Jinnah’s Pakistan

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.

Reader Comments (132)

  • BlackJack
    Mar 18, 2013 - 10:52PM

    Brilliant yet again. There is not much to be said, it is all in there.
    @ET – I must confess my deep admiration for a publication that is willing to face widespread ire in the pursuit of that most elusive commodity – truth. Respect!

    Recommend

  • Musthaq Ahmed
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:04PM

    Mr. Bangash you said it ! This is calling spade a spade !

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:06PM

    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.

    Yes.

    And, therefore, please stop yearning for this chimera called ‘Jinnah’s Pakistan’ as it could have been.

    And start running away from Jinnah’s Pakistan’ as it is.

    And fashion a New Pakistan of the 21st Century.

    Recommend

  • PiS
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:06PM

    Spot on analysis. A lot of liberals don’t realize that Islamists are actually on the right side of constitution of Pakistan. But having said that, Jinnah’s Pakistan (an experiment that has largely failed) is not something set in stone. We should learn from the lessons from last 65 years and aim for a more secular foundation. And being secular doesn’t mean that it would undo the idea of Pakistan (the most famous bone of contention). We are still going to be a Muslim majority state, but with equal freedom and opportunities for our minorities. All European states largely share similar belief system and values, so it doesn’t mean that they should be merged and don’t have the right to co-exist. The silver lining in Pakistan is our culture (separate from religion) that is unique and something to be preserved and cherished.

    Recommend

  • Ejaaz
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:08PM

    Thank you for speaking the truth. The first step to solving a problem is to acknowledge that it exists and to define it correctly.
    Your write:
    “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.”

    Pakistan is not unworkable but with 65 years of indoctrination, Pakistan will not become secular in the near future. You have said what Taliban are saying. Pakistan should be an Islamic State and should implement Sharia without equivocation. The only argument is what is Sharia. Seeing the history of other Muslim nations, it is clear that we will be Sunni State, since Sunni are in majority. This does not mean that some will not fight for a secular state, or will not strive for peace between Shia and Sunni. They will and how hard a Sunni State, and exactly how we will implement Sharia will depend upon their efforts.

    Recommend

  • Vish
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:27PM

    Excellent write-up.To add to this consider the following (not my words),
    ” take a look at the brief tenure of Jinnah as “Governor General of Pakistan
    Jinnah lived for only one year after the birth of the nation, but in that time he set the standard of a top-down administration, adopting the style of Moghul emperors, not democratic leaders. To begin with, Jinnah decided not to become the country’s first prime minister, instead choosing to be the Queen’s representative to the new country as her first governor general.
    When Mountbatten tried to explain to Jinnah that, under Pakistan’s interim constitution, the governor general was a ceremonial head of state and real power lay with the prime minister, Jinnah told him curtly, “In Pakistan, I will be the Governor-General and the Prime
    Minister will do what I tell him.” And that is how history would record his one year in office. Jinnah revoked the authority of the Muslim League parliamentary group and chose the country’s new prime minister. He also named his prime minister’s first cabinet for him, and if that was not enough, as governor general also sat in cabinet. There is no question that Jinnah was an extremely popular leader, and his very word was the law. However, as is the case with all popular benevolent dictators, instead of leaving behind institutions of democracy, he left a trail of authoritarian precedents that are invoked and implemented to the nation’s detriment even today.”

    Recommend

  • faraz
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:31PM

    I desire a secular Pakistan, but I fully agree with your analysis of Jinnah

    Recommend

  • Sonia K
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:31PM

    Mr. Bangash you have done it rightly!!! You have twisted facts to suit your agenda!! Which is against Jinnah and Pakistan as always!!!

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:43PM

    Bangash sahab said it one more thing sir please could u write on abour Dr khan sahab and language of education pakistan need it. thank u sir.

    Recommend

  • Punjabi from other side
    Mar 18, 2013 - 11:52PM

    Jinnah didn’t wanted to create a Islamic Pakistan because he never to create Pakistan if INC had shown little flexibility he was ready to give away his demand for partition but as we know this didn’t happen. ……….But by the end of 1945 he found himself sitting on the back of lion he couldn’t control therefore he went along with it and the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity ended up by demanding Pakistan. After spreading hate for 10 years he tried to do some damage control (aug speech, Hindu law minister of Pakistan,ahmediya foreign minister) but a single speech couldn’t do anything ,the fate of Pakistan was sealed as an Islamic Pakistan by thousand of speeches jinnah made during 1937-46.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:01AM

    “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!”

    Respect. This cannot have been easy to say.

    Recommend

  • Syed Ali Zia
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:20AM

    Sir, we are obsessed with theories; never have we tried to come out of the realm of these text bookish things. To think of a purely democratic leader in a nascent state is impossible. The founding fathers of America were autocrats by every inch, and Mr Nehru too was nothing, but an autocrat.

    Jinnah was never a bigoted person, to say the least.

    I want some time to write a counter to this piece!

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:22AM

    @Sonia K: If his facts are incorrect please rebut them and provide the sources.

    @PIS : Not being sarcastic here but can you please describe what is the unique culture of Pakistan (as distinct from religion) as you state it? My observation is that if you take away religion, then 90% of Pakistanis share food, language, music, dance with North India. Since you feel Pakistani culture is indeed different, I would like to learn about the differences.

    Recommend

  • Salman Arshad
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:23AM

    Thank You so much for saying the way it is.

    Pakistan is our country and we have the right to make it what we want irrespective of what Jinnah or any individual envisioned.

    The Taliban are working day and night to see their vision come true.. We better learn from them and start working on making our aspirations come true.

    Recommend

  • pak_liberal
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:38AM

    Rather than uniting Muslims, Jinnah’s Pakistan has divided them. Now Muslims were divided into two (later three) groups in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Today if you combine Hindus and Muslims in all three countries than their ration is approx 1:1. So rather than being the solution, it has created more problems. A visionary leader see in the future but Jinnah failed to do so.Recommend

  • Zalmai
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:43AM

    The dismissal of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s popularly elected government and then throwing him in jail did not sit well with the Pashtuns of NWFP; the Pashtuns along with Balochistan never fully bought into Jinnah’s Pakistan. It is no wonder that the great Khudai Khidmatgar chose Afghanistan as his final resting place.

    Recommend

  • yo
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:52AM

    Yes Jinnah wanted islamic Pakistan. Time for secular non-muslims to pack their bags and leave ;)

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:54AM

    One must ask what does an Islamic state meant to Jinnah and what does it mean to you?

    Recommend

  • sabi
    Mar 19, 2013 - 1:07AM

    Absolutely biased analysis from a man who call himself a professor of history.The professor seems to follow the direction of wind (get popular bashing Jinnah) rather than teling facts.I feel sorry for the plight of his students eager to learn true history than learning distorted history taught by respective elites from both sides of borders.The plea that Jinnah talked of Islamic values doesn’t mean he was fundamentalists or he wanted a kind of state run by mullah (Theocracy).Pakistan was a new born state, with weak state machinary,without any constitution.It therefore needed to be administered somehow and Jinnah did it.He talked about the fundametals of constitution at a place where it was most neede.i.e legislative assembly.He warned generals not to think of ruling pakistan and be servient of civilion.He told that Pakistan was not going to be a theocratic state.He died before legislaters could form a constitution.Later is a history of advantures first by civilion bureocrates then military dictators.
    PS: I respect and love India as motherland but that doesn’t mean I should agree with every definetion of Jinnah’s politics coming from across the border.If there are fundamentalist with a shalow understanding of religion,politics there is no dearth of such mentalities in India.Current state of affairs in Pakistan is the direct consequences of the interference of groups in Pakistani politics who opposed the creation of Pakisatan.Can anybody deny that?
    Atleast Proffesor has ignored that.

    Recommend

  • Mar 19, 2013 - 1:07AM

    Just to clarify, as far as I remember my Pak Studies… Jinnah opposed the Congress appointing anyone on the reserved Muslim seats… not them appointing any Muslims at all. He was trying to get as many seats for the League as possible. Something any and all political parties do.

    Secondly, as this islamophia needs to be quelled. There is nothing inherently wrong with somebody espousing Islam in politics in a vastly muslim majority country. Like any other ideology, however, if you start stretching it to unreasonable extents things will go wrong. But this is the equivalent of saying Capitalism is completely wrong because of the financial crisis or that Communism is completely wrong because of the collapse of the USSR. Or that democracy is wrong because of the last five years. What goes wrong is the insistence of people to move towards extremes…

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Mar 19, 2013 - 1:30AM

    Mr. Jinnah’s Pakistan is alive and well. In fact it is making progress toward secular democracy. Most of his Pakistan is now in Bengal and doing better than the smaller part which was separated in 1971. Bengali were different, more educated and progressive and did not get along with the establishment.Recommend

  • Dr. Najam Mehmood
    Mar 19, 2013 - 2:29AM

    You been to Oxford and been trained to be intellectually honest and seek the truth.

    Recommend

  • Jinnah
    Mar 19, 2013 - 2:53AM

    Jinnah was a pragmatic politician and lawyer who did and said what was necessary at the time. Nearly 70 years later we are unable to help ourselves or develop any civic sense. Harking back to Jinnah is just another excuse to do nothing. This debate is getting increasingly redundant because weather Jinnah wanted a Muslim state or a secular state is irrelevant, as it was not for him to decide to begin with. Second whether Pakistan was supposed to be a religious or a secular state, that still doesn’t excuse terrorism, burning homes, sectarian violence, land grabs, tax evasion etc. No model of the Pakistani state whether religious or secular would allow what is happening in Pakistan today.

    Recommend

  • Fauzia Bin Al-Waleed
    Mar 19, 2013 - 3:12AM

    Bangash speaks the truth. And I hope he is not silenced as many before him. Everything is a consequence of the initial sin of dividing a people on the basis of religion, to which Jinnah stands guilty. Yes, we had genuine fears of living in a Hindu majority India. But, the snowball effect of religious radicalism that started with the Quaid cannot be stopped.

    Recommend

  • PiS
    Mar 19, 2013 - 4:45AM

    @gp65 Cultural similarities exists in all parts of the world. I live in united states but I grew up in Pakistan. My roommates have been from all parts of India (including Chennai and Goa), so I know what Indian (and specially) north Indian culture is. Our roots which is north Indian without a question, but over the years our social fabric has evolved into something that is uniquely Pakistani. You can clearly see it in all aspects of what constitute a culture. The way we talk, in our music, food, arts, fashion etc. Mira Nair in her promotional interviews to Indian media for ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’ talks about feeling that ‘finesse’ that i am talking about in Lahore. And being from Lahore, I couldn’t agree more. Same goes for other provinces of Pakistan. My point is more of celebrating these nuances rather than dissing our Indian roots. You are welcome to visit Lahore and you will feel it too.

    Recommend

  • shahid
    Mar 19, 2013 - 6:11AM

    @Zalmai:
    This is really a revision of actual history. A group in KPK under the leadership of Abdul Ghaffar Khan did not want Pakistan but the over whelming majority was on the other side. If this was not the case then how could any one force the Pukhtoons to join Pakistan while an insurgency was going on under Faqir Eppi in FATA at the time of partition. If there was a resistance to joining Pakistan as is constantly alleged, things would have gotten out of hand in no time. In fact Jinnah removed all military presence from FATA and the area remained peaceful till the invasion of Afghanistan by USA. Similarly in Balochistan a small group under the influence of Congress were not happy with joining Pakistan, but again an over whelming majority of people wanted to join Pakistan and they did. After all Akbar Khan Bugti the leader of one of the two large Baloch tribes in British Balochistan voted for Pakistan along with the Pashtoon leaders in British Balochistan. From the states, all the sates around Kalat joined Pakistan without any hesitation leaving Kalat alone under the Khan. It was only the Khan who was under pressure from some pro India groups in his assembly and with some enticement from the British, was indecisive. These efforts to exaggerate the attitude of smaller groups in the two areas has been going on for quite some time at the hands of the liberal and secular elites of Pakistan. The real history is quite a bit different but is generally ignored in the English media where the proponents of this history revision are in control.

    Recommend

  • vasan
    Mar 19, 2013 - 6:24AM

    I have not read many realistic articles, like this, from a Pakistani writer, esp about Jinnah’s divisive politics.

    Recommend

  • Observer
    Mar 19, 2013 - 6:31AM

    Wow…someone finally said it. Salute the writer for his guts and courage. His review of Jinnah is spot on.

    Recommend

  • F
    Mar 19, 2013 - 6:52AM

    Brilliant and truthful. A question to ask is why do some so called liberals insist on positioning Jinnah as some sort of a deeply misunderstood tragic figure. Why?

    Recommend

  • Yoghurt lover
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:16AM

    @pak_liberal:

    “Today if you combine Hindus and Muslims in all three countries than their ration is approx 1:1. So rather than being the solution, it has created more problems.”

    Would you care to explain how is that a solution?

    Muslims across the globe are so insecure that they always want to be dominating. And that is ok with others if they were good at anything. But the fact of the matter is, muslims, across the globe, are a collective failure.

    If today India was undivided and had 1:1 ratio of Hindus and muslims. It would be one big Somalia.

    The best for muslims is to be always ruled by non-muslims (like Israel) or democracy/secularism (like India). The moment muslims become the rulers, that country is doomed.

    Recommend

  • Yoghurt lover
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:18AM

    @sabi:

    “I feel sorry for the plight of his students eager to learn true history than learning distorted history taught by respective elites from both sides of borders.”

    Feel sorry for your own pathetic ignorance.

    Recommend

  • Yoghurt lover
    Mar 19, 2013 - 8:07AM

    @Mirza:

    “Mr. Jinnah’s Pakistan is alive and well. In fact it is making progress toward secular democracy. Most of his Pakistan is now in Bengal and doing better than the smaller part which was separated in 1971.”

    I usually agree with you. But not this time.

    Jinnah’s Pakistan is alive and well in today’s failing Pakistan. Bangladesh chose a better path than the narrow, vision-less definition of Jinnah.

    Recommend

  • Yoghurt lover
    Mar 19, 2013 - 8:40AM

    @sabi:

    “PS: I respect and love India as motherland but that doesn’t mean I should agree with every definetion of Jinnah’s politics coming from across the border.”

    Forgot to change your pseudonym before posting?

    Recommend

  • Kannan
    Mar 19, 2013 - 9:33AM

    I congratulate that ET has the guts and vision to publish such kind of articles. After reading so many articles on Jinnah and Pakistan, the author write up matches with my conclusion.

    Great work and I too wish for the best in the optimism you have shown in the conclusion “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.”

    Recommend

  • Feroz
    Mar 19, 2013 - 10:09AM

    If people do not agree with with the author says they must read what World historians think of Jinnah. I admire the courage shown by the author but alas individuals like him are too few and far between to make any difference.
    Two thirds of the Muslims of South Asia did not support the ideology of differences between people or the Utopian dreams of Jinnah. One third refused to join the new country and remained in India, Another third decided as late as 1971 to protect their well being and abandoned dreamland. Now some of the others want to flee, but where to ?
    A few countries would have taken in some numbers but there is reluctance because many of the educated like Daood Gilani and Dr Tawahur Rana continued to hatch plots against their hosts. Accepting people is easy but to wash out a deeply entrenched mindset steeped in bigotry is virtually impossible. Pakistan as a country speaks for itself, does not need any PR.

    Recommend

  • universalist
    Mar 19, 2013 - 11:00AM

    We need a true republic. Jinnah wanted a discriminatory state with special privileges for muslims. He wanted an unjust social order. No state which gives one person heriditary legal privilege over another should be acceptible to a fair and just person. There should be no privilege without merit.

    Recommend

  • Foreign Leg
    Mar 19, 2013 - 11:27AM

    @Syed Ali Zia: The founding fathers of America were autocrats by every inch, and Mr Nehru too was nothing, but an autocrat.
    .
    Not one of the founding fathers of the USA was an autocrat. Not one was born as the son of an aristocrat. Some of them were born to wealthy plantation families, but what united them was their deep and abiding concern for the people and what country the USA should be.
    .
    If you take the seven largely considered as the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin was a self-made man who ran a number of businesses including a printing press. He was estranged from his only son who was appointed by the British crown(!) as the Governor of New Jersey. He also set up libraries, the first postal system and has numerous other accomplishments to his name.
    .
    Thomas Jefferson was the son of a surveyor. He practiced law for many years. He created his own version of the Bible that cut out many passages and phrases that he felt had no place in the modern world!
    .
    Reading about the founding fathers of the USA makes for fascinating reading. You should try it some time.

    Recommend

  • Zeeshan
    Mar 19, 2013 - 11:45AM

    Shameful, disrespectful and based on a very biased agenda. Even though I’m very open minded, I found this article sickening. Your reasoning seems of a looser who could not amount to anything in his life and then started saying to anyone who’d listen “If my parents had bought me NIKES instead of ADDIDAS, I would’ve become a successful sportsman.”

    Recommend

  • sabi
    Mar 19, 2013 - 11:58AM

    @Yoghurt lover:
    “Forgot to change your pseudonym before posting?”
    No I didn’t.India was a motherland of my grand grand parents(from west punjab) and that is enough reason to have respect and care for India.

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:12PM

    This piece tells us how we were cheated of the truth and for how long. Why the facts given here are not reflected in our text books? We have been fed doctored history even about out wars with India, and the Kashmir misadventures like Kargil. But as they say, truth has a habit of emerging into the sunlight even if it takes some time. Such a moment has at last arrived in this unfortunate land-of-the-pure. We should welcome it with open arms instead of searching for some devious ways to deny the truth just because it makes us feel embarrassed. If we feel ashamed, we should just bow our heads. Truth is priceless.

    I urge all Pakistanis will join together to request the author to continue the good work with even greater vigor, and expose many other lies.

    Recommend

  • Yoghurt lover
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:32PM

    @sabi:

    “No I didn’t.India was a motherland of my grand grand parents(from west punjab) and that is enough reason to have respect and care for India.”

    Nice :)

    Respect for great grand motherland.

    Recommend

  • sabi
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:47PM

    @Feroz:
    If people do not agree with with the author says they must read what World historians think of Jinnah.
    For example Jaswant Singh of BJP?.

    Recommend

  • Vish
    Mar 19, 2013 - 12:58PM

    Continuing
    “In the summer of 1947, one week after swearing in his new prime minister and cabinet, and as Pakistanis were celebrating their first Eid-ul-Fitr holiday after Ramadan, Jinnah broke another sacred principle of democracy. He dismissed the duly elected provincial
    government in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which borders Afghanistan. Dr. Khan Sahib, the chief minister of the province, had a comfortable majority. Jinnah installed his own party as the government, but when it failed to get a vote of confidence, he arranged to have all the dismissed members arrested, creating an artificial majority.
    Nine months after dismissing the NWFP government, Jinnah demonstrated his arbitrary power again. This time he dismissed the government in the province of Sind, which belonged to his own party, the Muslim League. And as if this were not enough, the ailing leader of Pakistan then tried to stage a palace coup inside the provincial government of Punjab. In less than a year of the nation’s existence, the man who had created Pakistan as a democratic state for the Muslims of India had gone against the grain of democracy, invoked Islam to bring discipline among those who protested, and mere weeks before he passed away,
    declared to the country’s majority Bengali population that their language was not worthy of being the nation’s national language as it was not a “Muslim” language.”

    Recommend

  • abhi
    Mar 19, 2013 - 1:01PM

    @Zeeshan
    “Even though I’m very open minded, I found this article sickening”
    I have seen this kind of comments from you on many articles. I don’t know why it happens to you so often.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Mar 19, 2013 - 1:22PM

    @shahid:
    @Zalmai: This is really a revision of actual history. A group in KPK under the leadership of Abdul Ghaffar Khan did not want Pakistan but the over whelming majority was on the other side.
    Ahem… how did Abdul Ghaffar Khan win the elections then? The Muslim League was a one-trick pony – their only agenda was Pakistan. If they lost the election fought on this issue, one must assume that ‘this overwhelming majority’ only exists in your text books.

    Recommend

  • spade
    Mar 19, 2013 - 3:24PM

    respect.

    Recommend

  • Vikram(Indian)
    Mar 19, 2013 - 3:29PM

    I think Pakistan is on the right track according to the vision of Jinnah to make Pakistan a “Sharia state”.

    Recommend

  • umer
    Mar 19, 2013 - 3:33PM

    Good piece but in my opinion most of his facts are off topic, discussion in hand is whether Jinnahs struggle was for a muslim state or a secular one, however, the author has discussed democratic vs undemocratic or political tactis etc. How does this say whether Pakistan was conceived as a secular or muslim state ?

    Recommend

  • Mar 19, 2013 - 3:34PM

    I. Is Jinnah’s 11 August speech only speech where he articulated his vision for an inclusive democratic state?

    Even if it were, Jinnah’s speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly as the father of the nation and the first governor general trumps any vague Eid message from 1945 when Pakistan was by no means a reality. However Mr. Bangash’s claim is historically untrue. There are over 200 such statements by Jinnah. I quote some of them below to establish the point.

    On 21st May, 1947, Jinnah described clearly what kind of state he envisaged in Pakistan:

    The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time… The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect. They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life. p.845, Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project

    In an interview with Duncan Hooper he said:

    Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’p. 61, Jinnah Speeches and Statements 1947-1948, Oxford 1997

    In his address to the people of the United States of America, Jinnah said:

    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. p. 125 Ibid

    Speaking to Parsi gathering in Karachi in February 1948, he said:

    I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

    On 22nd March 1948, meeting with Hindu Legislators in an effort to stem their exodus to India, he said

    We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis. p.102-103 Ibid

    On 23rd March 1948 meeting the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’, he said:

    We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.[ p. 153 Ibid

    Speaking to Quetta Parsis in June 1948, he said:

    Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan. p. 154 Ibid

    The fact that even those statements where Jinnah appealed to Islamic principles or Islam itself, he did so to drive home that democracy, equality of citizenship, communal harmony were all compatible with Islam:

    Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world p. 223 Ibid
    Recommend

  • Mar 19, 2013 - 3:38PM

    As for Bangash’s point about:

    Jinnah’s claim that Muslim League represented the Muslims of India

    First of all, contrary to Yaqoob Bangash’s claim, Jinnah never claimed that those who did not support the Muslim League were not Muslim. This is just historically untrue. That Mr. Bangash tries to link this up to Bhutto’s actions in 1974 is tragic for the following reasons:

    Jinnah always said that anyone who professes to be a Muslim is a Muslim. Most notably he said this in 1944, when Mullahs were pressing him on the Ahmadi issue. Jinnah’s statement on 23 May 1944 in Srinagar was clear.

    Whatever one may say about the Muslim Leaguers and their lack of ability, one has to admit that Jinnah’s lieutenants like Nazimuddin did not bow to Mullah pressure in 1953 on this point.

    Those who forwarded the idea of “defining a Muslim” were all allies or part of the Congress Party before partition. Mr. Bangash will do well to read the Munir Report sometimes. Every leading light of the anti-Ahmadi movement in Pakistan was- before partition- part of Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind (of which Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was a member and president). This is also a historical fact that I challenge Mr. Bangash to deny.

    Anyone who has read history will only be mildly amused by Mr. Bangash’s feeble attempt to link up the League’s attempt to represent Muslims as a bloc to the exclusionary tactics of – it bears repeating – its trenchant opponents Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind. Takfir was the ideology of Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind and not the Muslim League which wanted to throw a broad net. The Muslim League was the broadest possible party representing the Muslims. Jinnah’s League had Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, Ismailis, Mahdavis and every sect of Muslims. This was because League was a political and not a religious party of Muslims.

    Jinnah’s claim that the Muslim League represented the Muslims and not the Congress was based on the following:

    a. After the Sikandar Jinnah Pact – both Sikandar Hayat and Fazlul Haq, premiers of Punjab and Bengal- supported the Muslim League bringing the two largest Muslim majority provinces behind Jinnah.

    b. Muslim League won 90 percent of the Muslim seats and 75% of the vote in 1946 elections.

    c. Muslims in Hindu Majority provinces supported the Muslim League completely as was shown by the election results.

    It must be remembered that Jinnah wasn’t born politically on 23 March 1940. His politics was for most of his life the politics of reconciliation. He is the only politician to be called the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. In 1937 – Muslim League had contested the elections as an ally of the Congress Party, winning only in UP and Bombay. Congress won an overwhelming majority of General seats but did not win any of the Muslim seats. Instead of getting its erstwhile ally on board, Congress chose to play Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar against the League. League’s claim that it represented the Muslims and not Ahrar or Jamiat-e-Ulema was based on numerical facts as aforesaid.

    It does not follow, as Mr. Bangash naively concludes, that this meant that those outside the League were not Muslims according to Jinnah. In fact it wasCongress-backed-Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind and Jamaat-e-Islami who attacked Jinnah as “Kafir-e-Azam” – the great Infidel and called Muslim Leaguers kafirs because Muslim Leaguers were considered irreligious and too secular. Bangash’s claim therefore is historically completely untrue.

    Recommend

  • YLH
    Mar 19, 2013 - 4:28PM

    I was disappointed to read the article by Yaqoob Bangash as it was nothing but a repetition of myths long in vogue about the founder o this country.

    It is well known that Jinnah’s Muslim League included Ismailis, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis etc and therefore the question of defining a Muslim did not arise. In fact Jinnah expressly ruled out the idea when he was pressurised on Ahmadi question. To Mr. Jinnah a Muslim was a person who professed to be a Muslim. Similarly Jinnah never declared Muslims outside the League to be Non-Muslim. His claim that Muslim League represented the Muslims was borne out of his desire to negotiate with the Congress at a level of parity. He never suggested people outside the League were non-Muslims. In fact it was Majlis-e-Ahrar and other Congress allies which declared Jinnah to be a Non-Muslim for being too secular, too westernised and soft on Ahmadis. A mere reading of the Munir Report will prove my point. Similarly 11 August is not the only speech that Jinnah gave which gave an inclusive democratic vision. There were many others and these are easily searchable. This one speech mantra is historically in accurate. Finally Jinnah’s actions as Governor General were driven by the fact that on 22 August 1947, the Khan sb ministry enjoyed the support of only 16 members out of a house of 39. His action was completely constitutional.

    I do not what Jinnah’s Pakistan is but Jinnah the man was not born on 23 March 1940. He had spent 4 decades in politics most of which was dedicated to civil liberties, equality and religious freedom for all Indians.

    Mr. Bangash unfortunately has slandered the memory of the one man whose wise words we need to follow at this critical juncture in our history. What private griefs they harbor, one cannot say, but distorting history is hardly the way to go about it.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Mar 19, 2013 - 4:41PM

    @sabi: @Mirza (this addresses your post as well).
    @Feroz: If people do not agree with with the author says they must read what World historians think of Jinnah. For example Jaswant Singh of BJP?.
    I think the best known biography of Jinnah is the one by Stanley Wolpert, which provides a fairly boring account of a rather interesting man. The book (as I remember it) sympathizes with the inner demons that made him struggle to divide India, but also states that he had no clue regarding what he wanted to do with the country, once he got it – hence the petulance and autocratic moves that the writer refers to in the op-ed. The fact, my friend, is that Jinnah recklessly played the religion card to get his country, and once the tiger was out of the cage, there was no way to get it back inside (and no one really wanted to); what you have today is Jinnah’s Pakistan, new and improved.

    Recommend

  • FaiselH
    Mar 19, 2013 - 4:56PM

    Jinnah’s Pakistan was for Muslims, and Not Islam.

    Recommend

  • The Verdict
    Mar 19, 2013 - 5:11PM

    Indian propaganda again. The moment you say anything in favour of Pakistan,,Indians like gp 65, mind control/observer (and God knows how many different names they use to comment and make their point heard) would immediately rebuke you or counter your point of view with their distorted, unintellectual arguments. As if they are waiting just to do this and have nothing better to do in their lives.

    @Gp65: Instead of asking Sonia why cant you ask the author where he got his distorted facts from?
    @everyone:
    Pakistan was not really a religious state until bhutto’s era. So blaming jinna unnecessarily is not fair. It was bhutto who started exploiting people in the name of religion.

    Jinnah’s strategy was perfect in demanding a separate nation in the name of religion and it worked out well and got us Pakistan! What happened after his death by a handful of corrupt politicians is not his fault.They misused Islam for paddling their agenda.

    Corruption is very rampant in India as well and a major deterrent to her progress. Anyway, China is going to be the next super power, so Indians can cry over split milk as much as they want to. I would say focus on china and leave us alone. people like the author himself are enough to take us on. You don’t have to waste your time and effort, unless of course you have been officially appointed to brain wash our youth.

    Pakistan Zindabad!!!

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Mar 19, 2013 - 5:17PM

    @Mr Yaqoob Khan,
    Can you please write a piece on the contents resignation letter written by J.N.Mondal, as he resigned his post of labor minister , in Oct 1950 from Liaqat Ali cabinet and fled to India. That letter is 1st hand acount of someone who served 1947-50 in Jinnah-liaqat cabinet. I urge readers to search for it on the internet and read it.

    Recommend

  • usman
    Mar 19, 2013 - 5:29PM

    Jinnah was the greatest statesman of last centuary. No matter how many articles or angles will use to minimize his acheivements for the muslims of Pakistan…….People simply love him. Recommend

  • Anwar
    Mar 19, 2013 - 5:38PM

    @Vikram.
    Good. see no problem with making a Pakistan a sharia state. This why Pakistan was created. It is more the Muslims so that we can live the way we want. All good muslims want a Sharia state.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 19, 2013 - 5:39PM

    Jinnah was great leader of Muslims in india and loved him.

    Recommend

  • Rizwan Nasar
    Mar 19, 2013 - 5:50PM

    Mr. Bangash writes about Jinnah’s Pakistan… yes it is Jinnah Pakistan but the question remains whose Islam we are practicing in Jinnah’s Pakistan. It seems Bangash is one of the few who love to bash Pakistan and its Founder to gain publicity. Reading through the comments… my previous statement prevails. Let me point out that there are no similarities between Taliban’s and Jinnah’s Pakistan. Jinnah did not create a secular state he created an Islamic state. Bangash is trying to imply that Islam had no place in Jinnah Pakistan. And he is totally wrong. Putting Jinnah in the same league as , Musharraf, Bhutto , Zia and Ayub is just ridicules. Jinnah was far above them. This is what historian and biographer, Stanley Wolpert, says about the man, “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.” One of Jinnah’s quotes that every Pakistani should live by is, “You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” Sorry to bust your bubble but Jinnah’s and Taliban’s Pakistan can never be the same!Recommend

  • Shayan
    Mar 19, 2013 - 6:03PM

    A very ill-informed piece. Here’s a rebuttal http://networkedblogs.com/JpHos

    Recommend

  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Mar 19, 2013 - 6:26PM

    @The Verdict:

    @Gp65: Instead of asking Sonia why
    cant you ask the author where he got
    his distorted facts from?

    Well, the onus lies with the accuser to at-least point out the facts that he/she hols to be “distorted”.

    Recommend

  • Zalmai
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:06PM

    @Shahid

    If you are a Pashtun and you hold this view of Jinnah then you are bamboozled by Urdu speaking Punjabis that use Pashtuns to fight their dirty wars and have placated Pashtuns by giving them token positions of power so they can feel part of the establishment. The Pashtuns that were bought out have become stooges to the Punjabis and have unwittingly become accomplices in their own genocide at the behest of their masters.

    Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had a premonition of things to come and that is why he opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan. He knew Pashtuns would become subservient to the grand designs of the Punjabis and the imposition of Urdu as a national language would weaken Pashtun culture and nationalism.

    Pakistani Pashtuns don’t know how to read and write Pashto and they are brainwashed into fighting their own Pashtun brethren in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is the crux of the matter that young Pakistani Pashtuns refuse to understand. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan saw the big picture.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:12PM

    @PiS: Thank you. If security situation permitted and visas were possible, I would definitely love to visit Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Raj Pal
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:14PM

    The biggest hurdle that Pakistan faces is that of ever decreasing diversity. With non-Muslim minorities and their traditions and cultures gone, it is now those who are actually Muslims who are increasingly becoming the ‘other’. The value of diversity is that it challenges you and creates new ways of thinking and new culture. In terms of acceptance and tolerance sharing a space with those whose traditions and culture may be different from you teaches you the habits of tolerance and acceptance. The intolerance and bigotry that can be acceptable in a mono-cultural/religious society is not so when one has to live cheek by jowl with and be dependent upon ‘others’. Let me give an example. Today my next door neighbour, a Muslim and a wonderful lovely gem of a man with a young family, passed away after a short illness. I as a non-Muslim, not being aware of the practicalities surrounding Muslim funerals, have had to ask another Muslim neighbour to take me with him and guide me through the procedure. That way, I am learning something new which may help to deepen my understanding of the ‘other’ and hopefully make me a more tolerant and accepting person. When you get rid of the ‘other,’ or are born and brought up in reaction and hatred of him/her, not only are you losing a source of cultural richness, you are also then creating conditions where those of claim to be the guardians of a ‘real’ identity further decrease the space for scepticism, debate and argument which constitute the life blood of a healthy society.

    Recommend

  • SH Kavi
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:43PM

    Why do we expect our leaders to be perfect. Why can we accept the fact that they are human being and to err is basic human trait.

    Recommend

  • A Pakistani
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:53PM

    @BlackJack
    One must understand how elections were conducted and won at that time. Popular local personalities like Khan Sahab won elections on the basis of their personality and local influence and not policies. It is foolish to think elections then were won on policy even partially. And yes Khan Sahab opposed the idea of Pakistan and was aligned with Congress and Gandhi, against Jinnah so it was natural to start fresh with a new country.
    @Vish
    Pakistan was to be governed by Independence Act 1947, wholly based on Government of India Act 1935 until it had a Constitution. Jinnah became Governor General to smoothly function as it was the legally highest office under the Act unless the new Constitution took shape. It was nothing wrong with him taking the office of Governor General at that time.

    To conduct the due democratic process was not feasible due to the fragile situation and thus Jinnah took many such steps which rather gave immediate results. Pakistan government did not even have proper furniture to function! It was more important to build a nation from scratch and stabilise it rather looking to set precedence. In George Washington’s election, 6 states didn’t have presidential electors elected by the population, that didn’t deter Americans from electing the president themselves today. Holding presidencial elections nationwide was not possible due to the conditions but this wasn’t seen as a precedent.
    Jinnah’s actions also should be seen with the conditions of the time and Pakistan’s situation. Islamic or not, Jinnah did want a democratic Pakistan and this cannot be challenged at least by twisting facts.
    It is our misfortune that Jinnah could not live longer and make things crystal clear.

    Recommend

  • Chaigram
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:55PM

    Jinnah lived his last years in a very trying times for Pakistan. With communal riots, millions of refugees, political turmoil in a new country with no elected parliament and absence of a constitution. His actions at that stage can not be construed as non-democrat or autocratic.
    It is unfortunate that a writer being a history professor was unable to comprehend those times in his article. I can smell biases against Jinnah in perticular and Pakistan in general.
    Long live Pakistan and long live Jinnah. I will leave with words of Shakespere.

    Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
    I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interred with their bones;

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 19, 2013 - 7:58PM

    @Zalmai
    Pashtuns are happy living in pakistan and please dont to make fitnah between us. and Ghafar khan and his party should go to afghanistan land of rocks and dust nothing else.

    Recommend

  • Vijay(Indian)
    Mar 19, 2013 - 8:26PM

    Jinnah’s daughter stayed back in India and her generations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ness_Wadia

    Recommend

  • Chandra(Indian)
    Mar 19, 2013 - 8:44PM

    I think that Jinnah’s Pakistan stood for so long united and may be longer in the future itself is a great achievement.I ask Pakistanis to save their country and put it on the right track of liberty and fraternity and save the minorities(religion,ethnic,sect), the weak and the poor.

    Recommend

  • Raghavendra
    Mar 19, 2013 - 8:49PM

    I by religion Hindu(Brahmin) reside in bangalore(India) working as a software engineer. In our team of 8 we have 2 muslims, we never think about religion and share food and go well together. Can it be same in pakistan? Do hindu get same treatment there? Why people of pakistan so cruel on Hindu who also are peacefull people?

    Recommend

  • sure?
    Mar 19, 2013 - 9:06PM

    @Chandra(Indian): “I think that Jinnah’s Pakistan stood for so long united and may be longer in the future itself is a great achievement.”

    Did it? What happened in 1971?

    Recommend

  • sure?
    Mar 19, 2013 - 9:08PM

    @sabi: “@Feroz:
    If people do not agree with with the author says they must read what World historians think of Jinnah.
    For example Jaswant Singh of BJP?.”

    So BJP is devil incarnate and not to be trusted until someone in BJP says something in favour of Jinnah and now suddenly that opinion is unquestionable.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Mar 19, 2013 - 9:11PM

    @A Pakistani:
    @BlackJack
    One must understand how elections were conducted and won at that time. Popular local personalities like Khan Sahab won elections on the basis of their personality and local influence and not policies. It is foolish to think elections then were won on policy even partially.
    Let us assume that this is true. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We must therefore assume that those who voted for the League also had not really intended to support this policy of partition or a separate country and were voting for local politicians. The final act must have come as quite a shock to all of them.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 19, 2013 - 9:16PM

    @The Verdict:
    @Gp65: Instead of asking Sonia why
    cant you ask the author where he got
    his distorted facts from?

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 19, 2013 - 9:21PM

    @The Verdict:
    “@Gp65: Instead of asking Sonia why cant you ask the author where he got his distorted facts from?”

    The reason I do not ask Yaqoob is because he has provided the facts and the sources for those facts that have led him to his opinion. If Sonia K says that he twisted the facts, then she needs to mention which specific facts were twisted and provided her source for that.

    Sonia has every right to hold whatever opinion she holds about Jinnah and Bangash but if she makes a categorical statement that Bangash twisted facts, she needs to provide a fact based rebuttal.

    Recommend

  • Husnain
    Mar 19, 2013 - 10:55PM

    Dr. Bangash rocked and haters shocked. Brilliant work.

    Recommend

  • Fawad
    Mar 19, 2013 - 11:24PM

    I must praise the author for writing such an eye-opening piece and ET for publishing so blashpemous yet direly needed article.

    Recommend

  • MKAIND
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:03AM

    @mind out of control:

    I guess its better than the India we have today where minorities rights we all know how good they are. Jinnah did an amazing job in making Pakistan. A separate country for Muslims where regardless of all the issues we live freely and not considered second grade citizens.

    Recommend

  • GPKiPunaanie
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:06AM

    @gp65: I would suggest you to do some research and spread your miss information and hatred toward Pakistan elsewhere. Maybe concentrate on sorting your country issue first….

    Recommend

  • Anil
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:08AM

    I completely agree with the author. Jinnah wanted a separate country for the Muslims of the subcontinent — an Islamic State and that is what he got it. Period.

    How can a State created in the name of Religion hope to be a Democratically Secular State simultaneously?

    Recommend

  • Raj
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:08AM

    I do not why why Yasir Latif Hamdani (aka YLH) does not rebutt to Yaqoob Khan Bangash’s column here except in his blog Pakteahouse.net. There he projects himself as an autobiographer of M.A.Jinnah but then portrays Bangash almost as one less than a historian. read Jinnah’s Pakistan : Rebuttal to Yaqoob Khan Bangash at www. pakteahouse.net.

    Recommend

  • HINDU MKA
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:09AM

    @Yoghurt looser: Which dream world you live in ? …..Your country was ruled by Mughals (Muslim) for 800 years and the architect you are so proud of (including) taj mahal was built by a Muslim emperor. Stop living in a box and come out. I wonder how you say India is secular when you have so much hatred toward Muslims

    Recommend

  • Zalmai
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:18AM

    @Ali Tanoli

    “Pashtuns are happy living in pakistan and please dont to make fitnah between us. and Ghafar khan and his party should go to afghanistan land of rocks and dust nothing else.”

    Obviously you are not Pashtun and by reading your posts I can tell that you are not only ill informed but also bigoted. Afghanistan maybe land of rocks and dust but all you Pakistanis claim descent from us Afghans instead of owning up to your Indian roots.

    Being dismissive does not change the facts and the last time I checked Pakistan was in South Asia not Europe. You talk as if Pakistan is Paris compared to Afghanistan. The sad thing is that you inherited a country that was already built up by the British and you have not made any improvements to it but definitely managed to destroy it.

    You should go and do ablutions before you utter the name of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his heritage.

    Recommend

  • Zalmai
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:28AM

    @Husnain

    “Dr. Bangash rocked and haters shocked. Brilliant work.”

    I love this post. You rock Husnain.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 20, 2013 - 2:25AM

    @GPKiPunaanie: I do not have hatred towards Pakistan. Please point to any factual inaccuracy in my statements – since you say I should perform more research.

    Recommend

  • Murad Ali
    Mar 20, 2013 - 2:45AM

    Excellent Work!!! JazakAllah

    Recommend

  • Razi
    Mar 20, 2013 - 2:49AM

    @sure?

    So BJP is devil incarnate and not to be trusted until someone in BJP says something in favour of Jinnah and now suddenly that opinion is unquestionable.

    So a Pakistani, who are to be mostly trashed, has suddenly become a great man who needs to be applauded no end only because he has written something that almost every Indian commentator here wants to read.

    Recommend

  • dd
    Mar 20, 2013 - 3:06AM

    whether pakistan is secular or an islamic state is our problem, so please back off indian trolls you guys seem to have only one agenda on your minds, to demean u sin every way possible …

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 20, 2013 - 3:18AM

    Mr Bangash writes well and has displayed his talent in history. His opinion may not be the same as that of others nor his inerpretations may fully correlate with others inrpretations. Facts are that those who call themslves muslims in the Indo-pak subcontinent are definitely not non- mulims but not all of them necessarily fully conformed with Isalm.. This brings us to the key theme of the article namely Islam which in most probability is being used and unduly instrumentalised by many for political gains or in subjective ignorance.
    What Mr Jinnah said in speaches about Islam or an Islamic state, may not be the same that todays leaders are talking about and perhaps very different from what the masses understand about an Islamic state. Mr Bangash needs to expand his excellent article with creative talents.

    Facts are also that Mr Jinnah was the leader of the muslim league representing Indian muslims but not all muslims, was the architect of an Islamic state for muslims but also of non-muslms. He apparently muddled.through, had the flag designed in green as a symbol of Islam but then brushed it with white to signal peace for non-muslims. Peoples parties were later formed in the lEast as well as west of teland, which were added with several more nuslim leagues to confront the new ideology of secularism travelling from across the border, which resulted in the parliamentarians issuing certificates for muslimness and excommunicating others.
    Pakistan now has the pudding and Islam is on the hook to bell the cat.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Faltu Indians
    Mar 20, 2013 - 5:05AM

    It’s surprising how much negative and baseless propoganda Indians trollers are doing on this forum. I doubt any Pakistani spend that much time on Indian newspapers.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 20, 2013 - 5:56AM

    @Raj: “There he projects himself as an autobiographer of M.A.Jinnah “

    Ummm, did you mean biographer? By definition, only M A Jinnah could have written the autobiography of M A Jinnah.

    Recommend

  • Truthbetold
    Mar 20, 2013 - 7:45AM

    @PiS:

    ” The silver lining in Pakistan is our culture (separate from religion) that is unique and something to be preserved and cherished.”

    Not so easy. What culture you want to preserve and cherish? Pakistan has deliberately and successfully distanced itself from the ancient Indian civilization. So, you must be talking about the desert Arab and other barbaric backward cultures that the Pakistanis are so determined to claim. That is hardly anything to preserve or cherish unless you want Pakistan to regress back to barbaric medieval times and remain uncivilized.

    Recommend

  • Khaksar
    Mar 20, 2013 - 8:15AM

    On the one hand, I applaud the fact that a national daily in Pakistan has the courage to introspect the national psyche, something we are losing in India. On the other, there is no denying the fact that the two nation theory cost a whole generation dear…the wounds still open and seething.

    Recommend

  • dd
    Mar 20, 2013 - 8:15AM

    @Faltu Indians
    true, i have never ever been on an indian news website…i wonder what brings them here, deal with your own issues, articles like these are none of yoru business, if someone points out anything about your country then you should be giving your brilliant comments, otherwise bugger off

    Recommend

  • M Ali Khan
    Mar 20, 2013 - 9:03AM

    We really enjoy historical revisionism with a smile on our faces

    http://www.globallegalforum.blogspot.com/2013/03/jinnahs-pakistan-calling-spade-spade.html

    Recommend

  • Yoghurt lover
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:13AM

    @Faltu Indians:

    “It’s surprising how much negative and baseless propoganda Indians trollers are doing on this forum. I doubt any Pakistani spend that much time on Indian newspapers.”

    Three points to consider

    1) Pakistan has 8-14 hours of powercut. India has 2-3. So we spend more time on internet.

    2) Pakistanis are 200 million. We are 1.2 billion

    3) Pakistan has been killing innocent Indians. India is not.

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:46AM

    @PiS:
    Indeed, The word has already reached on our end that Lahore has banned Basant kite flying and is giving decent burial to Punjabi Language (perhaps in a bid to preserve its unique Urdu culture). Come to Old Delhi, Aligarh, Hyderabad and Lucknow- I’ll show you the roots of distinct culture, much of Pakistan is aiming at.

    Only silver lining I see are some of the Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs who take pride of their own heritage and are trying to preserve it.

    Recommend

  • Sajjad
    Mar 20, 2013 - 12:33PM

    There is a lot more to history than the simplistic arguments given by the writer. Wonder FC College is maintaining any scholastic standards for people in ‘chair’

    Recommend

  • Bazooka
    Mar 20, 2013 - 1:31PM

    Bang on target! Bangash sahib should be commended for speaking out the truth, undoubtedly an unpleasant thing to do in today’s Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Sharjeel Jawaid
    Mar 20, 2013 - 2:02PM

    Jinnah’s Pakistan what ever it was, ceased to exist at 0100 hrs, March 26, 1971.

    Recommend

  • K B Kale, Jakarta
    Mar 20, 2013 - 2:06PM

    Bangashsahab, the best sentence in your wonderful article is “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.”
    Really you go to the very chore of every subject.
    Keep up the good work. Our countries must be friendly neighbors!

    Recommend

  • Zulfiqar Haider
    Mar 20, 2013 - 3:37PM

    Crap

    Recommend

  • Mar 20, 2013 - 4:07PM

    someone finally said it. This writes has got guts and courage. His review of Jinnah is spot on.

    Recommend

  • Zulfiqar Haider
    Mar 20, 2013 - 4:13PM

    This way you are declaring that Jinnah was a hypocrite? are you?
    I am sorry but this article and most of the comments are biased and are clearly pointing towards the Point of View of Afghan-Pathans who have always been against the very existence of Pakistan.
    I am sorry but do we need this, at this point in time, when we are already plagued with bigotry and hypocrisy?

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 20, 2013 - 4:40PM

    @Anil:
    There is no secular state in the world with a christian or muslim majority which is secular.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Truth seeker.
    Mar 20, 2013 - 4:41PM

    @Zalmai
    who care if i am not pakhtoon but i am muslim and pakistani thats enough for me and its true too we were indian and our roots come from some where in central asia and its over now and one more things if it was not pakistan when Russia came in 1979 to converts afghanistan to Afghanove then i guess u might called your self a Zalmove today think about it u Ahsaan framosh.

    Recommend

  • Ali S
    Mar 20, 2013 - 5:17PM

    Jinnah himself was a very wealthy, Westernized, English-speaking elite who founded a country for the ‘oppressed’ Muslims of Pakistan on the basis of religious division. It’s hard to imagine how else could Pakistan have turned out. We need to stop going back to Jinnah for validation at every point and make decisions while looking forward if we want a prosperous Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 20, 2013 - 5:19PM

    Mr Jinnah being the kind of a gentleman he was, a modern western educated havin a shia muslim faith, he definitely did not want a caliphate state of God, that was in saudi Arabia or the one which Iran has today. All his concerns for the minorities non-muslim citizens of the country were after thoughts and only once he realised about the consequences of his endeavours. He was no more a human like all of us and made errors in many leader’s views. History reading is good if one can take some lessons to improve. We evolve and adjust and do not stand still. Today’s Pakistan would have placed him in the minority circle as well.

    In democracies there are no discriminations among the people, who are in majority or minority depending upon the opinions and the consenses among the people on a particular action. The constitutions of the Nations must, however, reflect the VALUES of the majority of the people which they usualy derive from their religion, and must be approved by two third of the legislators in the parliament.. This is the case in the western democracies, where the Govts. are secular!

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 20, 2013 - 6:26PM

    @Rex minor
    All over the world minorities stay oppressed no matter what kind of system u run in there in israel palestinean peoples can tell u what oppression is and in west where laud speakers are not allowed in mosques and muslims cant get two meriages but on other hand have plenty women on the name of girl friend and its a democracy but india is diffrent in this matter.
    @Little correction here when i answerd kabul zalmai bacha i forgot to put my name …

    Recommend

  • Enlightened
    Mar 20, 2013 - 7:08PM

    I do not agree with deductions made by the author on speeches made by Jinnah during pre and post partition period. However I do agree that some fiery speeches were made by Jinnah before partition advocating separate homeland for Muslims with Islamic traditions. But the same was done under political compulsions with a sole aim to get a separate country for Muslims as Jinnah and Nehru were never on the same page in which he succeeded and Pakistan was formed. Jinnah’s dream received a certain setback as millions of Muslims decided to stay put in India whereas many Hindus and Sikhs chose Pakistan as their homeland. In view of this changed scenario, Jinnah made a historic speech on 11 Aug 47 spoke of equal treatment to all irrespective of ones religion and faith which indicated his secularist credentials. This speech showed Jinnah’s statesmanship and also as a great visionary since he perceived that an Islamic Republic would be detrimental to the interest of minorities living in Pakistan. Many historians opine that Jinnah was greatly concerned about the welfare of the Indian Muslims as he apprehended that any ill-treatment of minorities in Pakistan would result in backlash on millions of Indian Muslims who would receive similar treatment at the hands of the Hindu majority in India. Therefore, Jinnah certainly wanted a ‘Secular Pakistan’and author is reading too much on speeches made drawing illogical deductions as well stating that Bhutto, Zia and Musharraf followed Jinnah’s ideology which is belittling his greatness.

    Recommend

  • Bin Ismail
    Mar 20, 2013 - 7:36PM

    @ Yaqoob Khan Bangash

    “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”

    I’m afraid, that is not factually correct. Let us all be fair to Quaid-e Azam and recall his following noble utterances too, none of which are from the historic 11th August 1947 address :

    1 : “..Religion should not be allowed to come into Politics…Religion is merely a matter between man and God..”.[Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935]

    2 : “..in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans..” [Jinnah, Speaking about the Shudras or Untouchables, during his address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934 ]

    3 : “..I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan..” [Jinnah, Press Conference, 14 November 1946]

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

    5 : “..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]

    Regards

    Recommend

  • secular
    Mar 20, 2013 - 7:41PM

    @Rex Minor: “@Anil:
    There is no secular state in the world with a christian or muslim majority which is secular.
    Rex Minor”

    France, USA, Australia to name just a few.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 20, 2013 - 8:42PM

    Secular,

    Did you see the man holding a book, depicted on the bulding of the USA Supreme court, He reprsents Moses holding a Bible. Now travel to the Bible territory in the USA where alkohal is banned, and tell me if the USA constitution contravenes in any manner the values of the Ibrahimic religion?

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 20, 2013 - 9:32PM

    @Bin Ismail:
    Let me answer your confuson in a simple manner, not having any allegance to Mr Jinna, Mr Nehru or Mr Gandhi. Tey were all political elites of the subcontinent and all were following more or less the machiavilean politic.

    This is what he said in 1935, but his demand for a separate state for muslim majority areas contridict his philosophy. The whole conflict of sunni, shia, Aemedis and others is nothing but politics.

    Who does not care more for the suffering victims?

    O’h no? This was a plain lie! Who was he fighting for then? The Brits were committed to abondon their colonies as per the agreement of the ww2 allied powers.

    This is true. people who do not speak arabic language nor understand Quraan suras which they muddle through with translations in inferior languages, can not match the ancient caliphates or match the Ottoman period.

    He was now an enlighened personality of the world class.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Zalmai
    Mar 20, 2013 - 10:40PM

    @Ali Tanoli aka Truth Seeker

    My retorts to your belligerent rants were not published by ET moderators. At any rate, your diatribe about the Russian invasion and how Pakistan saved Afghans from being converted to Afghanov is wishful thinking. I am not surprised that my retorts that debunk Pakistani myths were not allowed but surely you are not oblivious to Afghan history and how the British fared in Afghanistan in the 1800s without anyone’s help. You keep believing in your version of history, ignorance is bliss and you are wallowing in that ignorance.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 20, 2013 - 10:41PM

    @Zalmai:
    @Ali Tanoli:

    Batcha Khan was a great Pashtun leader and please do not misconstrue his loyalty to Indian Congress party, he was committed to a United India as it had been under the rule of the moghuls. He was a democrat and believed in democracy as did Mr Jnnah as well. The consensus among the Pashtuns after the refrendum was to declare allegance with the state of Pakistan. The dismissal of the elected Govt. in former Frontier, by the central Govt. and the events which occured following this was shabby and shameless and shall remain so in the history of Pashtun Nation. I as a foreigner salute this great Nation, whether they live in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Pakistan must try to achieve cohesivenes among the great people of the remaining country. Democracy which reflects Islmic values and assures equal rights for all regardless of reigion and the ethnic divide. A secular Govt. separating it from the religious institutions as the case is in all European democracies. No more excommunications and blesphemic laws against blesphemy. Thoug shall not kill is God’s commandment and if the Europen Union can do it then Pakistan could do as well.

    Rex Minor

    PS Islam does not permit more than one spouse!..

    Recommend

  • Bilal Bajwa
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:14PM

    Those who wanted a rebuttle. Here it is on Tribune. Yassir Latif Hamdani’s article

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/523784/jinnahs-pakistan-a-rebuttal/#.UUnzNfsJVHM.facebook

    Recommend

  • Bilal Bajwa
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:18PM

    This article is nothing but simply denying the facts. I wonder how people can think of Jinnah like that. How many of you have read about him instead of just looking at current situation of Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:12AM

    @Zalmai:

    I agree and this is sad that Pakistani leaders do not take into account the differnt cultures and traditions ethnic divide of the people. People of switzerland also speak different languages in their cantons but are still a Nation made up of several Nations, each responsible for their own cantons.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Faltu log
    Mar 21, 2013 - 2:46AM

    @ Yogurt Lover
    you seem to have a lot of time in your hands to be trolling around on a pakistani website .. feel sorry for you

    Recommend

  • PA
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:44AM

    Hat’s off to the writer. It takes courage, knowledge and lots of research to bring the truth out. Nothing can be done unless we change the syllabus or curriculum for schools. We are feeding hatred, intolerance to our young kids from get go. This generation is lost. Every Muslim lives in Pakistan have portion of Taliban sleeping in his or her personality…

    Recommend

  • Ahmad
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:39AM

    Jinnah’s Pakistan was created neither in the name of Islam, nor exclusively for Muslims. Jinnah’s Pakistan was created only to safeguard the political rights of the Muslim-majority territories of British India and that’s it. Jinnah’s Pakistan was meant to be clearly, a Secular Pakistan, even more secular than Ataturk’s Turkey. Our subsequent failures, as a nation, are our own doings, not Mr. Jinnah’s. Mr. Jinnah did not support or pass the Objectives Resolution, which came after his death. Mr. Jinnah did not name Pakistan the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”, which happened in 1956. Mr. Jinnah did not welcome the fiercest opponents of Pakistan – the Maulvies – in Pakistani politics. Mr. Jinnah did not approach Saudi Arabia with a begging bowl – Bhutto did. Mr. Jinnah did not help create the Taliban – Zia did.Recommend

  • Asjad
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:09PM

    Stay away from the patriots…you might get killed :)

    Recommend

  • K B Kale
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:55PM

    @Ahmad:
    Where is Jinnah’s secular Pakistan? Ayub Khan, ZAB, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haque and the last but not the least Musharraf literally used Pakistan as if it was their own mistrerss, using Mullahs when it suited them to retain their hold on power. But when the mistress was in distress, Mullahs were missing and slowly Taliban entered the scene and finished whatever little hopes were there of still making Pakistan “workable”.
    One of the first steps politicians in Pakistan is to listen to their own Statesman Nawaz Sharif who had the courage to tell his people that it was time to stop considering India as their biggest enemy. That is the key. If India and Pakistan become friendly neighbours, Armed Forces and ISI would lose their grip automatically and civilian rule would take its correct “premier” position in Pakistan.
    So key step to take is to create a sustained & real friendship between Pakistan & India!
    K B Kale, Jakarta

    Recommend

  • Komal S
    Mar 21, 2013 - 2:03PM

    @yo:
    Wake up! Most of them have left already, may want to check your neighbourhood.

    Recommend

  • Sonia K
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:49PM

    @YLH:

    Thank you for giving a detailed answer to one of the issues!!!

    @gp65
    Please refer to YLH’s reply….. it rebuts one of the basic issues of the interim government- Maulana Azad the replacement for Mr. Jinnah in Congress!

    Recommend

  • No one
    Mar 21, 2013 - 5:33PM

    Can we please start noting the national ip addresses on these commenters? The Indians seem to come and heap praises on the backward Islamists and bemoan the clear sighted rationality of men like YLH. A little transparency would rid us of these fools that desire progress in their home land but only feudalism and faith for Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 9:15PM

    @No one

    Please do not overeact. I am not an Indian besides their views and reactions are very logical. Mr Jinnah was the founder of the Islamic State, separating it from the potential hindu dominated Bharat. He was certainly not asking for a Khalifa state controlled by the theologists and 7th century sharia as is the case in Iran, After independence, he certainly wanted its Govt. along the lines of western democracies, which have more or less secular Govts who are no longer controlled by the powerful Church.
    Those who are denying this and are preaching for secularism, they should define the criterion of secularis lest in their emotion they are inadvertently defaming the founder of the Islamic State. Indian peole have the opportunity to live in peace with people of Pakistan if heir Govt. ends their occupation of Kashmir.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Aysha
    Mar 22, 2013 - 12:26PM

    Wow great, this is a mirror to the people who say Jinnah a secular.

    Recommend

  • spade
    Mar 22, 2013 - 7:08PM

    @YLH

    Its an impressive commentary on what is historically correct. Whether Mr Bangesh is completely correct or you are, its quite immaterial ( and I would like to believe that its immaterial to Mr Bangash as well).

    The question here is whether this is the Pakistan you or Mr Bangesh or any living Pakistani wants. The intolerance, the terrorism, the wars, and endless other problems may have originated because Mr Jinnah said or did not say something but the issue is what a common citizen doing to eradicate it and fight for the country he or she wants.

    If you believe that rebutting Mr Bangash point by point is going to make than happen then plz continue to do so and if you believe that Mr Bangash has done a heroic deed by atleast bringing up for discussion such a sensitive issue of the state of Pakistan today through a prism of History, which might make Pakistan a better place by sheer debating then its better to look for solutions on what to do to get the Pakistan you/I/Pakistani citizen/sensible Indian citizen wants.

    Recommend

  • Taimur
    Mar 23, 2013 - 6:56PM

    I enjoyed reading the article and especially the timeline of events. It is high time to open up to discuss and accept the mistakes and move forward.

    Recommend

More in Opinion