Hon Joe Shearer,
Except in the field Energy/ Petroleum, my knowledge is now way near yours. I am therefore humbled by the fact that you asked my opinion. Therefore whatever its worth, here it is:
My understanding being that Westphalia Treaty of October 1648 primarily asserted the concept of sovereignty of the nation state. Basically meaning no interference by another nation. Hence I fail to understand why Mr Ramachandra Guha views Pakistan as “Truly Westphalian nation” and not India? And what is a ‘Westphalian nation?
But this is another issue. The topic under discussion here is whether Mohammad Ali Jinnah hereafter referred to as Quaid was a secular nationalist or not and consequently was Pakistan meant to be a secular State?
This subject is close to my heart and I have spent a lot of time reading the available material in effort to find the real Quaid. Syed Hashim Raza, first Administrator of Karachi (July 1948 to April 1951) who personally knew the Quaid, was invited to a function while I was ESSO and I had the opportunity to discuss the Quaid with him as well. However like everyone else my conclusions are tinted with my personal prejudices therefore not necessarily 100% correct.
I believe that unless divinely guided, no one is perfect. Therefore all great men; despite achieving great things and having qualities such as Integrity, Honesty, Fortitude & Resoluteness; being mere mortals, are not flawless. Our Quaid was no different.
Quaid e Azam was born Ismaili and later converted to the traditional Shia. However he was not an orthodox Shia or a religious person. He was always attired in western style clothes until late in life. Conservative Muslims did not like him because they found him too westernized, others because he was too straight and uncompromising. Mualana Maudoodi of Jamaat Islami as well as Mualana Mazhar Ali Azhar of Majlis-e-Ahrar reportedly called him ‘Kafir-a- Azam’.
Majlis-e-Ahrar at their gathering of Delhi passed a resolution on March 3, 1940 against the Pakistan plan and reportedly dubbed Pakistan as “Palidistan” meaning land of the unclean. I have heard that a young man, belonging to the Khaksars, attempted to assassinate him on 26 July 1943.
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3161.html
The slogan (Pakistan ka matlab kia, la ilaha illalah) was coined in 1944 by the Urdu poet Asghar Sodai. Muslim League never used the slogan.
“Neither the Muslim League Working Committee nor I ever passed a resolution [called] '
Pakistan ka matlab kya' — you may have used it to catch a few votes,” said Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah when a Muslim Leaguer chanted this slogan at the last session of the All India Muslim League. “
https://www.dawn.com/news/1121773
However the religious parties, who were staunchly against Pakistan and the Quaid until 1946, have since exploited this slogan to mislead the Pakistani public.
Our Quaid was also a brilliant orator and politician. Admittedly the Quaid used the Islam card in his speeches on many occasions. For example in his address to the students of Ismail College Bombay on Feb 1, 1943 he stated.
“It is a historical fact that the Mussalmans are a separate nation and we must have our own states.
&
Congress Hindu leaders speak of unity and brotherhood with Muslims in a United India but they would not eat our food and if a Hindu shook hands with a Muslim, he would wash his hands thereafter.
In another speech he declared that:
"Hindus want it (unitary gov’t) because in that case they would have a perennial majority of three to one and thus one society with its majority would rule the other society and nation namely Muslims who would be a minority always."
In my opinion these speeches were primarily meant to be ‘Opinion makers’. It is also well known that the Quaid was for Hindu Muslim unity until the mid-1930’s and in reality desired a loose federation rather than complete separation; hence the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan.
We would never know whether the Quaid would have agreed to Gandhiji’s proposal presented at the 11th hour in 1947 that Mohammed Ali Jinnah be the first Prime Minister of United India and name his Cabinet, but arguably the real architect of the partition is Pundit Nehru who vehemently opposed this suggestion.
The reader would now be justified in asking, do I think the Quaid was a secularist?
In Pakistan, people define somebody who does not believe in Islam or any other religion, as secular. In that sense, our Quaid was not secular but a Muslim albeit not a pious Muslim. However, in the accepted definition of secular who believes “The State should have no say in the matter of religion” our Quaid was a secularist.
I honestly believe that intention of the Muslim League was to create a liberal & progressive Pakistan as clearly declared by the Quaid in his August 11, 1947 speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. IMHO the Objectives Resolutions adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949, 6 months after the Quaid passed away would not have gone through if the Quaid were still alive.
One thing however certain, neither the Quaid nor the founding fathers intended to form an Islamic state on the lines of Saudi Arabia / Iran or the Islamic regimes of ISIS / Taliban Afghanistan. Religious leaders had realized this fact and that is why they opposed the creation of Pakistan.
