Demystifying Jinnah’s Pakistan

Published: December 25, 2011

Today’s Pakistan is the exact reason why a need for Pakistan was felt in the first place - to fight religious persecution, injustice and inequality and to live in peace. PHOTO: EXPRESS FILE

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, rightly known as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, spent most of his life advocating for a united India in which rights of all factions would be respected and Muslims given an equal representation in all state affairs. It was not until he realised this was not possible in the prevailing political atmosphere that he took up a different path to protect the rights of the Muslim minority – fighting for a separate homeland.

For as long as Pakistan has existed, liberals and conservatives have debated the true nature of the state that Jinnah envisioned and helped form. Did he want Pakistan to be a secular or an Islamic State? And what exactly do these terms mean?

Many conservatives wrongly equate secularism with immorality and lack of ethical values. The core principle of secularism is the separation of state and religion. A secular state does not interfere with the personal beliefs of the people; equal rights are given to people of all religions and equal opportunities provided to all.

Jinnah expressly advocated secularism when, during his presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in August 1947, he proclaimed, “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

The conservatives dismiss this speech all together and quote other passages in support of their view. In an address on October 11, 1947, for instance, Jinnah said, “Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles.”

Why would Jinnah describe secular values and speak of Islamic principles at the same time? Was he confused? Or did he consider the two synonymous? In fact, conservatives fail to interpret these Islamic ideals in the light of Jinnah’s own writings.

In a broadcast speech in February of 1948, Jinnah spoke about Pakistan’s constitution in the making, “I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody.” He continued, “In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Jinnah made it very clear that Pakistan was not going to be a theocracy. Clerics would have no say in the politics of the state. Pakistan would liberate the Muslims from social and political inequality, but not at the expense of inflicting the same on peoples of other denominations. It would equally be their home. Social freedom, equality for all and democracy would be instituted and pluralistic ideals nurtured in the new Pakistan.

Jinnah believed in the separation of state and religion and in other Quranic principles of equality of man, justice and fairplay. Evidently, these are the same principles of a secular state. These principles, Jinnah believed, were as applicable in this age as they were in the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The State of Medina was based on these same great principles. Social freedom, equality and justice were the order of the day. All citizens, whether Muslim or not, were equal before the State.

As such, it is ridiculous that the conservatives find secularism and Islam to be mutually exclusive. The difference is merely one of semantics, not of substance.

Jinnah said, “You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

Jinnah knew very well that the principles of a secular state were clearly stated in the Quran. It is those who see a distinction between the two – not Jinnah – that are actually confused.

With the passage of time, Pakistan has gradually been hijacked by forces that were against Jinnah’s principles from the very beginning. Every following constitution has been less secular than its predecessor. State has taken on itself to define and dictate people’s faith. There is no assurance of justice and certainly no attempt to promote plurality and equality of all. In fact, it is unfortunate that those who work against these principles are allowed complete freedom to operate and in many instances, even aided.

The premise for the creation of Pakistan was the protection of minority rights. Today’s Pakistan is the exact reason why a need for Pakistan was felt in the first place – to fight religious persecution, injustice and inequality and to live in peace.

Many will still not be comfortable accepting the term secular in positive light.  We might choose to remain confused but what we cannot afford to confuse ourselves with is the fact that whether you name it Islamic or secular, we must fight for the core principles that Jinnah so vehemently advocated for and that we so direly lack in today’s Pakistan.

Quaid-e-Azam Zindabad!


Kashif Chaudhry

A graduate of King Edward Medical University, Lahore and Mt Sinai University Hospital in New York, Kashif is currently completing his Cardiology fellowship in Boston, USA. He writes for various American newspapers and Pakistani publications and blogs at the Huffington Post. His interests include medicine, human rights and interfaith dialogue. He tweets @KashifMD (

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

  • Ahmed K

    Totally agreed! Now ghairat brigade and online jihadis will bombard u with their comments. How dare u speak sanity?Recommend

  • Modazul

    See it was simple. He wanted a country with Islamic Justice and Social laws. But he didn’t want a country ruled by mullahs. Just like U.A.E. It’s not ruled by mullahs but it has Islamic laws. Islam doesn’t interfere in the lives of minorities. We Muslims are ordered to protect religious temples and churches and the rights of non Muslims. Islam also doesn’t tolerate blasphemy on either sides. Recommend

  • req

    And ur poor quaid e azam is for sure turning in his grave now , seeing the current situation in pakistan.Recommend

  • ParrotGreen

    Many Indians consider Jinnah a true friend of India.

    Imagine having the Jihadis and Mullahs and the Army & ISI as part of India.

    Thank You Sir Jinnah.Recommend

  • Talha

    Pakistan was supposed to be a secular modern state, as envisioned by Jinnah.

    A state open for all and at peace with the whole world, especially India who Jinnah called another arm of the same body.

    Jinnah also chose a Christian as the chief justice, an Ahmadi as a foreign minister and a Hindu as the first law minister of Pakistan. Mr Jogendra Nath Mandal, who was the leader of the scheduled Hindu casts, was also tasked to write the first constitution of Pakistan.

    But the treacherous members of the Muslim League and the anti-Pakistan clergy of British India started to make inroads into Pakistan and slowly removed these people from power.

    Secular Pakistan Zindabad.Recommend

  • G.V.S Reddy

    No,Jinnah wanted a feudal state he did get one,in fact he was the only person ready to be a part of British colony under cabinet mission plan 1946 as long as Muslims have a say.and opposed land mark event like “Quit India Movement”,as a lawyer he lost almost all his cases,which left him with only olive branch which is religion(of course British played their part in it). all in all Jinnah played a role that changed the subcontinent forever.
    in plain words Jinnah thought he played an instrumental role in creating pakistan,but the British still think he is an instrument..i may be little bit biased but it doesn’t really make sense when you ask for a separate state based on religion at the same time you claim that new state is going to be secular state.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    Pretty much twisted re-terming of everything what *Islam* tells. That’s Islamic, not secular. The first speech cited says exactly what Islam teaches about treatment of non-Muslims. There’s no secularism involved here, nor is there any separation of religion and state; it was not separated in Madina and it is not said by Quaid to be separated here. You are pretty confused here. All you see is conservatives and liberals which are both pulling everything to their own extreme. Why can’t you see it from a moderate point of view (and by that I do not mean Musharaf’s “enlightened moderation”). This is all what Islam teaches and what it takes to be an Islamic state, which in no way is theocratic or ruled by priests but by ordinary Musilms giving full rights to the resident non-Muslims. All of Quaid’s speeches point to Islam being the state’s constitution (which is not separation of religion and state) and you are *even more* confused and self contradicting when you say that Quran states the principles of a secular state.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    The fact that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam tells it all. Saying that it was supposed to be secular even contradicts with its basic ideology. Lest you assume “Islam” with no rights for anyone else.Recommend

  • Rashid

    “When the Government of Great Britain declared war against Germany, they did it on behalf of India also. The Congress objected to this policy. How could such a declaration be made without the consent of Indians? On the basis of the recently held elections the Congress was the country’s rightful representative. Therefore it was essential to seek their consent. The British showed surprise at the negative reaction of the Congress. They said that a fascist power had taken hold of the world and was suppressing the entire human race. To protect human freedom all reasonable nations were fighting against this power. Why should the British be expected to take the Congress’ permission before committing India to this worthwhile cause? To this, the Congress replied that on principle they too supported the ideals of peace and freedom, and on the same principles they were against the fascist regime. It was only natural that India should support the struggle for freedom, considering the fact that she was herself a slave nation. Today when they have declared war against Germany, the British claim to be the champions of freedom. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the British really believe in what they say then they should start by implementing their high ideals in their own home territory. The Congress further demanded that the British should announce their “War Aims”. If this war was being fought for freedom and peace, then they should make an official declaration that when the allies win, in keeping with the same principles, India, too, would be freed. Only on this condition would India participate in this war. The Congress made it clear that they did not wish to take unfair advantage of Britain’s present predicament. They wanted the British to make an official declaration, because it was only in the light of this that Indians would have the incentive for participating in the war. Then this war would equally be fought for India’s own freedom. The British, however, were in no mood to accept the Congress proposal. Prime Minister Churchill made the famous declaration, “I did not become the Prime Minister of Great Britain so that I could gamble with various parts of the British Empire.”Recommend

  • CB Guy

    Please do not mix Islamic ideals with secular ones. Equality is Islam’s ideal not secular. Secular in practice means anti-religion. You are free not to follow a religion but if you talk about religion. you can get the hell lost. Recommend

  • Talha

    @G.V.S Reddy

    I don’t know how your inane comment got published.

    Let me dissect your comment.

    Jinnah was not a feudal, he spoke against it on a number of occasions. He compared feudalism to a curse on a nation.

    Cabinet Mission Plan was the last straw to have a united India and how power will be transfered to Indian leadership. The British were leaving and this Plan was aimed at finding the best solution for power sharing.

    Jinnah won all his cases as a trial lawyer. As a lawyer, his track record was the best by far. Its odd that you say he lost all his cases.

    British did not want to give into the demands of Jinnah, Lord Mountbatten was aligned with your Nehru. After Jinnah died, Mountbatten stated that had he known this, he would have delayed the partition and it would have never occurred.

    Jinnah wanted a state for Muslims, not an Islamic state.

    The scheduled Bengali Hindu casts of India under Jogendra Nath Mandal voted for Pakistan.

    A good number of Parsi’s opted for Pakistan, Christians opted for Pakistan, smaller sects like Ahmadi’s, Agha Khani’s, Bohra’s chose Pakistan.

    Your views are biased and wrong, and you admit to the former.

    Muslims were increasingly marginalized under Congress which started as a upper caste Hindu centric party.Recommend

  • Indian

    Well I can understand the confusion you guys are going through. My advice would be to look forward and forget reinventing the past. Pakistan today stands at crossroads. India being a neighbour also faces consequences.
    I personally want minimal interaction with Pakistan. Lets have a decent relationship. Friendship etc is not practical as of now. Minimal civil relations is the way forward. “You live your life and let us live ours”Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    I agree with all of your points there except one. After giving a good answer, you’ve gone back to the previous self contradiction of many i.e. “Jinnah wanted a state for Muslims, not an Islamic state.”Recommend

  • Minto

    ‘You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil.’ – Jinnah

    A country based on religious social justice does not indicate the separation of state and religion. Are you confused Kashif Chaudhry?Recommend

  • abhi

    I think only Zia understood the true legecy of Jinnah and he tried his best.

    Your claim about parsi and christians opting for pakistan is laughable. They are in pakistan because then didn’t want to move, not because of their love for pakistan.Recommend

  • Ayesha

    There can be no secularism. Islam must live everywhere. In the constitutions. Laws, Army, Police, Television, Schools. We must look even to day when we all learn to speak Arabic and replace urdu.Recommend

  • Ali

    Quiad was not secular, and also never supported secularism or other ism…He was a good Muslim, must watch this video.

  • Ayesha Ijaz Khan

    Very well written. Isn’t it a pity that not only have Jinnah’s wise words been forgotten and mis-represented, but his picture is used to advance agendas that he would have never supported, as Musharraf did in the case of the Q League or Imran Khan is doing now.Recommend

  • Ashish

    I am unable to envisage how is it going to be of any use discussing how the initial leaders thought for the country. We must look at what can be done to make it more peaceful and progressive.
    Take for example Jinnah as well as Nehru. Both were over ambitious. Both had good as well as bad qualities. Both wanted a separate state to head. Why Jinnah was adamant for a separate state whereas Nehru played a game in congress meeting where Sardar Patel was elected as congress leader to lead the country. No body is pure hearted.Recommend

  • G.V.S Reddy

    @Talha:you might be sleeping through history. Jinnah fought a case for bala gangandhar tilak under sedation charges, to his credit it was the only case he fought for free. which of course he lost ,tilak was convicted for a very long period of time. in fact he wasn’t a reputed lawyer to start with, and he defended a cold blooded killer of a “rangeela rasool” publisher even he lost that too..
    wasn’t Jinnah opposed to “QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT”,didn’t Jinnah go back to London stayed there for 3 years when nothing was going on for him in India.jinnha used to represents the same thing that contemporary Q league represents in today’s pakistan,after all he was a Viceroy and Governor General of British Raj.but again i may be little tilted towards indian POV…but all of these facts are very well written/voiced out by Pakistani writers themselves. of course they have used Islamic morphing to cover irrational incongruity Recommend

  • Musthaq Ahmed

    Jinnah is the true saviour of India. He spared the poor hardworking thrifty enterprising Indians the torment of living with zealots mired in backward economy. I salute him , a man of great foresight.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    @Kashif ch,
    I think it was Allam Mohammad Iqbal (RA) who invited and pressed Mr J innah for creation of
    seprate land for indian muslims and i know some time in 1930 he left for England after he got
    dishearted from indian and congress politics but then Mr Iqbal wrote him leter please correct me if i am wrong.
    @Ali sahab
    Pakistan is not islam or secular it is one of american colony since 1950s and what quaid want
    to make em we know quaid was westren educated and Ghoja background secular person he just want to make a seprate country for muslims of india and now its our turn what we want it
    to make secular or true islamic secular country.Recommend

  • Sohail Khurshid

    @”Why would Jinnah describe secular values and speak of Islamic principles at the same time? Was he confused?”

    He was not confused, it is we, the people of Pakistan who are confused morons!Recommend

  • amrita

    LOL at your comment. It reminds me of the lies I crammed from my matric Pakistan Studies book. Recommend

  • Milestogo

    It’s high time Pakistanis should stop hiding behind Jinnah. Say what you want out loud. You want secularism – say it out loud without fear – doesn’t matter what Jinnah wanted.

    After all it’s your future and your kids future at stake…Recommend

  • The Only Normal Person Here.

    We miss you baba.Recommend

  • Muhammed Usama Aziz

    On one hand we claim Islam is a complete code of life and then we say that separate religion with state. If Islam is a complete code of life, then surely it will define how to perform state duties and surely Islam defines it.Recommend

  • Kashif

    @Ayesha: Thanks @Ali Tanoli: Jinnah tried to fight for equal rights and advocated for a united India but failed. He left for England. Here, he was approached by Imam Dard, the missionary of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in London who was tasked (by the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya community) to convince him to return for the sake of thr rights of Muslims in India. Jinnah accepted to return after long deliberation. In his speech (announcing his return) at the Ahmadiyya Mosque in London (which he used to attend), his recorded words are: “The Imam’s eloquent persuausion left me no chance to escape”

    But of course our Pak studies and history books have conveniently hidden this. But many books and historians know and have written about this.

    The reason why Jinnah agreed to fight for a separate homeland was because he foresaw that minority (Muslim) rights wouldn’t be protected in a United India (at least in those prevalining conditions)Recommend

  • Shahnaz Latif

    Well said. With the passage of time, Pakistan has gradually been hijacked by forces, who are not only againsat Jinah’s principles but also against the teaching of Islam and the practice of Holy prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) . They are fanatics and spreading only hatred. There is no rights for minorities.
    May Allah save Pakistan and gives wisdom to Pakistani to follow the true teaching of Islam. Please visit

  • atif

    well said. May Pakistan realize Jinnah’s true dream and get rid of all prejudices and injustices done to people of minority faiths in the name of Islam.Recommend

  • Talha

    @G.V.S Reddy:

    Funny that you couldn’t refute my argument, and instead shot yourself in the foot again.

    Jinnah defended Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the first popular leader of Indian independence movement, on the request of Tilak himself. The case against Tilak was so strong that there was no chanve for him to win, and only out of bravery Jinnah defended Tilak as he was the leader of an independence movement.

    So this refutes your argument that Jinnah was against the idea of an independent India. Secondly, Quit India Movement occurred in 1942 while Jinnah was in India throughout that time. Jinnah left and returned to India in early 30’s.

    As for this movement, Nehru and Azad were apprehensive too. Communist Party of India and the Hindu Mahasabha opposed it and so did Jinnah as its outcome was uncertain and it failed to achieve anything.

    Regarding Ilam Din and the blasphemy case, Jinnah was not a trial lawyer, he was brought on later to challenge the proof after Ilam Din had accepted guilt and lost the case.Recommend

  • AnisAqeel

    Very well written and I believe even ‘modifiers’ of Pakistan history cannot find a sentence that is not true in this article. Pakistan was created as a secular state for the Muslims and majority of Islamic Parties and Mullahs severely and bitterly opposed its creation.Recommend

  • Parvez

    The country was born as simple Pakistan and not as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Jinnah in his wisdom considered Pakistan sufficient. Those who followed obviously disagreed and sadly Jinnah and his vision died very soon after Pakistan’s birth.
    Nicely written article but rather pointless at this late stage, we must look forward.Recommend

  • Nasir Jadran

    Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (rahmatullah aleh) understood true teachings of Islam beterr then any Mullah of any time that Islam is a secular religion and Islamic teachings are secular teachings where no Mullah has the right to judge any one’s beliefs or has to take certification of being Muslim. Unfortunately, so called democratic secular governments and then military governments in Pakistan sowed the seed os extremism from 1974 to 1984take and then subsequently on we have seen the mess. It is time that we should allow tolerance and allow people to practice their faith openly. Remove laws against Ahmadis and take headon with criminals and bigots. Do we have any one man enough in military or in politicians lot? Recommend

  • AnisAqeel

    @Nasir Jadran:
    You raised a valid point that Islam is a secular religion by itself when comes to governing a state. No compulsion has been levied on other religions when it was Islam rule.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli,

    @Kashif, ch
    Did not jinnah once said (Meri jaib me khotey sikay hai) and i think he realized after seeing
    all the cabnet in 1948. what u gonna say about that and also why sir zaferullah khan refused
    to pray quaid janaza (funeral) may be he understand quaid was true muslim and then why
    Allama Shabir Ahmed usmani prays his janaza even though he was shias. or may be in the
    last days he became a true muslim.Recommend

  • Cynical

    @Nasir Jardan
    You say, “…Islam is a secular religion and Islamic teachings are secular teachings…”

    Then how come the ‘Jijiya (or is it Ziziya) tax’ finds a place in Islam?
    And don’t tell me that it was invented by Aurangzeb or the local mullahs.Recommend

  • Gill

    I am glad that I am not a paki being proud son of the fatherland Jammu Kashmir |no to pakis no to indians|Recommend

  • rex minor

    Mr jinnah proposal was simply to follow the western democratcies whose constitutions reflected more or less the christian values, whereas the state administrations were seculars and were not involved in peoples religions. This was left to the religious institutions to handle for their constituencies..

    Rex minor Recommend

  • Peace

    All the problems of Pakistan are because of mixing up state n religion and because of submitting to the extremist mullahs Recommend

  • Aasim

    Well said Kashif,

    Jinnah never wanted Pakitan to be ruled by the conservatives. He indeed wanted it to be a secular state, where everyone would be free to practice his own religion.

    @ TopGun “The fact that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam tells it all. Saying that it was supposed to be secular even contradicts with its basic ideology. Lest you assume “Islam” with no rights for anyone else.

    Pakistan was created in the name of islam, no doubt , but it was meant to be a state for Muslims, where Islamic teachings of Equality and Justice would be practiced. Minority rights of the Muslims in combined india were not protected, so the state was needed to protect thier rights, whre they could live freely and prcatice thier religion.

    Having said that, Calling Pakistan an Islamic state doesnot hamper Jinnah’s intentions, what dents his actual intentions is the conservative concept. As far as the teachings of Quran and Sunnah are concerned, minorites are free to exercise thier religions in an Islamic state, period. Today these conservatives preach that a Islamic state means a state run by the mullas wearing turbans, banning technological and scientific advancements, education and etc (as they did in the Afghanistan of late 1990s). By God, Jinnah never wanted this sort of an Islamic state. What we need to ensure now is that we stand for peace, unity and justice and become a true socio-islamic state.Recommend

  • MilestoGo

    It is funny to learn that Jinnah’s generation next is doing fine in India. Sometimes it feels like Jinnah was a cancer doctor, who sacrificed his life saving patient’s.Recommend

  • Abhi

    It is interesting to see that minorities in Pakistan are trying to project Jinnah as secular. Probably he is their last hope.
    Though Pakistan officially remembers him as father of nation, in reality he was not a very popular leader of muslims. That is the reason why most of the pakistani find it hard to understand what he stood for. He gained popularity only after embracing religion politically. Most of his supporters supported him because of perceived fear from being under Hindu rule after independence. I don’t think he did all this just to become head of state, I think he really felt that having a separate state will be good for muslims. Only thing he did not do was social reform within muslim society, which is the main problem of Pakistan today. Recommend

  • HI

    Very well writtenRecommend

  • Yuri Kondratyuk

    @G.V.S Reddy:
    Alas, people like you are so rare, both liberals and extremists shun any truth that doesn’t fit their own world view. Unless truth is the basis of every action, no problem can be solved.Recommend

  • TrueMuslim

    Quaid helped get us Pakistan. That doesn’t make him any authority on Islam. Islam is more important than Jinnah.

    Jinnah was a Khoja. Even as a Khoja, he didn’t know anything about Islam. Allah used him to help Muslims of the continent. Allah can use anyone. To Allah alone we listen and Allah alone we follow.Recommend

  • C

    “in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, in the political sense as citizens of the State.”
    mm… so why create a saperate country based on religion in the first place? Could it be that Mr. Jinnah was afraid of a subservient position vis-a-vis Mr. Nehru in free India as Congress was the dominant political party and all the conspiracy theory of Muslim subjugation under ‘Hindu’ India was a fantastical story created by the Muslim elite to protect their interests? Even after the partition India has a higher muslim population than Pakistan and now there is no doubt the Two Nation Theory was flawed from the onset and it died a painful death in 1971.Recommend

  • Jannat

    Quai-e-Azam created a separate homeland for Muslims so that they could spend their lives according to Quran and Hadith. because Muslims couldn’t do that in India.Hindus and Sikhs were extremists.Recommend

  • Mehr

    Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was clear. A society based on equality where everyone could practice their faith, whatever it might be. Religion had no place in the affairs of the state.He was as uncommon a man as there ever was but his contemporaries were very common men. They distorted his views to suite their own purpose.Just as we are doing today. Our elders made mistakes. We can’t go back in time we can only move forward. If we want a Pakistan more in line with the Qaid’s vision it still can be done.Recommend

  • Cynical


    My point exactly.The apprehensions or fear of living in country where Muslims will be minority led Jinnah and other assorted Muslim groups to demand partition.But it didn’t bother them that it’s only the Hindus who lived and had the real taste of being under minority rule for about 400 years (excluding the British rule). Muslims of undivided India, till independence (1947) had no such experience.Jinnah appears to be a secular and democratic only when he is in a position of majority (read power). Recommend

  • wow

    @ C —- BANG ON TARGET MATE. YOU NAILED IT ! SOPT ON ! cheers.Recommend

  • Pir Ali Raza

    some people are confused and they think a ‘secular state’ means anti religion. that is not the case sir. a secular state means the state would not mix with a particular religion. Jinnah wanted a secular state but the basis of the consitution would be to safe guard the rights of people (specially muslims) a country where people of all religion would have the freedome to follow their particular religion and not be prosecuted for it.Recommend

  • Talha

    @Ali Tanoli,

    Jinnah made the “Khota Sikha” comment when he asked the Raja of Mahmudabad to let go Sir Zafarullah Khan (Raja’s advisor) so that Sir Zafarullah can help Jinnah with policy making. The Raja told him that he should rely on the other leaguers, but Jinnah told him that they were all “Khota Sikha” and only Sir Zafarullah can help him.

    Also, Sir Zafarullah prayed in the private funeral of Jinnah which was family only and according to Khoja Shia beliefs. Maulana Usmani, who led the public prayer, had earlier made derogatory comments about Sir Khan which is why the latter just sat on the floor during prayer and went to their residence to pray.Recommend

  • V

    @ Modazul : We Muslims are ordered to protect religious temples and churches and the rights of non Muslims.”

    How many temples and churches are there in Mecca and Medina, the land of pure? In fact, how many people of other religions apart from Muslims allowed to stay out there?Recommend

  • Ashish

    Bhai logo , Mr. Jinnah would have got confused himself if he would have known that so many theories will be in air after his departure.
    Instead of debating and fighting here , why do not we think for future.
    One more thing to be thought of is that all the people who are commenting here are making noises. It is good that internet and FB were not available at that time otherwise united India , which broke in two pieces would have broken in “n” number of pieces.Recommend

  • Talha


    You ask why create a country in this instance then?

    This is because a distinction had already occurred where the citizens of British India were classified according to their religion and not merely as citizens of state. Thus the creation of a Hindu led Congress which was not interested in the Muslim polite and the subsequent creation of Muslim League.

    With the creation of Pakistan, the idea was to start fresh and treat everyone as equals.

    You should also know that Jinnah was offered the leadership, second to none, of a United India by Lord Mountbatten under the insistence of Gandhi. So it was not being made secondary to Nehru after all.Recommend

  • Baqar

    precise and spot-on…i wish all clerics understand religion in spiritRecommend

  • Raja

    Jinnah, like many kings before him, used religion to achieve his goals. Just as the BJP uses religion to get to power and promptly acts in a secular fashion just as the constitution envisages.

    One charitable view would be that a well read constitutionist like him could not think through the nuts and bolts of a democracy in action. In India, apart from J&K, there is only district where muslims outnumber hindus. But a community that constitutes only about 10-12% of the population determines the outcome of 30-40% of the constituencies in national elections – or atleast will be able to prevent anybody that they do not want from being elected. Imagine their influence in a non-partitioned country. This figure would have been closer to 60%. Oh, a pan-asian crescent opportunity was lostRecommend

  • Ayesha

    @TrueMuslim. You are so right, brother. Jinnah was 1000% wrong in wanting secularism. Islam is bigger than Jinnah. If Hindus want secularism than they should go to India. In fact may if 30% of so called Pakistani Muslims leave I would be so happy.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    If now after sixty plus years of partition most of indians muslims lives worst than south africa
    blacks why democracy of congress did not make them well and why indias opsession with pakistan never ends even though they knows pakistan is so small country few bollywood actors are muslims its doesnot means discrimination is gone.??? i know there are vast mejority of hindus peoples are poor too and the reason is centuries old class system but it
    was a good idea to get one seprate land and u know most of us who are living in north pakistan for centuries never had chance to go to school and other luxuries of life it got possibl
    e just because of jinnah and allama iqbal.Recommend

  • ITouchTheFuture

    Greetings of peace!

    Speaking to people of my father's generation, I gather that Mr. Jinnah was a man who worked tirelessly for the betterment of the Muslims of the subcontinent His "free to go to your [place of worship]" epiphany was simply the marker of a welcome progression in his statesmanship. (It was the Ahmadi Muslim group that had persuaded him to return to India from England.) His appointing of people to different leadership positions was based solely on their sterling abilities and not on their religious persuasions --- the mark of an astute national leader! Sad to say, the very same mullahs who had opposed the concept of Pakistan gradually wormed their way into the halls of power, playing upon the naivete of the masses, and by 1984, were successful in thoroughly usurping the rights of minorities and Ahmadis. The headlong rush toward catastrophe continues.

    Pakistan can save itself from the looming abyss only when it returns to a just constitution that will allow all citizens equal rights --- in particular, when it ceases to impose the state's own declaration of citizens' religion on those citizens, and repeals the so-called blasphemy laws. It should take a cue from the amazing progress that India and Bangladesh have made --- India having achieved independence a day later than Pakistan, Bangladesh in 1971.

    Pakistanis, take back your nation from the rabid mullahs strangling your liberties!

    Peace to all!

  • |TopGun|

    Exactly my point. He deliberately clarified that it was not to be a theocratic state. A true Islamic state does not face the problems of conservatism or secularism since every one has their rights. People are confusing Islam itself at the very best here.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    Jinnah was offered the highest position, ie. of the governer general of united India (by Gandhi even though nehru was not so pleased with that) if he stopped the Pakistan movement which was promptly rejected by Jinnah. So your argument has no precedence here. As for the Muslim population, reconfirm your facts, Pakistan’s Muslim population is higher than India’s (though that is still not the point since it *did* successfully get separated and that proves two nation theory). If so much believe in the 1971 event as a collapse of two nation theory, you need to turn your lights off and ponder on *why* did East Pakistan not merge with India after succession? They stayed separate, no matter how much India helped them – that’s two nation theory only proved further.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    Bangladesh separated from Pakistan due to the unfair treatment by the politicians of West, but they did not merge with the India to their part of Bengal to which they had *all* kinds of cultural and ethnic associations… that’s two nation theory.Recommend

  • Aswad

    OMG! This is exactly what i Have in mind !! Amazing Read, Our Personal believes should not be of any Business of the state , State regulates all no matter what religion they belong to, The core principles are the most important thing …Kudos to the writer ! I Like It !! and +1 for This post.Recommend

  • AnisAqeel

    You said it yourself and it proves Nasir Jadran’s point. ‘Jazziyyah’ used to be taken from non-Muslims for providing protection and the rights of the people from other religions. They were not charged ‘Zakat’ or in other words Islam was not forced into their throats in the name of ‘Sharia’. That is called separation of Mosque and the State and in today’s technical term ‘secularism’. In other words jazziyyah refers to the view that Islamic decisions under ‘Sharia’ were not biased and were separated from ‘The Mosque’. Islam treated Mullah to the ‘Maseet’ and respected as other clergies in other religions were.Recommend

  • Cynical


    Come on, please. Who are you trying to deceive, except youself!
    ‘Jazziyyah’ to protect minorities!!! To protect what? I guess, their life,property and women. And to protect from whom? from the majorities??
    If the answer is yes, then it’s a clear case of failure of the ruler (majority community) to keep the majority in restraint.
    And if it’s from the petty criminals then it’s a sheer case of discrimination, for sure the majority community were not paying the same tax for their protection from these same set of criminals.
    The fact is ‘Jazziyyah’ was an economic and psychological coercion designed to lead the minorities to convertion, albeit in a less painful manner compared to the threat of sword. Recommend

  • Hamid Khawaja

    Fazal Mahmood (famous Pakistani cricketer) narrated this on PTV. When our team went to UK to play at the Oval, the night before the match he was having dinner with Lord Hastings. Hastings questioned the need for Pakistan and Fazal replied that there were 12 Muslims in the PK team. In an undivided India, there would have been far lesser. He told Hastings, “Who knows, given a chance, we might even beat you.” And Pakistan won the match. This incident explains why PK was made. The problem was inequality. The Muslims had a better deal if they were to live independently. Religion was the only common factor but equality was the primary reason. Recommend

  • Ashish

    @Hamid Khwaza : have you ever thought what would have been the strength of a “unified” team of united India. You can easily see the strength of united Germany ‘s team in every field.
    In India , leave aside the politics , everybody ,whether a muslim , Hindu , Christian or Sikh is getting chances in every field. See the condition of Danish Kaneria in Pakistan. Once united India was divided on the basis of religion as Hindu and Muslim and now are you heading for Shias , Sunnis , Ahemadis , Khozas ?Recommend

  • Awais Khan

    Jinnah wanted a state, where the rights of every citizen belonging to any religious and ethnic background, are safeguarded.Recommend

  • Mumbaikar

    The author says “All citizens, whether Muslim or not, were equal before the State (in the Islamic state created by Prophet Muhammed”.

    I guess your definition of equal before the law varies greatly with that of the civilized world. The non-muslims had different tax obligations (jaziya ?) than muslims to begin with. Please stop the half-truths and spinning around the core issues. What does it take for apologists to say that the world has evolved and so has it’s values? What was good enough “for that time” is not so good now in the 21st century. Just say it and get it over with.Recommend

  • Mumbaikar

    @Kashif is correct in pointing out that Ahmadiya movement had a huge role to play in the formation of Pakistan. Twisted Irony. That is why they say that what you sow so shall you reap. The whole secularism thing is a new development in the Ahmadiya movement, and they are doing this because most of them live in secular states and the islamic states have mariginalized them severely. However, let us imagine a state where Ahmadiyas gain a majority, will they still ensure secularism (separation of mosque and state)? I highly doubt it. I welcome their support for universal declaration of human rights but it is ultimately self-serving for them as well.Recommend

  • abhi

    @Hamid Khawaja
    so pakistan was made so that 12 more players can become international players :) if we go by that logic separating sindh, balochistan, punjab and kp will provide more opportuinities as then there will be 48 international players instead of just 12 today.Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli

    why Qadianis went to last vicroy of india to asked seprate country or atleast seprate province
    mention by staley wolpert in the book shamefull flight and sikh also want it a seprate country
    for them i guess the english are famouse for divide and rule untill they got divided by Hitler
    germony other wise they could have made india more like Balkan but they did not had time
    from heaven.Recommend

  • Paki in Caribbean

    Whatever! Can I live in peace? no fear of being killed because I have different Ideology I don’t preach it but other poke their nose in my personal beliefs and blow things out of the proportion to show they are more pious & Pure. Can I be safe while out on the streets? Can my kids especially daughters will be safe when they go out to schools or later in life to work?
    Answer is simple NO. so stop BS-ing Recommend

  • Anoop

    Jinnah was secular. But, let us not confuse being secular with being non-communal! Jinnah was secular alright, but was communal too.

    There have been many who have exploited Religion to achieve their ambitions. Lets take the example of L.K.Advani. He is a secular guy, but his actions speak a different voice, just like Jinnah’s.

    Jinnah hung out with the likes of Khaliqquzaman and Suhrawardy, people you should never even have the pleasure of knowing, forgetting making them colleagues and giving them power. The greatest irony of calling Jinnah secular and by extension non-Communal is that he used to claim Nehru and Gandhi, some of the greatest leaders of the century; whose actions have guided the World; who have been called the greatest beings to set foot on this God’s green Earth by the likes of Einstein, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, to be working for the Hindus and the “Hindu cause”. Congress was labeled by Jinnah as a “Hindu Party”, in spite of the fact that Maulana Azad was its President for 6 years between 1937 and 1947. Thats not the act of a non-communal guy. Its an act of someone who is ambitious and knows the pressure points in Indian politics, aka Communalism.

    Pakistan was always going to be a deeply confused state. Jinnah will always be the center of this tug of war between the Right and the Left-Center. Jinnah’s politics and its effects will forever haunt Pakistan. India has no such problem though. Gandhi and Nehru are darlings of the Left-Center and are respected World over. India, in contrast to Pakistan, knows its ideological boundaries and has never in its History forgotten it.Recommend

  • AnisAqeel

    “The fact is ‘Jazziyyah’ was an economic and psychological coercion designed to lead the minorities to conversion, albeit in a less painful manner compared to the threat of sword.” Soooo Wrong!!!
    Zakat was a tax for the poor and welfare of the people on all Muslims and is compulsory as taxes are.
    Jizya (Jizziyyah) was a tax on non-Muslims for the same purpose as Zakat plus protection of minorities from conversion to Islam and their houses of worship. Non-Muslims were not taxed, as Zakat but levied Jizya only on those who have reached puberty and the rate was lower than Zakat so that non-Muslims may not be forced or ‘coerced’ to conversion.
    Both were compulsory taxes and with leniency towards non-Muslims.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    India and Ideology? You must be kidding. You can live in that little hole of yours with your irredentist ideas by keeping your brainwashed speculation to yourself since all of Jinnah’s actions were consistent to Islamic values.Recommend

  • Shams Zaman

    If Jinnah wanted a secular state what was wrong with the united India?? India is a secular state what just to kill over 700000 Muslims and almost 300000 Hindus/Sikhs just to create another secular state?? Was Jinnah planned for a holocaust?? If Pakistan had to be a secular state then what about morality which comes only from religion. Why seculars want to foo, people by saying that by secularism they don’t imply immorality?? Immorality is inseparably embedded in secularism and there is no way to get rid of them.Pakistan today in essence is ruled by seculars, PPP, PML(N) and military are secular parties ruling the state and the result is infront of us. Still want to try the seculars??? What a pity. Recommend

  • A.Farooq

    @G.V.S Reddy: Yeah everybody is a British agent lol, would you leave Poor Jinnah alone, You don’t like His version of Pakistan then you go where you like it. India I guess. The Muslims were persecuted in India. I don’t know if you know much about Islam, in Islam everybody is equal and no one could be persecuted because of their faith color or anything else. So if The Great Mohammad Ali Jinnah was asking for a separate country for Muslims that was to say a country without any prejudice against anybody so regardless of what your beliefs are you could still be a Pakistani. Now depending of your understanding of Islam and sect and beliefs, you could say anything you want, but you could not change everyone’s views of Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Find the true and lost Islam at alislam.orgRecommend

  • ALi Tanoli

    @Shams zaman,
    Secular reached the pakistan on edge of collapsed and u right if jinnah need a secular state
    then what was wronge living with united india and how much more secular did they wants i guess wanna see nude bars and beaches thats what they want shameless peoples,Recommend

  • Anoop


    Was Direct Action day consistent to Islamic Values? Was demonizing Gandhi and Nehru, a thoroughly saintly individuals, consistent to Islamic Values?

    Jinnah had actually advocated that Muslims in India would be unsafe under Nehru. What happens after Partition? Nehru is the guy who protects them in India. Even today, Indian Muslims vote for his bloodline in a twisted way to honour him.

    The fact is Nehru was a great leader, a secular, honest and International figure. If Jinnah had to rise in the eyes of Muslims Nehru’s image had to be shattered. Nehru hardly had said anything communal or non-secular, in fact had gone against most traditions in Hindu Culture which he considered regressive. Jinnah lied to his subjects about Nehru. The effects of his lies are still seen today in Pakistan.

    Let us not even talk about Gandhi. Einstein, the greatest Human Mind in Modern History had this to say about him:“Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as [Gandhi] ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.” Jinnah demonized the Mahatma as well. This shows how shallow his claim to leadership is.

    Nor am I irredentist nor speculating. Direct Action day is just as true as Jinnah’s attacks on Nehru and Gandhi. Jinnah’s association with and encouragement to Un-Secular Individuals like Khaliquazzaman, Suhrawardy and Liaqat Ali Khan are too easy to prove.

    Do not be confused. I am not advocating of restoration of the unity of India. In hindsight, Pakistan turned out to be a cancerous tissue which was cut off to save the body. Pakistan today acts as a buffer against the violence in Afghanistan and blocks the gateway through which India has faced invaders for so many centuries(Alexander, Mughals).

    I actually thank Jinnah for the partition. I am glad Nehru, Gandhi and Azad failed in their mission to keep India together.

    You know why the fate and structure of India and Pakistan is so different? Because India’s founding fathers used Religion to unite, while Pakistan’s used it to divide. That hateful ideology consumed Pakistan once and led to the creation of Bangladesh, and forever will haunt Pakistan, keeping it forever unstable; making sure the Right and the Left-Center will forever be in a tussle.

    Thank you, Jinnah! Recommend

  • Quaid-e-Azam

    Hi All, Please let me rest in peace and do not try to interpret me to support your own interests. After 64 years, you are insisting that I was confused and I actually wanted to say this and that…
    For God’s sake, do not use me.. Thanks.Recommend

  • Kashif

    @ Ali Tanoli: First, secularism is not akin to nudity. Second, the demand for a separate homeland was not because India was not secular enough but because minority (Muslim) rights were not fully ensured. Recommend

  • Afarooq

    Would you leave Poor Jinnah alone, You don’t like His version of Pakistan then you go where you like it. India I guess. The Muslims were persecuted in India. I don’t know if you know much about Islam, in Islam everybody is equal and no one could be persecuted because of their faith color or anything else. So if The Great Mohammad Ali Jinnah was asking for a separate country for Muslims that was to say a country without any prejudice against anybody so regardless of what your beliefs are you could still be a Pakistani. Now depending of your understanding of Islam and sect and beliefs, you could say anything you want, but you could not change everyone’s views of Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Find the true and lost Islam at alislam.orgRecommend

  • Taha Ceen Tayyab

    All in all balanced article but….

    Nowhere does the Quran talks about secularism.
    Quaid always talked about making Islam the constitutional basis. That is not securalism by any definition.
    Madina was a theocratic state period. When a prophet is the ultimate ruler of a place, he is commander of the armed forces, supreme judge and religious text is its constitution well then thats theocracy.

    Get your facts straight and keep writing. Recommend

  • Taha Ceen Tayyab

    Dude there are no people from other religions in Medina. And yeah I just realized I will have to tell you (considering your intellectual inferiority) that We don’t make worship places for people who aren’t there yet!!!!Recommend

  • abhi

    If you read the whole thread and read the arguments, you will realise why pakistan is in such state. As they say you can bring horse to pound but cannot make it drink water, same is case here. The article instead of demystifying, created more myst around Jinnah and Pakistan.Recommend

  • Anoop


    Wonderful observation, abhi.

    You are so right. The ideological boundaries of Jinnah is very unclear, especially if you are a Pakistani. They tend to create their own Jinnah based on their political leanings. Some construct a Sherwani wearing, Islamic preacher, who yearned to establish a Islamic society; others point to his drinking and say he is a Secular, as if whiskey is the judge of being secular.

    You dont see that with Nehru or Gandhi or Azad. Why? Because they never went against the idea of secularism and unity of India, they never tried to take advantage of people’s emotions. Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    Ah, that’s something you will never be able to understand about freedom. Direct action day is another piece of mal intended drama created by rioters to hinder the movement. Nehru and Gandhi demonized *themselves*. Protecting Muslims? You must be kidding. Kashmir is just a trailer we see for the full scenario we would have had if we were not independent. You live in paradoxes and will continue to do so. It is Gandhi’s statement that “Jinnah is uncorruptable and brave”, which if you choose to believe, you’ll be contradicting all what you said and if you choose to reject, you’ll be calling Gandhi a liar. So choose your side. Pakistan’s founding fathers stood on the faith and religion to gain Independence from those who would actually be irredentist against Muslims *even* while the area was administratively united. Even here I can see Indians crying on the fact that India was ruled by Muslims for a thousand years – and now they would surely had taken revenge for that rule to which they themselves participated with all the flattery to the emperors.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    And I dont see any greatness in Nehru for courting the wife of Mountbatten. Just saying.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    All you do here is close your eyes when the cat is about to eat you pretending that it is not there, or more precisely; the grapes are sour. Since half of your dear “united India” is gone, you say that you are better off with it. I’m glad, in whatever condition Pakistan is, there’s always hope for improvement and self determination (a basic right of a living thing) unlike the Muslims of India who have been forced to live accordingly – and oh, even fight wars with their Muslim brothers on this side of the border, as a Muslim I can tell you – no matter what, no Muslim will like to do that. Pakistan’s ideology pinches your eyes for it shows you the only glimpse of a strong hold of Islam which (unfortunately/fortunately) has been Hinduism’s rival religion in India.Recommend

  • Anoop


    “Direct action day is another piece of mal intended drama created by rioters to hinder the movement. “

    Have you even attempted to study History? No student of History will dispute the support of Muslim League to Direct Action day. Suhrawardy, a man who can hoodwink the devil, was needed to be persuaded by Gandhi and Nehru to stop the killings. The tale is very infamous and even Jinnah-lovers have admitted this. No point in discussing something so clear.

    “Kashmir is just a trailer we see for the full scenario we would have had if we were not independent.”

    Your claim would have been much sweeter only if 3 Million Bengali Muslims weren’t butchered by their own brethren and the chaos currently enveloping Balochistan had not existed.

    The trouble in Kashmir is not ideological at all. Go ask any Muslim from Mumbai or Bangalore or Kolkata, he would want Kashmir to stay with them, rather than hand it over to a power who killed their own brothers in 1971. I guess the Kashmiris realize it too now that they voted so luxuriously in the recent panchayat elections with 80% (!) participation.

    Your claim of Kashmir burning will sound less hypocritical only if you used the same yardstick with the Chinese who have ruthlessly put down Uighur Muslims.

    Your claim will sound much better when Ahmadi Muslims are able to practice their Religion and call themselves Muslim like they do in India.

    “Since half of your dear “united India” is gone, you say that you are better off with it.”

    I admit there are those who think that way, but I am certainly not one of them. I see things the way they are. Just look at the 2 Countries. One a future Super Power, another counted among the top 12 failed states. One respected, where Democracy functions, another a mess, which is neither a Democracy(has never been one) nor Authoritarian.

    One is growing leaps and bounds, another fighting other’s wars, allowing its Military to be hired by powerful players.

    My friends tell of Pakistanis who pass themselves as Indian when on foreign shores, same I have read in Pakistani columns too. Shows how the 2 Countries have progressed.

    Anyway getting back to Jinnah, you haven’t been able to disprove his associations with evil doers, nor have you explained his attacks on Nehru-Gandhi-Azad combine.

    Go ask the Muslims of India if Nehru did any good and they will heap praises on the gentle man. The World cried when Nehru died in 1964 with heads of state from many Countries coming down for his funeral. Even today the Muslims of India, whom Nehru protected during his entire lifetime, especially when the embers of Religious hatred were being blown by the likes of Jinnah and after Partition, vote for his name.

    How can you explain this? You know the status of Indian Muslims better than Indian Muslims themselves?Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    Looks like you speak for everyone here. No one agrees with you in the Direct action heap that you create. Actually my claim might have been sweeter if only India stops poking its nose in Balochistan like it did in Bengal. There has *always*, *always* been irredentism in India, no matter how much you deny it. All of India’s actions as a nation show that. You’ve tried calling us a “failed state” 70 years ago, try something else this time because we are here to stay and there’s nothing you can do about it. As I said – all your attacks on Jinnah further build up paradoxes on Gandhi, who called Jinnah uncorruptable, being a liar or you spinning on one leg going no where. You post is *full* of hatred it self, lest you sermon me on that.Recommend

  • Anoop


    Ayesha Jalal is the foremost expert on the Partition and by extension Jinnah. She is a Pakistani. and a Harvard graduate, minces no words when she says Muslim League participated in Direct Action.

    To back it up, I will provide many other Pakistani links.

    “…Now the time has come” so ran the League resolution, “for the Muslim nation to resort to Direct Action, to achieve Pakistan, to assert their just rights, to vindicate their honour and get rid of the British slavery and contemplated future caste-Hindu domination.”

    Some people refuse to believe so blatantly true! My God.

    I can speak about Jinnah because I have read History. So, has the World. That is why Obama, the President of the World’s sole Super Power and oldest Democracy, when asked who he wants to have dinner with, says Gandhi, not Jinnah. The World knows what was Jinnah. Better embrace the warmth of Gandhi and Nehru, than the confusion Jinnah brings.

    “Actually my claim might have been sweeter if only India stops poking its nose in Balochistan like it did in Bengal. “

    We only did what Pakistan did in Afghanistan a decade or so down the line. Also, we had to make sure 1965 was not repeated. 1971 was actually a war which was a continuation of ’65. Only if Pakistani Generals weren’t foolish enough to launch operation Gibralter, their Country would still be whole today.

    “try something else this time because we are here to stay and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

    Pakistan is not a Human Being, dude, to die. Its a patch of land, without direction. The system has failed, the idea has failed. It cannot vanish off the face of the Earth. For the last 2 years Pakistan has been voted 10th and 12th on the most failed nations list. You have actually beaten the likes of North Korea! Kudos!

    Pakistan failed once in 1971 and its failing everyday. Things like Memogate do not happen in successful Countries like India and Bangladesh, they happen only in Countries where you dont know who is boss.

    “As I said – all your attacks on Jinnah further build up paradoxes on Gandhi, who called Jinnah uncorruptable, “

    Look where you have gotten yourself to. Hiding behind the very man Jinnah hated so much! Even though Jinnah thought of Gandhi as vermin, Gandhi never gave up hope. Besides, Jinnah played the communal card only during the last 10 years of his life and Gandhi and Jinnah had known each for a couple of decades longer.

    The man that was Gandhi always believed he could win Jinnah over, but even great people have to bow to the determined-ness of the devil incarnate.Recommend

  • |TopGun|

    This is getting stupid with cherry picking… it’s only your revised history that you read tells you that 71 was a continuation of 65 war. Desperate attempts of clearing India’s name from being an aggressor…

    Obama is seriously not a character to choose an example of… maybe you are still self oppressed under the imperialism looking upto the biggies?

    No, I’m not hiding behind Gandhi…. it is you who is doing that. You are actually confused about him too. “Always believed he could win over” is different than clearly calling your opponent uncorruptable. But what can you do… you are in the paradox still.Recommend

  • Ashish

    Please go thru a blog

  • Journalist Pakistan

    Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was v.much clear. However , his early death didnt allow him to implement those strategies.


  • Adnan Siddiqi

    Jinnah’s own words are enough to burst the bubble of Seculars. Read below:

    The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. The life of the Prophet (PBUH) was simple according to those times. He was successful in everything that he put his hand to from as a businessman to as a ruler. The Prophet (PBUH) was the greatest man that the world had ever seen. Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundations of democracy
    (occasion of the Holy Prophet’s birthday at the Karachi Bar Association on 25th January 1948)

    It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles(Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947)

    Every Mussalman knows that the injunctions of the Holy Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. From the Atlantic to the Ganges, says Gibbon, the Holy Quran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence, and the laws which regulate the action and the property of mankind are governed by immutable sanctions of the will of God”. Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows the Holy Quran is the general code of the Muslims(message of Eid to the Muslims in September 1945)Recommend

  • Cynical


    Your attempt to equate ‘zakat’ with ‘zizya’ is like, trying to peg a square in a round hole.Ther is no equivalence. Zakat is advised and thus voluntary while ‘zizya’ is mandated for non-muslims.
    But still, why you need two systems of taxation (assuming zakat is mandatory too) for muslims and non muslims when every one is equal under Islam. Recommend