan-Jul 2001
Publisher: Pakistan Study Centre, University of the Punjab, Lahore. 2001

Notes and References

1. Jean Blondel, Comparative Government : An Introduction, London: Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 29.
2. Haiman, Group, Leadership and Democratic Action, USA: Hougton Mifflin Company, 1951, pp. 5-6.
3. Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah, Studies in Interpretation, Karachi: Quaid-i-Azam Academy, 1981, pp. 837-39.
4. Ibid., p, 42.
5. Ibid., p, 44.
6. Jamil-ud-din Ahmed, The Final Phase of Struggle for Pakistan, Lahore: Publishers United Ltd., 1975, p. 138
7. Muhammad Ali Sheikh, (ed.), Role of Sindh in Creation of Pakistan, Karachi: Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, 1998, pp.15-16.
8. S.M. Burke, and Salim Al-Din Qureshi, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah His personality and His Politics, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 367.
9. Ibid.
10. Jamil-ud-Din Ahmed, Speeches and Statements of Mr. Jinnah, Lahore M. Ashraf, 1968, pp. 208-209.
11. Mr. Rafique Afzal, Speeches and Statements of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Lahore: Research Society of Pakistan, 1966, pp. 455-56.
12. S.M. Burke, op. cit; p. 369.
13. Ibid.
14. Rizwan Ahmed, Sayings of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Karachi; Royal Book Company, 1986, p. 100.
15. Akbar S. Ahmed, Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 175-76.
16. Salahuddin Khan, Had There Been No Jinnah, Islamabad, Pan Graphics, 1989, p. 108.
17. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Speeches and Statements as Governor General of Pakistan, 1947-48, Islamabad: Government of Pakistan, 1989, p.42.
18. Akbar S.M. op, cit., p. 174.
19. Khalid Bin Saeed, Pakistan, The Formative Phase, 1857-1948, Lahore: Oxford University Press, 1969, p. 276.
20. Akbar S.M. op, cit., p. 176.
21. Sharif-ul-Majahid, op, cit., P. 153.
22. Hamid Yousaf, Pakistan, A Study of Political Development 1947-97, Lahore: Maktaba Jadeed press, 1998, p. 167.
23. Akram Azam, Pakistan’s Ideology and Ideologies, Lahore: Progressive Publishers, 1982, p. 167.
24. Mehmood Ali Shah and Naudir Bakht, “Quaid’s Views on the System of Government for Pakistan,” The Journal of Political Science, Vol. IX, Nos. 1-2, 1986.
25. Interview to the APA, 8th November, 1945, Quaid-i-Azam, A Chronology, Karachi: Quaid-i-Azam Academy, 1981, p. 113.
26. Rizwan Ahmed, op, cit., p 93
27. Prof. Muhammad Muzaffar Mirza, The Great Quaid, Lahore: Feroz Sons Pvt. Ltd., 1995, pp. 218, 219.
28. Ibid., p. 219
29. Ibid., p 230
30. Mushtaq Ahmed, Jinnah and After, Karachi: Royal Book Company, 1994, p. 16.
31. Muhammad Muzaffar, op, cit., p. 230.
32. Geoffrey, K Roberts, A Dictionary of Political Analysis, Bucks: Hazell Watson, 1971, p. 49.
33. Ibid.
34. Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan the Enigma of Political Development, England: Dawson Westview, 1980, pp. 34-35.
35. Sharif-ul-Majahid, op, cit., p. 154.
36. Ahmed Hussain, Pakistan Political Development, Nigeria: 1979, p. 120.
37. Riaz Ahmed, Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah, Karachi: 1981, p. 13.
38. Kh. A Haye, ‘The Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah as a Constitutionalist; Essays on Quaid-i-Azam” M.H Siddiqui, (ed.) Lahore; Shahzad Publishers, 1976, p. 37.
39. Ibid.
40. S.M. Burke, op, cit., p. 370
41. Speeches by Quaid-i-Azam, op. cit., p. 2.3
42. Ibid.
43. Speeches as Governor General, op. cit, pp. 160-161
44. S.M Burke, op. cit., p.370.
45. Richard Symonds, The making of Pakistan, Islamabad: Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan,. 1967, p. 170.
46. L.F. Rushbrook Williams, The State of Pakistan, London: Faber and Faber, 1962, p. 115.
47. Hasan Askari Rizvi, “Major Phases of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy” Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol. XIII, No. 1, January – June 1992, pp, 74-75.
48. Quaid-i-Azam, Speeches as Governor General, op, cit., p. 65.
49. Safdar Mahmood and Javid Zafar, Founders of Pakistan, Lahore; Progressive Publishers, 1968, p. 248.
50. Selected Speeches and Statements of the Quaid, 1911-34 and 1947-1948,
51. Speeches by Quaid-i-Azam, op. cit., p. 55.
52. Speeches as Governor General. Op. cit., p. 163.
53. S.M. Burke, op, cit; p. 372.
54. Speeches as Governor General, op. cit., p. 123.
55. Ibid., pop. 223-224
56. Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan, Lahore: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 361.
57. Mukhtar Zaman, Student’s Role in the Pakistan Movement, Karachi, M.A. Arff Printers, 1978, pp. 17-18
58. S.M. Burke, op, cit., 370.
59. Rizwan Ahmed. Op, cit., p. 100
60. Ibid.
61. Sheila Mc. Donough, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, America; D.C. Health and Company, 1970, p. 17.
62. M.H. Saiyid, Muhammad Ali Jinnah: A Political Study, Karachi: Elite Publishers Ltd., 1970, p. 328.

^^School level Pakistan Studies !!!!



No doubt Islamic social(ist) democracy in which muslims and non muslims have "equal" rights and every one is free to practice his religion was what Jinnah wanted , but the Mullahs did not let it happen ........
Thanks for proving the point once again
Also what is your definition of secularism ?? just curious

Mr that is not school level studies that is known facts to every one from Sir Syed to Iqbal to Jinah all of them were in their early years great propagates of Hindu Muslim unity but all three changed after seeing what Hindus really are and they came up with two nation theory which in it self goes against secularism so show gutts post all the speeches of Jinah from 1940 to his death and all the interviews too

 

[INDIC]

No doubt .... But the problem is how do we know that the holy prophet (pbuh) actually said what is being attributed to him !!!



okay ..... we will see what you are able to come up with ... till then , enjoy this "snack" from Pak tea house :

Was Jinnah secular? | Pak Tea House

I have argued repeatedly and I stick by the position that Jinnah wanted a state that can only be described in modern parlance as a secular democratic state. My claim is not based on 11 August 1947 alone and in fact I will go as far as to say that Jinnah’s vision of the state would have been secular even if he had not made that extraordinary pronouncement where he merely put it in black and white.

My claim is based on all of the following:

1. Jinnah’s record as a legislator in the central Indian legislature spanning over four decades.
2. Jinnah’s role in the Indian Independence movement and in trying to forge a united Indian nationality which earned him the title of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”.
3. Jinnah’s record after he took over the Muslim League as its president.
4. Jinnah’s clear pronouncements as the Governor General and the first president of the constituent assembly.
5. The symbolism deployed by Jinnah in his choice of his cabinet...................................

Does Two Nation Theory looks secular to you. If Pakistan was meant to be secular state why Liaquat Ali Khan brought Objective Resolution in 1949.