i accept all the quaid quoting, but i fail to understand where the words "secularism" are written, was quaid fearful to use this words??, he has used the words like islam, islamic, islamic justice, even our objective resolution sates that?? so whats the point really??
islamic republic or secular state, it will not bring an ounce of change in pakistan, corrupt will prosper, what we need are the land reforms and reforms in education system, mass education, awareness etc
the word of quaid
"“The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.”"
as he has clearly mentioned that one needs to follow islam, and he has given the example, that islam teaches us this and that, and to protect minorities and treat every religious/ ethnic minority as equal.. true!!
Dear Sir,
This is about secularism, not about Jinnah. You are right in pointing out that everyone is quoting him, but with respect, not right in stating that merely because he did not spell out the word, there is something materially defective in quoting him.
Two points: if I invite you to come with me on a short journey in my mechanical vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine travelling on four wheels of inflated rubber on a road of tarmac or bitumen, and you complain later that you never realised you were being invited for a car-ride, that is special pleading.
You have to realise that Jinnah didn't get the approval of the community by divine right, he had to struggle for it, democratically, under the rule of the British. He had to fight off the INC, which also claimed to represent Muslims, and had formidable representatives to put up, including disciples of Ansari learned in law; he had to fight off the Jamaat and Deoband; he had to fight off Maududi; he had to fight to get on his side fiercely resistant parties like the Praja Krishak Party of Fazlul Haq, the Unionists in the Punjab and the predecessors of the ANP, the Khudai Khidmatgars in present-day KP. He even had to respond to his own party members who were zealots, such as the Raja of Mahmudabad, apart from convincing Islamists such as the Pir of Manki.
Under the circumstances, in standing for the rights of the Muslim community, he made it a point never to deny Islam; he repeatedly said that his vision of the rules and laws of the homeland within India that he sought would not be inconsistent with the holy Quran.
I respectfully suggest that you were right in raising the point, since everyone had started by citing his example, but in substance, Jinnah was clearly secular, whether he used the label or not. Because he was operating in a political democratic framework, he had to choose his words carefully; unfortunately, this careful selection has been used by those who wish to get the authority of his reputation and his standing to suggest that he actually meant something more.
That is not to say, by any means, that he would have moved against Islam, against the Quran, against the Hadeeth, in any way. It would have been absurd for him to fight for and secure two homelands in Muslim majority states and then insist on legislature that was in any way anti-Islamic. He was by no stretch of the imagination given to doing absurd things.
Ultimately his words are before us, and remain for us to interpret. This debate is precisely about the interpretation, in some ways, but not in others. Let us deal with these two aspects of the debate one after the other.
It is precisely about why we choose to interpret him to mean secular, or not secular. The reasons for Pakistan, the reasons for seeking two homelands for Muslims, are surely very important for you, in Pakistan, in your present generation, in deciding what course to take. It is one of the guidelines that you may wish to consult, to consider. Of course. That is why others are citing him in their favour, for secularism; that is why you are refuting their interpretation. Perfectly good and proper.
In doing so, please do not be confused or diverted by suggestions that if Pakistan had been meant to be secular, it was never necessary. That is a muddying of the waters that you can and should ignore with all the force that you can summon. Pakistan is the result of historical events, and it was never about secularism; it was about the right of an otherwise outnumbered minority to decide how to fine-tune things for themselves. It was about what you are going through today.
At the time that decisions were being taken, it was by no means a settled matter that the alternative would turn out to be secular. On the contrary. Many felt at the time that the influence of another religion was too deeply imbued in the other alternative for any Muslim consciousness to flourish, perhaps even survive.
It is an historical irony that something else happened in reality, that the Hindu majority state adopted secularism, of a sort, and kept to it, and that the Muslim majority two homelands, formed into one state, increasingly was guided into another path, step at a time, one compromise, one political compulsion at a time. I can list them but every Pakistani knows them by heart, you have yourself quoted the OR, so eloquently defended by Sir Mohammed Zaffrullah Khan in an act of supreme irony, and the others don't matter.
As we can see, in the flow of time, things happen. In 63 years, there have been developments. There have been influences at work, for better or for worse, this is not the place to pass judgement, which have deepened the thinking about Islam in Pakistan. These were not the Qaid's ways, according to liberal Pakistanis; on the contrary, these were precisely what he wanted, according to the conservatives. Finally, it is for each of you to decide, based on what is true today, what you see around you, what you wish to do. Interpreters and analysts, and good friends from other countries, can only hold up their own pictures of the truth for you to be guided; you must decide what to believe and how to select.
When you do, I hope you will remember that the great man once said (I quote him, once more, because anything a non-Muslim, a foreigner and an Indian says, may be automatically rejected by some as having no bearing on your country's internal matter) that there were dozens of sects; which version would rule? I suggest to you that you bear this in mind, but not allow yourselves to be paralysed by the thought. At the moment, you need democracy, free of coercion. Once that is a settled issue, once it is clearly understood by all that democracy must not be upset, it is time to decide on secularism.
But there is no harm thinking about it, yes or no, until that time. Your friends will hope very hard, or will pray, depending on their profession of faith, that you will take the right decision. And that is what this debate is about, after all.
Sincerely,
