Jinnah’s Pakistan: a rebuttal

Published: March 20, 2013
SHARES
Email
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and author of the book Jinnah: Myth and Reality (Vanguard). He may be reached on twitter @therealylh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published in The Express Tribune, March 21st, 2013.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (118)

  • VRM
    Mar 20, 2013 - 10:25PM

    Lies,twist,turn.
    Bungash is right.

    Recommend

  • Mansi
    Mar 20, 2013 - 10:39PM

    For all nuances about what he actually wanted, it is for all to see how myopic the vision of Pakistan really was, contrary to what propaganda says in Pakistan there really was no great danger to the Muslim as Jinnah made out to be that it warranted the greatest migration of humans in perhaps history. I am no one to complain however, I am glad Pakistan exists. With all due respects to my countrymen who lost their lives to terrorism, it came in as a blessing in disguise to Indians.

    Recommend

  • Anwar
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:16PM

    Our root problem is identity. We are either pakistanis or Arabs not both. Its like we are all believers but not all of us want to be Brand-name muslim.

    Recommend

  • mahakaalchakra
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:22PM

    Jinnah was a changed person after his Parsi wife Rutti left him in 1939. Was it becasue his call for the division of India? His only child, a daughter also deserted him never to put her foot on his father’s Pakistan.

    He must be a lonely person in his family-life after 1939.

    Recommend

  • Indian
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:23PM

    With all due respect to this writer and liberal Pakistani nationalists who need to cite Jinnah to make their case for a more “liberal” (perhaps even secular) Pakistan, this writer is simply WRONG.

    On the first point the author raised, here’s why:

    Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Presidential Speech to the All-India Muslim League Session, Delhi, April 24, 1943:

    “…there is not the slightest doubt, that the 100 million Mussalmans are with us. When I say 100 million Mussalmans, I mean that 99 per cent of them are with us – leaving aside some who are traitors, cranks, supermen or lunatics, an evil from which no society or nation is free….”

    So what is Jinnah saying here? That any Indian Muslim in 1943 who did not agree with his political program, i.e. the creation of Pakistan, was a “traitor”, “crank” or “lunatic”. Jinnah’s “99 per cent” claim is obviously false. Maybe 75 per cent of Indian Muslims supported the creation of Pakistan in 1947. (And only a small percentage even voted.) But clearly not 99 per cent. Further, to call those Indian Muslims who opposed the creation of Pakistan “traitors, cranks or lunatics” is something that requires no further comment. It speaks for itself and shows you what kind of man Jinnah was.

    Recommend

  • Sam
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:23PM

    Good article! Should put to rest all the historical inaccuracies and dicrepancies put forward by Mr. Bangash yesterday.

    Recommend

  • Indian Wisdom
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:28PM

    1. “Jinnah’s claim that the Muslim League was the sole authoritative representative of Muslims came after he managed to bring the powerful premiers of Punjab and Bengal behind the Muslim League”:- Isn’t this claim absurd and hyperbole!!!!
    2. ” Jinnah’s political career, spanning four decades, is a testament to his commitment to religious freedom, progressive causes, civil liberties and equality”:- Yes, but only during the period when he was associated with all inclusive and secular ideology of Congress!!
    3. “So, constitutionally and morally, this was an in-house change”:- Yes, and same constitutional morality was witnessed soon after 1971 election.

    Keep it up, some day you will really achieve the promised land!!!!Recommend

  • Indian Wisdom
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:32PM

    “Jinnah’s claim that the Muslim League was the sole authoritative representative of Muslims came after he managed to bring the powerful premiers of Punjab and Bengal behind the Muslim League”:- Isn’t this claim absurd and hyperbole!!!!
    ” Jinnah’s political career, spanning four decades, is a testament to his commitment to religious freedom, progressive causes, civil liberties and equality”:- Yes, but only during the period when he was associated with all inclusive and secular ideology of Congress!!
    “So, constitutionally and morally, this was an in-house change”:- Yes, and same constitutional morality was witnessed soon after 1971 election.

    Keep it up, some day you will really achieve the promised land!!!!

    Recommend

  • usman
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:38PM

    Great rebutal……. “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.”
    ― Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah Of Pakistan

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:52PM

    Jinnah was greater than Gandhi is true indeed.

    Recommend

  • Wasil Arien
    Mar 20, 2013 - 11:59PM

    It is a very weak rebuttal, though not unexpected by some one or the other Pakistani who wishes to keep Jinnah’s image somewhat untarnished. He was a narcissistic non-visionary person who used the religious knife laced with poison of hate to get the country carved through divisions. Sooner this is realized, the better it would be to get the corrective and curative measures in way.
    I would beseech the author and his likes to stop their inanities, if there is a little love or sympathy for the country and the nation.

    Recommend

  • Ali Rizvi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:03AM

    Indian Wisdom, as an absurd hyperbole Mr Jinnah’s claim would have been a ridiculous joke. As actual principle, it was completely unacceptable and disrespectful to all those many Muslims who did not support Mr Jinnah and his Muslim League. These Muslims could not be part of the discussions that were related to their own future and the future of their country!

    Recommend

  • Haji Khan
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:04AM

    Jinnah was upright. That’s why he won against convulsions of Nehru & Gandhi.

    Recommend

  • Falcon
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:05AM

    Good rebuttal. Pakistan is going through a severe identity crisis phase and op-eds showing up on these papers are a reflection of it. Isn’t it funny that 180 million people of this nation can’t fix the problems of their own making and therefore, have to pull out Jinnah from his grave every other week to blame him for their own mistakes!

    Recommend

  • boltanaujawan
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:06AM

    great analysis gentleman. you have rightly defined the history

    Recommend

  • Vish
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:08AM

    The article yesterday by Mr.Bangash was a professional historian’s account. This write-up is a defence of a client by a lawyer.Recommend

  • Jalib
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:15AM

    Absolutely brilliant. Thank you Mr. Hamdani for enlightening us!!

    Recommend

  • aaaaa
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:16AM

    @Indian Wisdom:

    1) No it isn’t. The 1946 elections proves the point.

    2) Factually inaccurate. Wasn’t it Nehru who said that Indians would not be bound by British agreements after they left, many of which were about power distribution among Hindus and Muslims (plus other religious minorities) after partition? It’s a rhetorical question. Don’t bother answering.

    3) I don’t even feel the need to rebut this one. The statement is just absurdly stupid.

    Recommend

  • Shahab Riazi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:37AM

    @mahakaalchakra:
    Jinnah’s daughter did return to Pakistan so you are wrong in saying that she never returned or set foot in Pakistan. Also, his wife died in 1929, not in 1939. I am sure he was a changed man after that event. He loved his wife very much.

    Recommend

  • Someone
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:38AM

    Thank you for posting a rebuttal!

    I was really disappointed by Mr. Bangash’s article yesterday. He made serious accusations and backed them up with inaccurate facts and half truths. I would have expected more from a person who by profession is a teacher of history.

    This wave of negative thinking that is pervading in the country is causing everyone to become self deprecating. Just because we dropped the ball doesn’t mean that our forefathers caused it. Stop trying to lay the fault on them and take responsibility. Be the change you want to see.

    They fought tooth and nail to give us this opportunity to build a nation for ourselves, to decide our own fate. Yet when we fail, we criticize them for giving us this opportunity?

    Recommend

  • Someone
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:42AM

    @Indian Wisdom

    Like the author said it was a political claim which was backed up by the elections in 1946. So NO not hyperbole at all.

    Jinnah wasn’t always a part of congress. His progressive views were not just in the political arena and existed before congress and continued after he left the congress. It is a rather big assumption on your part to assume that he would shed them all once he left that party.

    Jinnah had nothing to do with 1971? He wasn’t even alive?

    So keep it up, some day you really will achieve wisdom!

    Recommend

  • Shahab Riazi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:50AM

    @Indian Wisdom:
    Corrections:
    1. 1946 elections proved that Muslim League was the sole rep. of Muslims in India pre-independence, so it is not hyperbole or absurd. Proof is in the ballot.
    2. Jinnah was a member, both of Congress and Muslim League for several years until his return in 1930s from Britian and fought tooth and nail against the religious bent that Gandhi ji brought with him to Congress during the 1920s. If you don’t believe that, I would invite you to read the minutes of the congress meetings during the 1920s.
    3. 1971 is a dark chapter in Pakistan’s history. Action against the currently KPK and then NWFP assembly cannot be linked with what happened in 1971. Pakistani establishment was in the wrong on many occasions including in 1971 which was a military action while 1947-48 change in the then NWFP assembly was a constitutional action. I don’t see the parallel here.

    People in both nations should hope, pray and work towards a better future and not dwell on the past. The line has been drawn and nobody wins hearts and minds by getting in somebody else’s face and questioning their identity first up, unless the intent is to inflame the situation. As a Pakistani, I hope to see both India and Pakistan prosper. It cannot be a zero-sum game.

    Recommend

  • Ameican Desi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 1:09AM

    @Sam:
    @Yasser Latif Hamdani:
    Your second rebuttal to Yaqoob’s comment on Jinnah’s anti secular sense is very much historically flawed. Jinnah did not even spare his own daughter Dina who married Naville Wadia who was Parsi. In Jinnah;s own words to Dina “There are many muslim boys in India you could have married any one of them”. And when challenged about his hypocratic comment since he himself married a Parsi, Jinnah replied “but she converted to Islam”. A secular mind does not believe in medieval practice of forced conversion to any religion. Getting someone who is love with you converted to your religion is an act of anti secularism and fanaticism by itself.
    Jinnah’s act towards his own daughter is proof enough about his mindset. A person may preach anything he can , since preaching is free of charge. True test is how much he practice what he preached.

    Recommend

  • Arifq
    Mar 21, 2013 - 1:21AM

    Bravo! Well said Yasser Sahib

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Mar 21, 2013 - 1:33AM

    The writer said
    “The claim was simply that on an all-India level, it was the League that could speak for Muslims.”
    By claiming that Muslim League only represented all Muslims, Mr Jinnah had further cemented the poison of religion into politics. It was just 10 years before, in 1935-36 Indian elections, that Congress had won 80% of the Muslim vote. There were many Muslim leaders in Congress and they represented a shade of Muslim opinion , so for any leader to claim to speak on behalf of all Muslims, was preposterous. Gandhi would never claim to speak on behalf of all Hindus.
    Secondly the most vicious religious cleansing happened during Mr Jinnah’s rule. I am not talking about the partition riots. I am talking about anti-Hindu campaign and riots in Pakistan that continued until 1950. Please read the resignation letter of Joginder N Mondal, who was a minister in Jinnah cabinet. Anyone with a heart will cry when he reads that resignation letter.

    Recommend

  • Chaigram
    Mar 21, 2013 - 1:38AM

    Great article, has put some sense (maggzz) in to mr. Bangash convoluted logic about our father of the nation and a great leader, and the only leader who united the Muslim umma to create a country. Thank you Mr. Hamdani.
    My advice to Mr. Bangash ‘go educate yourself’ you have lot to learn about gratefulness.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Mar 21, 2013 - 1:52AM

    Wow,looks like this debate will go on forever,both providing their evidences to prove their point…

    I think both this author and Bangash don’t know how to convince others….In both these articles,I find no reference of any external sources(The references shown are themselves Op-eds of tribune)….Now,how can I be convinced who speaks the truth and who is lying???

    If Bangash wishes to reply back to this article,please ask him to provide references..and Mr.Yasser too provide some references

    P.S. Please note that the references provided from random blogs,Pakistankakhudahafiz and Zaid Hamid’s brasstacks will not be considered….

    Recommend

  • sabi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 2:33AM

    Short but excellant rebutal to Bangash who wrote (at the cost of truth) what many from other side of the border want to hear.How cheap!

    Recommend

  • Kathy1947
    Mar 21, 2013 - 2:45AM

    How bizarree, comments made by some members of this forum, It was not Jinnah’s personal life that made him ask for a seperate state, it was Congress leadership that continued to refuse accepting a demand for 33% Muslim representation in the assemblies. Read some history before making silly comments.

    On a slightly different note, can we analyses Gandhi, Nehur and lady Mountbatten’s lives as testamount to the existance of India?? It would be equally absurd to drag Jinnah’s personal life in this debate.

    Recommend

  • SM
    Mar 21, 2013 - 2:52AM

    Jinnah was a small minded lawyer who won an argument. He didn’t represent anyone other than himself. Like you said, he represented, Shias, Sunnis, etc. etc. but he did not represent Indian Muslims. That is why even after partition 85% of Indian Muslims did not move to Pakistan. That was the day the idea of Pakistan died. Thanks to him, you all are Pakistanis! Had he represented Indian Muslims he would not have demanded Pakistan. Because the biggest loser of the Pakistan movement are Indian Muslims. They got divided in three parts. In two parts they are still killing each other, on the other part things are looking up only after 65 years.
    Since then you Pakistanis are searching for an identity in the deserts of Arabia whereas your forefathers came from the banks of Ganges.

    Recommend

  • Hasan
    Mar 21, 2013 - 3:11AM

    @Indian Wisdom:

    Actually no, Jinnah’s claim turned out to be painfully true for the Congress acolytes after the overwhelming political influence of the Muslim League in 1946

    Jinnah became one of the bright lights of Congress because of his own reputation for honesty and political determination – he gave more to Congress than Congress gave to him, and in fact he left when he realised that it was a party ruled by the same puritanical Brahmins who would go on to (dis)colour the social fabric of post-1947 Hindustan

    Quaid-e-Azam had passed away long before 1971 – for constitutional morality, please see ‘tolerant’ Congress behaviour of Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir from 1947-48.To this day, over 600,000,000 non-Brahmins desperately await some form of constitutional morality which has been sadly missing in Hindustan ever since it was given independence

    All in all a good rebuttal – psuedo-intellectuals like Bangash might take great pleasure in bashing present-day Pakistan, but they’ll have to work a little harder to rob us of our proud history.

    Hasan

    Recommend

  • Razi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 3:55AM

    @Indian Wisdom

    As Indians here are so fond of telling Pakistanis to counter their arguments, which they think are incontrovertible, rather than talk about motives, you would do well to point out what is incorrect in his arguments rather than using hyperbole. After all, he didn’t write what you wanted to read… so let’s get ready for a torrent of condemnation.

    Recommend

  • NJ
    Mar 21, 2013 - 5:30AM

    Although, your rebuttal has some fair points, Jinnah is not clean from using religion to gain politically. He was not a religious man, he didnt pray or fast, yet he had started giving sermons across Dehli mosque, bringing ppl together emotionally,introducing and encouraging Islamic identity. At the end of the sermon everyone would go pray in the mosque. not a secular picture at all. I suppose I read somewhere that he was 52 years old when he first went to a mosque to pray. that too, to hype his jalsas. Maybe, he had to do this to gain Pakistan and he naively assumed that once Pakistan comes into existence, he would turn it into being democratic and secular. In his private life he was alot more secular and was not a religious man. But his politics isnt too clean.

    Recommend

  • NJ
    Mar 21, 2013 - 5:37AM

    Jinnah would have never ever dreamt that power would lie with the most conservative families of Pakistan. It wont be with modern educated Muslims like him. It would be from the lower middle class families whose children get into the Army and Bureaucracy. And with the ever increasing power of islamic organizations, most of them responsible for spreading intolerance. And modern Muslims would be shot dead for speaking up. Today we talk about imposing Sharia and having Islamic law. Jinnah was a lawyer and knew constitution. He couldnt see that the Pakistan he as creating, would one day be so unlivable for people like him.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Mar 21, 2013 - 6:41AM

    Everyone debating Mr Jinnah here, please read the following . You would be better informed and then write what you think.
    http://iref.homestead.com/DirectAction.html

    Thank you Tribune for allowing all shades of opinion.

    Recommend

  • Raj - USA
    Mar 21, 2013 - 6:58AM

    Many articles have been written on the same subject, each arguing on either of the two sides:

    (1) Jinnah was a good person but Pakistan became bad because of Pakistanis.
    (2) Jinnah was a bad person and Pakistan was always bad because Pakistanis followed Jinnah.

    Does it make a difference which of the two sided you pick?

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 7:05AM

    @Anwar:

    I have got a news for you! Based on the latest anthropological finds and research the modern homo sapien did not leave the black contininent fbefore 70,000 to 50,000 year towards Asia as was previously assumed, but in the period 130,000 to 90,000 year before and from the Arabian penunsela. This is a confirmation also of the 63000 year old skull of the modern human which was found in Laos and originated from Arabia. Anyone who has doubts, could easily have his DNA. checked with a fee of less than $300 and compare it with the DNA of an Arab for confirmation or rejection of the latest findings.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Dr. Qazi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:06AM

    I tend to agree with Mr. Hamdani on this.

    However I beg you all readers to consider the most important aspect in any country.

    Establishment of law and order that treats every citizen with equality, fairness, and justice.

    If a country or state fails to provide
    justice, equality, and fairness, then
    we do not need to go back decades and
    centuries and see what the founding
    father(s) had in mind.

    What we need to look at it is now. The
    present time, and figure out why can’t
    we the Pakistanis provide justice and
    treat its citizens with fairness.

    Jinnah lived and died long time ago. If he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state, should we ask Taliban to come establish Jinnah’s vision? If he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state, should we invite Indians to come establish Jinnah’s vision? Off course the answer is NO in both cases.

    Obviously most of us disagree with Talbiani style justice, and off course we see that India too have failed to live up to the vision of Gandhi ji.

    Therefore we must focus on Pakistan now and Pakistan of the future, and ask ourselves as to how we the Pakistanis provide justice and treat every citizens with fairness regdless of gender, ethnicity, or religion.

    If Jinnah wanted a Pakistan where every citizen is treated with kindness, love, fairness, and justice, that’s great. We follow Jinnah’s wishes.

    If on the other hand, some of us think that Jinnah wanted a Pakistan where every citizen is NOT treated with kindness, love, fairness, and justice, then we cannot follow Jinnah’s wishes.

    Thus our emphasis of our discussions should be on the
    Pakistan of TODAY. There is no need to
    go back to history to praise or
    condemn a man, when our own acts are
    so barbaric and heinous towards our
    fellow countrymen.

    Thank you

    Recommend

  • Cosmo
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:07AM

    @usman:
    That resulted in butchering of more than 1 million lives!!! As they say it people died because of Pakistan and not for Pakistan!

    Recommend

  • MilesToGo
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:11AM

    Let us not doubt our Arab origins. We are Arabs and we don’t have to prove it to anybody.

    Recommend

  • Harsh Srivastava
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:25AM

    Why is it that muslims demanded reservations? If muslims felt left behind..whose fault was it? In a secular democratic country..you demand reservations..separate electorate but in a muslim majority country you try to impose Sharia, how fair!

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:40AM

    Isn’t this debate pointless? If Pakistan is not Jinnah’s, who’s is it?

    If Jinnah had not been there, Pakistan would not have come into existence. The idea of Pakistan was first floated to back up special status for Muslims (not all minorities) in a united India. When the demand was conceded it was a surprise for Jinnah because he had no idea of what he is going to do with it. Even if it had been known that Jinnah was terminally sick, freedom would have been delayed but there would have been no Pakistan.

    Now that Pakistan exists, we have to make something of it. Let us get on with the job at hand.

    This rebuttal is nothing more than a lawyer supporting another lawyer. For detailed views of historian Ayesha Jalal go to the audio file on this link:

    http://www.radioopensource.org/ayesha-jalal-pakistans-revenge-of-the-40s-then-the-80s/

    Recommend

  • Mar 21, 2013 - 8:46AM

    Reading this article it makes me realise how truly lucky Indians were to have people like Gandhi and Nehru and Ambedkar at the helm.

    They don’t confuse you. They are secular, without dispute and great people who have done great deeds. They have even gone to jail, sacrificed their lives for their nation. They fought against Feudalism, British and Social injustice. Jinnah chose to fight the Hindus and the Congress.

    Even after 66 years people debate Jinnah: Secular or not. Two Nation Theory, which basically splits people in the name of Religion is supposedly a Secular theory, they claim. They twist and turn his call for Sharia compliant Constitution to claim Sharia does not mean minorities will not have their rights.

    http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-legacy-of-gandhi-nehru-vs-legacy-of-jinnah/

    Recommend

  • GhostRider
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:47AM

    @ Indian Wisdom: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and leave Jinnah and Pakistan alone. We thank everyday that Jinnah gave us Pakistan else we would ve been living under Modi or Thackrey.

    Recommend

  • Roni
    Mar 21, 2013 - 9:42AM

    You wrote “Jinnah’s claim that the Muslim League was the sole authoritative representative of Muslims”
    was far from the truth. Muslim League never had more than one elected seat in the whole of Punjab. They had won only two seats in Punjab and one of them left ML the night he was elected. In the NWFP out of 50 seats 30 were won by not ML but Dr. Khan. However only after the assembly was reduced to 39 by coercion, migration and undemocratic means (yet lota culture started then and there) it was made possible for ML to take over power. ML has been doing it successfully since then.

    Recommend

  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Mar 21, 2013 - 10:24AM

    @Author,
    “One of Mr Bangash’s assertions was that since Jinnah claimed that the Muslim League was the sole representative of the Muslims in the 1940s, he was declaring Muslims outside of it non-Muslim. This is untrue. On the contrary, it was Jinnah who was called ‘Kafir-e-Azam’ or the great infidel by Muslims outside the Muslim League.”

    Jinnah never had any problem with “Pakistan ka matlab kya…….” definition of Pakistan. Ideologically, he differed with J-e-I only in terms of definition of a muslim. And J-e-I’s reaction was due to the fact he wanted to change the status-quo, a status-quo that gave more political power to J-e-I. Their disagreement was purely political.
    Jinnah imposed his political will on all muslims, even those who disagreed with two-nation theory. One should remember that the first victims of the grossly undemocratic “Direct Action Day” were muslims who weren’t in line with Jinnah’s divisive ideology.
    Also, he claimed every single pocket of muslim population in the sub-continent to be part of Pakistan. Evidently, he did fancy that he represents all muslims without exception.
    And that, is my rebuttal of the very first paragraph of your write-up.
    @mods, it’s factual, logical and took some time and effort to put together :-)

    Recommend

  • Yuri Kondratyuk
    Mar 21, 2013 - 10:33AM

    @VRM:

    Lies,twist,turn. Bungash is right.

    A witty saying proves nothing
    -Voltaire

    Recommend

  • MSS
    Mar 21, 2013 - 10:59AM

    @usman,
    “Great rebutal……. “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.”
    ― Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah Of Pakistan ”
    That is like an oxymoron.
    One act of causing a division of a country automatically leads to the other two. History is full of examples like that. Stanley Wolpert is filling space with words.

    Recommend

  • F
    Mar 21, 2013 - 11:04AM

    Can we delete the maddness of Hitler during the war years and say overall he was for peace?
    Can we expunge Gen Yahya Khan’s defeat of 1971 along with atrocities visited uoon fellow citizens and claim that he was a great general? Can we ignore the Cathloic Church supporting illicit behavior of its clergy and say but for the abuse heaped on children, they are a great institution with responsible leaders?

    A leader is judged less by what he says and conclusively by what he does. The Qaid embraced bigotry and violence for over a decade and achieved his Pakistan. The price inflicted and extracted in human life alone is catastrophic. It was a tragedy imposed on all communities. It is by this record he will be judged. Thus can neither be refuted nor rebutted.

    Recommend

  • Watan-e-Hindustan(Indian)
    Mar 21, 2013 - 11:13AM

    Debating about Jinnah being Liberal,Moderate or Conservative can go on for centuries only Jinnah knows what he was.Jinnah was a politician and good politician changes colors like chameleon.

    Recommend

  • Cirignano
    Mar 21, 2013 - 11:31AM

    Bruteforce:

    Gandhi was secular? Who brought religion into politics? Who supported the Caliphate Movement? As for social justice, Jinnah as a legislator did a lot more for social justice than Gandhi and Nehru.

    Ambedkar wrote Pakistan or Partition of India – a classic. Ambedkar stood with Jinnah against the Congress.

    Recommend

  • Indian Wisdom
    Mar 21, 2013 - 11:43AM

    @GhostRider:
    @ “Indian Wisdom: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and leave Jinnah and Pakistan alone. We thank everyday that Jinnah gave us Pakistan “

    We have high regards for Mr. Jinnah as a person (though “the two nation theory” and his role in partition based on religion can be debated…)
    Definitely, we are thankful that Jinnah gave us Pakistan, and overwhelming majority of Indians are happy and thank him everyday that we have got separated !!!

    Recommend

  • Qasim Ahmad Ilyas
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:00PM

    The truth underlies many aspects which, in my view, are totally worth of understanding. Mr. Bungash’s Jinnah is an instance of other side. Mr. author, Muslim league, by and large, was only a pure political party in this sense. Other parties were of limited scope, and conceptual hierarchy of Jinnah’s Pakistan is a complex, multitude and subject to many principles that cannot be explained by few words.

    Recommend

  • abhi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 12:43PM

    @Cirignano
    “Ambedkar stood with Jinnah against the Congress.”
    And that why he moved to pakistan?

    Recommend

  • PakiKaka
    Mar 21, 2013 - 1:16PM

    Hehe. It’s fun seeing Indian tails on fire. Mr. Bangash whines a lot. For an historian, his command over analytical thought about historical events is pretty immature. No wonder Indians love him. He gives them some consolation over Congress’s follies and lack of aptitude.

    Recommend

  • Triste Ven
    Mar 21, 2013 - 2:23PM

    According to Jaswant Singh, Jinnah was honest and straight forward; Congress was hypocrite.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 3:15PM

    @GhostRider:
    i am sure the minorities,shia, ahmedis, balochis in Pakistan & countless families who were displaced & butchered during partition have a different opinion.
    Why it is that, in a nation created to safeguard the interest of Muslims, more Muslims are being butchered everyday by fellow Muslims than anywhere else?Recommend

  • mind control
    Mar 21, 2013 - 3:21PM

    This whole debate is skewed as it assumes,

    (i) That thousands of Muslim League leaders and members and millions of Pakistan supporters counted for zilch, and only Mr Jinnah mattered.

    (ii) That what Mr Jinnah said and did not say is more important that what Mr Jinnah did or did not do.

    So, let us revisit the issue of Creation and Composition of Pakistan, this time around armed with what the Muslim League, of which Mr Jinnah was the undisputed Qaid-e-Azam, was saying and doing and what Mr Jinnah ‘Doing’ but not saying.

    A. The Muslim League’s rallying cry in the run up to creation of Pakistan was ‘ Pakistan ka Matlab Kya- La Ilaha Il Allah’. In fact there are eyewitness accounts of League volunteers going from village to village organising Muslims around this slogan. Rahi Masoom Raza’s writings may be referred to in this context. Did Mr Jinnah ever repudiate this in any of his speeches or rallies?

    B. Mr YLH has argued that Mr Bangash’s claim that Mr Jinnah considered Muslims outside the League as non-Muslims or at least not good Muslims is untrue. And he asked Leaguers not to taunt others with ‘Muslim Hai Toh League Mein Aa’. If that be so, would Mr YLH tell us as to how did Mr Jinnah treat Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Do the expressions ‘Muslim Lord Haw Haw’ and ‘Congress Showboy’ ring any bells?

    C. And for argument’s sake let us concede that Mr Jinnah was actually the living personification of his 11th August speech and then inquire , How did he practice this speech. Karachi, the capital, of nascent Pakistan, had more Hindus than Muslims at the time of Partition. A large number of Muslim migrants from across the border poured in to Karachi. And then started a dance of death, Hindu massacres, on the streets and mohallas of Karachi. What did the Governor General, sitting in Karachi, do to put his 11th August speech in practice? If Mr Haider Nizamani’s account is to be believed, the Governor General Mr Jinnah did nothing.
    Liaquat said to Khuhro: “What sort of Muslim are you that you protect Hindus here when Muslims are being killed in India. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself!” ”… Liaquat said this during a cabinet meeting while Jinnah quietly listened.

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/388663/who-orchestrated-the-exodus-of-sindhi-hindus-after-partition/Recommend

  • faisal Dr
    Mar 21, 2013 - 3:52PM

    Is today Congress Party is the sole representative of all Indians? No !!!

    Recommend

  • Azeem
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:26PM

    @mahakaalchakra: never to put a foot on pakistan? has visited atleast twice including for her fathers funeral.

    Recommend

  • John the Baptist
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:43PM

    @F:

    A leader is judged less by what he says and conclusively by what he does. The Qaid embraced bigotry and violence for over a decade and achieved his Pakistan. The price inflicted and extracted in human life alone is catastrophic. It was a tragedy imposed on all communities. It is by this record he will be judged. Thus can neither be refuted nor rebutted.

    Wow, please elighten us more–let us see what you think of Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War? I am sure the picture of the Founding Fathers on the crumpled dollar bill in your pocket will make you see them in a different light than you shine on Jinnah.

    Nations who stop respecting their founders are bound to perish. Thank god, we still have some clear headed folks amongst us whose brains have not been twisted by relentless propaganda by the indians in this forum or by the swaying Bollywood hips on their TV screens!

    Recommend

  • Indian MKA
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:45PM

    The fact remains Jinnah ‘s wisdom and leadership was way above average congress leaders. With all the power, resources and conspiracies congress couldnt stop Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan. A country which majority of indians are obsessed with.

    Recommend

  • Hindu chiiiipray
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:48PM

    Jinnah was a great leader and thanks to him we have a separate state. A country regardless of its internal issues is a land of love peace and harmony. Surely ignorant indian trollers will never understand this.

    Recommend

  • Indianpunaaanieee
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:50PM

    I am amazed to see indian’s obsession with everything pakistanies do or say. ET seems to be very popular back in INdia. Maybe more thn their own newspapers…

    Recommend

  • Pakiboy
    Mar 21, 2013 - 4:52PM

    Maybe indians if put more focus on their own country internal issues can fix bigger issues like poverty, corruption, popularion and rape

    Recommend

  • thor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 5:02PM

    If Martin Luther King would have followed Jinnah instead of Gandhi, he would have demanded a separate home land for blacks rather than fighting for equal rights.

    Recommend

  • Cirignano
    Mar 21, 2013 - 5:10PM

    Responding to the “Congress Party representing Indians today”: the ruling coalition of India represents India not the BJP and opposition parties. This is what election mandate means.

    The League had cemented its claim to represent Muslims and Gandhi had signed a statement to this effect that Muslim League alone represented the Muslims as a body according to the democratic mandate given to it in 1946 elections. 1946 was a complete white wash for for the opponents of the League at the center and with the exception of NWFP in the provinces as well.

    Recommend

  • Umer
    Mar 21, 2013 - 5:25PM

    @Ali Tanoli:

    Jinnah was greater than Gandhi is true indeed.

    Was Jinnah greater than Maududi too?

    Recommend

  • Santoshk
    Mar 21, 2013 - 6:41PM

    People here are saying that Gandhi introduced religion into politics and Jinnah partitioned the sub continent on the basis of religion….. but It is also true that Jinnah was called Kafir-e-azam by muslim fundamentalists…. while Gandhi was assassinated by hindu fundamentalists… These were all great men who just couldn’t agree among themselves… Otherwise they were so similar…… I don’t know if Jinnah was secular or not.. But he was definitely secular than the leaders we have today….

    Recommend

  • Jinnah was a politician
    Mar 21, 2013 - 7:14PM

    Lets be real people and keep emotion out of it. When muslims would have been a minority in India pre-partition, Jinnah completely forgot about being secular and democratic. (asking for separate ballots, reservations etc.). Then further asked for a separate country for muslims (definately secular i guess… that appears more islamic to me). Then when Pakistan was created he suddenly become secular and democratic.

    What a farce. Lets not fool ourselves. Yes Jinnahs great achievment was creating Pakistan. But at the end of the day he was neither secular, neither islamic, neither democratic. He was whatever he needed to be for convenience to further his own agenda like any other politician.

    Comparing Jinnah to the greatness of Gandhi (who was also flawed in his own way) is not only blasphemous, its beyond that. Nehru and Jinnah were very good leaders but would easily change their stance and give up on their principles to further their own cause and for power. Read some history .. thats the reallity.

    The result is for all of us to see. Its not the end yet and thats what Pakistanis need to think about. Look ahead. All leaders are human and make mistakes

    Recommend

  • Dr. Qazi
    Mar 21, 2013 - 7:35PM

    @Indian MKA:

    The fact remains Jinnah ‘s wisdom and
    leadership was way above average
    congress leaders. With all the power,
    resources and conspiracies congress
    couldnt stop Jinnah and the creation
    of Pakistan. A country which majority
    of indians are obsessed with.

    What if Congress was not that powerless?
    What if Congress too believed in a TWO state solution?
    What if Congress worked with the other powerful player the British to establish a TWO state solution?
    What if Jinnah and ML just got all the blame, just because it was the weakest party compared to Congress and British,

    — Mind you Jinnah just used politics, while military and police and government rested with British and Congress. Patel was the home minister leading up to the final days in 1947.

    These are the questions no one wants to consider in this debate.

    Thank you

    Recommend

  • Ammar
    Mar 21, 2013 - 7:44PM

    Excellent article!
    Jinnah wanted to make Pakistan a home for minority(Muslims) and minority(low cast Hindu and Christians).
    He was absolutely clear in his thinking in making Pakistan a secular country. This can be seen from his speeches and his action.
    He ordered the first national anthem written by a Hindu poet while there were many better Muslim poet at that time is a solid proof that he wanted to sew the seed of secularism.
    He was a much much better Muslims than now millions of Muslims in Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Mar 21, 2013 - 7:50PM

    @Rex Minor:
    Here again comes Rex Minor with the theory that Man originated from a waterless desert called Arabia….Didn’t I ask for links verifying ur theory the last time u put forward??? Where is it???

    Please let us know if u’re deluded or you’re trolling us???And of course,spare me the lecture on Goethe,Emmanuel Kant to explain your Afghan weed induced theories

    Recommend

  • Burjor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:01PM

    Express Tribune has given more insight into Jinnah’s thinking. There is a lot to learn from history. India has settled into nationhood, Pakistan has not. Even after break-up of East Pakistan, Pakistan is an unstable country. Pakistan’s are more concerned that there forefathers were not Hindus, they wish to believe and wish others to believe that there forefathers were Arabs. Pakistani’s are caught up in their own myopic world. The inability to accept reality, the truth, is one reason for their unnecessary suffering. Then there is the interpretation of religion, with so many Ulema’s so many Fiqh’s so many interpretations, so many under arms, this country has become a danger to itself, to its own people, to the neighboring, countries, as recent events have shown. How many thousands of innocent precious lives have been lost? What for? Can anyone answer.???.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:04PM

    @Ali Tanoli:

    *Jinnah was greater than Gandhi is true indeed.*

    Yes,we just have to rule out few blatant facts

    1.Gandhi’s legacy inspired Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela to fight oppression and they became the biggest civil rights leader of 20th century.
    2.More than 100 countries released stamps on Gandhi,just a handful of countries(mostly muslim) has Jinnah stamps
    3.Gandhi is referenced in their speech by many leaders,Jinnah is referenced by a few that too only when they’re on a visit to Pakistan
    4.The movie “Gandhi” won several Oscars surpassing “ET”,the unnoticed “Jinnah” starred Christopher Lee,who coincidentally is famous for acting as a Dracula
    5.Gandhi is known almost to every American school student,Jinnah only by the South Asian origin students..
    6.The Nobel committee cancelled the Peace Prize in 1948 as they failed to give Gandhi the award when he was alive…

    Just few more I can add…and yeah,I can also highlight few weak points about Gandhi because in my country,I’ve the rights to dissent….Jinnah is becoming like a Chuck Norris in Pakistan,maybe people will believe if someone says his tears cure cancer

    Recommend

  • gp65.
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:23PM

    Moderators : Everything here is factual and there is nothing inconsistent with your guidelines. It took me a lot of effort to write this. Pls. allow.
    @John the Baptist: Why just Pakistanis, most Indians (at least today if not in 1947) are glad that Pakistan was created. So we can al join in thanking Jinnah for creating Pakistan. The issue being debated is not whether creation of Pakistan was good or not – I think we can reach as close to consensus on this issue as possile that it was good – the debate rather focusses on what was Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan.

    @Falcon : You are correct of course that people cannot and should not blame Jinnah for the state that Pakistan finds itself. Also regardless of what Jinnah may have conceived in 1947, if Pakistanis want something different, they can and should make it happen. Indians have bought into the secular and democratic princples that Nehru envisioned but have discarded the socialistic philosophy he followed, trusting the market more.

    @Author: When we talk about Jinnah’s Pakistan, we have to evaluate Jinah’s leadership of the Pakistan movement. The actions and opinions of Jinah pre-1930 are not relevant to that discussion.

    Jinnah’s claim that Muslim league was the sole representative of Muslims came in 1938 when Congress had won overwhelmingly in most Muslim majority areas, sothe claim can hardly be considered democratic.
    The journey from hardly any votes in 1937 to sweeping mandates in Muslim majority areas wa won on the back of 2 nation theory and slogans such as Naara-e-takbir and Pakistan ka matlab kia – none of which can be considered secular. Jinah as the unquestioned leader of the Muslim League could hardly have een unaware of this.
    Even the claim that he represented al Muslims instead of all Indians is hardly secular to begin with.
    Dismissing Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s government when it had won in 1946 cannot be considered democratic. If as you say Khan had lost majority then there should have been a vote of no confidence and Khan would have no choice about resigning if he lost the vote. But this is not what was done. (Mrs. Gandhi in India had dictatorial tendencies too – so this is not a Hindu/Muslim or Indians/Pakistanis type of debate.
    @Mind COntrol has already talked about what happened in Karachi and Jinnah’s action or rather inaction which belies his commitment to the August 1947 speech. Direct Action Day is also something Jinnah called for and showed that he sought to win through violence, that which he could not win through negotiation.
    Do evaluate the speech of 1940 Lahore. It focusses on what is different between Hindus and Muslims and concludes from there that due to these differences they are 2 nations and cannot live with each other. Is this formulation secular? Does it also not show intolerance for ‘other’?
    Is the slogan Muslim ho to League me aao not communal? Does it not imply that if you do not join Muslim League, you are not a true Muslim?
    What was the basis for deciding that Urdu would be the national language when less than 10% of Pakistanis spoke that language? No need toguess – Jinah gave the rationale himself : it wasa Muslim language.
    Jinnah’s demand that Muslims should have equal electoral representation even though they were not equal in population is against the one person one vote principle which a democracy should go by. If he thought that was necessary to give confidence o minrities, he certainly made no effort to implement such safeguards in Pakistan.

    Actions speak louder than words. Jinnah’s actions do not show commitment to democracy, secularism, tolerance for diversity from a public policy perspective. This is not to say that he was personally bigoted. Not at all. But then personally he ate pork and drank alcohol and yet led a movement for creation of a country for Muslims, so this is not his private life but public persona that the whole debate is focussed on.

    Nor is this an evaluation of Congress/COngress leaders who certainly had their own share of mistakes..

    Recommend

  • gp65.
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:31PM

    @Dr. Qazi: I do not think we Indians BLAME Jinnhah for partition. We actually thank him. I am sure Pakistanis too thank him. Perhaps people in present day Bangladesh blame him? I do not know. Also once Jinnahs terms for keeping India united became clear (disproportionate representation for Muslims not in line with population strength, electorate divided along communal lines – Congress for Hindus and Muslim league for Muslims), then Sardar Patel and Nehru too felt that two state solution would be best. This is clear from their response to Cabinet Mission Plan. SO the questions that you pose have been asked and answered I think.

    Recommend

  • Burjor
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:36PM

    What should Pakistan do, what should Pakistani’s think and do?
    1. Pakistani’s have to think long term viz a viz. their most important neighbor to their East.
    2. Pakistani’s need to shake off its prejudice behavior viz a viz India viz a viz. Hindus. Pakistani’s need to know that there is no shame in being a minority. In the sub-continent Hindu’s are very much dominant as far as numbers are concerned. If other religious groups can accept Hindu’s as the most dominant religion in India and Islam as the most dominant religion in Pakistan, Pakistan should simply accept the fact that in the sub-continent India and Hindus are simply dominant, all figures prove this point. Live in the real world, stop fooling ourselves, killing ourselves.
    3. Give good education top priority. Eradicate unrelenting brainwashing.
    4. Make friends with India, make friends with Hindus, for good, for today, tomorrow, for all times. Stop thinking of them as enemies, think of them as good neighbors. ( which they are).
    5. Stop thinking in terms of superiority and inferiority as far religion is concerned.
    6. Grow-up. We are now 65 plus, learn to think, behave, and act accordingly. Others have gone miles ahead, look at Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, etc etc. the list is long, why cannot we do the same.?

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:36PM

    @Dr. Qazi:

    If Jinnah wanted a Pakistan where every citizen is treated with kindness, love, fairness, and justice, that’s great. We follow Jinnah’s wishes.
    If on the other hand, some of us think that Jinnah wanted a Pakistan where every citizen is NOT treated with kindness, love, fairness, and justice, then we cannot follow Jinnah’s wishes.

    Sir, absolutely spot on. Hats off.

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Mar 21, 2013 - 8:40PM

    @Ali Tanoli:

    Jinnah was greater than Gandhi is true indeed.

    I have to agree.

    He has already got Three Nations out of Two Nation Theory.

    And may get Two more in the near future.

    Very productive indeed.

    Recommend

  • Niaz Wali
    Mar 21, 2013 - 9:51PM

    Wow. So many Indians talking about Jinnah. Indians have remembered Jinnah … KEEP IT UP

    Recommend

  • John the Baptist
    Mar 21, 2013 - 9:52PM

    @gp65.:

    Despite your shrieks and wails to the opposite, the fact remains: india is a majority ruled, hindu state where minorities, especially Muslims, are treated poorly. Gandhi was a dhoti drama secular who behind this convenient garb, practiced and promoted hindu rituals and culture, some of them quite repulsive to name here but you know what I mean. If not, ask his niece!

    The fact that our country has become a basket case does not mean that 1. it is Jinnah’s fault and 2. india a shining example to follow. Both these countries are full of pathetic “nationalists” who will spend hours twisting facts and spewing hatred just to score a fake point. In Pakistan, we are moving ahead with cleaning up our political system through elected parties and hopefully, if change gets traction, we will wean ourselves off of the US aid that we have been suckling on for five decades. If we succeed, and I have all the faith we will, india will look like a dust cloud in the rear view mirror!

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Mar 21, 2013 - 10:09PM

    @John the Baptist:

    A .In Pakistan, we are moving ahead with cleaning

    Yes, Ethnic and Sectarian cleaning seems to be catching on. Quetta, Abbas Town Karachi, Joseph Colony Lahore, Hazras, Shias Christians all sound familiar?

    B. if change gets traction, we will wean ourselves off of the US aid that we have been suckling on for five decades.

    And start suckling on the Chinese instead.

    C.If we succeed, and I have all the faith we will, india will look like a dust cloud in the rear view mirror!

    Don’t forget to spell your ‘ifs’ as IF. For they are Big IFs indeed.

    PS- But how does this all connect with Jinnah and his vision? Just asking.

    Recommend

  • Mohinder sandhu
    Mar 21, 2013 - 10:09PM

    @Ali Tanoli: Ha ALI who knows jinnah outside pakistan,Talk to a iranian if he knows who jinnah was.

    Recommend

  • Bin Ismail
    Mar 21, 2013 - 10:41PM

    Brilliant article. Well done Yasser. God bless you.
    Regards
    Bin Ismail

    Recommend

  • sabi
    Mar 22, 2013 - 2:07AM

    @gp65.:
    slogans such as Naara-e-takbir and Pakistan ka matlab kia –
    I always enjoy your posts on other topics as informative and pragmatic but on Partition you seem to ignore facts (hope unknowingly)
    Can you give proof that this slogan was raised during Pakistan compaigne.
    To keep the facts straight pls. note that this slogan was first raised by JI during Yehya regime.Ironey is that same jamaat opposed the creation of Pakistan.Furthermore JI not only penetrated in Pakistani politics but also hijacked Jinnah secular vision for a new state giving it a new direction by introducing notion of 2 nation theory during Yehya Khan regime who wanted to lengthen his regime under the cover of Religion and nationalism with crush India wall chalking throuhout Pakistan.Clearly Jinnah has not forwarded any Idea such as 2 nation theory.
    Pakistan of mullah is burning and it should be as it doesn’t stand on any principle but fascisim.This burning of mullah’s pakistan is infact paving way for Jinnah’s Pakistan and we are counting days when it finaly happens.

    Recommend

  • WHOAREYOU
    Mar 22, 2013 - 3:09AM

    Whatever inDIAns says the history and reality is Jinnah gave us PAKISTAN. A country Indian fear and obsessed with.

    Recommend

  • Usman
    Mar 22, 2013 - 4:25AM

    The comments by Indians on this article are a good reminder to any deluded Pakistani questioning the partition on why it was necessary.

    Recommend

  • Sandip
    Mar 22, 2013 - 4:59AM

    @usman: The same can be said of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman. If that is the criteria to be applied for greatness, I am afraid there will be many more like Jinnah in the future as well.

    Recommend

  • Was a Pakistani
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:23AM

    Jinnah was a lawyer not a leader so he won a court case for Pakistan but screwed up everything else. His rhetoric was wrong and lacked depth. When you get a homeland for Muslims in the name of that you subjugate others.

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Mar 22, 2013 - 9:36AM

    @sabi:

    Can you give proof that this slogan was raised during Pakistan compaigne.
    To keep the facts straight pls. note that this slogan was first raised by JI during Yehya regime.

    Yes, I can provide you with proof. And not only proof, but proof admitted by Mr YLH himself. Read on

    Saad Khairi in his book “Jinnah Reinterpreted” recounts that a local leader of the Muslim League at the final meeting of the All India Muslim League said “Quaid-e-Azam, we have been promising our followers Pakistan Ka Matlab Kiya La illah ilallah” to which Jinnah angrily responded “Sit down. Neither I nor the working committee of the Muslim League have passed any resolution to the effect Pakistan ka matlab kiya. You might have done so to catch a few votes.”

    http://pakteahouse.net/2012/04/21/imran-allama-and-pakistan-ka-matlab-kiya/

    This simultaneously proves two things, (i) This slogan was being used by Muslim League and (ii) The League leadership did not prohibit its use or pass any resolution against catching ‘a few votes’ using this slogan.

    Recommend

  • Burjor
    Mar 22, 2013 - 10:15AM

    @Usman. Dear Usman, most Muslims stayed back in India. In retrospect, a most sensible decision. Consider where Pakistan is and where India is today. No country is perfect, but if one is given a free choice, to decide which country has a better future, considering all conditions, all aspects, what would be your honest answer? There is tremendous poverty in both countries, tremendous inequalities, tremendous problems. We all to have to realize that. But considering that Pakistan has and had more chances of rapid improvement, because of smaller numbers, we have simply failed. Just consider the latest fiasco, just two major political parties cannot even decide on a temporary Prime Minister, until the very last day. Consider a Newspaper report that the Christian community whose houses have been burnt down by a mad crowd were given cheques that bounced back. Was Pakistan really created for normal human beings??.

    Recommend

  • Thank you for creating Pakistan
    Mar 22, 2013 - 1:00PM

    @WHOAREYOU:
    We thank our stars that Pakistan was created and we are obviously quivering with fear watching Pakistan crumble. Its actually sad to see so much false bravado in Pakistan. Ask any indian about problems in India they will not deny them and we all know India has a ton of problems. Pakistanis have been fed with so much doctored info over the years, there is an in built automatic defense mechanism in many Pakistanis to counter any argument with emotion and to deny basic facts by miscontruing reallity for their own convenience.

    Jinnah did a great thing for India and Pakistan in creating Pakistan (barring the tragic loss of life during partition) but he had no real plan for developing Pakistan thereafter. Also Jinnah totally forgot about the comman man and only further cemented the feudal set up in Pakistan. Lets not get lost in some romantic perception of Jinnah, he did what he had to, to get Pakistan and we thank him for it in retrospection. Pakistanis 65 years later are still discussing matters regarding the reasons for its creation and Jinnahs vision obviously shows that things havent quite gone to plan. We seem to be stuck in a time warp.

    Pakistan will only have a bright future if people introspect at whats wrong and then LOOK AHEAD AND MAKE AMENDS. India is currently slightly better off but also needs alot of introspection. Both counties needs visionaries and India has probably been slightly luckier on that front than Pakistan. Both countries have also had their fair share of pathetic leaders as well. (India has probably been luckier on that front aswell)

    Recommend

  • WaqasDp
    Mar 22, 2013 - 2:31PM

    @Sandip: Pakistan Bangladesh relations are far better than India Bangladesh relations. Don’t forget the concrete wall India has constructed on India-Bangladesh border.

    Recommend

  • Dream take
    Mar 22, 2013 - 2:50PM

    After 40 years, separation of Bangladesh is not as such a painful chapter for Pakistanis. Bangladeshis are brothers, simply. In comparison, for Indians the 1947 Partition is very painful till date. That’s the difference.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Mar 22, 2013 - 4:11PM

    @WaqasDp:
    Pakistan Bangladesh relations are far better than India Bangladesh
    Ohh..really

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/463357/bangladesh-seeks-pakistan-apology-for-1971-war-crimes/

    Recommend

  • thor
    Mar 22, 2013 - 4:39PM

    @Dream take:
    After 40 years, separation of Bangladesh is not as such a painful chapter for Pakistanis.
    But for Bangladeshis, 1971 still resonates.(shahbagh suare)

    In comparison, for Indians the 1947 Partition is very painful till date.
    Millions got butchered & displaced during partition. yes., we remember it as a sad event.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 22, 2013 - 4:48PM

    It matters not what Mr Jinnah meant about his MUSLIM league campaign for the creation of a muslim state, what matters is how it was perceived by those who participated in the refrendum and those who ruled the country during his life and those after him. There is certainly no majority for making Pakistan on the footsteps of the Iranian caliphate. The majority in the muslim world want an Islamic State, a democracy reflecting muslim moral values and ethics, and all its citizens having equal rights andd responsibilities for the State. The blesphamic and the excommunication is a separate development of Pakistan Gang ho and this circus must be set aside.. These acts are unislamic!!

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Mar 22, 2013 - 5:57PM

    @Thor,
    My grand pa was working in british railways in east punjab when riots broke out and first train got burn and killed at amritser station and those peoples were mostlly from NWFP present KPK means hazara pakhtoon. four peples from my village died in that train and that was a starting point of hindu sikh in our area start migrating to present india.

    Recommend

  • Fakhir
    Mar 22, 2013 - 6:01PM

    After 65 years, Jinnah is still on the nerves of the Indians. Jinnah wanted Muslim Rights. Congress partitioned India. Read Jaswant and Azad’s books.

    Recommend

  • Sahir Pir
    Mar 22, 2013 - 6:40PM

    wow. good, so many indians on a pakistani website. but why indians are so upset with pakistan and jinnah. Bangladesh also opted not to unite with India. why indians hate pakistan only?

    Recommend

  • Gp65
    Mar 22, 2013 - 6:55PM

    @Fakhir:
    True Jinnah was against one man one vote in United India and demanded equal voting representation for Muslims though the numbers were much smaller. This outright undemocratic demand from Jinnah was unacceptable to congress who preferred partition. Since he felt that equal voting (for demographically unequal populations) was necessary for ensuring Muslim rights in United India, did he give such equal voting to minorities in Pakistan? No. In Pakistan one person one vote was sufficient to guarantee minority rights. Why then did he deem it insufficient to ensure Muslim rights in India?
    This fundamentally shows that he felt Muslims were entitled to more than Muslims which is both undemocratic and not secular.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:02PM

    @1984:
    If you do not know that the cradle of human civilition emanated rom the middle east, then this is sad. If you do not know about the 63,000 year old skull of the modern human which was found in Laos, or about the latest anthropologlcal findings which are based on archaeological discoveriesa, then you are not a man of science. But if you have not the energy to look up yourelf for this information or undergo a DNA check, then you are an anamoly in the 21st century Knowledge society, where every one has the possibility to learn from one another with assistence from uncle Google!

    If you are an Indian then I guess you come from the times of Emperior ShahJehan, who was the first the first to introduce social reforms for the people, providing food and care for those who were unemployed poor.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Bill Baloch
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:02PM

    @Shahab Riazi:

    How you do know that Jinnah loved his wife? Were you his personal assistant then? Get a life

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:07PM

    ET – This is my 3rd attempt to respond to someone who had challenged what I had said. My rebutal is factual. IT is disappointing that you will not allow.

    @sabi: Thank you and I enjoy mosts of your posts to – even the few where I do not agree entirely.
    You asked me 2 questions

    1) Is there evidence that Pakistan ka matlab kya slogan was used during Pakistan movement?

    I am quoting fro this wiki url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asghar_Sodai
    “Professor Asghr Sodai (26 September 1926 – 17 May 2008) was a famous educationist and Urdu poet born at Sialkot. Pakistan ka matlab kiya?, la ilaha Ilallah was coined by him in 1944, in his immortal Tarana-e-Pakistan, which spread like wildfire amongst the Pakistan Movement rallies. He was a great worker of Pakistan Movement. Muhammad Ali Jinnah once said that Asghar Sodai has 25% contribution in Pakistan Movement. “

    2) IS there any evidence that Jinnah supported the 2 Nations theory?

    I am quoting from his speech on March 22 1940 at Lahore. DO review the highlighted parts and tell me isn’t that exactly what the TNT is?

    “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state”.

    Recommend

  • Ranjit
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:15PM

    The irony is that if Indian had remained undivided, by now muslims would have political power over the entire subcontinent……..perhaps in coalition with some backward caste hindus……….this is because of the faster rate of muslim population growth as compared to hindus……

    So in reality, Jinnah saved hindus from falling back to permanent muslim rule via democracy………that would have meant a complete wipeout of hinduism from South Asia in the long run……..hindus should be praising Jinnah instead of crying over Pakistan……..

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:41PM

    @NJ:
    Then why did Mr Jinnah not reflect his vision, if it was different to what the Ottomans had or that practiced in Spain and Hungary during muslim rule, or what was in the colonial muddle through system? Why did he not copy one of the western constutions, which India took years to choose from the latest version of the French constitution which reflects the french history of religion, monarchy, and enlightenments during the period of renaissance and after industrialisation.
    If you are a fan of the term ‘secularism’ you should also be aware that secularism in Europe was introduced in the third reic by Hitler and Mussolin after signing the concord with the Vatican, separating the power of church from the authority of the Govt. The Govt equaly has no authority over the Church and the religion as well as its properties including places for worshp, hospitals, schools and Madrassas.This concord is still valid.

    Rex Minor.

    Recommend

  • Sandip
    Mar 22, 2013 - 8:58PM

    @WaqasDp: It’s good if Pakistan-Bangladesh relations are good and it’s would be good if India-Bangladesh relations are also good. However we must understand that India-Bangladesh relations, or for that matter, India-Pakistan relations will have their fair share of ups and downs. We will have converging interests and competing interests. The only thing is that we have to work through them so that the people of our countries benefit.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Mar 22, 2013 - 10:02PM

    @Rex Minor:
    The ‘cradle of Civilization’ is disputably in Mesopotamia,not Arabia…Please check the world map…Ancient man wasnt an idiot to start a civilization in the middle of a desert when there were so many river beds…

    Besides,origin of man is different from Origin of civilization..Humans underwent lot of social transformation to become a civilization… The oldest human originated in Africa and then migrated everywhere…

    Dont think u can confuse me with ur rhetoric..Once again,please provide the link which says the first man originated from Arabia?? How long does it take to provide links supporting your asserions..Afte ET allows us to publish links….

    Besides,I know u used ShahJahan as a tactic to divert my attention,but it wont work this time…Provide me the link or accept defeat….

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Mar 22, 2013 - 10:06PM

    @Ranjit,
    In undivided India, in every provincial elections before the religiously charged atmosphere of 1945-46, The Muslim League of Jinnah would lose the elections to Congress candidates in Muslim majority areas because majority of Muslims voted for Congress. It was because of such repeated failures to win power, even in Muslim majority areas, that Mr Jinnah’s Muslim League resorted to religion in 1945-46 elections. Rest is history.

    Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Mar 23, 2013 - 1:37AM

    @1984:
    Let me confuse you further, Try and follow the post of GP65, she is an Indian woman and in my observation a talented one too, she also follows others comments, but does not challenge unless she has evidence to the contrary and afterwards expresses her piece in apparently an amicable manner. We can all learn from her. Have a nice day, Sir.

    Rex Minor

    Recommend

  • Naresh
    Mar 24, 2013 - 2:36AM

    @Ali Tanoli:
    .
    You stated – My grand pa was working in british railways in east punjab when riots broke out and first train got burn and killed at amritser station and those peoples were mostlly from NWFP present KPK means hazara pakhtoon. four peples from my village died in that train and that was a starting point of hindu sikh in our area start migrating to present india.
    ..
    Please read the following by a Pakistani Commentator in the Pakistani English Media :
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story22-11-2004pg3_8
    Punjab holocaust

    Sir: Your editorial, “Bab-e-Pakistan — one-sided memory” (Daily Times, November 17), aptly critiques the Punjab Government’s decision to go ahead with a memorial at Walton for the Muslim victims of the 1947 Punjab holocaust.
    .
    To ignore the fact that Hindus and Sikhs were also victims of the massacre does not respect the extent of the human tragedy that took place. However, you mention that “the real massacres started first in East Punjab and the UP”. This is not true. Even Justice Muhammad Munir, who was member of the Punjab Boundary Commission, mentions on page 17 of his book, From Jinnah to Zia, that the Muslims were the first to resort to large-scale massacres.
    .
    The systematic killing of mainly Sikhs but also Hindus took place in the villages around Rawalpindi and Gujjar Khan between the night of March 6-7,1947 and continued until March 13. However, the real big-scale continuous massacres began after the announcement of the Radcliffe Award on 17 August, and more Muslims died in those attacks because they were completely unprepared whereas the Sikhs had been preparing for such an eventuality ever since more than 2,000 of them were killed in the March riots.
    ISHTIAQ AHMED
    Stockholm, Sweden

    .
    Ali Tanoli JI :The Truth is OTHERWISE
    .
    Cheers

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 24, 2013 - 1:08PM

    @Naresh:

    I fully support the views expressed by you and the information you have given. I was present there to witness the events of March 1947. All over Pathowar, mobs not different from the ones that descended on Christians in Lahore, were on a rampage in villages like Sukkho, Daultala, Gujjarkhan, Banda etc. They were burning the houses of Sikhs and Hindus, killing them, raping their women folk, and carrying away camel-loads of loot.

    Nothing has changed in Pakistan over as many as 66 years, and will probably never.

    Recommend

  • Naresh
    Mar 25, 2013 - 5:19PM

    @wonderer Ji :
    .
    Nothing has changed in Pakistan over as many as 66 years, and will probably never.
    .
    Indeed it goes on an on and now there is no one to speak for them!
    .
    Old saying : Thou reapeth that thou soweth!
    .
    P.S. Where is Pathowar?
    .
    Cheers

    Recommend

  • wonderer
    Mar 25, 2013 - 6:49PM

    @Naresh Ji:

    Thanks for your kind words.

    Pathowar is the area around Rawalpindi, west of River Jhelum.

    Recommend

  • G. Din
    Mar 29, 2013 - 4:42PM

    @Shahab Riazi:
    “@mahakaalchakra:
    Jinnah’s daughter did return to Pakistan so you are wrong in saying that she never returned or set foot in Pakistan. “

    This is true. Asked why it took her so long to visit Pakistan, she replied:”No one invited.” That was the one and the only visit she made to Pakistan – with her husband. There was not much love lost between Jinnah’s family and Pakistan.
    It would be wrong to say that Jinnah was bereft of all familial love. His sister, Fatima, was the most steadfast and loyal companion of his. Ironically, this proved to be her deathknell. When Jinnah’s will declared Fatima to be the sole inheritor of his temporal legacy, that was a virtual death warrant for her. Those who mounted repeated assassination attempts at Jinnah himself could hardly be expected to stand by if Fatima succeeded in inheriting the mantle of Pakistan’s power. She was asphyxiated to death in her own bed.

    Recommend

  • someone
    Apr 6, 2013 - 11:59PM

    @GhostRider:
    You would have been doing better under Modi or Thakrey than doing under your current or past leaderships.

    Recommend

  • Naresh
    Apr 7, 2013 - 3:30PM

    @wonderer Ji :
    .
    Many thanks your last.
    .
    If possible – also if the Moderators allow – please let me have your E-Mail Address.
    .
    Moderators are requested to permit “wonderer” Ji to post his E-mail Address
    .
    Many thanks in advance.
    .
    Cheers

    Recommend

More in Opinion