No, this is not Jinnah’s Pakistan

Published: March 22, 2013
SHARES
Email

Did Jinnah dream of a state will have the declared state religion and above all the right to permeate the religious realm?

I am writing this piece with reference to Mr Yaqoob Khan Bangash’s article of March 18 titled “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Notwithstanding the fact that the writer is a chairperson of the history department of Forman Christian College, I would, like to highlight few contentions that I have with his conclusion:

“Jinnah’s Pakistan is an Islamic state, which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like and is not very democratic.”

Anyone acquainted with history would not disagree with the fact that the struggle for Pakistan was certainly couched in religious terms. A lot of historians have also argued that Jinnah did appeal to the normative values of Islam. He incorporated religious differences in his rhetoric as a sufficient justification for demanding a separate state for Muslims, which eventually led to the creation of Pakistan in the name of religion.

However, based on Jinnah’s ‘politicking and attempt to construe religion as a source of binding Muslims together, what Mr Yaqoob has suggested is that Jinnah always conceived Pakistan to be an ideological/Islamic state guided by Islam.

My only contention is if Jinnah truly did want to create an Islamic state.

Did he want a state where religion would be the only source of identity, where no other orthodoxy would be tolerated except, of course, the dominant Sunni orthodoxy?

Would he have wanted a place where the state would be arrogated the right to define who a Muslim is and who is not – where the state would have the right to put a bar against non-Muslims to occupy positions of the head of a state, the head of a government and the head of Federal Shariah Court (FSC), president and prime minister and head of FSC respectively?

Did Jinnah dream of a state that would have a declared state religion, permeated through the religious realm?

If this was truly the case, I would like to know why almost all the ulemas (religious scholars)including Maududi’s vehicle Jamaat-e-Islami, vehemently opposed the partition and creation of Pakistan. After all, wasn’t it always this that they wanted in the very first place?

If Jinnah’s Pakistan was always meant to be an Islamic state — which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like — then why did the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam (MAI) – a band of Muslim leaders dedicated to an extreme, conservative viewpoint – not support Jinnah?

After all, was it not MAI who had engaged in vigorous anti-Ahmadi campaigns in Punjab? Leaders like Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and Ashraf Ali Thanavi are two exceptions.

It was also this exclusionary approach that attracted several members and sympathisers from among other Muslim political parties. These included the Unionist Party, a potential rival within the province. This was coupled with the fact that MAI also supported an Islamic system for the Muslims of India.

If Jinnah’s Pakistan was meant to be an ideological state guided by Islam, then why did Maulana Maududi, who wanted to transform Islam from merely a faith into an ideology (read Seyyed Wali Reza Nasr on Maududi and the making of Islamic revivalism) oppose Jinnah?

If Jinnah and the Muslim League (like Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami) looked to Islam as a legitimising force for Muslim politics, then why were they categorised as such by people like Maududi:

“No trace of Islam can be found in the ideas and politics of Muslim League… Jinnah reveals no knowledge of the views of the Holy Quran, nor does he care to research them…yet whatever he does is seen as the way of the Holy Quran. All his knowledge comes from Western laws and sources. His followers cannot be but jama’at-i-jahiliyah (party of pagans).”

If Jinnah did not want to create an Islamic state for Muslims then why was he, in fact, pursuing Pakistan?

Pakistan was certainly a decision aimed at emancipating the Muslim community; it was a struggle of one community versus another, not deen (religion) versus dharma.

Scholars like Ayesha Jalal have shown how the popular narrative of Pakistan being based on religious lines is flawed. Turning to religion as a deliberate imprecision was part of Jinnah’s bargaining strategy to seek that power for Muslims.

Remember, Jinnah himself initially was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Therefore, in hindsight, one can say perhaps Jinnah did not realise what would inevitably happen, but it is historically incorrect to say that his intention was to create the Islamic Pakistan of today. That would be equivalent to arguing that the loopholes in the legal system of today’s Pakistan show that Jinnah was not a constitutional lawyer.

While Mr Yaqoob has criticised the liberals for overstretching Mr Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech of promoting a secular state, he has done the same by oversimplifying Jinnah’s embrace of Islamic principles to show that Jinnah had promised an Islamic state.

If the dearth of Jinnah’s speeches endorsing secular credentials follow that Jinnah envisioned Pakistan to be an Islamic state then there are also many speeches which can be quoted, which clearly indicate that Jinnah never wanted an Islamic state based on one dogma and rigid system of law that is idealised today in Pakistan.

Therefore, yes, this, today, is not Jinnah’s Pakistan.

Read more by Kashif here

Kashif Ali

Kashif Ali

The writer holds Masters in governance and public policy from Germany and works in the development sector. He tweets as @s_kashif8 (twitter.com/s_kashif8)

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

  • Sry

    “….popular narrative of Pakistan being based on religious lines is flawed. Turning to religion as a deliberate imprecision was part of Jinnah’s bargaining strategy to seek that power for Muslims.”

    The question I want to ask is why did Jinnah “seek power for Muslims” ? In a secular democractic polity, why does a community want to seek power and keep hold of it without going through the established process ie. elections. The Muslims wanted reserved seats in India, which was a fundamentally undemocratic demand – especially when Indian Muslims were by no means an “oppressed” minority but, in fact, a very vocal group (even if they were backward and uneducated).

    The fact of the matter is that Pakistan was created so certain Muslim landlords, who were loyal to the British, could get a fiefdom which they could command. And in return these loyalists would render services to their western overlords; that is, allow the country (Pakistan) to be used against Soviets. Recommend

  • Wajib

    I can’t understand why something so simple is so difficult to grasp for so called intellectual – Qaid-E-Azam gave the call for a separate state for Muslims so that they do not have to live under hindu subjugation when britishers left – Muslims responded by migrating – some could not migrate due to various reasons and were therefore left stranded – we can see what happened to them and it is our duty to support them and stand up for them whenever the need arises.

    Similarly non-believer migrated to hindu part – however those who did not have been treated according to the most fair values laid down for treatment of non-believers.

    The real issue is the unfinished division of india – of areas that should have come to Pakistan but were subjugated by india – that is the only agenda that has any current relevance for discussion – rest is all settled.

    It is ludicrous to see some self-appointed intellectuals hair splitting on what the Qaid meant when he said this, that or the other when it’s crystal clear to the vast majority of us.Recommend

  • http://www.facebook.com/britishmuslims Mohammed Abbasi

    Regardless whose Pakistan it is or was meant to be what matters thats its now 2013, its time for Pakistan and Pakistanis to grow up embrace education and development!Recommend

  • zeeshan sheikh

    To all those seculars screaming that we want secular Pakistan and that Pakistan is not created for islam and where man’s law is supreme to the God’s law, listen this carefully. God created this universe including this world, humans and other beings so only his laws will be obeyed. not the laws of petty humans or satan. So the Gods law is applicable everywhere be it Pakistan, India or USA or anywhere else

    leave what jinnah wanted or what maudaudi wanted. the only thing matters is the what God commands.Recommend

  • danish

    you raised a very good and logical point, but i am afraid to say its another futile attempt. why?
    because you will always find people with enough reason to counter you (even though they themselves know the truth) but they will always try to prove you wrong.
    Jinnah was indeed a secular, and his main objective was to push brits towards a two nation solution. Brits were in rush, and were busy packing their stuff from most of the world.
    Any informed person of the time knew that. But mullahs have their own way of doing things.

    Jinnah used all his arguments to justify his demand for seperate nation.
    and now same mullahs who were intially opposed to this ideas, picks bits and pieces of his speech to forward there own agenda.Recommend

  • Hasan Mehmood

    @zeeshan sheikh:

    {So the Gods law is applicable everywhere be it Pakistan, India or USA or anywhere else}
    So why don’t you join Al Qaeda. That’s exactly their ultimate mission statement come Hell or High Water.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    Allama Iqbal knew that mullahs of sub contienent were not able to achieve there dream of pakistan so he called Mr Jinnah to come back to india and lead muslims and it was not easy task with three rivals British, congress party, Mullahs of Deoband.
    final concllusion is that pakistan is god gift nothing else and its was not eassy …
    jai jinnah jaye pakistan,.Recommend

  • Fahad Raza

    Quaid-E-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the yes once wanted hindu muslim unity, then after the none of the secular mind remembers that he trashed the Idea after see what goes on in hindu, dominated party. He resigned in 1920 the after nearly 20 years the stood an took the mission to create a “Muslim State”. Some of his actual Speech if one cares to read are:
    Speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945 Quaid-e-Azam said, “We have to fight a double-edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the other against British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions, and Islamic Laws.

    Another to the people of the United States of America, recorded in February 1948, Quaid-e-Azam said: “The Constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framer of future constitution of Pakistan”

    One more the Allahabad session of the All-India Muslim League in 1942 when he was asked as to what type of state Pakistan would be. He replied:

    It will be an Islamic state on the pattern of the Medina state with human rights, liberalism, democracy and complete tolerance and freedom of conscience to all citizens without any distinction of colour, creed, language, and race as granted by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Christians, Jews, idol worshipers and all others. Justice, brotherhood, liberty, equality and fraternity will reign supreme.

    Now hope the point get through. He wanted a state for Muslims with Islamic laws. After him we just sat on his ideas.Recommend

  • m.amin khan

    i think one does not need to be a scholar to differentiate between Islamic system and Muslim community. The muslims of sub continent at that time new very well that they were going for Islamic state and not a muslim community state. I happened to ask one iraqi secular scholar in 1974 of what could be reason of seperation of east pakistan, he simply said, ‘ Pakistan was established on the name of Islam and people wanted Islamic system, but you did not give them Islam, so there was no bond left to keep the 2 portions united’, If still have doubt , then should again listen to victory speech of Mrs Indira Ghandhi on breaking of Pakistan in 1971. All the inside and outside people except for parrt of our learned scholars very well know that country was founded on the basis of Islam/and implementation of Islam. it is unfortunate that after independance , the power was hijacked by so called seculars and present day situation is natural fruit of minority rule.Recommend

  • Critical

    Here comes another article of how this is not Jinnah’s Pakistan…
    The partition was largely due to three men
    Gandhi- for failing to appeal with the muslim masses not to partition
    Nehru- Realising that dividing India is the best thing for his family lineage to continue
    and of course Jinnah – the main architect of partition who didnt agree to the “one man one vote” policy,wanted muslims to be treated separately,in the end,divided the country on the basis of religion…

    In India,there are several critics of Gandhi and Nehru,and its the duty of citizens to dissent in the democratic country..we analyse their human flaws

    However,in Pakistan, Jinnah is a demi-god.I dont know if soon there might be a blasphemy law for anyone criticizing Jinnah…. Jinnah is a like a Chuck Norris in Pakistan..Soon,there will be history books written on Jinnah claiming that Jinnah’s tears can cure cancer,but he never cried etc…

    The current Pakistan is what Jinnah gave to you,a country where Radical muslims can impose their laws freely without any problems from the Hindu majority…
    Thats why we can see feudalism,laws oppressing minorites,ahmedis,blasphemy laws etc..exactly what a muslim gets in a Sharia ruled country like Saudi Arabia,Qatar etc…

    As I read somewhere “Gandhi,a deeply religious person,used religion to unite people, while Jinnah,an irreligious person,used religion to divide people”

    Thankfully,now those radical dinosaurs are out of India and are having an open season in Pakistan..Pakistan is a Jurrassic Park built by Jinnah ..Recommend

  • RH

    @Wajib: you cant be serious.Recommend

  • Salman Arshad

    Jinnah was clear about Pakistan being an Islamic state. But the word “Islamic State” was not yet popularly used.
    He emphasized that we knew democracy “1400 years ago”. His ideal government was THAT particular form of government that existed 1400 years ago, and he found it to be democracy.

    Your questions about Shia/Sunni etc. are details that the Islamic scholars were supposed to solve.

    And they have been very successful so far.

    Even if Khilafa is bought about, it would still be compatible with Jinnah’s concept of democracy.Recommend

  • Salman Arshad

    @Author:

    You quoted Maulana Maududi:

    yet whatever he does is seen as the way of the Holy Quran

    Isn’t that proof enough that he was convincing everyone that Pakistan is to be created on the basis of the Holy Quran?Recommend

  • Super Star

    @ zeeshan sheikh

    So are you going to do something to see thats gods law is applied in USA , India and the world ? Interested to know .Recommend

  • yousafhaque

    @author::::When during last 66 years was this land called Pakistan (half of it now) ever was of Jinnah”s??Recommend

  • Dr,A.K.Tewari

    It is in the interest of Pakistan to be a secular state to survive in a secular world order . Religion should be a personal choice , state has nothing to do with religion it’s affairs should be guided by values of universal human rights .Only a secular mind set can give a Pakistani respect world over .Recommend

  • BlackJack

    Those who argue on behalf of Jinnah using this Maududi argument are often dumbfounded when the question is put to them in reverse – why did Maududi and other religious parties not want partition? Did they not think that muslims would suffer under Hindu rule?
    The fact is that the argument for an separate state was logically flawed when you consider that the muslims were already in power in those states. If there were muslims who were likely to suffer under Hindu rule, they would do so in the states where they were in minority, which would still remain in India – so no purpose was served. We have seen many times over the years that it is possible for muslims to be whipped into hysteria without any significant reason – Jinnah recognized this fairly early on and put his skills to good use. The man who plants a tree does not often get to eat its fruit, but still deserves recognition.Recommend

  • sabi

    Kudos for this pragmatic article.This is of course not Jinnah’s Pakistan but-Mullah’s Pakistan.Ironey is documented history is being ignored over well proven distorted history by some so-called intelectuals.Agony of Pakistan.Aah.Recommend

  • observer

    @Kashif Ali

    You have framed the following question.

    Did he want a state where religion would be the only source of identity, where no other orthodoxy would be tolerated except, of course, the dominant Sunni orthodoxy?

    To answer your question, I quote from an interview given by Mr Jinnah immediately after partition. Mr Jinnah claimed, “Oh, it’s not just the largest Islamic nation. Pakistan is the fifth-largest nation in the world!”

    When asked,’ What kind of constitution did he intend to draw up? Mr Jinnah responded “Of course it will be a democratic constitution; Islam is a democratic religion.”

    When the interviewer ventured to suggest that the term “democracy” was often loosely used these days. Could he define what he had in mind? Mr Jinnah responded “Democracy is not just a new thing we are learning,” said Jinnah. “It is in our blood. We have always had our system of zakat — our obligation to the poor.”

    http://iref.homestead.com/Messiah.html

    This makes it abundantly clear (i) Mr Jinnah had established an ‘Islamic State’ where (ii) the Constitution will be based on Islam and (iii) by democracy in Islam he meant ‘Zakat’. We all know ‘Zakat’ is a part of a particular school of thought in Islam.

    I hope you get your answer.Recommend

  • choclat85

    @Author. Very good reply to Mr Yaqoob’s article. I congratulate you on this commendable effort and want answers from Mr Yaqoob’s side for the questions in this article. Recommend

  • Parvez

    Jinnah was responsible only for the birth of Pakistan, but now 66 year down the road, to label it as Jinnah’s Pakistan is something of a misnomer because Pakistan really should belong to the people. The fact that the people have had no say in the running of the country, is their own fault.
    In fact Pakistan belongs alternatively to the army and the political / bureaucratic set up, the people are there to jutify the exitance of the state. Recommend

  • opler

    we should leave this futile discourse now that what jinnah wanted. . We should simply make pakistan a muslim majority secular state. . -With spirituality everyones’s personal affaire! live in peace. .Recommend

  • Prerna

    This Pakistani obsession with what Jinnah wanted or did not want, said or did not say, implied or did not imply, wrote or did not write, is simply barmy. No wonder, the country now, more or less, resembles a mad-house.Recommend

  • Mohammed

    @Wajib:
    Wajib, I am most impressed by your thinking. I am very proud of your ideas.Please go on propagating your views ,It will help the next generation to grow up very happy people.
    Insha Alha.
    Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    Mr Jinnah was the leader of the muslim league political establihment and the sole representative of the Indian muslims but not all the muslims; he wanted to have a separate Islamic State but not a Caliphate like the one in Saudi Arabia or the one in Iran today.

    He was just a human, did not think though his concept and later muddled through like the Brits, usualy do, and suddenly started thinking seriously about the poor minorities who got stuck in the country. Mr Jinnah wantingly or otherwise also brought with him the bag of worms including A la Maudidis and what have you. The question is not What Mr Bangash or other millions who think like hims but all others who became the civilian and military leaders of the Govt. and went to the extent of takng over the role of the christian Pope, deciding on blesphamy and excommuncation of the believers. No human has the right to make a judgement about the muslimness of the believer.

    The question comes to one’s mind also, what was it that prompted the people voting in the refrendum for if he had in mind to have an inclusive Govt. similar to that what Dr Khan was heading in the muslim majority province of the former NWFP?

    People who do not agree with Mr Bangash should just think throug.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Alex

    @Hasan Mehmood: you nailed it. Bigotry in the islam should be fought to the end to save the real followers.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    “If Jinnah’s Pakistan was always meant to be an Islamic state — which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like — then why did the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam (MAI) – a band of Muslim leaders dedicated to an extreme, conservative viewpoint – not support Jinnah?”

    So argument is some Islamists didn’t support Jinnah, hence, Jinnah was a secular guy.

    Why don’t you have a look at this Ahrar pamphlet. Mind you Jinnah was President at the time.

    http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspot.in/2011/03/as-per-muslim-league-ahrar-supported.html

    They hate Jinnah, but agree with Pakistan and support it.

    “We, Ahrars, have taken the position
    for a long time that we should not
    oppose Pakistan. We cannot tolerate a
    fratricidal war among the Muslims on
    the issue of Pakistan. If Pakistan is
    established there will be no harm to
    Muslims. The duty of the nationalists
    at this crisis is that they should not
    prefer the slavery of India to
    Pakistan. They should, by support Mr.
    Rajagopalachariar, help in clearing
    the political horizon of India of all
    clouds of communal animosities. So
    what we may be able to present a
    united front in face of every foreign
    powers.”

    Your argument goes kaput! They didn’t support Jinnah, but the idea of Pakistan. Things being to cook long before Objective Resolutions happen.

    “If Jinnah and the Muslim League (like Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami) looked to Islam as a legitimising force for Muslim politics, then why were they categorised as such by people like Maududi”

    The answers are not black and white. You know this but want to peddle half-truths, so that you can satisfy your ego that Jinnah is secular. PPP is “secular” and Un-Islamic by any hardcore Islamic party in Pakistan today. But, it is they who categorised Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Just because they don’t meet the parameters of being Islamic in many Islamist eyes, doesn’t mean PPP has any less Islamist influence or don’t use Religion to pursue their political ideology.

    The hardcore Islamists viewed Muslim League thusly.

    Tell me, if the Muslim Leaguers stood for Secular values, why did most of them supported Objectives Resolution where Pakistan was named an Islamic country? Only Jinnah had died.. What about others?

    Your are writing an article for Jinnah, whose basic argument is X set of people didn’t support Jinnah, hence Jinnah is Y! Gandhi and Nehru, secularists and Humanists to the core, didn’t support Jinnah either. Does that mean Jinnah is not a Secular guy or believes in Humanity?

    Why don’t you accept Jinnah for what he was. A seemingly secular guy, who used Religion to get what he wanted. What do you call secular people, who use/misuse Religion? I don’t know about you, but I call them communalists.Recommend

  • mind control

    @zeeshan sheikh:

    leave what jinnah wanted or what maudaudi wanted. the only thing matters is the what God commands.

    So true.

    This is what Lal Masjid/ TTP/ ASWJ/ JUD also want. Instead of debating what Jinnah wanted we must help these Tanzeems establish God’s wish in Pakistan.Recommend

  • Truthbetold

    @Wajib:

    “Muslims responded by migrating – some could not migrate due to various reasons and were therefore left stranded – we can see what happened to them and it is our duty to support them and stand up for them whenever the need arises.”

    Good! So you should champion the policy of opening the doors to Pakistan for any and all “oppressed” Indian Muslims.

    “The real issue is the unfinished division of India – of areas that should have come to Pakistan but were subjugated by India – that is the only agenda that has any current relevance for discussion – rest is all settled.”

    Using the same logic, why couldn’t the Hindus demand that all Pakistanis who claim Arab, Turkish, Central Asian and Persian ancestry go back to their native lands so that the ancient Hindu lands that now are part of Pakistan come under Hindu control again?Recommend

  • Hamza

    Jinnah’s title was “Safir of Hindu-Muslim unity,” and he embraced that role.

    I hope that’s reason enough.Recommend

  • Hasan Mehmood

    @Parvez:
    {Jinnah was responsible only for the birth of Pakistan, but now 66 year down the road, to label it as Jinnah’s Pakistan is something of a misnomer because Pakistan really should belong to the people}

    We are nowadays seeing a lot of arguments that this indeed is Jinnah’s Pakistan implying he is somehow responsible for present day ills of sectarianism, bigotry, persecution of minorities, religious extremism and so on. I would only like to ask if the arguments / references / quotations / analysis etc being presented now were mentioned prior to 1977 (a full 30 years after Pakistan’s birth)? ABSOLUTELY NOT. SUCH A DEBATE WAS UNTHINKABLE TILL THEN. AND I AM OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER. Its only our frustration with present condition that we the liberals want to make Quade-Azam the scapegoat. If we take a wrong turn half way down the road, should we blame the person starting the journey? Even if Quad-E-Azam presumably advocated a muslim state, he would have definitely taken an opposite turn and moved towards a secular state. No one in his right mind would imagine Quade-Azam signing Objectives Resolution. Recommend

  • mind control

    @Wajib:

    Muslims responded by migrating – some could not migrate due to various reasons and were therefore left stranded

    Pakistan must facilitate the migration of the ‘stranded’ Muslims to the citadel of Islam. Pakistan should demand that all ‘stranded’ Muslims be deported to Pakistan. This needs to be raised in the UN.Recommend

  • mind control

    @Kasif Ali

    there are also many speeches which can be quoted, which clearly indicate that Jinnah never wanted an Islamic state

    Go ahead. Quote all such speeches and prove your point. Begin with Jinnah’s address in the Muslim League conference of 1940, where the Pakistan Resolution was adopted Recommend

  • Sam

    It was not division of India, in fact it was division of Muslims in Indian sub-Continent. At present Muslims’ population in South Asia is approx 60 Crore, largest Muslim population of world.Recommend

  • وطن ای ہند(Indian)

    Sir were is my comment which I wrote with so much of pain. :(Recommend

  • Dilip

    Let Jinnah rest in peace. He provided the people with his leadership while he was alive and provided the muslims with Pakistan. Now that he is gone, it is up to the PEOPLE to solve the problems. The problem is not religion. The vast majority of Pakistan are Muslim. It is GREED and until greed is not eradicated, Pakistan will remain a failed state. Look at all the Nordic countries. Their governments provides for the children and the old. They have a 90% middle class which provides the tax revenue for the government. Their education and medical facilities are functional and available to all. They provide pensions for their old. They do not have inter faith killings. The majority of them do not own property but they live in flats that are affordable. The majority of them don’t have cars, but their transport system is fully operational and also the costs are reasonable. If only Pakistan can collect its tax revenue from ALL involved and spend that money with integrity the problems of Pakistan will be solved in a decade or two. So please guys, start living for today and tomorrow and forget the past. The man has left Pakistan a legacy and that is all that he has left. The rest is left to the people to build a SAFE and secure FUTURE. The legacy that is left behind reflects in the monuments that were build to make us feel good and the picture of the Quaid on our money that we handle on a daily basis. The very same paper that his image is adorned with which we only accept it due to its monetary VALUE.Recommend

  • JB

    @Wajib:
    Yes, We should help Muslims of India. They badly need our help. All minorities are living a peaceful life here in Pakistan. They are treated with ‘fair’ laws. Lets go to Delhi and ask Manmohan to give us Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir.
    Tujh Pay Qurban Meri Jaan!Recommend

  • وطن ای ہند(Indian)

    Sir,if you find my comment objectionable then remove the objectionable part and publish my comment but don’t unpublish my comment entirely. Recommend

  • Parvez

    @Hasan Mehmood: Abolutely agree. You have spelt it out clearly.Recommend

  • وطن ای ہند(Indian)

    @JB:

    On 7 November, Junagadh’s court, facing collapse, invited the Government of India to take over the State’s administration. The Dewan of Junagadh, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the father of the more famous Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, decided to invite the Government of India to intervene. Bhutto wrote a letter to Mr. Buch, the Regional Commissioner of Saurashtra in the Government of India:

    The Government of Pakistan protested, saying that since the Nawab had chosen to accede to Pakistan, the Dewan had no authority to negotiate a settlement with India. Also, if India could acquire Kashmir (with an overwhelming Muslim majority) because its ruler had decided to accede to India, then Pakistan could claim Junagadh.

    Recommend

  • anwar kamal

    Jinnah was not Muslim.He was Persian.He was secular.He used to wear a cap.But that is not the symbol of to be a Muslim .I remember in one address he told,everybody live in Pakistan will be known as Pakistani not by religion.Recommend

  • Historian 1

    The dilemma of Muslims of Islamic republic of Pakistan is that their father of the nation was a westernized, secular, non practicing a religion personality. His comments in favor of Islam were a political necessity to achieve his goals. Irrespective of Jinnah’s views for Pakistan, a common Pakistani ( Sunni sect) wants to implement Sharia, while the remaining sects dream for a secular Pakistan. Extremism or intolerance prevalent currently in pakistan has nothing to do with Jinnah or his views. Zia ul haq policies and Khomeini revolution in Iran made Pakistan a religious extremist nation.Recommend

  • http://www.akifkhan.com Akif Zeb

    I agree with Yaqoob. He did made an Islamic state. He underestimated the fact that how ugly can it get, just like jesus who underestimated the power of religion when it will come in the hands of Caesars and Proctors. And Religious parties opposed because they underestimated the benefits they could get from this new Islamic state, see how happy they are now with it, defending it to their death – DPC, JuD, JI, JUI and you name it.Recommend

  • Fahad Zia

    Oh acha.. lets dig his grave and ask him, shall we? Recommend

  • C M Naim

    The writer claims:

    Pakistan was certainly a decision aimed at emancipating the Muslim community; it was a struggle of one community versus another, not deen (religion) versus dharma.

    Please have the decency to say that the decision was aimed to ’emancipate’ the Muslims living in the provinces where they were already in dominant majority, and where they soon made themselves almost total population. The movement was never concerned with Muslim community as a whole, not was it ever led in any manner by someone who belonged to weaker classes and castes among Indian Muslims. Recommend

  • Imran Saeed Khan

    Good thing Quaid-e-Azam died in about a year after the creation of Pakistan otherwise we would have easily said: ‘It wasn’t Quaid-e-Azam who was the founder of Pakistan it was someone else’Recommend

  • Gp65

    @anwar kamal:
    Jinnah was not Persian. He was a Gujarati. His grandfather was a Hindu and his father converted to Islam. Recommend

  • Gp65

    @Hamza:
    The title of Safire of Hindu Muslim unity was before 1930. No one gave him any such title during the time that he led the Pakistan movement. If we are evaluating whether or not the is Jinnah’s Pakistan, then that period is the right one to evaluate.Recommend

  • Sidrah

    Who cares if this is Jinnah’s Pakistan?? Does it matter anymore? Why are we still fighting about the ideology of a man who died 60 years ago?

    The truth is both Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal were contradicting personalities. On one side they engaged in activities that most Mslims in Pakistan would probably find unacceptable today and on the other side they talked about religion and Muslims.

    This debate is pointless with no conclusion because they are both gone and whether Pakistan was a mistake or not; we have to live with it. Recommend

  • Hasan Mehmood

    @Gp65:
    And why don’t you shed light on the reasons behind his change of heart. Why don’t you remember that Muslim League was virtually wiped out in 1937 elections only to make a spectacular comeback in next elections. A little bit of introspection wont hurt the cause of truth.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    @Historian 1:

    He was not a secular, but a believer!

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Rex Minor

    @Anoop:
    What makes you to believe that Nehru and Gandhi were secular and humanists. Both of them were hindus, practiced worship their Brahman Gods and regarded themselves superior to the non Brahman hindus. Mr Gandhi even refused in south africa to travel with African citizens and used first class compartments.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Rex Minor

    @Fahad Raza:

    It all sounds brilliant and Islamic, sir! Now tell me sir, what is this all this humbug about the term ‘secular’ that a number of Pakistani intellectuals are talking about?

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @Rex Minor:

    Where do you get these theories from – Man originated from Arabia, Nehru/Gandhi are not Secular… You are a never ending black hole of conspiracy theories, aren’t you.

    “What makes you to believe that Nehru and Gandhi were secular and humanists. “

    Simple.

    About Nehru:

    1) Nehru when PM gave India a secular Constitution, when he easily could have made India a “Hindu” country, like Pakistan was a Islamic one.

    2) Nehru never said a single communal phrase in his entire Political life. He was a renowned Agnostic of the time, and he was appointed by Gandhi.

    3) Nehru never asked for a Hindu India. His India whose idea he cemented with the 1950, by giving India a secular, democratic and fair constitution which gives equal rights to everyone.

    About Gandhi:

    1) What is secular? Separation of God from Governance. Gandhi was the one who appointed an Agnostic Nehru.

    2) If Gandhi was indeed not a Humanist, why would he starve to death to stop the violence directed against Muslims, AFTER India got its Independence? Remember, it was Gandhi who impressed upon Nehru that he should give Pakistan its share of the money….

    3) By appointing Secular, Agnostic people as his heir(Nehru), Gandhi displays his belief in the time and tested concepts of Secularism. He could have easily appointed a Patel or a Maulana Azad as his heir.

    4) You are so full of it, that you actually think Gandhi is a Brahmin. That is what reading Urdu newspapers do to you. If you are indeed not of Pakistani decent, that is even more sad. Recommend

  • Historian 1

    @ Rex Minor: Do you know the meaning of secular? Where does it say a secular is a non believer?Recommend

  • Umaimah

    I totally agree with you!!!! Jinnah NEVER wanted a “theocratic” state.
    And that slogan “PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIA? LA ILLAHA ILLALLAH” was certainly not initiated by Jinnah’s view point! Religious Scholars were TOTALLY against JINNAH and separation of Pakistan and called him a kaafir but just after the INDEPENDENCE these hypocrites were the first ones to take part in constitution making and declared pakistan an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC. And this was the ROOT of ALL PROBLEMS that PAKISTAN is facing!!!! because everybody thinks that they are the champions of religion and EVERYBODY interpret religion according to their own thinking! and anybody who goes against their views is declared a KAAFIR.
    No tolerance at all and Jinnah “ISLAM” promoted TOLERANCE while “MUSLIMS” do not!!Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    @Historian 1:

    Good question! What does secular mean?

    Rex Minor Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    @Anoop:
    If you are not a man from science, then you need not bother about the latest archeological finds which prove that the modern homo sapiens began 100,000 years ago and from the arabian peninsula and not Africa as was previously estimated.

    I can not read urdu but know that Mr Nehru came from a Pundit famly from Kashmir. He was no agnostic of any sort. Indian secular constitution is currently at odd with hindu culture, because the former though based on equal rights, laws and ethics, it is different from the ancient and traditional values of Hinduism, namely the caste system, unequal status of women and so on.

    I like your definition of the term ‘secular’ being the separation of God(religion) from Govenance! Excellent, I find ths is missing among the liberals of Pakistan. Now I will tel you that all Euopean constitutions reflect the values of the christian religion, and the separation of elon from the Governance came about afte Hitler and Mussolini entered into a concord with the Vatican. This gave the birth to secular Govts., UK being the exception since the Monarchy is also the head of the anglican church.

    Finaly , could you imagine a secular type of Govenance in Pakistan?

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Mumbai Jazz

    @Wajib: Quite hilarious what you said.Recommend

  • http://intellectpakistan.com Ali

    @Dr,A.K.Tewari:
    No. As a matter of fact, if we claim to be muslims, then we can NOT be hypocritical and so we must follow Islam on a personal as well as on a state level. And the statement of Muhammad Ali Jinnah proves it:
    “The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions, and Islamic Laws.”Recommend

  • 1984

    @Rex Minor:
    If you are not a man from science, then you need not bother about the latest archeological finds which prove that the modern homo sapiens began 100,000 years ago and from the arabian peninsula and not Africa as was previously estimated.

    So,who did the research?? Zaid Hamid or the one who ran a car using water?? I’ve been asking for past 3 weeks about the web links where its been stated that Man originated from Arabia…But all you do is avoid me or start ur rant about spending 300 dollars on my own DNA and compare with the guy selling falafels in 42nd street.

    Besides,your idea of secular govt is wrong. France was one of the first modern countries to become Secular and United States of America comes after that.That was 200 years before Hitler or Mussolini were even born…..
    Recommend

  • mind control

    @Rex Minor:

    and the separation of elon from the Governance came about afte Hitler and Mussolini entered into a concord with the Vatican.

    Can you site some evidence to such a concord please.

    And are you aware that the American Declaration of Independence, declared in 1776, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    And the First Amendment of 1789 provided, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Please note ‘Equality of All Men’ and the prohibition on establishing any state religion.

    Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @Rex Minor:

    “If you are not a man from science, then you need not bother about the latest archeological finds which prove that the modern homo sapiens began 100,000 years ago and from the arabian peninsula and not Africa as was previously estimated.”

    So that it fits perfectly into the Psedo-Science Gents who say Man was created by God and did not come from Apes. Brilliant!

    You have no ulterior motive at all, for claiming Man came from Arabia!

    I probably know the answer to the question I am about to ask: Do you believe that man came from Apes, in Evolution?

    Why don’t we have some links from respectable sources which claim Man came from Arabia, the new “archeological finds”?

    “I can not read urdu but know that Mr Nehru came from a Pundit famly from Kashmir”

    I also came from a Brahmin family, but I am agnostic. So was Nehru. Not all Pandits were believers in God or strictly embedded to the popularly considered ideas of Religion and culture.

    “He was no agnostic of any sort.”

    Dude, you have no idea about Nehru, do you.. If Nehru was not an agnostic and was indeed in establishing a Hindu state, why didn’t he do so? He was very powerful and Patel too would not have stopped him from doing so.

    What quote of Nehru makes you think he is NOT an agnostic? Everyone knows he firmly believed in Socialism, most socialists tend to be Agnostics or outright Atheists.

    “namely the caste system, unequal status of women and so on.”

    If you could tell me the parts from Bhagvat Gita, the Hindu Holy scriptures, where it says Caste system should be practiced or where it says women are to be ill-treated, I’ll be grateful.

    Islam certainly interferes in the matter of states, how women should dress, what to eat, where to go, who to befriend, what not.. Its common knowledge that it does and its a commandment, hence most Islamic states follow it.

    The Hindu ideology doesn’t interfere in the matter of state. There are no commandments, only guidelines. If there were commandments, Hindus, who are the most Religious of all the people in the world, would have followed it word to word, assuming they were harmful.

    We’ll continue on your premise from the quotations I am sure you will provide.. Unless that happens, lets just say I am right.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    @mind control:
    I did say , European constitutions! The American democracy has been hijacked by the lobbyists groups, and the country which allows tortures, and extra judicial killings is now in coflict with the European civilistation which no longer support capital punishment.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Rex Minor

    @1984:

    Your receptors are too weak to learn! I have no respect for a person who does not make the ffort to learn. I have said, try to follow GP65 approach. You must be clear in your comments, ” are you asking me or telling me”? I am not paid by ET, and am interested to learn how the mind of the people from the Indopak sub-continent tick?

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • mind control

    @Rex Minor:

    I did say , European constitutions!

    OK. Let us talk of the Europeans. Ever heard of the French Revolution and the Declaration of Rights?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeclarationoftheRightsofManandofthe_Citizen

    Incidentally where is the Concord between the Vatican and Hitler and Moussolini? Do cite the evidence please.Recommend

  • iqbal akhund

    Jinnah came from ambassador of Hindu-muslim unity to founder of pakistan because of the rise of hindu revivalism and Congress’ rejction of all compromise proposals including the British cabinet mission plan.
    Pakistan we have is what we have made of it whatever jinnah may have intendedRecommend

  • Rex Minor

    @mind control:
    @Anoop:

    Ask uncle google for,” Hitler concordat with catholic church”.

    French constitutons and French revolution is complex and more involved. I am not biased in favour of German constitution, but Germany has always been the power centre of Europe after the fall of Roman Empire.

    Rex Minor Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @Rex Minor:

    “Ask uncle google for”

    I did as you told, oh enlightened one. I googled, “man originated in arabia”. I got nothing.

    I don’t care about what Hitler did. So, I’ll pass.

    I asked for 3 things, got only propaganda from you.

    1) I am still waiting for your supposed evidence of Nehru NOT being an agnostic and your implication that he was carrying a Hindu agenda.
    2) Proof of this finding that Man came from Arabia. (Also I asked if you believe in Evolution. You missed answering that part)
    3) The quotes from the Bhagvat Gita, which says Caste system should be practiced and women subjugated.

    It seems you know more than Google, so why don’t you dive into its depths and pull out, for us mere mortals, the blessed information that we were too unequipped to find?Recommend

  • 1984

    @Rex Minor:
    Thanks for ur astute observation about my learning skills.But you could still help someone who is unable to grasp the knowledge properly. I’m not asking you much…I’m not asking you to fund the $300 for testing my DNA.
    If you know about the theory that man originated from Arabia,then
    1.You must have read about this in some research papers
    2.You invented your own theory

    If Point 1 is true,whats the big deal in sharing the links with others.Remember,I’m not the only person who is asking for proof for Arabian Nights theory..If you feel that the research is top secret,then tell us directly..Dont beat around the bush as you normally do..Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    @Anoop:
    @1984:

    I did not mean to be rude but if people who are neither scientists nor have any interest in science, it is not very easy to communcate a debate on ET, which has got a “hair cut” machine and every now and then trashes the post.

    The info on Homo Sapiens is pubished in the German magazine ;

    Bild der Wissenschaft de 2/2013

    `

    ` and can be ordered on line http://WWW.directabo.de/bdw

    Ofcourse it is in German languge but perhaps it is also available in English language and Google search could reveal it.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Nishant

    why did jinnah wanted pakistan
    I shall tell u exactly why
    because the Muslim league had no representation politicially in the pre independance india
    they were simply funded by feudals and jagirdars, unlike congress which was full of university professors, lawyers and industrialists
    They had no solid regional representation (unlike Khan abdul gaffar) and it was only through violent and sectarian violence they gathered last moment support
    try reading about direct action plans

    what makes me sad is that most pakistanis are questioning about what Jinnah wanted or what he did not
    what are you trying to justify …. the monstrosity the nation has become
    .
    try to fix what is wrong instead of just implying from the past Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    @Rex Minor:

    “I did not mean to be rude but if people who are neither scientists nor have any interest in science”

    I am an agnostic and firm believer in Science. I do try to keep myself updated about the happening in the Science world, thank you very much.

    Now, lets turn to the link..

    The link of the domain you gave is not owned by anyone and is up for sale.

    When I said link, not some half baked German Magazine, whose link doesn’t work. I want proof from respected Scientific Journals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofscientific_journals

    This is the list of Scientific Journals, if you can show me real, verifiable proof accepted by any of these journals, you will save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

    Also, I am still waiting for

    1) Nehru quotes or actions which suggest he was not agnostic.
    2) Quotes from the Bhagvat Gita, which suggest Caste system and subjugation of women.
    3) Real proof from respective science journals.

    Don’t try to run away.. There are a lot of people following this discussion and the people concerned will not hesitate to bring it up every time you comment on ET. :)

    Not trying to be rude, but a bit of harmless questioning.Recommend

  • Tahira

    I agree with the author that Jinnah did not envision Pakistan as a Muslim state which would adhere exclusively to a Sunni dogma. My understanding has always been that Pakistan was initially meant to be a largely secular state where all of its citizens would be free to practice their faiths in peace. Anyhow, whatever we have today is neither Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan nor I think any sane person’s. Hopefully we will see the day when democracy and true freedom of religion will be established in Pakistan.Recommend

  • 1984

    @Anoop:
    Thanks for typing what I was about to comment. That link he gave didnt work. But I went to the website and used “Google translate” and searched for half an hr…I even search key words like “Arabia”,”Mann”,”Mensch”,”Herkunft”..but never found what Mr.Rex Minor suggested me….

    I think now Rex Minor will ask me to study German to understand it as he once said muslims need to study Arabic to unlock the scientific secrets of Quran and German for Goethe etc….But I always have Uncle Google’s Brother “Google Translate”

    Recommend

  • Islam!

    After I read this article, I can’t believe that people are still debating whether this is Jinnah’s Pakistan or not. I think that we should let Jinnah rest in peace. In his time he surely did provide people with leadership and provided the majority of Muslims with Pakistan. He gave the call for a separate state for Muslims so that they no longer had to live under Hindu ruling when the British left. Now that Qaid-e-Azam has left us, it’s up to us to solve the problems. Also the problem is not only religion because the majority of Pakistan is Muslim. The main problem is greed. If we think about it for a second, if greed is eradicated, Pakistan will no longer be a failed state. If we take a small glance at the Nordic countries, the government provides for the old and the young. The education and medical facilities are available to all not just high class but everyone. This is all because the government collects taxes. If the high class give a hand in and there is not so much segregation between the classes then problems would be solved way easier. We should start to live our lives for today and the tomorrow to come, not for the past. The man has surely left Pakistan with a great legacy. We are the ones that will build not only a secure but also a safe future. Lastly, the monuments of Qaid-e-Azam were made to make us feel good and proud of Pakistan and for us to remember the man that had helped shaped Pakistan to how it is today. His face on the Pakistani rupee is used because he represents Pakistan and also for us to remember him not just use the rupee for its value.Recommend