Jinnah's Pakistan - Then and Now

[muse]

I have the actors and the "magic" in question, at least clear to me, and that witchcraft is still at work today, for the same purpose.

 

[Developereo]

You mean that Pakistan was not intended as a country where Islam as it was understood would have no role in governance? And if this is not what you meant, well then what was the point of that white part, after all, it's not what Pakistan was about -

See develepero, that's what this thread is about --- Jinnah is quoted as saying:

But make no mistake : Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.”[/B] [ Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948 ]


8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..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, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]

9 : ” Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.

These all confirm what you say - and yet, our own Zarvan also quotes Jinnah and thast does not confirm what you say.

This contest of to whom does Jinnah belong, it seems to partisans of Jinnah, is one they have to move beyond -- so a very exciting time it is, as Pakistan may finally be coming to define herself, in her own time, with reference to the present

Well, muse, I know it's a tricky sitaution and there are no easy answers.

At one extreme, of course I don't envision a Saudi/Iranian style theocracy. However, I am also sensitive to the fact that one of the reasons for Pakistan's creation was that Muslims would not be ashamed of their religion. While Switzerland may ban the building of minarets and FIFA may outlaw the head scarf for its players, at least Muslims should not be made ashamed of their traditions within Pakistan. As they say, a person should at least feel safe within their own home. That is why I take a hard line when some in Pakistan focus on trivialities of dress and speech when we are facing far more serious issues of ideological indoctrination. To some extent, yes, it's a circling-of-the-wagons mentality, but that is where we are, post 9/11.

Coming to Islam's role in politics, the law of the land may be influenced by Islam -- to as great an extent as possible, provided it doesn't infringe on established norms of basic human rights and the rights of non-Muslims. Again, easier said than done, but that's why its a challenge we could have risen to. Most reasonable people acknowledge that the norms of 6th century Arabia are somewhat different to today's reality and allowances need to be made. It is also an opportunity to showcase the progressive, tolerant side of Islam.

 

[bandit]

8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..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, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]

9 : ” Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.

Regarding the red part above, Jinnah speaks of equal rights of Pakistans minorities.

However just 8 years ago in his speech at Lahore, he had summarily rejected the notion of Hindus and Mussalmans co-existing together, declaring thst to yoke them together will only lead to disintegration.

Ironic.

Jinnah had built up his support on the basis of a state inspired by religion, probably only after he got it did he realise that the genie he had let out wouldn't go away. His frantic efforts to pull away from that ideology could not convince his people till his death.

He gave the masses their opium, and they only too happily stuck to it.

 

[Developereo]

Regarding the red part above, Jinnah speaks of equal rights of Pakistans minorities.

However just 8 years ago in his speech at Lahore, he had summarily rejected the notion of Hindus and Mussalmans co-existing together, declaring thst to yoke them together will only lead to disintegration.

Ironic.

Jinnah had built up his support on the basis of a state inspired by religion, probably only after he got it did he realise that the genie he had let out wouldn't go away. His frantic efforts to pull away from that ideology could not convince his people till his death.

He gave the masses their opium, and they only too happily stuck to it.

The two statements can be reconciled quite easily. Jinnah was berating the failure of British India to harmonize Hindus and Muslims. He feared a post-independence India would be no better and wanted to create Pakistan to show that it could be done.

 

[muse]

Regarding the red part above, Jinnah speaks of equal rights of Pakistans minorities.

However just 8 years ago in his speech at Lahore, he had summarily rejected the notion of Hindus and Mussalmans co-existing together, declaring thst to yoke them together will only lead to disintegration.

Ironic.

Jinnah had built up his support on the basis of a state inspired by religion, probably only after he got it did he realise that the genie he had let out wouldn't go away. His frantic efforts to pull away from that ideology could not convince his people till his death.

He gave the masses their opium, and they only too happily stuck to it.

And yet, the same leadership of the Hindus was no doubt equally pleased to be rid of the challenge. - May I request that we focus on the present, Indian friends go on and on about partition - it's done, it's over, lets look beyond it.

Most reasonable people acknowledge that the norms of 6th century Arabia are somewhat different to today's reality and allowances need to be made. It is also an opportunity to showcase the progressive, tolerant side of Islam.

"Most would agree?? really? If that was the case, we would not be arresting Brigadier level officers for HT sympathies, we would not have air force personnel attempting to assassinate a president, we would not have the revelation that all major operations against militants are leaked to the militants, we would not have the acceptance of excommunicating entire sects, really the list is too long -- No, I don't think there is merit to the suggestion that most would agree about that --- indeed most do not agree that there ought to be such things as "human rights" or "rights of "non-muslims" because there is no historical precedent of such in Islamic history -- and that makes "progessive" Islam, one which exists in theory not practice, anywhere - alas.

 

[Zarvan]

Jinnah many times used the words Islamic Principal and Islamic Laws and terms related to Islam but he never used the world Secular this shows his thoughts

 

[bandit]

The two statements can be reconciled quite easily. Jinnah was berating the failure of British India to harmonize Hindus and Muslims. He feared a post-independence India would be no better and wanted to create Pakistan to show that it could be done.

There was no mention of British India in that speech, nor have I come across any speech by Jinnah blaming the Brits for the rift. Perhaps you could provide me with one?

Jinnah had contended that Hindus and Mussalmans can not live together, because of their cultural differences quite clearly.

They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality;

If anything, he credits the Her Majesty for uniting the two nations he believed existed.

The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government,

Address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League, Lahore, 1940

So again, if he did believe that there can be no common nationality for Hindus and Muslims, how did he expect them to live together once Pakistan was formed?

If this reflects the hypocritical attitude of Jinnah during the formative years of Pakistan, it is in all possibility that the current indecision of Pakistan's identity stems from his shifting state of mind.

 

[SQ8]

I have the actors and the "magic" in question, at least clear to me, and that witchcraft is still at work today, for the same purpose.

Unfortunately.. the gullibility of the audience to the illusion has played an important factor.

 

[Developereo]

"Most would agree?? really? If that was the case, we would not be arresting Brigadier level officers for HT sympathies, we would not have air force personnel attempting to assassinate a president, we would not have the revelation that all major operations against militants are leaked to the militants, we would not have the acceptance of excommunicating entire sects, really the list is too long -- No, I don't think there is merit to the suggestion that most would agree about that --- indeed most do not agree that there ought to be such things as "human rights" or "rights of "non-muslims" because there is no historical precedent of such in Islamic history -- and that makes "progessive" Islam, one which exists in theory not practice, anywhere - alas.

Well, I used the phrase "most reasonable people" and we can argue that reason is under attack from extremists camps and that is our challenge.

As for past examples of progressive Islam, I would argue that some Islamic societies were extremely progressive in their contemporary context. In times when it was customary to literally decimate the conquered peoples, Islamic rulers opted to levy a tax instead. Islamic societies had far fewer restrictions on the trade and educational opportunities available to non-Muslims and many non-Muslims made it to high level within government. Conversely, it is also true that, while we are busy navel-gazing, the world has leapfrogged past Islamic societies. What used to be avant-guard and progressive in the 12th century won't work any more. We need to get our heads out of the sand and catch up with the world.

 

[bandit]

And yet, the same leadership of the Hindus was no doubt equally pleased to be rid of the challenge. - May I request that we focus on the present, Indian friends go on and on about partition - it's done, it's over, lets look beyond it.

Ah.... the Hindu bogeyman again. Some semblance of Jinnah does prevail yet.

Partition....yes, it is quite off topic, except the fact that the idea of Pakistan was formed pre-partition and still as you just mentioned, the Hindu bogeyman is still very much present, one of the founding stones of Pakistan.

The speeches Jinnah made and his actions cannot be just brushed aside as history, what he said and did is recorded in ink, and every time somebody goes about trying to prove he was a secularist, there is his past which wasn't that secular.

It was Jinnah who chose to ride the (religious) tiger as the quickest way of achieving his goal, by the time he tried to correct it, it was too late.

 

[Developereo]

There was no mention of British India in that speech, nor have I come across any speech by Jinnah blaming the Brits for the rift. Perhaps you could provide me with one?

Jinnah had contended that Hindus and Mussalmans can not live together, because of their cultural differences quite clearly.

He was talking about the India of the day -- hence the term British India. It doesn't mean he blamed the British. If you like, we can use the term 'pre-independence India'.

His point was that the Indian society of the day -- which was mostly managed by Hindus due to the Brits' preference for Hindus over Muslims -- had failed to provide harmony between the two religions and he saw no reason why things would change post-independence.

He was concerned about the pent-up anger amongst extremist Hindus over the Islamic conquest and he foresaw the desire amongst them to settle scores and exact revenge as soon as the Brits left. We see plenty of evidence of this anger on this very forum from some Indian members, so it is clearly a pertinent aspect of Indian popular culture.

 

[muse]

What used to be avant-guard and progressive in the 12th century won't work any more. We need to get our heads out of the sand and catch up with the world

Shirk and bida


Which ever avenue we turn we are confronted by the same witchcraft and the same demons --- unless of course we slay the demons and reconstruct what is now passing as witchcraft, and become new Wahabis --- Or we may have the sense to agree that values define societies, even as they define qualities of legislation and governance and confession is the business of the individual not the state and values which are inhumane, which define the good and distributed only among a few are worthy of rejection

Bandit - yes, you have a point -- it seems butter does not melt in the mouths of those who insist on taking offense - LETS MOVE ON

 

[bandit]

He was talking about the India of the day -- hence the term British India. It doesn't mean he blamed the British. If you like, we can use the term 'pre-independence India'.

British India were ruled by Brits.

His point was that the Indian society of the day -- which was mostly managed by Hindus due to the Brits' preference for Hindus over Muslims -- had failed to provide harmony between the two religions and he saw no reason why things would change post-independence.

The only preference I know of British had was of recruiting their army from Martial races, I assume that had equal measure of both, unless of course you have access to something I don't and would be kind enough to share.

What Jinnah believed would happen post-independence, didn't happen.

Still doesn't refute the fact that Jinnah had in fact had used religion as a means to the end, but couldn't undo it from the peoples belief.

 

[desiman]

Nehru lived many years after independence, and Jinnah died barely a year later --

Nehru introduced land reforms, Tax changes, economic reforms and overall social reforms in his first year. He also started involving people like Indra Gandhi more deeply in party activities in order to groom the next generation to lead India. Its not about how much time you have but what you do with it. Jinnah knew very well that he wont survive for long after independence, he should have taken steps to ensure that someone continues his legacy and guides Pakistan, but he became too busy in solving petite matters and gave no guidance on any long term strategic matters. He also failed to groom the next generation of leader from even before the independence, he just had too much power in the party which basically negated the growth of future leaders. In India, even with the overwhelming power of Gandhi and Nehru, the growth of young leaders was encouraged which has resulted in the long standing power of the Indian democracy even till now. Its now part of the political culture to groom the next generation of leaders which is still a huge problem in Pakistan. That's what I always say when you want to analyse an issue, go to the history books.

 

[Zarvan]

“Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states.” Iqbal’s letter to Quaid, 28th May, 1937.

“The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities.” Iqbal to Quaid, June 1937.

“To my mind the new constitution with its ides of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nation entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are?” Iqbal to Quaid, June 1937.

“The Palestine question is very much agitating the minds of the Muslims. I have no doubt that the League will pass a strong resolution on this question and also by holding a private conference of the leaders. Personally I would not mind going to jail on an issue which affects both Islam and India. The formation of a Western base on the very gates of the East is a menace to both.” Iqbal to Quaid, 1937.

“ Pakistan not only means freedom and independence, but also the Muslim Ideology that has to be preserved that has come to us as a precious gift and treasure.” Quaid-e-Azam, Chittagong, March,1948.

“In Pakistan lie our deliverance, defence and honour. If we fail, we perish and there will be no signs and symptoms of Muslims or Islam left in the sub-continent.” Quaid-e-Azam, Pakistan Day, March, 1945.

“The Constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed——-I am sure it will be of a democratic type embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in modern times, as these were 1300 years ago———in any case, Pakistan is NOT going to be a Theocratic State——-to be ruled by the priests with a Divine mission.” Quaid-e-Azam, broadcast to the U.S.A. February,1948.

“Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrine, rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim Society, every department of life collectively and individually.” Quaid-e-Azam, Eid Massage, September, 1945.

“In Islam, ultimate obedience belongs to God alone. The only way to follow this guidance is through the Holy Quran. Islam does not preach obedience to a king, parliament, person or institution. The Islamic Govt. means rule of the Quran. And how can you establish the rule of the Quran without an independent state?” Quaid-e-Azam, address to the students of the Usmania University, Deccan, India, August, 1941.

“Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.” Quaid-e-Azam, Presidential Address at the All India Muslim League, Lahore March 23, 1940.

“The vital contest in which we are engaged is not only for the material gain but also the very existence of the soul of Muslim nation, Hence I have said often that it is a matter of life and death to the Musalmans and is not a counter for bargaining.”
Quaid-e-Azam, Presidential Address delivered at the Special Pakistan Session of the Punjab Muslim Students Federation, March 2, 1941

“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. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.” Quaid-e-Azam, address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy and 6th Light Regiments in Malir, Karachi, February 21, 1948.

“We should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.” Quaid-e-Azam, address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi, October 11, 1947.

“We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind”. Quaid-e-Azam’s speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi, July 1, 1948.

Long live Islamic Republic of Pakistan!