This is Jinnah's Pakistan!

[Indus Falcon]

Yes very much.

Well I don't want to reignite your fears, specially after the trauma you had to face with the saffron brigade. This might help though:

 

[SwAggeR]

Kayro ki tarah dusra mulk to ni banya humne?

tum logo nai dar k maare mulk hi bana dala (waha mere bhadur bhaijaan)

To the point.

Indeed Indian Muslims are bahadur kaum. Proud to have you guys as our brothers.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Pak should make up it's mind and either go full Saudistan style or go for full secular constitutional reform

First time an Indian poster made any sense. Jokes aside you're right. Pakistan has to chose its destiny, we can't have it both ways.

 

[haviZsultan]

You didn't respond to anything the history professor wrote. Your attitude is one who wants to keep his prejudices rather than learn. Very troll-like, yes?

For years supporting mullahs like Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab and Afghan Jihad now Americans will come here and preach us tolerance. These people are your illegal sons, heirs of your hegemony over the world. They rule by Islamicizing the masses and making brainless, iconoclastic, unthinking mullahs out of the population while declaring our people heretics. You supported the biggest Islamist terrorist in Pakistani history, Zia Ul Haq. Read his history and come back with your dirty American face.

Stay assured you will find not even a grain of respect or even acceptance from the liberal community of Pakistan. We see you as the cause of ruin in Pakistani society.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

For years supporting mullahs like Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab and Afghan Jihad now Americans will come here and preach us tolerance. These people are your illegal sons, heirs of your hegemony over the world. They rule by Islamicizing the masses and making brainless, iconoclastic, unthinking mullahs out of the population while declaring our people heretics. You supported the biggest Islamist terrorist in Pakistani history, Zia Ul Haq. Read his history and come back with your dirty American face.

Stay assured you will find not even a grain of respect or even acceptance from the liberal community of Pakistan. We see you as the cause of ruin in Pakistani society.

Dont blame other countries for your OWN faults

 

[saiyan0321]

We often get blinded by this secular vs religion battle forgetting that jinnas ultimate and true vision was a prosperous Pakistan that is corruption free, envy of all the nations, developed, helpful to its brothers and peaceful.

This was his vision. This is the end goal that we must reach if we are to fulfill his vision. We must pick a route and head towards this goal.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The fact is that this is NOT Jinnah's Pakistan.

Jinnah's Pakistan died with him on 11th September 1948. After that there were many people's Pakistan; Ayub's Pakistan, Zulfi Bhutto's Pakistan, Zia's Pakistan, Mushy's Pakistan, Maudoodi's Pakistan (always lurking around) and so on.
Jinnah's Pakistan is now a memory.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Solomon2 comment: Yes, it's over two years old, but isn't it still relevant?

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.

I agree with the broad thrust of this article by the professor. However I would add few things. Mr Jinnah was a politician and he had to leverage the Muslim's to achieve his goal. Thus he sang songs to the crowds that would animate them behind his cause. Using religion as a tool was I am afraid the method used by Jinnah.

However after 1947 and with the goal achieved he realized the bottle he had oppened. That is when we get speaches from him that go against what he had said before 1947. Jinnah was a secular man, no doubt about it. His clothing, his hobbies, his manners all spoke of a secular man.

However he lit a fire that went/has gone out of control.

Ps. However all that does not matter. That is now the past. Each generation must take stock of what it wants and then move foward. We have to evolve. Look at the Americans. Not long ago black/white separation was almost a article of faith. Today Obama is the President. We can't stay hostage to the past.

 

[saurav]

Solomon2 comment: Yes, it's over two years old, but isn't it still relevant?

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.

Nice to see Pakistani people realizing the fact that Jinnah was after all a human. Who made mistakes and his share of blunders. Creating a country solely for religion would always have its consequences. He probably was confident that people of new country will do exactly what he tell them.

Writer very correctly points out the instances of his snobbish claim of representing every Muslim in then India. Which was then countered by good number of Muslim parties.

His intolerance of any dissent/difference in opinion can very well be illustrated by dismissal of Khan saab's govt. and Babrra massacre. These two incidents created dark precedents.

Overall, he was probably shrewdest Politician in the region of the time. His success got him a country and his blunders shaped its future.

 

[Usama78]

The legends died, doing what they had do and what they could....
Here we are.... manipulating their speeches, words, works.... Sadens me deeply... How about, lets just work to glory?

 

[Solomon2]

...However after 1947 and with the goal achieved he realized the bottle he had oppened. That is when we get speaches from him that go against what he had said before 1947. Jinnah was a secular man, no doubt about it -

A good democratic leader may tack back and forth but is going to reward people from the constituencies who died for his cause. While Jinnah gave his famous August 1947 speech what do you think was happening in the streets? The hundreds of thousands of Muslims of the subcontinent who fought and slew their Hindu neighbors expected some reward for these efforts - robbery alone wasn't enough unless it carried the legitimacy of a higher cause of some sort to wash the blood from their hands. Macbeth on a national scale. That, I think, was behind the grassroots part of the push for the Objectives Resolution and the attendant ills that followed.

Ps. However all that does not matter. That is now the past. Each generation must take stock of what it wants and then move foward. We have to evolve.

Does "evolving" mean embracing militancy and terror and empire and war for the foreseeable future? Can it mean acknowledging past and current wrongs and working for everyone to keep their own with civil and property rights for all and equal dignity for all law-abiding people? Or is doing so too embarrassing (or too anti-Islamic?) to be contemplated out loud by Pakistanis?

For years supporting mullahs like Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab and Afghan Jihad now Americans will come here and preach us tolerance. These people are your illegal sons -

The Chinese say, "Give a man to fish and you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime." They do not say that when you teach a man to fish you are forever responsible for what he chooses to do in life.

The most striking thing about America's relationship with the Sauds, Zia, etc. is that America provided the money and means but the decisions on what to do with the assets were made almost entirely by the respective leaders. Quite unlike British colonialism or French colonialism or even the United States' contemporary relationships in Central and South America. That's what made the Pakistanis and Sauds seek out Americans as their preferred ally.

However, Pakistanis like yourself are yet to own up to their responsibility. And almost the first rule American politicians and military officers have is that the U.S. is to take the blame and not say anything to embarrass or contradict their Pakistani counterparts - that's the price of cooperation, to take the blame. So it's going to be up to Pakistanis like yourself to wake up, step forward, and call your leaders to the carpet. How you are to do that in a state where the Higher Education Commission calls on its universities to "remain very vigilant and forestall any activity that in any manner challenge(s) the ideology and principles of Pakistan, and/or perspective of the government of Pakistan" I do not know.

 

[Solomon2]

Jinnah’s Pakistan: a rebuttal By Yasser Latif Hamdani
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...

This doesn't seem to merit the label "untrue" as much as a case of difference of perspective between Muslims and non-Muslims. In which case I'd consider Mr. Bangash's argument to be rebutted - it being up to Muslims to decide if this was done adequately - with Bangash's personal reputation remaining intact. But then one reads stuff like like Jinnah's 1943 address:

"...we have reached the stage where there is not the slightest doubt, that the 100 million Mussalmans are with us. When I say 100 million Mussalmans, I mean that 99 per cent of them are with us - leaving aside some who are traitors, cranks, supermen or lunatics -"

and I cannot then give Hamdani the benefit of the doubt.

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...There are a multitude of speeches and statements that can be quoted in this regardi, ncluding Jinnah’s famous interview on May 21, 1947 or his 30-odd statements to this effect, as governor general -

Jinnah's words were in great contrast to his deeds, especially going around the British-officered Pakistani Army to stoke conflict with India, the effect being to lock Pakistan's political evolution with himself as leader at the helm. Jinnah as governor-general grabbed the generalship of Pakistan and was not content to leave his reserve powers in abeyance and merely advise and encourage people and review the honesty of bureaucracy like the governor-general of Canada. (This is a recurring theme of Pakistani civilian and military leaders, that once they reach power they try extend it further beyond their proper remit.)

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.

To dismiss is easy and within the governor-general's expected remit, given the situation. Yet as I understand it, appointing a new ministry was not in accord with British procedure - that is, not constitutional: the proper response, given the vast scale of political changes, would have been new elections, followed by the appointment of the first-past-the-post party leader to head the NWFP government. Mr. Hamdani does not discuss this and simply asserts the move was constitutional, validated by a later vote of confidence by the existing assembly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sort of "constitutionality" had not been seen in England since the corrupt old days of the Long Parliament of the 1640s.

 

[salarsikander]

well whatever our condition are but we are bahdur quom and don't run away and make new mulk out of fear. Saffron brigade looks good on newspaper and tv shows but in ground they are nobody. (bunch of loonies)

HI,

That's another way to put it, or perhaps the ones that stayed behind were not ready to sacrifice the land and property they had built up.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

A good democratic leader may tack back and forth but is going to reward people from the constituencies who died for his cause. While Jinnah gave his famous August 1947 speech what do you think was happening in the streets? The hundreds of thousands of Muslims of the subcontinent who fought and slew their Hindu neighbors expected some reward for these efforts - robbery alone wasn't enough unless it carried the legitimacy of a higher cause of some sort to wash the blood from their hands. Macbeth on a national scale.

I know you have increasing numbers of American Indian's moving into positions of influence within US and using that to infuse partial and distorted narrative into the American psyche with regard to Pakistan. Examples like that loudmouth Farooq Zakaria abound. This is like getting referance on Isreal by using Hamas supporters. However despite that you must be aware that killing spree in 1947 was two way street. In Muslim majority areas Hindus were killed. In Hindu majority areas Muslims were killed.

The legitimacy for killng did not require any high cause. Muslim's heard of rumours of Muslims being killed and they reacted. Killing is killing. It was murder. Murderers rarely look for "higher cause".

That, I think, was behind the grassroots part of the push for the Objectives Resolution and the attendant ills that followed.

You are entirely off the mark. There was no grassroots push for Islam whatsoever. Please cite some sources that show popular push for the objective resolution. The real reason was mundane. Almost the entire ruling Muslim League after Jinnah died hailed from India. That is they were migrants ( Mohajirs ) from India to what was now Pakistan.

There had been contradiction in Muslim politics. The most animated advocates for separate homeland were Muslim's from Muslim minorty areas as they felt threatened by Hindu majority. The "Muslim" identity was very strong in this group. The areas where Muslims were in majority ( which would make Pakistan ) were strangely indiffferant initially to the idea of Pakistan.

After 1947 Muslim League )ML) was dominated at the top by Mohajirs - migrants from minority muslim areas in India. After Jinnah's death ML increasingly found that they did not have any traction with the locals. The reason was these ML politicians were from distant Indian states like Uttar Pradesh and did not relate to politics in Pakistani provinces like Punjab, Sindh, NWFP or Balochistan. ML had not deep roots in what was now Pakistan. ML was mostly rooted in areas that now were in India.

In this situation ML played on "Islam" to connect with the local Punjabi or Pashtuns of Pakistan. Without Islam they had no connection with the native people of Pakistan. This was the reason for Objectives Resolution.

Does "evolving" mean embracing militancy and terror and empire and war for the foreseeable future? Can it mean acknowledging past and current wrongs and working for everyone to keep their own with civil and property rights for all and equal dignity for all law-abiding people? Or is doing so too embarrassing (or too anti-Islamic?) to be contemplated out loud by Pakistanis?

Don't know what you mean but if you mean using proxy groups Pakistan whilst not quite learnt it but for sure graduated in the art of using these groups by learning it from USA.

Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese say, "Give a man to fish and you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime." They do not say that when you teach a man to fish you are forever responsible for what he chooses to do in life.

Don't quite know what your saying but I would say Chinese say lot of things. One of them being "when you take man's land over at least show respect to that man". The man being:-

or

The most striking thing about America's relationship with the Sauds, Zia, etc. is that America provided the money and means but the decisions on what to do with the assets were made almost entirely by the respective leaders.

Of course. The American's decided on the broad policy but delegated the micro details to Saudi or more so Pakistan. Sensible "division of labour". I might add though that lot of planning and bright ideas came from US think tanks. One being the school text books. And no. We are not blaming it on US. Only that US has conveniently excused itself and pushed all the blame on Pakistan. Saudia with all that oil gets away lightly though.

USA prints textbooks to support Jihad in Afghanistan and Pakistan | Support Daniel Boyd's Blog

Quite unlike British colonialism or French colonialism or even the United States' contemporary relationships in Central and South America. That's what made the Pakistanis and Sauds seek out Americans as their preferred ally.

This is by mutuel arrangement. Both parties get something out of it.

However, Pakistanis like yourself are yet to own up to their responsibility. And almost the first rule American politicians and military officers have is that the U.S. is to take the blame and not say anything to embarrass or contradict their Pakistani counterparts - that's the price of cooperation, to take the blame. So it's going to be up to Pakistanis like yourself to wake up, step forward, and call your leaders to the carpet. How you are to do that in a state where the Higher Education Commission calls on its universities to "remain very vigilant and forestall any activity that in any manner challenge(s) the ideology and principles of Pakistan, and/or perspective of the government of Pakistan" I do not know.

Your allowing your nationalism to cloud your thinking. The US officials as a rule avoid shouldering the subject. In fact there is a calculated effort by US officials to avoid any blame from past policies in the Af/Pak region. I fully accept Pakistan is partly responsible. AS regards US official there are some exceptions. I have enormous respect for Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser for at least being candid and not mincing his words.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?


B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

CRG -- The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

And for what it's worth the 60 year US/Pak alliance is over. I think we are now on the last page and just seeing the end credits to the epic US/Pak movie. US is moving toward India. Pakistan toward China. It is that simple. That is one facet of the new world order evolving in front if us.

That is why sometimes I can't differantiate between what Indian's say and what American's say. I think we just need to accept the new changing order and move forward.

 

[Bang Galore]

Ps. However all that does not matter. That is now the past. Each generation must take stock of what it wants and then move foward. We have to evolve. Look at the Americans. Not long ago black/white separation was almost a article of faith. Today Obama is the President. We can't stay hostage to the past.

Completely agree. Past is past. Being a prisoner to the past is never helpful.

It's why I never get into a discussion whether Jinnah was correct or not. Pointless. It's a bit like trying to get one to acknowledge that their mother or father (especially from a subcontinental context) were completely wrong . That's a realisation best to be reached by the person himself (if at all), any outside insistence on that acknowledgement leads to nothing but bitterness & defiance.