‘A Tribute to Quaid-i-Azam’ - 80 years of Pakistan Resolution
Quaid always stood for the rights of minorities, ensured that these be enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan
PHOTO: EXPRESS
A recent seminar on the above subject was organised by the dynamic Senator Mushahid Hussain. Speakers included luminaries such as Sartaj Aziz, Fakhar Imam, Raza Rabbani, Raja Zafarul Haq and Syed Shibli Faraz. It was a treat listening to them as they dealt with the history of the Pakistan Movement and the ideals and the goals that Quaid-i-Azam had set for Pakistan; how he steered the movement; his resolve and faith in the mission and his accomplishments against all odds; and how the Quaid was able to carve this state and create an independent homeland for the Muslims. It also covered how the Quaid got convinced that the bigotry and narrow mindedness of the Hindu leadership would turn India into a Hindu state.
The exceptional farsighted vision of the Quaid can be assessed from the fact that 80 years later, this is exactly the agenda PM Modi and his diehard ministerial junta is pursuing. What is most extraordinary and unique about Jinnah is that he was a liberal person and had initially strived to find a way to keep India united on the condition that the interests of the Muslim community were safeguarded. As the Congress leadership was not willing to accede to this fair demand, there was no option left but to opt for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
The Quaid always stood for the rights of the minorities and ensured that these be enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan. It is, however, a matter of remorse that subsequent amendments and deletions were made in the Constitution to alter the original text and degrade their status as citizens. Certain portions of Quaid’s speeches were also deleted in an attempt to turn Pakistan into a quasi-religious state.
There were several other attempts at altering the character and spirit of the Constitution. During General Zia’s time the slogan coined by the Quaid, “Unity, Faith and Discipline” was tempered to read, “Faith, Unity and Discipline”.
Unfortunately, ever since the demise of the Quaid, the leadership has pandered to the religious right. In this, there have been no exceptions. The PML, the PPP and the PTI - in one form or the other - have sought the backing of the religious parties. This is despite the fact that the electoral support of the religious parties is limited to their diehard followers. But their ability to influence policy and events is disproportionately high. Recent events reaffirm this, whereby a fairly unknown religious group held Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, hostage for nearly a week. And the clergy of the Lal Masjid remain an island to itself, challenging the writ of the state. PM Imran Khan repeatedly makes mention of his ideal being the State of Medina, although many scholars including Dr Ghamidi have tried to clarify that that model was for a specific purpose and at a particular time in history, and oriented toward improving the self and not meant to be applied to a state. Its replication in the present times may not be easy. Even Saudi Arabia’s and Iran’s leaders do not talk about it. However, repeated mention of PM Khan about it would keep the religious parties on the defensive. And some good can come out of it. By aiming at these ideal standards our leaders can look inwards and reform their self too. Another positive fallout could be that political discourse becomes more humane and civilised.
While it is important for leaders to communicate, think out loud and remain in touch with the people, we also need to ponder over how much of it is necessary and what new ideas or plans the leader is communicating.
Some contemporary thinkers are of the view that with an over 95% Muslim population, is it still necessary to play the religious card to strengthen and bind the state? Should the focus of the leaders not be on improving the efficiency of the government and accommodating various political, cultural and ethnic differences so as to be perceived as a fairly homogenous entity?
One of the major reasons for Pakistan’s slow pace of progress is that apart from certain parts of Punjab, the country was relatively weak in terms of education standards, infrastructure and industry as compared to India at the time of Partition.
Different rulers have subjected Pakistan to all types of regimes. General Ayub Khan believed in a more centralised state with a façade of democracy. So did General Musharraf with slight variations. He was more liberal and initially gave a lot of freedom to the media. Ziaul Haq wanted to impose a strict Islamic code combined with his version of nationalism.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the first civilian ruler after a lapse of 15 years, tried to be the champion of the masses and his populism and anti-establishment rhetoric initially attracted people but soon faded away. He had to grapple with different interpretations of Islam and ideology as the religious parties were highly critical of his party‘s socialist ideology and portrayed it as anti-Islamic. He tried to find a way out by defining it as “Islamic socialism”. Later, as his relations with the army soured he became more conservative, banned alcohol and got Ahmadis declared as non-Muslims.
The military never reconciled with the idea of Benazir as prime minister in the real sense. Perhaps the memory of the elder Bhutto was still alive and kept haunting our rulers.
Nawaz Sharif, the three-time prime minister, was at one time the choice of the military but repeatedly fell out of their favour. Whether he will make another comeback or remain in the wilderness, only time will tell.
The narration of these events that are common knowledge was done to highlight how we have drifted from the high ideals and hopes that the creation of Pakistan had ignited in its people. And how we have drifted from these goals and standards of political correctness and stature that the Quaid-i-Azam and his associates had set for the coming generations to follow.
But all this can change if there is a political will to revive the vision and aspirations that filled the people’s hearts at the time of Pakistan’s inception.
The exceptional farsighted vision of the Quaid can be assessed from the fact that 80 years later, this is exactly the agenda PM Modi and his diehard ministerial junta is pursuing. What is most extraordinary and unique about Jinnah is that he was a liberal person and had initially strived to find a way to keep India united on the condition that the interests of the Muslim community were safeguarded. As the Congress leadership was not willing to accede to this fair demand, there was no option left but to opt for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
The Quaid always stood for the rights of the minorities and ensured that these be enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan. It is, however, a matter of remorse that subsequent amendments and deletions were made in the Constitution to alter the original text and degrade their status as citizens. Certain portions of Quaid’s speeches were also deleted in an attempt to turn Pakistan into a quasi-religious state.
There were several other attempts at altering the character and spirit of the Constitution. During General Zia’s time the slogan coined by the Quaid, “Unity, Faith and Discipline” was tempered to read, “Faith, Unity and Discipline”.
Unfortunately, ever since the demise of the Quaid, the leadership has pandered to the religious right. In this, there have been no exceptions. The PML, the PPP and the PTI - in one form or the other - have sought the backing of the religious parties. This is despite the fact that the electoral support of the religious parties is limited to their diehard followers. But their ability to influence policy and events is disproportionately high. Recent events reaffirm this, whereby a fairly unknown religious group held Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, hostage for nearly a week. And the clergy of the Lal Masjid remain an island to itself, challenging the writ of the state. PM Imran Khan repeatedly makes mention of his ideal being the State of Medina, although many scholars including Dr Ghamidi have tried to clarify that that model was for a specific purpose and at a particular time in history, and oriented toward improving the self and not meant to be applied to a state. Its replication in the present times may not be easy. Even Saudi Arabia’s and Iran’s leaders do not talk about it. However, repeated mention of PM Khan about it would keep the religious parties on the defensive. And some good can come out of it. By aiming at these ideal standards our leaders can look inwards and reform their self too. Another positive fallout could be that political discourse becomes more humane and civilised.
While it is important for leaders to communicate, think out loud and remain in touch with the people, we also need to ponder over how much of it is necessary and what new ideas or plans the leader is communicating.
Some contemporary thinkers are of the view that with an over 95% Muslim population, is it still necessary to play the religious card to strengthen and bind the state? Should the focus of the leaders not be on improving the efficiency of the government and accommodating various political, cultural and ethnic differences so as to be perceived as a fairly homogenous entity?
One of the major reasons for Pakistan’s slow pace of progress is that apart from certain parts of Punjab, the country was relatively weak in terms of education standards, infrastructure and industry as compared to India at the time of Partition.
Different rulers have subjected Pakistan to all types of regimes. General Ayub Khan believed in a more centralised state with a façade of democracy. So did General Musharraf with slight variations. He was more liberal and initially gave a lot of freedom to the media. Ziaul Haq wanted to impose a strict Islamic code combined with his version of nationalism.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the first civilian ruler after a lapse of 15 years, tried to be the champion of the masses and his populism and anti-establishment rhetoric initially attracted people but soon faded away. He had to grapple with different interpretations of Islam and ideology as the religious parties were highly critical of his party‘s socialist ideology and portrayed it as anti-Islamic. He tried to find a way out by defining it as “Islamic socialism”. Later, as his relations with the army soured he became more conservative, banned alcohol and got Ahmadis declared as non-Muslims.
The military never reconciled with the idea of Benazir as prime minister in the real sense. Perhaps the memory of the elder Bhutto was still alive and kept haunting our rulers.
Nawaz Sharif, the three-time prime minister, was at one time the choice of the military but repeatedly fell out of their favour. Whether he will make another comeback or remain in the wilderness, only time will tell.
The narration of these events that are common knowledge was done to highlight how we have drifted from the high ideals and hopes that the creation of Pakistan had ignited in its people. And how we have drifted from these goals and standards of political correctness and stature that the Quaid-i-Azam and his associates had set for the coming generations to follow.
But all this can change if there is a political will to revive the vision and aspirations that filled the people’s hearts at the time of Pakistan’s inception.