Jinnah had a dream, and we failed him

Published: March 25, 2012

The ideology of Pakistan was the fight for the rights of minorities - not to be an Islamic state.

Hopes were high when Jinnah presided over the Constituent Assembly in 1947 and declared without doubt that freedom of religion was to be respected. It was his wish to lift up the economic and politically deprived Muslims from their backwardness that led to the support of many non-Muslim minority activists as well, notably Christians. In a time where major Muslim political groupings allied themselves with the Indian National Congress, the Christians in their legislation secured Jinnah the desired support the All India Muslim League needed.

His close friends and those amongst the founding fathers of Pakistan also belonged to minority groups. The first Law Minister Jogendra Nath Mandal is a Hindu from Bengal; his secretary and later the Chief Justice of Pakistan Alvin Robert Cornelius belonged to the Catholic Church. The long time, highly admired Foreign Minister Mr Muhammad Zafrullah Khan belonged to the Ahmadi sect. In addition, Jinnah himself belonged to the Shia denomination and many of the top leaders of the Pakistan movement were from the Shia, Ismaili and Ahmadi camps.

Mandal and Zafrullah Khan became quite disillusioned after Jinnah’s death when the Constituent Assembly went to declare the newborn country an Islamic state, limiting its leadership only to be preserved for Muslims. Both, and especially Mandal, became quite vocal in advocating the need for a secular nation, which is what Jinnah had meant it to be. Their voice fell to deaf ears, Mandal was pushed aside and had to leave his ministry. His resignation letter paints a gloomy picture of how violence against Hindus was neglected and the authorities failed to catch the culprits.

Each nation suffers from religious, ethnic and communal violence. But handled properly, the culprits are caught and punished. Authorities make examples of such wrongdoers and reduce the risk of such acts taking place again. But when the state fails to bring justice and punishment through its legislation, and the judiciary which acquits three in four cases of sectarian terrorism, then there is little hope for help.

Why should Pakistani Christians, who are as proud of this country and are involved as bravely in its struggle for freedom, economy and defense suffer here for the deeds of what the US is doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why should our Hindu community, an entrepreneur’s class who pay their taxes just as any other, suffer because Hindu extremists in India preach hatred and indulge in communal violence? And should it even be mentioned how badly mistreated the Ahmadi’s are on our soil.

Christians and Hindus both make up about 2.5 million individuals each. The latter, although, has for the last three decades fled the country with an average of 10 families moving to India each month. Imagine our own family members being harassed, kidnapped for ransom, raped or converted by force. It is of national disgrace that our federal and provincial authorities fail to realise and accept that such occurrences are frequent.

Merely allocating mandatory seats in the parliament or involving one or two names representing minorities on the electoral list does not provide security or safety to our religious minorities. Our brave civil society and the local neighbourhoods’, who do care, can do nothing when all these factors are against them.

Those behind these gruesome acts are not unknown. The most militant of them are these days touring the country under the banner of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council, together with several political parties. Its militant members, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Jamaatud Daawa all have an ugly record of several thousand innocent Pakistani civilian lives. They have openly embraced the Taliban and denounced the military operations taking place to curb terrorism caused by such fascist groups. Most importantly, this group fails to condemn violence on minorities in the country. And if they do address this issue, they blame it on ‘foreign elements’.

What can the Pakistani minorities expect when the politicians, who on one hand promise to safeguard minorities, on the other stand alongside those who are capable of killing at point blank and inciting violence? These political parties are not unknown and their members are not ignorant with regards to these basic facts.

The reality is that, when deciding between a rally, which is given media attention, even if it spews hatred, and to protect minorities, our dear leaders reject the latter. And if they occasionally do say, as Nawaz Sharif so boldly said that, Ahmadis are our brethren as well, then all hell breaks loose from the self-declared protectors of this ‘citadel of Islam’.

And then we have the silent media, more specifically TV shows and news channels.

How often do they report that women are converted to Islam by force?

It does not help for those defenders of faith, to recite the verses of Quran, preaching tolerance or freedom of religion, when the ground realities are quite the opposite. The fact is that our minorities fear for their lives, their faith and their children’s safety. Imagine living such a life!

Pakistan is, sadly, ranked amongst the worst states for minorities to reside in; the others being Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Congo-Kinshasa. The UN Minority Rights Group (MRG) publishes a yearly report of dreadful statistics about incidents that have occurred during the year in Pakistan relating to violence against minorities.

There are many theories on what the ideology of Pakistan is; the most popular theory, which was quite unknown as long as Jinnah was alive, is that the country was created and destined to be an Islamic state. The ground reality, although that was the driving force, behind the Pakistan movement was the fight for the rights of minorities.

Jinnah believed in Hindu-Muslim unity, but was disaffected when the Nehru dominated camp in the Indian National Congress refused to agree on separate electorates for minorities. One thing led to the other, and we had an outcome which divided the subcontinent.

The main essence is that Pakistan was created to protect the minorities of India. And hence, the ideology of Pakistan is to protect its minorities in order to prove its existence. Our mere existence on the map is not to be the eternal enemy of India, or to have influence in Kabul, it is merely to protect our minorities. If they are well, all is well. If they are threatened, then we have failed. And at our current standing, we have failed Jinnah and Pakistan miserably.

At the end of the day, in one way or another, we are all minorities. If it is not religion, then ethnicities divides us, and if not that, then language, culture, tribe, cast and creed is always there. But when anyone of our countrymen, no matter what religion they have, travels to a foreign country, they are only known as Pakistani. We need to realise that being Pakistani, in its essence means equality.

This post was first published here.

Read more by Usman here. Follow him on twitter @UsmanBaghi. 


Usman Asif

Norwegian born of Pakistani descent, writes on politics, society and religion. He blogs at www.usmanasif.wordpress.com. He tweets @UsmanBaghi.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • Talha

    Jinnah and his few good men meant well but little did they know that their collaborators had thier own agenda which they pursued after the creation of Pakistan.

    Jinnah passed away and the few good men were hounded out. Thus began the destruction of this beautiful nation at the hands of those who opposed it.Recommend

  • Kashif

    well The idea was itself quite foolish once you were trying to create a country on the basis of one religious orthodoxy than it was obvious that the people whose orthodoxy was accepted were going to dominate. But again todate we are engendered into this debate whether Pakistan was being created on the lines of religion or it was simply envisioned as uniting the muslim majority areas (the shorter version of India). certainly the bearded fanatics are not ready to accept the latter lets hope they do someday and take some sympathy to jinnah’s speech of 1947 to constitutent assembly!Recommend

  • ZYX

    I find such writing to be quite pointless. Every week we see a proliferation of liberals whining about Jinnahs pakistan and secularism as if their words are affecting anybody new. They tend to preach to the same choir every week and every week they satisfy themselves by completing the ritual. The rest of us honestly look at liberals and laugh at how stupid they are…just who are they talking to? And do they seriously think anybody is listening except those who already believe? And finally, do all the liberals of Pakistan combined have the power of one renowned mosque? Seriously, you people need to stop drinking that cool aid.. There will be no secularism in Pakistan…you can take “Jinnah’s Pakistan” and shove it…and if you dont like it, well go hold a vigil or write on ET cause thats about all you can do….just pathetic.Recommend

  • Hassan

    Didn’t Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam also have dream about this Ummah ? Did we not fail him to ?Recommend

  • http://India vasan

    Excellent article. I disagree with the author on the point that Jinnah wanted to create a country separated from Hindus so that muslims can practice their religion. That is not correct. Jinnah utilized the Muslim league to satisfy his ego , when he was ignored by the Indian National Congress, and got sucked into the separate country theory. If he believed that muslims can take care of the minority, he should have believed that hindus would have taken care of the minorities as well, as both the muslims and hindus of the north India were of the same stock. Many muslim moghal kings who ruled most of India before the British were religious bigots like Aurangazeb where as King Ashoka and his ilks were lot more tolerant of other faiths.
    Claiming that Hindus and muslims cannot live together in one nation based on their religious beliefs, customs etc and then (after Pakistan was formed) preach the populace that State has nothing to do with religion and everyone irrespective of the religious beliefs is equal in the state and in front of the law etc is pure con game. Not many muslims and hindus believed in it as many muslim leaders in INC like Maulana Abdul Kalam stated, Those hindus who believed Jinnah like Mandal had their own axe to grind (like the Harijan problem) who hoped to get a fair deal for harijans in a muslim country, How fatal that has proved to be. He had to run to India for his safety. How ironical.Recommend

  • Lt Col Imtiaz Alam(retd)

    Yes an Islamic State.. A dream of an Independent State where we could freely practice our Religion,Islam. The beauty of Islam is that it protects the right of its minorities. In Pakistan we have gone a step further by giving minorities Reserved seats in Senate.NA & the PA’s. Does any Country in the World gives this right to its minorities. Our Minorities enjoy the same rights & privileges like any other citizen.Incidents happen all over the Words where minorities come across Incidents in their lives which occurs to other citizen’s. The difference is it is blown out of proportion in Pakistan by vested interests for petty gains. Thousands of Muslims all over the World suffer for their beliefs. Take Kashmir. Lacs. have been butchered for standing up to their rights & beliefs. In Europe the bashing continues over right to put on a Muslim Dress/garb.Recommend

  • Abbas, ZA

    DEAR AUTHOR ….do you not think it is LATE …..toooo LATE to think about minorities…..If you literally have any minorites ….. atleast 10-15% then you CAN talk of secularism…it is a bit TOO LATE….sorry.Jinnah was failed long time ago,,,,Recommend

  • Ammar Javed

    simply pointless just like following the trend of liberals.Recommend

  • Nandita.

    Why should our Hindu community, an entrepreneur’s class who pay their taxes just as any other, suffer because Hindu extremists in India preach hatred and indulge in communal violence?

    Even if Hindu extremists in India didn’t indulge in communal violence, the Islamic extremists in Pakistan would still continue harassing the minorities in Pakistan. The communal violence in Pakistan is NOT merely a tit for tat response. Surely you are not naive enough to believe that atrocities committed against hindus in pakistan are merely a way to avenge atrocities against muslims across the border.
    Sure there are incidents of communal violence in India, But these are extremely rare. The babri masjid and godhra incidents are regretful and Indians are not proud of it but Hindus don’t preach hatred as you suggest. I have lived in India for 29 years and not once have i ever come across a fellow hindu spewing venom against muslims. There are extremists in India but they are a minority and communal violence is rare. It is not an everyday thing like in Pakistan. Can anyone name one non-islamic country where muslims can roam the streets without fear wearing burqa and hijab and the skull caps ? The answer is INDIA. You could travel to Bangalore, my city, to verify this statement.

    Infact, I’ve started appreciating india so much more after i started reading ET. — Hindus and Muslims sitting side by side on a bus, hindus buying grocery from a muslim vendor, hindu and muslim friends enjoying a meal at a cafe – these were just ordinary scenes from everyday life till i came across this site. Now when i across such scenes my heart fills with pride.

    To those who doubt my words, please here it from the horse’s mouth. Here’s what an Indian muslim has to say to president musharraf about his fellow countrymen ——

    Before I am attacked, I would love to clarify that I don’t hate pakistan. I just love my country and i like to dispel any myths people have about my country and its people.Recommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif

    Can agree with you to some degree. I think most of the political groupings pre-partition had good men/(even women) in their camps. Most of them were sidelined as you say, but many did try their best, and such is the case today aswell, we have good politicians in each and every party, but who do not receive enough attention.

    They will never accept Jinnah’s principles. Furtheron, article might mention the ideology of Pakistan, but the main point is the violence our minorities face, we need to speak up for them.

    Thank you for your decent thoughts

    The creation for Pakistan was first and foremost a muslim reaction to their own backwardness in meeting with the modern times. The many movements and personalities in subcontinent did strive for muslims to educate themselves, and empower themselves. This although was not archieved during the run up to partition, therefore separate electorates were sought, which were denied by Congress. The rest was a powerplay where British too played a important role in dividing the AIML and INC (many of its members even had dual memberships, incl. Jinnah).

    @Lt Col Imtiaz Alam(retd)
    I disagree. Muslims practise their faith freely in India. And if the intention was an islamic state, Jinnah would have said so clearly in the address to the constituent assembly. Abdur Rab Nishtar would not have been sidelined for premiership and Bangladesh would still had been under Pakistani control. Reality is that we are not unanimous on religions either, not even sunnis from different regions. Secular state does not equals to a anti-religious state, and it is the only solution to our problems.

    Kashmir is a great human rights consern, India has done since the 80s up there, what Pak is doing in Balochistan. Kidnapping, killing and dumping. The solution lies in diplomacy and not in religious extremist proxy wars.

    @Abbas ZA
    15-20% are Shia (Isna Ashari/Twelvers), some regiones in Gilgit has significant portions of Ismaili/AgaKhani precense. Hindu Marwaris dominate the Tharparker regiones of Sind and some sections of Bahawalpur, Zikris make up a strong population in central brahui Balochistan and in Gwadar. Further, christians, hindus, sikhs and ahmadis are found in all urban centras, not to foget Bohras, Khojas and Parsis. But if the latter groups are a small minority, then what about the divide within muslims? as mentioned the shia-sunni and the within sunni in traditional and purist. The firstone is even more divided into different sufi-orders, while the latter have several seminaries as allegiance.

    And if not minority in sense of religion and faith, then many are minorities by ethnicity. A country that plural needs a secular state to safeguard all its citizens. And yes, we failed Jinnah, but we must still strive and do our part.Recommend

  • Ishant

    @Lt Col Imtiaz Alam(retd)

    “In Europe the bashing continues over right to put on a Muslim Dress/garb.”

    Muslims in Europe are immigrants, who instead of mingling with the local European culture, assert their own culture and rules(of Mid-east) in Europe. Minorities in Pakistan are not outsiders, in fact Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan have been living in Pakistan before the arrival of Islam.Recommend

  • Nida

    @Lt Col Imtiaz Alam(retd):

    Are you for real ? Do you really feel we are fair to minorities ? get real. are u kidding the world or urself ?Recommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif


    I am talking about the extremes. They exist in all corners of the world. Communalism and related violence was a pre-partition problem aswell. Most did not support such hatred campaigns, but those who did, they do created heavy mess.

    Pakistan is likevice not a hatred filled nation, we are just with the disadvantage of a thuggish mentaliy of self-interest which controls the inner cyrcles of power. Most of us do care for our minorities and our fellow human beings. Our religion and culture do tell us so, but there is little to do inront of a gun both for the activist and the judge.

    I would recomment Asghar Ali Engineers brilliant articles on communalism in India and Pakistan. Aswell as my own piece on extremists who have hijacked hinduism and islam

  • Hussain

    I being a student of International Islamic University, Islamabad (IIUI) has seen something amazing happening here. The IIUI is a bastion of so called mullahs who study science and arts as well as religion at the same time. I have seen Hindu students from the same communities being discussed here coming to our University and going about there education as like any other people in Pakistan. I disagree with the notion that there is some systematic conspiracy to wipe out minorities from Pakistan. I think that bad people are everywhere and in all forms. The English speaking online ET readers who study at Beaconhouse and City and then go to LUMS and IBA are either too naive or stupid. They fail to understand the real sociocultural dynamics of the middle and lower classes who live in shacks and in villages. How many of the ambassadors of Hindus here have really seen and talked to a real Pakistani Hindu. I bet most of you are screaming loud after seeing something either on GEO or on ET. Please do not spread a thing before doing some proper research. As far as my Hindu friends at the IIUI are concerned they are loved by everyone and they get highest grades. Recommend


    What a stupid article!!! ET should be ashamed of itself!!! Have the person who has written this article NOT heard Quaid’s countless speeches where he wanted PAkistan to be solely an Islamic State, and Islam automatically grants minorities protection and freedom! Sadly our DEAR QUAID’S dream still hasn’t come true and Islamic Principles were never properly implemented in Pakistan which is why this is the condition of this country! All the patriots of Pakistan are still striving to make Pakistan a fully Islamic State InshaAllah!!!! Let Indians ans seculars say PAkistan was made FOR ISLAM and in the NAME OF ISLAM!!!!!Recommend

  • Lala

    The authors belief that Hindus, Christians, are hated in Pakistan merely for the misdeeds of their brethren abroad is laughable. Don’t you get it ? They are hated JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE HINDU, they are hated JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIAN. It has been drilled into the minds of the average Pakistani to hate them and to look upon them with suspicion by the Govt. and the society, and mazaarat se, even by Islamic religious leaders because they’re ‘Kafirs’.

    Jinnah himself was communal. To expect secularism in a country created on a religious basis is naive. Recommend

  • ZYX

    @Usman Asif:

    You’re sitting all the way over in Norway and talking about secularism in Pakistan. Why not just assimilate into your adopted homeland if secularism is truly what you believe in? Why do you feel the need to drag up irrelevant issues in foreign countries? The whole debate about secularism is insulting on so many levels. Firstly, this country was formed on the basis of Islam….what any individual thought, whether it was Jinnah or your grandpa, is irrelevant….for any Muslim what matters is what Muhammad (SAW) wanted, not what Muhammad Ali Jinnah or any other Muhammad wanted. You can argue till you’re blue in the face, it won’t change the fact that the loyalties of the majority are with the “Islam” in the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”…the rest of the words are irrelevant. It is believers who form the majority, it is believers who defend our fill our armed forces, it is believers who populate the rural areas…the only place you’ll find people who want secularism is in the comfy parts of the major cities,….and how dare you, a foreigner by all standards, even speak to us about abandoning our faith…it is a complete way of life. Seriously, go do something useful with your time…talking about secularism in Pakistan is like writing about unicorns…you’re probably talking to the same audience. Recommend

  • The Flying Object

    Well those who still don’t understand the creation of Pakistan, including Indian Muslims and Scholars should be sufficed for by this from Iqbal (R.A):

    Mulla ko jo hai hind mein sajday ki ijaazat
    Naadaan ye samajhta hai k aazaad hai IslamRecommend

  • BlackJack

    Unfortunately, your article contains the same narrow mindedness cloaked in meaningless platitudes. Extremists are present in every nation – what counts is whether the state stands by them and feeds their hatred (as in Pakistan) or controls their reach and holds them accountable for their actions (as in the West and in India). For example, the perpetrators of the Samjhauta express bombing, Graham Staines murder and the Gujarat riots are behind bars; not a single Hindu has gone to garland these bigots or threaten the judges who sentenced them – they stand disgraced in society. How many were sentenced after the last anti-Ahmadiyya violence or the Gojra riots in Pakistan? Note – I don’t believe that we Indians are perfect – far from it; we have our own baggage to deal with, but at least we don’t blame Babri Masjid or the Gujarat riots on forced conversions in Pakistan.
    Second, you people read too much into this speech by Jinnah. No doubt, he was no hardcore Islamist and would have preferred his compatriots to live their lives in harmony with any minorities that stayed behind, but the agenda that he preached (in the form of the two-nation theory) was fundamentally divisive – that the muslims could not live with the rest of India and needed a separate country. In fact, he actually said that the minorities in either country could serve as hostages for each other against possible ill-treatment by the opposite majority (not the exact words – but the mentality speaks for itself). Partition was not, I repeat not, to protect the rights of minorities, but to safeguard the economic and political rights of the Muslim elite in UP/ Bihar who eventually migrated. If partition was for minority rights, Sikhs would not have fled present-day Pak Punjab in droves.Recommend

  • Sachin Arora

    @ Nandita, Very Well Said
    Really feel happy reading your comment.
    From my personal experience, my boss and some of my collegues are Muslim. We work together, eat together, party together. Never the thought of differences has come in our minds.

    Also if we remove the Great Islamic history and Culture, India will also fail.

    Sachin Arora
    New Delhi.Recommend

  • ashok

    Jinnah did a favor to Hindus and so-called moderate Muslims of undivided India by creating a separate land for Muslims using Islam. He alone was responsible for removing millions of anti-Hindu League Muslims from the main land India to the area called Pakistan and almost emptying the area called Pakistan by forcing Hindus who never thought of leaving their native place, to leave for main land India.

    It was this action of Jinnah that Hindu majority India is on the path of progress and known as the largest democracy in the world while Muslim Republic of Pakistan is known as the epicenter of world terrorism.Pakistan is ungovernable and will remain as such no matter who the ruler is.

    Thanks to Jinnah, Hindus and Moderate Muslims can live in peace and harmony in main land India because most of the Fasadi, Jehadi and Auladi Muslims chose to migrate to the border lands of main India in 1947 to join their brethren in wild lands beyond Indus.

    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who was a great visionary leader and president of Congress before 1947 gave an interview to Shorish Kashmiri in which Abul Kalam predicted doomed future of Pakistan after imposing a partition.

    Kamran Khan in one of TV Talk show picked up Abul Kalam’s prediction recently. Please listen what Abul Kalam said BEFORE 1947 about Paksitan and compare what Pakistan IS now:


    I would welcome comments on my post.Recommend

  • suleman asfand

    i dont knw why do we start talking about islam and minorities when the rational realty is before us…..i am a muslim bt those who are enchanting the slogans of islamic state my only question is does islam tell us to rape girls (toba)….is there any injunction about acid throwing on women…then killing some one is a islamic tradition or genocides have been allowed come on people the writer is just telling you the truth and my only question is that if some of you believe that some seats are enough to represent 2.5 million minorities then wht was the point of dividing subcontinent huh……reverently, u all are quite literate but do u really feel if its a islamic state we are living in one with all adversaries….on the other hand read the last para carefully what writer is trying to say he concluded everything with unity and its the sole criterion to be a Pakistani…Although,dear writer i believe ur main idea was to talk about the islamic or secular pakistan but u diverted your arrows to minorities well this is just tip of the iceberg we have many other issues which makes us everyother thing then a pakistani and a muslim….i apologise if i offended someone but this is how i felt…Recommend

  • Arijit Sharma

    @MAHEEN TIRMIZI: ” … Let Indians ans seculars say PAkistan was made FOR ISLAM and in the NAME OF ISLAM!!!!! … ”

    We want you to have a lot more Islam than you are having now. We want Sharia implemented in Pakistan. We want you to experience Islam fully. Recommend

  • Imran Ahmed

    When will the silent majority of Pakistan take a stand for what every right thinking individual knows to be right? Justice for all, protection of the weak, equality under law irrespective of creed, race or gender and equal opportunity are not just slogans, they are Just Ideals.

    These so called muslims who work against the example of our compassionate role model deface our religion and our nation. We should stand up to the taliban, the mullahs and so called aalims who make a mockery of the goodness in humanity.Recommend

  • http://na deep

    You have to address the rot within. On an otherwise benign programme – haas be haal – the comedian took on the garb of an old man to admonish the woman anchor when she suggested that pakistanis should befriend india – the comedian in the old man’s garb shakes his head and says: dont forget the true face of the Hindu – he killed our people…” and so on – the male anchor then pledges to reinforce the two nation theory and the girl agrees.

    Were the programme producers ever held to account by PEMRA for spewing hatred towards their own countrymen?

    You have to look inwards at the prejudices being nurtured like a treasured heirloom to be handed to the younger generations.Recommend

  • HMN

    Oh my. All the crazies are out tonight, Pakistani, Indian, Muslim, Hindu, left, right. Don’t listen to the crazies. Thoughtful piece, Usman Asif.Recommend

  • MarkH

    For the liberal bashers I’m finally going to make this easy.
    If what you’re speaking of does not fit that, you’re bashing liberals because it’s as trendy as the beard. It’s impossible for even every far right person to lack the traits you tag to “liberal scum” as they’re their personalities first and your label second. The reason words exist are because they differentiate concepts and objects. If you bend it, it becomes a different word.Recommend

  • narayana murthy

    “Why should our Hindu community, an entrepreneur’s class who pay their taxes just as any other, suffer because Hindu extremists in India preach hatred and indulge in communal violence?”

    That’s rich.

    You need to watch a video of Javed Akhtar’s interview which is widely circulated on youtube. You will understand that Pakistan is always the source of hatred and enmity and not Hindus or India.Recommend

  • Osman

    I am glad I am Pakistani. That is all that matters to me. Recommend

  • faraz

    Let’s be blunt. Top leadership of Muslim league was liberal and secular, and had little understanding of Islam. But they had no roots in the masses, and had no socioeconomic agenda. The sole aim of the party was to secure perks and status of the Muslim elite of UP and feudal of Punjab and Sindh. So they came up with the two nation theory to exploit religious feelings of the masses. Their communal politics resulted in communal massacre and migration of millions. And after partition, Jinnah came up with his 11 August speech! We are living in a state of denial. The purpose of partition was to secure the interests of top elite, nothing else.

    ps: I am a PakistaniRecommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif

    I think the comment feed has instead of focusing on the subject diverted away in knee-jerkism and die-hart patriotism. Good luck solving the mess people.

    First and foremost, there is nothing anti-religious, or anti-islamic with a secular state. For that read up the entire history and the opinion of the great amount of ulema/religious scholars and philosophers on this subject. One great name is the great scholar and thinker ibn Rushd.

    Secondly. Jinnah was in his own person a secular man. He newer used his own religious belief, which was being a Shia (twelver, converted from ismaili according to many) in public life.

    Thirdly, Jinnah was a ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity and one of the highest skilled men in Congress. His teachers were Parsis and Hindus, his students and admirers were from diverse fields.

    And those who recite the poet and philosopher Allama Iqbal. An artist, man of thought and thinker do have different periods in his life. Such is the case with painters, sculpturs, philosophers and poets. Iqbal had his periods, ups and downs. He even admired the Ahmadiyya movement in one period. By only using his poems and works which are militant or which were written in a period of great political turmoil (abolishment of caliphate, WWI) one is misleading the people.

    And then to the main essense. Do have whatever view you have of Pakistan. As long as minorities die, are killed, forced converted, people who have compassion will speak up. For some it might be a treachery, for others to speak up is humanity, it is Islam.

    I do mention that there are reactions on minorities in Pakistan when events as Babri-Masjid show up. But that is only a small part of the overall discrimination our minorities feel. And keep in mind, minorities are not only non-muslims.

    At last. As i have mentioned in earlier article. Pakistan is a product of democracy, its future lies in democracy. And then, as i mention in this article, in Pakistan everyone is a minority in one way or other. At some point in life, at a specific place, we will face discrimination. It is therefore for the overall best that this nation, which is democratic also turns secular.

    If we cannot recognise our problems, we will newer be able to solve them, and we will forever be paranoid, but the world will not give a damn.Recommend

  • http://www.struggle.com.pk/ Imran Kamyana

    Ideologically Pakistan is a bankrupt state. Two Nation Theory is a stupid lie told to the Muslims of Subcontinent. A built in theocratic state can never be secular, Jinnah was completely wrong here:

  • Nobody

    “@Usman Asif:
    You’re sitting all the way over in Norway and talking about secularism in Pakistan. Why not just assimilate into your adopted homeland if secularism is truly what you believe in? Why do you feel the need to drag up irrelevant issues in foreign countries? The whole debate about secularism is insulting on so many levels. Firstly, this country was formed on the basis of Islam….what any individual thought, whether it was Jinnah or your grandpa, is irrelevant….for any Muslim what matters is what Muhammad (SAW) wanted, not what Muhammad Ali Jinnah or any other Muhammad wanted. You can argue till you’re blue in the face, it won’t change the fact that the loyalties of the majority are with the “Islam” in the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”…the rest of the words are irrelevant. It is believers who form the majority, it is believers who defend our fill our armed forces, it is believers who populate the rural areas…the only place you’ll find people who want secularism is in the comfy parts of the major cities,….and how dare you, a foreigner by all standards, even speak to us about abandoning our faith…it is a complete way of life. Seriously, go do something useful with your time…talking about secularism in Pakistan is like writing about unicorns…you’re probably talking to the same audience.”

    Loyalties of the majority are with Islam, you say? Which version huh? To date, I don’t think I’ve read more ridiculous or elementary comments than the ones you’ve spewed out under this blog. What Pakistan are YOU living in my friend?? Take off those rose colored glasses and take a good look around you. Pakistanis are killing each other in the name of religion EVERYDAY. They’re following their own sick, twisted ideology, labeling it Islam, and using it to justify misogyny, hatred, intolerance, violence, etc. Doesn’t seem their loyalties are with anyone, any religion, or any God I know of.
    More to the point, why would Pakistan being secular affect YOUR faith so strongly, assuming you’re a Muslim? I don’t know about you, but MY loyalties with Islam have nothing to do with the system implemented by a country’s governing body. It’s personal and it doesn’t matter if Pakistan is Islamic or secular or WHATEVER, my personal beliefs will remain the same and an institution or its rules/regulations/laws won’t change that. A secular Pakistan would just allow for minorities, who are as Pakistani as I am mind you, to freely practice their beliefs and I see NOTHING wrong with that. That’s a step in a healthy direction and regardless of where your loyalties lie, it shouldn’t matter to you. If your loyalty/faith and the loyalty/faith of this ‘majority’ you speak of is strong enough, then a law shouldn’t shake it. Let others be free to follow their faith as well. THAT’S part of being a Muslim IMHO. Cheers. Recommend

  • Sh

    Hush you.Recommend

  • Umer


    As far as my Hindu friends at the IIUI
    are concerned they are loved by
    everyone and they get highest grades.

    By your logic; as there are no killers, rapists or muggers studying with you at IIUI then there must not be any murders, rapes or muggings going on in the country.

    And you consider yourself educated.Recommend

  • Aziz Bhatti

    Excellent piece. Very well written.
    Jinnah defeated the British and Hindus but Mullahs defeated him and his cause. The government of Pakistan should say Sorry to what is has done to the Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus in last 60 or so years. It’s never late to mend. Kevin Rud said it just few years back. Recommend

  • kdp

    Islam came toIndia before Sikhism was started. ByGuru NanakRecommend

  • AA Choudhary

    @Lt Col Imtiaz Alam(retd): The respected Colonel has the right to have his opinion, but what is the benefit of reserving seats in the NA and PAs when the rights of those minorities are violated with impunity. Israel has a number of Palestinians as the members of Knesset (their parliament) but they have virtually zero influence on the policies of the state of Israel. Also the very fact that the seats had to be reserved for the minorities is an indication that Pakistan recognizes that minorities are being discriminated and to just garner their votes political parties created this bogeyman of reserved seats. A country where justice prevails and minorities are considered equal members of the society does not need to reserve such seats. What Pakistan’s minorities are asking for is justice and equity and not the sham of reserved seats.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/ Anoop

    Mods, please publish this comment.


    “Jinnah and his few good men meant well but little did they know that their collaborators had thier own agenda which they pursued after the creation of Pakistan.”

    Once you pointed out, so graciously, how supposedly Congress nefariously supported an anti-Ahmadi group- Majlis-e-Ahrar.

    Then, I pointed back that it was not so and provided documentary proof of Muslim League under the secular, liberal, progressive Jinnah issuing pamphlets about how the Ahrar’s support them, not Congress.

    I will reproduce that once again for everyone’s benefit.



    This proves either 2 things:
    1) Jinnah knew their agenda. He sought and succeeded in getting support of violent Muslim groups.
    2) He appointed an Ahmadi to a key position, but had enlisted anti-Ahmadi group’s support for his communal demand.

    And, you still think Jinnah didn’t knew what he was doing?Recommend

  • Critical

    Gandhi may have brought freedom to India….But Jinnah brought everlasting peace to India….

    He did notice that the Muslims of Sindh,Punjab and NWFP didnt share the same secular feeling as the marathi,Malayali or Tamil muslims…He knew that the country will always be in a civil war where the Hindus from south India will be drawn to a communal riot because of the Muslim League’s sinister plans like bringing shariah and shackling the govt with the 30% of the votes into passing pro-muslim law….and bring down the economy to a halt…

    So he decided to divide the country into two so that the extemist muslims can stay in one country and the moderate muslims can work along with Hindus in another country….

    Jinnah decided to take the blame from the West and from India to bring peace to South Asia…I salute that legend who saved India…No wonder,few Hindu extremist leaders like Advani called him secular….Recommend

  • Imran Ahmed

    @Suleman Asfand I did not quite understand your note. I am sure you want minorities to be justly treated in Pakistan. We wanted to be justly treated when muslims were a minority in India and we condemn the historical persecution based on the religion of some members of the Bani Mutlib by the Quraysh. (tauba) we would be up in arms if some gang in India or in USA was abducting muslim women with the acquiescence of temple or church leaders and forcing them into conversion to Hinduism or Christianity and cancelling their previous marriage. Similarly if we have any sense of justice we should be proclaiming our disgust at the actions of this tiny fringe of misguided muslims who carry out hate crimes in the name of a great religion.Recommend

  • hassan

    One more article on this Founding Father nonsense.

    Our country was founded on the deep sense of paranoia, on the ideas of victimhood and persecution complex and on the beliefs of supremacy. We need to accept that.

    If you read our founding father’s speeches made over so many years, he was consistent that people of different faiths cannot co-exist together. Our founding father simply wanted his fellow supporters, feudal lords to enjoy, unlimited wealth and unchallenged power. He kept harping that Muslims will not get justice from Hindus, even though, there was no historical explanation for this since Hindus had never ruled vast tracts of country. His lone, random speech to impress the white journalists does not count as his vision.

    Fact is, Jinnah wanted a country for Muslims, by Muslims and of Muslims. His Aug 11 speech was just a politically correct speech to impress world audience. He did not mean it in his entire career. That is why all his colleagues recognized it as a necessary hypocrisy and promptly junked his ‘vision’.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/ Anoop

    You paint a rosy picture of a secular, liberal Jinnah. How romantic.

    This will be really hard to say:

    Vali Nasr in his book informs us:

    “Through the good offices of Raja Mahmudabad—a deeply religious and generous patron of the League—a meeting was arranged between Qamaru’ddin Khan and Jinnah at the latter’s residence. During the meeting, which lasted for forty-five minutes, Qamaru’ddin Khan outlined the Jama‘at’s political platform and enjoined Jinnah to commit the League to the Islamic state.[46] Jinnah responded astutely that he saw no incompatibility between the positions of the Muslim League and the Jama‘at, but that the rapid pace at which the events were unfolding did not permit the League to stop at that point simply to define the nature of the future Muslim state: “I will continue to strive for the cause of a separate Muslim state, and you do your services in this regard; our efforts need not be mutually exclusive.” Then he added, “I seek to secure the land for the mosque; once that land belongs to us, then we can decide on how to build the mosque.” The metaphor of the mosque no doubt greatly pleased Qamaru’ddin Khan, who interpreted it as an assurance that the future state would be Islamic.”Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/ Anoop
  • arjun

    @Usman Asif:
    I guess-What Abbas ZA meant was hindus and christians not sects among muslims….because when it came to persecuting Ahmadis…sunnis and shias were best buddies. When it comes to persecuting hindus and christians….all muslims are one! Even Bangladesh has more complex society than Pakistan… they are a classic example how to continue traditions of Bengali….Islam sentiments clashed with Bengali power and we all know Bengali power and culture was too much for islam to forge unity…. I will add this… as Abbas said..if you have reasonable percentage minorities ONLY then you can call yourself secular. Pakistan is not and will not be secular ever given it roots. But it can atleast be a stable nation. The unity among existing islamic sects and subsects will far more powerful for islam itself to unite as a nation….the future is even more challenging..hindus are gone, christians are gone now are left just muslims…let us see how the game unfolds……Rinkle Kumari’s utlimate revenge on denying her right to live and practice her ancestors religion…
    Great paragraph by Nandita…outstanding reply to those who refuse to understand Indian complexities and the patience shown by Hindus to minorities.Recommend

  • Dee Cee

    @ZYX: Your problem is that you would burn the hand that wants to help you. Usman never preached anything against Islam, he simply spoke about not being hypocrites. When we are concerned about rights of Muslims in Europe or India, we should also think about the rights of minorities in Pakistan. Simple! Btw, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) or the Holy Qur’an never mentions a single word about Pakistan. Their concerns are far greater, so at least grant some credit to the Father of the Nation, instead of creating false opposition between the Prophet (PBUH) and the Qaid. And you know why Usman is preaching to the choir? Like you said that the “majority” in Pakistan will never listen to what “liberals” say, the “majority” in the world community considers Pakistan a retrograde, terror-funding, laughably-governed state with citizens like you who are “kill-kill-la-la-la-kill” in their heads. Do you think the “majority” is right always? I don’t. I guess Usman doesn’t either. That’s why Usman, at the pain of being unjustly criticized every time, keeps on reminding people that honesty, decency are great values. And, sitting “far” in Norway he is trying to create a positive impression about Pakistan through his blog. Give him some credit for that as well. And, yes, although I am a Hindu Indian, I believe Usman is fair when he points out that terror has no religion. It is people like you, foolishly thinking that your claims bring glory to the great religion, bring ridicule on yourselves.Recommend

  • http://www.deccanherald.com/content/183277/boy-prefers-hindu-guardian-muslim.html Nilesh

    I think this is how a disadvantaged human being should be treated irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, country…. it just warmed my heart.


  • ZYX

    @Usman Asif:
    Please read these verses from the Holy Quran and the others that totally negate any possibility of secularism. You can either be a Muslim or you can be secular, but you can’t be both…the Quran is clear about that.

    (Surah al-Ahzab ayah 36).
    (Surah al-Hashr ayah 7)

    …And what the Messenger gives you, so take it, and what he prohibits you, so refrain from it. And be in awe of Allah. Surely Allah is Stern of Punishment.

  • ZYX


    Mods….why did you people butcher my last post? You removed the verses of the Quran i quoted to make my point…why?Recommend

  • Ibn-e-Maryam

    Excellent article.Recommend

  • furqan

    pakistan is made on two nation theory and we have not to forget about it. Dream is not changed progress is slow, generations and nations progress stable to achieve greater gols in life. long live pakistan.Recommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif

    I do not think we are doing anyone, especially any minority any favour by diverting a debate about minorities rights into a theological debate.

    But while we are at it. There should be a understanding that the world has diverse opinions. So has muslims. Prophet ruled a state comprising of the cities of Yathrib/Medina and Makkah, in addition to its periferies. His constitution was based on divine law and that of understanding between different tribes customs, pagan rites and jewish and christian doctrines. The Misthaq-e-Madina was such a agreement which took care of the pluralism one society had. Now everyone is not a prophet, and human beings are full of error, therefore we cannot emulate the position of the prophet which is omnipotent, i.e. he was all excecutive, legislative and the judiciary.

    Following Caliphs and Imams were all in dispute over what was the right form of rulership. While the answer was in a sharing of power the strongmen had their own camps and customs to think of. In the rashedeen era about 70.000 sahaba’s were killed in civil wars / fitna. A fatal blow which cannot be blamed om ‘foreign elements’ as USA, Mossad or Abdullah ibn Saba.

    But taken into consideration the society of those days, a strong political leader, with the power of the army was perhaps the most optimal. It was the most perfect system back then, therefore caliphate dynasties suceeded. Now parameters have changed, but divine law is eternal, although God is observant of this and have given humankind the right to be sovereign in its muamalaat / daily affairs. God is sovereign in the overall, but as the many fuqaha and ullamas and even philosophers debated during late-ummayad period the free will versus predestined subject can be of interest here. Hanafi law is based on the notion that free will exists within certain limits, others have less free-will in their theology while other again have more. What is understoop is that the development of statecraftship and administration is a creation of humans and should be dealth by them.

    Will again recommend ibn Rushd and the contemporary Asghar Ali Engineer on this subject. While Abdullahi an-Naim and his teacher Mahmoud Taha are also of interest.

    Jinnah is being degraded, Iqbal’s verses about revival are heated up. Maudoodism is adopted as state ideology, the very thoughts which did not support Jinnah in his fight for equal oppurtunities for indias muslims. Jinnah was against anti-Ahmadi Majlis-e-Ahrar, he was against Khilafat movement. He was an able lawyer and a politician who could not stand the AIML leaders, therefore he had the precondition of being the all-powerful leader. In public you have statements, but in official situations, as in that of the constituent assembly, the very assembly which would go on to make the constitution the speeches are more of interest.

    Now to the minorities.

    They die and are discriminated. Stand up and speak for them instead of trying to what some think is a defence of Islam. Jalib said so clearly;

    Khatra hai zar daron ko
    Girti hui diwaron ko
    Sadiyon ke bimaron ko
    Khatre mein Islam nahin
    Sari zamin ko ghere hue hain aakhir chand gharane kyon
    Naam nabi ka lene wale ulfat se begane kyon

    Khatra hai khun khwaron ko
    Rang birangi karon ko
    Amrika ke pyaron ko
    Khatre mein Islam nahin
    Aaj hamare naaron se larza hai bapa aiwanon mein

    Bik na sakenge hasrat-o arman unchi saji dukanon mein
    Khatra hai bat maron ko
    Maghrib ke bazaron ko
    Choron ko makkaron ko
    Khatre mein Islam nahin
    Amn ka parcham le kar utho har insane se piyar karo
    Aprna to manshoor hai Jalib, sare jahan se pyar karo

    Khatra hai darbaron ko
    Shahon ke ghamkhwaron ko
    Nawabon, ghaddaron ko
    Khatre mein Islam nahinRecommend

  • Umer

    @Usman Asif:

    Its general it’s not a good idea to brawl with your commentators. Write another article by way of explanation if you must.Recommend

  • Meany

    @ZYX You, my friend, are a parrot who has learned the Quran by heart but has no clue as to what the words mean. People like you claim that your life is governed by your love for Islam whereas in reality it is governed by your hatred for all else. For every word you quote from your holy book, there will be other people whose holy books will contradict them. You can swear your religion is the one true one and others will swear that theirs is. Yet till you die you will NEVER know the truth just like EVERYONE ELSE. So LIVE and LET LIVE. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. And let others keep theirs to themselves. And let the state do the one thing it was created to do; GOVERN. And to the rest of the fanatics on this forum who are baying for liberal blood while their mouths froth with disgust, this is the only thing we ‘liberal scum’ believe in; Live and let live. Recommend

  • Parvez

    Excellent article and this subject needs debate for it is only through dialogue that we learn.
    I feel that we have not so much as failed Jinnah as we have failed in implementing the essence and principles of Islam, the ideological basis for Pakistan and on the practical side we have failed the country by placing self before country. Recommend

  • Indi-Pop

    To all readers of ET who think Indians Muslims are not treated well in my country I would like to give them an example of my city, Lucknow. Now Lucknow is not as big a city as Mumbai or Bangalore but it is a true example of “Ganga-Jamuna” tehzeeb of our culture. Muslims of Lucknow are mostly well to do and have prospered in India’s economic boom. Most of my teachers, my family doctor, some of my best friends, my room mate in college… i can give countless examples are muslims. I studied in a girls convent and 30-35% of my classmates were muslims and they today pursuing degrees in engineering, medical, law, architecture and what not. There are also inter faith marriages in my city. Some of my classmates were children of inter faith marriages and they were raised with influence of both religions (Yes It just doesn’t happen in bollywood). There is a general respect for both religions. I remember i have got my share of eidi every year and so I have doused my muslim friends with colour every holi. It is ingrained in the fabric of our city. Take for example even in weddings of muslim couples there is a vegetarian booth for their hindu friends. Similarly in non veg eateries run by muslims, beef is cooked separately from other meats to respect each other sentiments. Lastly I would like to add that every sensible Indian is ashamed of what happened in Gujarat and though such incidents put a blemish on our unity but our roots of multiculturalism are far more stronger and have stood the test of time. Recommend

  • arjun

    @Usman Asif:

  • Rishi


    I agree. Am an Indian abroad and follow these blogs more to understand why the heck we don’t like pakistanis and they don’t like us.

    But to get back to your point of that one speech by Mr.Jinnah, you are right. The way it looks like these guys were playing a long shot and their bluff got called and they got a whole nation. Now they don’t know what the heck to do with it. Meanwhile, they have to project Mr.Jinnah as a visionary because their whole nationhood depends on his “vision”. The reason why he seems like he is contradicting himself in speech after speech is because he did not know what he wanted completely and when he got it he did not know what to do with what he got. Meanwhile, to further shore up this “vision” they keep quoting a gentleman by the name of Iqbal. I read some of his poetry and its great. I can see how one can get inspired with his writing. But Pakistan today is what you get when a poet is mistaken for a statesman. You should watch some of the shows which I have now stopped watching ( because its the same crap on both sides. we keep talking about how great we are and they keep rewriting history the way they want to see it but some of Pakistan’s hsows do border onthe ridiculous). One guy actually says that Muslims contributed to India a whole lot because they gave us the architectural dome for spanning wider spaces without columns and biryani ( I kid you not. the guy actually said it ). Now that we have the steel I beams and Pulao, will they leave? :-). Just kidding.

    You cannot get it across to these guys that the well being of a country and community is based on its collective investment in the way it governs itself and by and large by the consent of the governed. The best mechanism for that is the path of the vote. If there is a better way, nobody ahs found it yet. Faith, in and of itself, being a part of the spiritual realm cannot form a basis for the management of real everyday problems.

    But, yu know what? At the end of the day, were it not for theplight of milions of hungry that we could feed with the money we are pouring into defence to keep these jokers ( deadly nonetheless ) at bay, I’d say, go for it. Its hilarious to watch how silly the reasoning for everything gets in that country.

    And now some joker will come along and start spouting some ridiculous stats about poverty, etc.Recommend

  • http://India vasan

    Indi Pop : Ditto : I echo your sentiments fully. I am from Tamilnadu .Though I am a hindu, my dearest friend in my college days who became my mentor, is a muslim by name Anwar. There are too many examples and too many hindus will vouch for this kind of sentimentsRecommend

  • ZYX


    Its really not that complicated and the fact that you dont get it is why you liberals are so frustrated. What’s written in the Quran is clear…call someone a parrot, a mullah, or whatever you want but it doesn’t change whats written in the book. You choose to ignore the book and call that secularism, but someone who reads it and understands it knows full well what that means. Secondly, this is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan…there is only one holy book that matters here and the only one whose quotes hold any relevance…any other is immaterial…clearly you’re not a Pakistani otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered to try and make that point. If you are a Pakistani, you live in some dream world to think that any book would hold similar importance to the Quran in this country….the constitution places the Quran as the primary source of law which may not be violated other than in the field of economics. Finally, in an Islamic country you say “keep your religious beliefs to yourself”, but I tell you that if you’re in Pakistan you will respect our religion, our ideology and our way of life and if you don’t then you won’t get along very well here…just as would be the case anywhere else you went and chose to disrespect, i.e. France, Italy, Switzerland, “Secular” Turkey, etc So take your nonsensical ideas of secularism and equal space for all religions somewhere else….this is not the country for that. Recommend

  • Ahmad

    @ anoop
    I might be missing something here, but the links you posted say that the Ahrars supported Pakistan, not that the Muslim League supported Ahrars. The issue of minorities was taken quite seriously by Jinnah, as he himself was not only a Shia, but a Khoja, a minority within a minority. So your implication that appointing an Ahmedi as FM was merely for cosmetic effect seems rather casual.Recommend

  • http://India Feroz

    Jinnah may have had dreams, but a nation cannot be built on dreams. It needs a lot of hard work to build a nation that can win the peoples trust and the Worlds respect. Unfortunately the nation has fallen victim to a Power coterie who have furthered their own personal interests, at peoples cost. A sense of insecurity now pervades the people and this insecurity breeds violence. A failure to recognize problems and address them mixed with a propensity to search for external scapegoats, is distressing.
    A holier than thou attitude is helping many crooked individuals to take shelter under the umbrella of Religion. A deterioration in human values makes the case for redemption much tougher. Recommend

  • Umber

    This article hits the bull’s eye. Exactly my point, word-for-word. Call it liberal-mindedness, secularism or whatever one may like, fact remains fact. The ideology behind our nation’s existence is detailed very properly here and there is no denying that. The sooner the Pakistani of 2day realizes this the better for our future.Recommend

  • Nandita.

    Hello ! I agree :))Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop


    Muslim League sought the support of a anti-Ahmadi group. This link is a mere example of that desire and thought.

    So, you are telling me that you would justify some action, say someone you loathe like the Taliban, also concur with and parade it as such to the World?

    This is one of the examples of the double speak of ML and Jinnah in particular.

    Another example is the fact that he spoke about the Economic uplift-ment of Muslims while at the same time partnering with Feudals like Suhrawardy.

    There is also the issue of Jinnah cozying upto extremists like Maudaudi, the exact quote of which I’ve pasted above. Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    Fellows, let me give you three surprises to enrich your discussion on the dreams of your late leader Mr Jinnah!!

    1) The constitution of Pakistan should reflect the Islamic values, as is the case in all European constitutions which reflect the values stated in scriptures (Christianity, judaism and Islam)!!

    2)The govt. in Pakistan should be secular to be able to conduct the state afffairs of its citizens with fairness and justice, irrespective of their personal faith. All Govts. in the European Union, are secular in nature and are run without direct control of the Church or the clergy.

    .3) It was Hitler and Mussolini agreement with the Catholic Church, the Vatican, which made it possible and brought about the birth of secular Govts. in Europe.This accord is still valid.

    As for as one is aware, there is no equivalent entity to Pope in Islam, and therefore there is a total anarchy within the the administrations in muslim countries. This is now being addressed with Aufklarung of Islam, starting with the spring revolution in Arab countries and there are indications that it has already reached Pakistan shores. The Aufklarung occured in Europe centuries ago and far no fault of the ihabitants of muslim countries, this did not occur in their midst since they were all occupied by colonialists forces. Sorry excolonel, there is no such thing as Islamic dress. Do not try to confuse culture and traditions with the religion. Two third of Pakistan culture is associated and reflect Hinduism and not Islam!!

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Critical

    ZYX is the classical case of why many non-muslims hate muslims…Its because of people like him.Muslims are being hated all over the world…
    Hypocrisy at its highest for muslims
    They want secularism when they’re minority and sharia when they’re in majority
    They will protest if France bans burkhas and but other asks about the treatment of minorities.They tell its their personal matter.They use few isolated incidents to support their claim like the Gujarat Riots without knowing the full details of what exactly happened and how it was Muslims who started it not the other way around…

    I think Muslims need to evolve to the 21st century…If they continue in the same path,one day all non-muslims would lose patience which is not a good sign as most of the superpowers and technologically advanced countries are non-islamic countries….Recommend

  • Ahmad

    @ anoop
    of course there was double speak, i believe it is called a means to an end. And the end justified the means in this case. I never denied that. And again you say that ML sought the support of an anti-Ahmadi group, but your link doesn’t prove it at all. It might very well be true, but you have failed to prove it. Thats my point. If you go read your history, you will know that there was a duality to Jinnah. The secular Jinnah upto 1940, and his tendency towards religious double speak from 40-47. Again, a means to an end. What can I say? He didn’t have the majority population behind him, like Nehru did, and he never talked about religion, until Gandhi brought that genie out of the bottle. Has Jinnah ever categorically stated that Pakistan was to be an Islamic state? No. Only vague inanities like we will follow the Quran, and the Prophet is the supreme role model. Has he ever stated explicitly that religion has nothing to do with the state? I really dont need to answer that question do I? In fact, here’s what Jinnah didn’t do: 1) Name Pakistan an Islamic Republic. 2) Pass the Objectives Resolution. Actions speak louder than words.

    So, you are telling me that you would justify some action, say someone you loathe like the Taliban, also concur with and parade it as such to the World?

    This doesn’t make sense at all. I have no idea what you are asking me, and as such I cannot answer it.Recommend

  • faraz


    Have you read the early Islamic history in which tens of thousands of Companions lost their lives in major civil wars? There is no such thing as Islamic state, there can only be a sectarian state where one sect suppresses or eliminates all other sects and enforces it beliefs. In presence of numerous sects, such an attempt is recipe for disaster. The event that triggered Shia Sunni violence in Pakistan was Zakat issue. The purpose of the state is not to make sure who enters heaven or hell. Muslim is not required to live in Islamic state, otherwise millions of Muslims living in secular non-Muslim majority areas would end up in hell. If Islamic state is essential, then all Muslims should have been ordered to settle in Islamic states. Your dream is only a power struggle between mullahs which will only lead to violence. And not elite internet users like you, but hardcore mullahs will rule. Only a sectarian state can emerge; you better pray that sect is the one you follow.Recommend

  • abhi

    @indi pop
    nice to see a fellow lakhanvi on the blog.Recommend

  • Lone Star

    One fine piece of writings in the recent weeks. Good job Usman.Recommend

  • http://mta.tv Fuzail Ayaz ahmad

    yes we did fail Jinnah. His visions and his aims. He left no stone unturned in his efforts to achieve Pakistan. His dream was a country where love peace and harmony was main ingredients of the dish, But we failed him with sectarianism,hatred and dishonesty. A leaders vision could not come true.His speech on 11th August 1947 is a goal which Pakistan could not achieve at all. People like Dr. Mohammad Abudussalam and Sir. Ch. Mohammad Zafrullah Khan remained target of hatred of stupid religious hierarchy of Pakistan. Hatred and arson are instruments which religious clergy of Pakistan used to create fear and terror among mob. Vision of Quaid was Pakistan based on love and freedom of thought and conscience. As he stated in his speech I quote
    In that address the Quaid said, among other things, the following:

    “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, 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 nothing to do with the business of the State…We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State…I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in due course 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.”
    This is not only a vision but a convent made by our beloved Quaid who brought us freedom at the expense of his health and life.But what we have done to his dream? there is an arabic verse which could be translated like this
    if you chose a crow as your leader and guide it will lead you to the path of dead.
    and that is what we have chosen.Recommend

  • jahandad

    i donot know why indian hindus are so narrow minded and intolerant , while they know it will from their forefathers , that muslims majority from afghanistan ruled india for hundreds of years with peace and hormony with best rights and excellent humans values to 70 persent untouchible and lower cast hindus who were suppressed by hindu rajas for thousands of years,,,,,,,,,,,,,and today hindu india is unable to tolerate muslims 300 millions for the last 60 years ,,, with daily discriminations in every aspect of life,, thanks god for middle east arabs that muslims in india are still alive and still resisting starvation death imposed on them by state sposered hindu extremists of bjp minded terrorist,,,,Recommend

  • Cynical

    For a change the on going debate is bit civil.On most boards discussing Jinnah, most of the commentators go overboard,hyperactive and plain silly.Recommend

  • Nobody

    Anyways, I reiterate my point from before, a secular state should have no affect on a Muslims loyalty to Islam, it will only allow non Muslims to be as Pakistani as any of us and not go unrecognized or discriminated against solely on the basis of their faith (or lack of for the atheists). It still bewilders me to see people supporting a strict Islamic state, ignoring the minorities entirely. Those same minorities have as much right to stay in Pakistan and live freely. It’s 2012 world, wake up before we continue to fall even further into this abyss of hatred, ignorance, intolerance and such. Cheers.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop


    You are absolutely right.

    The best word to describe Jinnah was vague.

    Is it possible to say that Jinnah is a secular guy? Yes. But, its also true that he exploited Religion to achieve his means, or what some would call communalism.

    M.J.Akbar puts it beautifully when he says Gandhi used Religion to unite, while Jinnah used it to divide.

    Only if he was not vague and spelled out more of what he wanted Pakistan would have not debated him so much. But, its also true that if he had broken his vagueness Pakistan would not have been there at all today.Recommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif

    Personalities as Nehru, Jinnah, Patel, Syed Ahmed Khan, Ghandi, Naoroji and so on, were manifests of that times worries and needs.

    Muslims in India when fasing british conquest went into a time of economic and political weakness. Where some muslims ran to ulemas asking them if it is permitted to learn english the hindu banya and kashtriya groupings tended to get knowledge in order to benefit from trade/commerse.

    This does not imply that muslims have a biological resistance to ‘foreign’ language. They had a great ability to adopt culture, custom, language, art, skills and science from earlier centuries. But as a result of intra-fighting between princes, dynastic upheavals, regional rivalries and invading armies the social structure fell apart and people lost their stable life situations. In times as these communalism is much more frequent.

    The muslims after the first war of independence (1857-1858) had fallen down that much in self esteem, especially the elite that their intellectuals tried to seek british education and get up from a economic and political downward trend.

    This movement manifested into the Aligadh movement, followed by several other movements. At the same time hindu Shuddi movement also raised up, so did Tablighi, Deobandi and Barelvi movements. All India Muslim League became the political voice of this backwardness, but the problem was that it was dominated by feudals, royals and only elites. Graasroot movements as khaksaar tehreek and khusai khidmatgaar on the other hand was not popular in AIML. Jinnah wanted a all India solution so he transformed and strenghtened a all nationawide movement of AIML. He demanded separate electorates, and as any other good politician, his demands were much higher than necessary, but those were realities of the day as consessions always had to be made. Nehru and Patel was of another view. Gandhi meddled in all this with a spiritual movement which the personal secular Jinnah depicted. British was happy with all this tussle as they could from time to time open doors to one of the camps in time of need… for example allying AIML during WWII and Congress rightly after.

    Pakistan became a result of this powerstruggle. It is now a reality and recognized by India and world. No political leader wants its citizens to suffer. It is our duty not to let our ground be used to such. It is more a national disgrace that communal violence occur, and we should fight it, be it India, USA, Israel or Pakistan.Recommend

  • Cynical

    Well, we have heard about this ‘Jinnah’s dream’ ad nauseam.Can someone tell us about any ‘actionable plan’ that Jinnah had to realise his dream.Recommend

  • http://www.aliani4u.livejournal.com Elie Khan

    The first foriegn minister Zafrullah Khan, was an advocate of the Objective resolution, check the constituent assmebly speech records, you will know.

    where does Islam tell to kill/rape/forcefully convert??
    Isnt Islam the first Religion which entered into a peace pact with another religion, Jews to be precise. Never in history did one religion accepted another, Islam accepted them gave them rights, recognized there interests.

    as it goes in Pakistan, the acts of Mr. Bhutto and his favorite General Zia have led us into the current situation.Recommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif

    @Elie Khan
    You are correct. Zafrullah although became disillusioned some years later when Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamaat-e-Islami, the Daultana Government in Punjab and Nazimuddin Government at Federal level came into a tussle (1953-1954 Lahore riots). The conservatives wanted to declare Ahmadis non-muslims in constitution and demanded Khan’s resignation. Khan had to leave due to internal powerplay among strongmen during Bogra’s short tenure.

    As for the acts of Bhutto and Zia. The current state of affairs can all be traced to these two mens politics.Recommend

  • Muneeb Ahmed Khan

    Would the author answer one question?

    What does ALLAH and His Prophet Muhammad Sallalaho Alaehae Wasallam want? Do they want a secular state or a Islamic caliphate?

    ALLAH has promised an Islamic state for the Muslims in the Quran and has given instructions for what Muslims must do.

    References: Surah Hajj ayat#41, Surah Noor ayat#55,Surah Nisa ayat#59, Surah Ahzaab ayat#36 and Suraj Nisa ayat#65.

    The land belongs to ALLAH so His orders must prevail on it!Recommend

  • kaalchakra

    Muneeb Ahmed Khan

    Sir, always a great pleasure to see someone at least trying to understand Islam. Most humbly, a suggestion. ALL of the earth belongs to Allah and he has promised Muslims rulership of All land on earth. Kindest regards.Recommend

  • Rihatum
  • pervez roshan

    jinnah never had any sort of vision for a country which was carved out of hatred.Lucky that we do not want to live with the religious lunatics.Recommend

  • Umer

    @Muneeb Ahmed Khan:

    What does ALLAH and His Prophet
    Muhammad Sallalaho Alaehae Wasallam
    want? Do they want a secular state or
    a Islamic caliphate?

    Allah and his prophet have an Islamic state in Saudi Arabia? What more do you want?Recommend

  • Umer

    @Elie Khan:

    The first foriegn minister Zafrullah
    Khan, was an advocate of the Objective
    resolution, check the constituent
    assmebly speech records, you will

    Can you give us some relaible quotes of him, with proper conext?Recommend

  • Umer

    @Muneeb Ahmed Khan:

    The land belongs to ALLAH so His
    orders must prevail on it!

    That is what President Bush was trying to do, wasn’t he? And Israelis over holy land? Problem is everyone has a different idea of what Allah wants and who he wants to implement it. As there is no consensus its best to keep it secular to avoid bloodshed.Recommend

  • jahandad

    you are not publising my comment ,,,,why ,,,,simple truth should be accepted,,,,,on philosphy and truth bases i am with,,,,FARAZ,,,,Recommend

  • Eternal

    While Jinnah may have envisioned secular state, it really doesn’t matter what he had thought. Scores of muslims who migrated to newly created country, Pakistan, did so because they wanted state ruled by muslims. After centuries of muslims dominance, it was difficult for them to digest that once India becomes free, the top leader may be hindu. Also, with mostly muslims, Pakistan wasn’t created for minorities, it was created for muslims, plain and simple.

    As soon as Jinnah left the center stage, the majority had opportunity to express its true desire which reflected in form of Pakistan turning into islamic state. I read lot of secular sounding Pakistanis blaming Ayub Khan for converting secular Pakistan to Islamic republic. But I believe, if you were to do a survey today, most of Pakistanis will vote for Pakistan to be Islamic state, not a secular state.Recommend

  • ZYX

    Usman and the other proponents of secularism keep failing to grasp one critical thing; you cannot be both a Muslim and be secular. The Quran is clear about that and you can try and reinterpret history, personalities, ideas or whatever you like but the verses of the Quran are in black and white and there is no ambiguity. ET “moderated” those verses of the Quran I tried to post here……there is no ambiguity…you cannot call yourself a Muslim and also say that you do not agree to make the Quran the supreme law of the land. Don’t argue about whose interpretation and so on because those are fraudulent arguments that secularists make….Sharia has been applied for far longer than the western forms of law, which incidentally are based on a wretched feudal document known as the magna carta which was originally titled the treaty of the feudals and was intended as a way for the landed class to protect its interests. You can paint anything in a vile color if you wish, but you should be intellectually honest with yourself also. Sharia can and does work, it is the only law of this land, and the constitution makes it illegal for ET and you secularists to try and denigrate this country’s Islamic ideology, and yet you continue to enjoy the freedom to do so repeatedly and in the most crude and dishonest ways. You live in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, respect that and move on to do more productive things with your time than to try to insult our ideology…and if you dislike it so much…go somewhere else!Recommend

  • http://www.usmanasif.wordpress.com Usman Asif


    according to whom and whose interpretation? And according to what history is there any proof that a so called islamic state has been fruitful? If that was the case, would 70.000 sahabis died at the hands of other sahabis during civil wars?

    And if you want to have a theocratic state, a sharia oriented state, which i think does not have hold in the Quran, then whos interpretation do you want to implement? Are only Salafi’s muslims in Pakistan? How would you classify shias, sufi/barelvis, and those branches of deobandis who do taqleed?

    I have read the Quranic ayah you have posted, and i must say, it is sad to see that fast conclution of a text which demands contextualization. To understand Quran, which is God’s eternal word one needs to keep in mind that humankind is full of error. Interpretations in 14th century might not be of significans now, and if we base our interpretations from earlier centuries, rather than the contexts of the Prophet’s own era, then we are carrying the errors of earlier centuries and accumulating a perception which is highly influenced by parameters of the past.

    Quran’s ayahs must be understood in context and norms. It gives us four systems; Thought, Value, Ritual and Institutions. Value and Rituals cannot be changed, as for examples equality and justice is central in Islam (which we have not delivered our muslim’s and non-muslims), rituals as fast and prayer is unchangable but are practiced in different ways, depended on which rite one follows (Qalam and Fiqh). But thought-system is always subject to change, and should be, and has always been by the great scholars as for example Abu Hanifa, the philosophers as ibn Rushd and gnostics like ibn Arabi. For example, one scholar did not eat watermelon because he could not find any mentioning of prophet eating it, likewise al-Qaida in Iraq used to target falafel shops because it apparently was innovation, and there is no mention of the dish in Hadith system. Such beliefs die out, what lives is the thought that a underlying message needs to be extracted from Quran and at the same time understand God’s revelation through the creation, which is earth/universe. If rivers of milk and honey was promised to arab-Beduin in paradise, then it does not automatically imply the same for one from switzerland who is fed up of milk and honey and desires other goods in his parameters.

    Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal, Muhammad Abduh, Jamaluddin Afghani even Said Nursi and several movements during colonial era do stressed the subject of modernity and islamic tought. In that context many scholars who are not hardliners and not reactionary do conclude the need for a secular state, or that there is no wrong or anti-islamic in a secular state. Even the Jamaat-e-Islami and JUI opposed creation of Pakistan (although on a pan-islamic ground), Majlis-e-Ahrar went as far as calling Pakistan for being Na-Pakistan, and Mudoodi is quoted from his books as calling Jinnah for being the great kaafir (Kaafir-e-Aazam). If these groups are to decide a ‘islamic’-Pakistan then Jinnah’s mausoleum needs to be demolished, his pictures removed from offices. But in the spiritual sense, his legacy is killed, his toughts are forgotton and he is misunderstood deliberately. He was from a hindu converted family of agakhanis who himself converted to jaafri-fiqh and married a parsi.

    I will end my discussion here. Hope we can focus more on our minorities, they suffer a great deal and we as human beings and muslims do have a responsibility that they enjoy the goods of life just as any other.Recommend

  • http://tradersutra.com hariharmani

    @Usman Asif: &Nandita.You both are comparing apples and oranges.There is racism in Good Old USA.Right?Bigotry and prejudice and corruption? Yes..Is it as much as in Sub-continent?What people of well meaning,and smart people miss is the extent and degree to which it is prevalent.That is, both oranges and apples are fruit but not the same,yes in India there has been and will be more riots and minority will some time not get fair deal,but you can not put 20% and 10% Muslim and Christian against 1.84% Hindu and 2% Christian in Pakistan.I’m not even going into kidnapping,extortion,forced conversion,if I do,then the whole discussion will wind up as it usually does on Times of India blog of Hindu/Muslim bashing.What need to be done,whether Pakistani/Pakistan like it or not,India has earned a fairly good name and reputation for its dealing of minority,lot to be done, yet,but it is on going process( progress),but all fair minded people will say,Pakistan has long way to go,to be accepted by inter national community,and I say this as an American.No bias or malice there,those who know me,and lot of fair minded Pakistani do,my comment are never altered a word,I sometime wish, they did, correct my misprint and occasional spelling mistake.I read it and see it,but it is little too late by then.I see ,Nandita,you are very satisfied with your stay in India of 29 years,B’lore was nightmare for me,and I was born there!India drives me crazy,but I do not hold India at fault,I’m too used to good old USA ,and you can not blame me either,I’m more American,any thing less is almost not patriotic,after long 46 years..I try to see always big picture and try to be fair and balanced,nothing is perfect,there is always room for to get better,it should always be work in progress,like Hope,it must Die last,Thank you,and good day.

  • http://tradersutra.com hariharmani

    @ZYX: I find guys like you refreshing and to the point and relevant to the reality on ground,it is similar to guys who are , Muslims, in USA,Norway,France ,Germany and U.K.and dream about Caliphate in West,not gone happen as you say ‘blue in face,or cow come home.Secularism is a pipe dream in Islamic Republic Of Pakistan,get it through the thick skull,it not that I’m for or against, secularism..It is WHAT IT IS..All we can do is be at best be good Muslim or Secular in our house in door,the aam admi is Muslim in his/her core. How difficult is for people to understand.?My God,are we thick headed.Good dayRecommend

  • http://tradersutra.com hariharmani

    @ashok: You know dear Ashok,it is not what you say which is factual,but to say it in way which generate good will,and at least not act as a provocation and make more enemy.In Upnishads,it is said ,it is not intelligence,if it is not mature,a mature intelligence goes in to the realm of WISDOM(yagna)Please try to not to be so frank that you offend others,that has been the bane of sub-continent,unrestrained arrogance,bravado,and false pride.India is not USA or Switzerland Practice little restrain and humility.It will serve our society good in the long run,no hard felling,good dayRecommend

  • http://tradersutra.com hariharmani

    @Critical: Fairly accurate with little nuances makes sense,need to do more research,for making aam admi understand,will do.Recommend

  • http://syedowais.blogspot.com Syed Owais Mukhtar

    Who gave you the right to call Difa e Pakistan as an ugly organisation? Well, the biggest achievement of this council that it being closer all the Islamic religious parties closer, even Shia organisations are also a part of Difa e Pakistan. The organisations like Jamat ud Dawa’ are not accused of killings even after the false suit against Hafiz Saeed he was freed with respect. The court is free in Pakistan if anyone has a objection he can file a complaint instead of speaking against that will be an ethical step!

  • http://syedowais.blogspot.com Syed Owais Mukhtar

    Well, a slap on the faces of those who are saying that Jinnah don’t want to make an Islamic state, can you answer that then why he and the Jinnah’s cabinet named Pakistan, as Islamic Republic of Pakistan ? You want to say that he don’t want to make it Islamic state but he name it “Islamic” just for fun or what ?


  • Dr Imran Ahmed

    We seem to have all got into a tangle over semantics. Jinnah sahib clearly represented the muslims of the subcontinent. That is not in question. That he led muslims in creating a homeland for muslims is fact. It is a great leap from this to assume that he intended that Pakistan should be “cleansed” of non muslims, he clearly and repeatedly stated that under the law all citizens are equal and have equal freedom to practice their faiths. There is nothing uniquely secular or Islamic or anti Islamic about this stance. This stance is common to all philosophies with an iota of sense.
    Those who wish to deny minorities their rights, persecute Ahmadis, forcibly convert Hindus, rape Christians and commit injustices are enemies of Islam and of our beloved Prophet (PBUH) I am confidant that the unjust will discover that Allah and his messenger is their enemy.Recommend

  • http://tradersutra.com hariharmani

    @Rex Minor: Some of your blog are enlightening and then you drift back to being naive.Pakistan,you say should reflect Islamic value,so far so good,then you bring in secular concept and European ethos.Wrong,Pakistan is not,will never be Europe,not a secular, will never be no theology non Islamic country,Have you even know the official name of Pakistan.Islamic Republic of Pakistan.What is here Rocketary?It is simple.Rest is hog wash and idle meaning less talk,I also wished always at least if not me,Pigs fly?Neither gone happen.Sorry to disappoint you.Recommend

  • Arsalan

    Behtareen article and moving conclusion. Bravo!Recommend