This is Jinnah’s Pakistan

[Solomon2]

Jinnah’s Pakistan
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash Published: March 18, 2013

---

The writer is the Chairperson of the History Department at Forman Christian College, Lahore

---

Over the past few days, I have regularly heard the refrain “This is not Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Even the people protesting the events at Badami Bagh, Lahore, carried banners yearning for “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. A few months ago, the MQM was also aiming to hold a referendum, asking people if they wanted the “Taliban’s Pakistan”, or “Jinnah’s Pakistan”. Often, people with a liberal bent in Pakistan quote Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech and want Pakistan to be modelled on the vision presented in it. But let me tell you the bitter truth: this is Jinnah’s Pakistan!

Why? First, simply because except for the lone August 11 speech, there is nothing much in Jinnah’s utterances, which points towards a secular or even mildly religious state. The August 11, 1947 speech was a rare, only once presented, vision. No wonder then that the Government of Pakistan, through secretary general Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, initially censored the rather liberal parts of the speech. Certainly, this change of mind on Jinnah’s part was a shock for many in the Muslim League, especially since here was a person who, not so long ago, had promised Islamic rule! In his address to the Muslims of India on Eid in 1945, for example, Jinnah had noted: “Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually”. Many such speeches can be quoted, which clearly indicated that Jinnah had promised a country based on Islamic principles — rather than secular ones — to the people. No surprise then that Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar pointed out in the debate over the Objectives Resolution in March 1949 that while Jinnah had made some promises to the minorities, he had also made some promises to the majority, and the introduction of an Islamic state was one of them. The debate over an Islamic system still continues.

Secondly, Jinnah was quite clear that the Muslims of India were one compact community and that their sole representative was the Muslim League. Therefore, any dissension from the Muslim League mantle meant that non-Muslim League Muslims could not even call themselves Muslims, at least politically. The best example of this closed door policy was when Jinnah insisted that the Congress could not include a Muslim member in its list of ministers (even though Maulana Azad was its president) since only the Muslim League had the right to nominate Muslims to the interim government in 1946. Thus, one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, (and others) were prevented from joining the government. With such a control over who is a “real” Muslim (though primarily political at this juncture), it was not inconceivable that such notions would continue after independence and soon permeate the religious realm — and this is exactly what has happened.

Thirdly, Jinnah himself gave the example of undemocratic government. Not only did Jinnah preside over cabinet meetings (remember Pervez Musharraf?), one of his first acts after independence was to dismiss the popularly-elected government of Dr Khan Sahib in the then-NWFP on August 22, 1947. While it was a foregone conclusion that a League ministry would soon take over in the province, the manner in which the dismissal was done created precedence. Jinnah did not wait for the assembly itself to bring a motion of no confidence against the premier and nor did he call for new elections, both of which would have been clearly democratic and would have certainly brought in a Muslim League government. Instead, he simply got the Congress ministry dismissed and a Muslim League ministry installed — this procedural change was very significant at this early stage and set an example. Jinnah was also, extraordinarily, a minister in his own government, setting a clear precedence for future heads of state (followed by Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf) to be very comfortable being heads of state and ministers at the same time.

Therefore, 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. Imagining it in any other way is living in a dreamland and refusing to accept the reality. However, this does not mean that Pakistan is unworkable. Pakistan might be saddled with issues of the past, but surely we can accept and solve them, if we want.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2013.

 

[Ark-Angel]

"You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. " Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan August 11, 1947

 

[muse]

I enjoy reading Mr. Bangash, but I think this piece is not one of his better pieces -

With such a control over who is a “real” Muslim (though primarily political at this juncture), it was not inconceivable that such notions would continue after independence and soon permeate the religious realm — and this is exactly what has happened.

"Inconceivable" is a universe - this is more like the law of unintended consequences - Mr. Bagash's contention that the Pakistan we have is Jinnah's Pakistan is similarly unsatisfactory, while we are left debating the legacy of Jinnah, Mr. Bangash offers as evidence of Jinnah's "undemocratic" credentials that he chaired cabinet meetings and dismissed the Congress govt in KP, exactly what legal standing dd the KP 's Congress govt have in Pakistan?

 

[somebozo]

Begining 1945 Jinnah started appeasing to the mullah factions which was one of his biggest mistake and he would go around promising a lot even when the ideas conflicted between Liberal democracy and plain mullah-ism. In honest assessment, Jinnah was a good lawyer but not much of a statesman or politician. He knew how to win his case but not much on what to do after winning his case.

"Inconceivable" is a universe - this is more like the law of unintended consequences - Mr. Bagash's contention that the Pakistan we have is Jinnah's Pakistan is similarly unsatisfactory, while we are left debating the legacy of Jinnah, Mr. Bangash offers as evidence of Jinnah's "undemocratic" credentials that he chaired cabinet meetings and dismissed the Congress govt in KP, exactly what legal standing dd the KP 's Congress govt have in Pakistan?

During the time of crisis government on both side too controversial measures which would often not reflect the best of democratic character. What Mr Bangash has written down a selective assessment of history with fact and figures suitable to his agenda while ignoring the much large and clear picture.

 

[muse]

Once again, YLH for the defense

Jinnah’s Pakistan: a rebuttal
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
March 20, 2013

The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and author of the book Jinnah: Myth and Reality (Vanguard). He may be reached on twitter @therealylh

Mr Yaqoob Khan Bangash’s article “Jinnah’s Pakistan” (March 19) was historically inaccurate and counterfactual. There were three basic claims that Mr Bangash put up, which need to be reviewed in detail.

One of Mr Bangash’s assertions was that since Jinnah claimed that the Muslim League was the sole representative of the Muslims in the 1940s, he was declaring Muslims outside of it non-Muslim. This is untrue. On the contrary, it was Jinnah who was called ‘Kafir-e-Azam’ or the great infidel by Muslims outside the Muslim League. Jinnah’s Muslim League was a big tent political organisation of Muslims, which had in its fold Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, Mahdavis and Ismailis. The question of defining a Muslim did not arise.

Outside the League’s fold, stood parties such as the Majlis-e-Ahrar, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Jamaat-e-Islami; all organisations which have made takfir an exact science. The first two were backed by the Congress Party and it was the Majlis-e-Ahrar — led by anti-Pakistan Muslims, like Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Agha Shorish Kashmiri — that led the movement against Ahmadis after Partition. To the credit of Muslim League’s Khawaja Nazimuddin, the government refused to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim in 1953. In 1974, it was the PPP which surrendered the state and sanity to the same forces who had opposed Jinnah tooth and nail.

Jinnah’s claim that the Muslim League was the sole authoritative representative of Muslims came after he managed to bring the powerful premiers of Punjab and Bengal behind the Muslim League in 1938. In 1946, it was cemented by the elections. His claim was a political one; i.e., the Muslim League, by virtue of its overwhelming majority on Muslim seats, represents the Muslims of India. Gandhi had accepted this and signed a statement to this effect. It had nothing to do with saying that those outside the League were not Muslim and there is nothing to that effect from Jinnah or anyone else in the League. The claim was simply that on an all-India level, it was the League that could speak for Muslims.

Another of Mr Bangash’s claims is that Jinnah’s August 11 speech is a one-off speech or an aberration. This is also completely untrue. Jinnah’s political career, spanning four decades, is a testament to his commitment to religious freedom, progressive causes, civil liberties and equality. Even during the Pakistan Movement, Jinnah made it absolutely clear that Pakistan, if formed, would not discriminate on the basis of faith. There are a multitude of speeches and statements that can be quoted in this regard, including Jinnah’s famous interview on May 21, 1947 or his 30-odd statements to this effect, as governor general, where he explained in clear terms that the government of the new state would be popular and inclusive and would treat all its citizens, whatever their faith, equally and without distinction. In any event, Jinnah’s clear policy statements trump any ambiguous Eid message he would have given long before Pakistan was a reality. In any event, Dr Ayesha Jalal has shown consistently and conclusively that the Pakistan demand was a push for power-sharing between communities in a divided society.

The third claim made by Mr Bangash is about Jinnah’s actions vis-a-vis then-NWFP (present-day Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa), which are again off base. The reason why the Khan Sahib ministry had to be sent packing was because it lost the majority in the assembly and was effectively a minority government. Dr Khan Sahib became the premier after the 1946 election on the basis of 30 members in a house of 50. Out of these 30 members, 12 were Hindu MLAs. Eleven of these 12 Hindu members moved to India at the time of independence. Two others belonged to the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, an ally of the Congress. The facts were that on August 14,1947, Dr Khan Sahib had only 18 members in a house of 39. On August 22, 1947, Dr Khan Sahib was left with only 16 members in a House of 39. Congress, Jinnah and Mountbatten had agreed on August 1, 1947 that Dr Khan Sahib would resign but he refused to do so. Jinnah had given up Section 93 voluntarily. It was Section 51(5) that was used to invite a new member to form the government. The new ministry got a vote of confidence by the budget session. So, constitutionally and morally, this was an in-house change.

 

[Leader]

bas ker do yar.... lakeer kay fakir log academic debates ko articles mein lay aye hain as if they are the issues...!!

 

[Awesome]

Once again, YLH for the defense

As soon as I read that article I was like YLH's gonna eat this guy alive. We should get him back on the forum - awesome fella.

Jinnah's entire outlook was secular. Yes he regarded himself as a Musalmaan, but secularism is not about being Muslim or not. Its about a political view on how your governance must be separated from religious affairs.

You can be a tahajud guzzaar (for Solomon's benefit, this means a person praying an extra prayer around 3am-4am in most situations) and can still be a secularist.

 

[muse]

Lakeer ke faqeer ?- yes, but it's important to set the record straight.

secularism is not about being Muslim or not. Its about a political view on how your governance must be separated from religious affairs.

You can be a tahajud guzzaar (for Solomon's benefit, this means a person praying an extra prayer around 3am-4am in most situations) and can still be a secularist.

Precisely -- as a matter fact, Secularism is a necessary condition in society for the experience of "Being" Muslim - it bring to consciousness the meaning of "Being" Muslim, it allows the "Faithful" to express "Being" Faithful

 

[notsuperstitious]

The article has merit. Jinnah was a politician and lawyer, not some saint. He said what his constituency wanted to hear to achieve his goals. Unfortunately he did not get enough time, so we will never know what he meant to do with pakistan, but some of his actions and attitudes (including his rather impolite letter to Kalam) have indeed prevailed.

There are enough of his contradictory statements to leave doubts and create confusion and allow everyone to claim him.

YHL's defence is fair, but incomplete, I'm glad he did not bring in Gandhi to make Jinnah shine as usual. YHL is a serious Gandhi hater.

 

[ishaqzaade]

for my experience pakistan is a islamic theocratic state where mullah millitry allience rulling their country

 

[Awesome]

Jinnah was a politician and lawyer, not some saint. He said what his constituency wanted to hear to achieve his goals. Unfortunately he did not get enough time, so we will never know what he meant to do with pakistan.

There are enough of his contradictory statements to leave doubts and create confusion and allow everyone to claim him.

YHL's defence is fair, I'm glad he did not bring in Gandhi to make Jinnah shine as usual. YHL is a serious Gandhi hater.

There is no contradiction in my mind as I said people in this part of the world are confused with the word secular. They think Zardari is secular and Imran Khan is not, whereas the opposite is more true.

They think being pro-Muslim means anti-secular, or vice versa. I had one Indian tell me on the forums, "I'm so secular that I say Asalamalykum to me Muslim friends". That's not secularism. That's just being nice.

Just because he was pro-Muslim doesn't mean you can portray him as an Islamist.

for my experience pakistan is a islamic theocratic state where mullah millitry allience rulling their country

That is not the topic.

 

[notsuperstitious]

There is contradiction in my mind as I said people in this part of the world are confused with the word secular. They think Zardari is secular and Imran Khan is not, whereas the opposite is more true.

They think being pro-Muslim means anti-secular, or vice versa. I had one Indian tell me on the forums, "I'm so secular that I say Asalamalykum to me Muslim friends". That's not secularism. That's just being nice.

Just because he was pro-Muslim doesn't mean you can portray him as an Islamist.

I do not portray him as an islamist. His being pro-muslim is OK too as politics is a tussle of interest groups. Babasaheb Ambedkar was pro-Dalit, thats not the problem.

The problem IMO with Jinnah was that he rose above his principles to achive his goals, those actions created lots of the problems we are still suffering from today.

Lets just agree that it was unfortunate Jinnah did not live longer, then we would have known more.

 

[muse]

The article has merit. Jinnah was a politician and lawyer, not some saint.

YHL's defence is fair, but incomplete, I'm glad he did not bring in Gandhi to make Jinnah shine as usual. YHL is a serious Gandhi hater.

Jinnah is no saint, sure and neither was Gandhi -- but how is YLH's defense incomplete? what would complete it?

 

[Pandora]

for my experience pakistan is a islamic theocratic state where mullah millitry allience rulling their country

Your experience ?

Pakistan is a society stuck with two extremes neglecting the middle path which Jinnah wanted for Pakistan. Right now it is either a burger boy or a mullah boy and the minority in between following the right path is classified as idiots by everyone.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Jinnah is no saint, sure and neither was Gandhi -- but how is YLH's defense incomplete? what would complete it?

To be honest nothing would. His attitude to the Kashmir misadventure, his call for direct action, his arrogant letter to Kalam, his clandestine correspondence with Churchill - foundations of the kind of ''adventurist, violent nation serving imperial powers using religion'' that pakistan turned out to be.

Could he have corrected those ''means'' justified by the goal, we will never know. But his early demise meant that they did prevail.