Due to space constraints, let me further explain only one argument I made last week. I never said that Jinnah was an Islamist. All I said was that Jinnah promised Islamic rule to the majority and a rather more secular rule to the minorities — hence, the confusion in Pakistan. Here it would be erroneous to consider that the choice is only between a theocracy and a secular state. While Jinnah was clearly against a theocratic state (rule by mullah’s), he did promise a rather undefined ‘Islamic state’. To clarify this further, presently, only Iran is clearly a theocratic state (where the clergy rules), while the Gulf States are religious states. Now, anyone claiming that just because the clergy do not rule in the Gulf States, they are, therefore, secular states would indeed be ridiculous.
With that clarified, let me also clearly state that Jinnah largely alluded to a secular kind of state, while speaking to mainly non-Muslim audiences. People often quote Jinnah’s speeches to Parsis, Hindus, the people of the United States, or Australia etc to prove their point of a secular Jinnah, but that is exactly my point! He said these ‘liberal’ things to non-Muslim audiences! No wonder then that all the stalwarts of the Muslims League, Liaquat Ali Khan included, argued that Jinnah wanted a religious (not theocratic) state. Introducing the Objectives Resolution in March 1949, which clearly put Pakistan in the religious state ambit, Liaquat noted: “I would like to remind the House that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-e-Azam, gave expression to feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms. Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this subcontinent wanted to build-up their lives in accordance with the traditions and teachings of Islam...”. Similarly, Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar noted in the same debate: “Pakistan was demanded with a particular ideology, for a particular purpose and this Resolution... is just in accordance with those solemn pledges which the Quaid-e-Azam gave...”. I can go on and note the views of almost every Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly, who argued that the Objectives Resolution was in accordance with the will of Jinnah and that it was not possible to divorce religion from politics. Now, it is possible that all these people were deluded and that Jinnah wanted something else. If this is true, then it is rather remarkable that people so close to Jinnah, like Liaquat and Nishtar, did not understand him. Why were Jinnah’s ideas unclear to his close associates when they seem to be so patent to the modern-day so-called liberals in Pakistan? Or is it that the liberals of today are actually deluded?
These arguments aside, I want to note that on a level it is rather futile to get so caught up in the views of a man long dead. After all, hardly anyone in India wants to create a Gandhi’s India (which would be rather odd) or Nehru’s India (which would be a mild version of the erstwhile USSR). As a matter of fact, the Congress itself dismantled Nehru’s India and the party, which had roots in the organisations of which Nathuram Vinayak Gods, the killer of Gandhi, was a member, governed India for a full-term. Therefore, while trying to understand the past, we must move on and work on building a Pakistan, which is not of someone long dead, but of the 180 million living citizens of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 26th, 2013.
COMMENTS (77)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
so how can you convert multi nation theory to two nation theory? this artificial grouping is the root cause of most of the problems pakistan is facing or faced.
@Real Kh:
So this is what you have been pondering on....ok...look.... Any substantial theory/ideology/event which results in displacement & butchering of millions will always find a place in history.
Two-Nation theory says Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nationalities which failed when millions Muslims preferred to stay back in India in 1947. How does a south Indian Muslim who has absolutely nothing in common with a Lahori defines his/her nationhood on the basis of religion. It failed again in 1971. The concept of a nation can not be defined & build on the basis of a religion.It is based on shared commonalities & a shared idea..the idea that is inclusive & every citizen of that nation believes in.
@thor: Yupp. That's my point. India was never one nation in History. Therefore, any multi-nation theory was so natural for India. That's why Two-Nation Theory was in line with History.
@Real Kh:
Of course Asoka, Moghal , British were Kingdoms & that is where i said very idea of nation-states is a modern idea..
Real Kh, either that, or Indians were always one people except in the eyes of those Muslims who never could understand what Indian 'nationhood' consisted of, prior to the arrival of the modern nation state. Most of these people who never understood India have not been able to understand and implement the notion of 'nationhood' to this day.
@Real Kh: What about 65 years post 1947?
@thor: OK take additional 65 years. does it make any dfifference? And remember, Asoka, Moghal , British were Kingdoms, not necessarily nations. In short, it is a Historical Fact that India was never one nation.
@Real Kh: I do not require renowned Encyclopedia, Brittanica , Americana. My school days history books are enough.. You yourself had commented earlier India was never one nation in History. & then came back again saying.. In History of 5000 years, India remained united under one flag for only 400 years.Asoka Kingdom 150 years, Mughal Kingdom 150 years, British 100 years. That’s it. Allow me to add the years since 1947 to the list...let us call it the years of secular democrats.
Jinnah was a blessing for the Muslims of the Sub-continent. Period.
Does YKB really concede two out of three points made by YLH as claimed by the latter? He merely says that because of space constraints, he is going to address only one point – that of Jinnah being an Islamist. He says that he never claimed that Jinnah was an Islamist – and reading his original article, that is factual. So where is the supposed change of position? On the issue of Jinnah defining who is a Muslim and who is not, the original article was very clear in saying that this was only in a political sense, i.e. not in terms of their personal faith. Is it not factual that Jinnah insisted that the Congress could not nominate a Muslim to the Interim Government even from its own (i.e. general) quota of seats? This was the basis for the claim in the original YKB article.
Also, where are the personal attacks in this rejoinder to the rebuttals? He does not refer to any particular rebuttal of his article – he seems to be referring to several, perhaps including commentators at the Tribune website itself in addition to articles such as those by YLH. He does not refer to any person at all – so where is the question of a personal attack.
So judge for yourself on this issue by reading the original articles. Here are the two articles – the original article that was rebutted by YLH earlier, and the response to the rebuttals, including perhaps that of YLH. http://tribune.com.pk/story/522703/jinnahs-pakistan/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/526209/jinnahs-pakistan-3/
History is not a precise science – there is a strong element of interpretation and extrapolation of available facts. Why is his view a distortion, and Ayesha Jalal’s accurate, when the latter has a much greater degree of extrapolation from available facts (extrapolation to the extent of reversing the facts!) than most other accounts?
@thor: In History of 5000 years, India remained united under one flag for only 400 years. Asoka Kingdom 150 years, Mughal Kingdom 150 years, British 100 years. That's it. Read any renowned Encyclopedia, Brittanica , Americana.
@Ali Tanoli:
Mughals were a political ruling house which derived its power from a strong coalition with local rulers/chieftains (e.g. rajput rulers from the area of Rajasthan). If they would have tried anything even remotely close to forced conversion, mughal rule would have been over within decades. Most of them were not that stupid. Aurangjeb did try to make life miserable for non-muslims, harming Mughal political cause in the process.
@Ali tonnoli: This is not a debate of Jinnah vs. Nehru. Pakistan has deep respect for Jinnah and that is understandable just as we have deep respect for Gandhiji and Nehru for their role in getting us freedom. No one debates that basic fact nor did I claim that Nehru was an angel. It is a debate on whether the Pakistan movement led by Jinnah was secular.
In any case, Gandhiji had no role in government and so should be kept out of the discussion on post Aug 15 1947 events.
@Real Kh:
Not sure how your comment is relevant to this topic. The current republic of India is a country of continental scale & Indian is our national identity. What is the point of your argument? & regarding India as a nation in history.. May be some parts of history were deleted from your curriculum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka One may argue saying that the current India as it is was never one nation in history. But the very idea of nation-states is a modern idea.
@Real Kh: some one decided that his religion is going to be greater than India. Thats the problem. Thats the problem Pakistan is facing
It is upto moderators to ask whether they wanted debate. if not REMOVE the comments section!!
Jinnah is Jinnah. He is not an Anwar Sadat or Abdul Kalam Azad. Do not falsify his personality and create a illusion. Some section of pakistanis seem to be illusionaries on what they seem to think is right.The point is you cannot be objective when you enslaved yourelf to religious indentity. That what modern societies are struggling to remove. Thats the fight Bangash is trying to make. One must be far more worried about some liberal animals who have bought Pakistan to this state than the gun wielding Taliban. They have re-interpreted their version of islam and nationhood and Jinnah. The point is it is NOT working for Pakistan and thats what Bangash is saying! Why is Bangash being attacked?
@gp65 How can u peoples justify both sides were same when fifty thousand girls/women disapeared in east punjab and how u say nehru/gandhi both were angels they never knew whats going on and on other hand jinnah tried untill last minutes to sikh get agreed on united punjab because he knew that its gonna be bad for the area and what u gonna say about nehru when he wrote the letter to punjab CM that all sikh be considered crimnals and prescuted with iron fist after when every thing was don and when sikh demanded they right to have punjab. what u will say for that.???
"Indian" was never a national identity. "Indian" was sort of a "continental" identity, just like European identity. India was never one nation in History.
True! While we must rememeber and be grateful to our founding fathers for their dedication and successful struggle to create Pakistan for us. It's also true that Pakistan is not just Jinnah's or Liaquat's or Nishtar's, all gone long long time ago, Pakistan belongs to us all each and everyone of its 180 million citizens and its about time that we own it and be good to our country and its people, its air, its water, its mountains and rivers, its trees and flowers and animals and birds everything that we have here in our Pakistan. Let's build it for ourselves and our children, let's make it a truly wonderful place for us all.
Jinnah wanted a country for Muslims. & if it has to be secular why has it got to be a new country. It was a country for Muslims & which is what Pakistan is. The liberal extremist s create false stories without evidence.
. Dr. Yaqoob Khan Bangash Ji, . The "Rebuttal" of your Original Article - dated March 25, 2013 - by the "Man from Rutgers University" was pathetic to say the least. . It takes a lot of guts to pen down the truth and I shall write you about "Our Man". . Very Best Regards . Cheers
@Hasan Mehmood: @Nadir:
And I as a foreigner say well done to you as well. And I fully agree with you both what you Do Not Want! Now tell us what you Do Want?
. Copy one of the European countries constitution? Ignore UK because they have not a written constitution and probably is the reason why Jinnah camp did not draft one for the new country. . Copy one of the muslim country's constitution or . develope a brand new constitution.for pakistan.
If you are in favour of a New constitution,then please write down the preamble in one sentence for it.
Rex Minor
PS For info, tell me sir, before a person gives an evidence or a statement in the judiciary court of Pakistan, what sort of oath he is required to take? Is there a mention of God or the divine book?
@gp65:
"JINNAH : disturbed spirit BY M J AKBAR"
"JINNAH WAS LIBERAL-SECULAR FOR MOST OF HIS LIFE, BUT NOT ALL HIS LIFE!"
If you are an Indian Muslim and also want to be an editor of some Indian newspaper, nothing short would make you eligible for the post.
Hasn't he also said that "Mahatma Gandhi wanted a secular nation with a Hindu majority, while Jinnah wanted a secular nation with a Muslim majority"
@PrudentCall: "Many Indians will be okay with giving away all of Jammu and Kashmir (including Ladakh) provided you also take all of Indian Muslims as well."
Huh? The Indian Muslims are equal citizen. Not something that can be herded away like sheep or used as an object of negotiation. You also seem to implicitly think that non Muslim Indians consider Indian Muslims per se are a liability (by saying that we would give away something we value (Kashmir) in case Pakistan accepted all Indian Muslims). I could not disagree more. Every patriotic Indian - whatever the faith- is an asset to the country. Finally are you aware how many Muslims India has ? Around 180 million. Do you think Pakistan can absorb that population?
Mods - he has written to me, please allow response. @Ali Tanoli: Thanks for writing to me
I am not sure if you are aware that when Direct Action Day happened and there were killings from one side, Gandhiji went on an indefinite fast to prevent retaliatory killings. His actions coupled with that of Suhrawardy prevented a backlash. Even on 15th August while India was celebrating, Gandhi ws fasting because he did not approve of the poisin that had been sowed between the 2 communities.
Secondly there was a tit for tat killing going on in both sides of Punjab. IT is not for that which I hold Jinnah accountable. People's emotion in Punjab were out of control and no politician could have controlled that. I am referring to a separate province Sindh where a CM was trying to save Hindus and SIkhs and PM was asking him not to do so. I do not believe that Nehru ever asked any CM to stop protecting Muslims - say in Delhi or UP or Hyderabad. SO the comparison does not hold.
The facts are available to all : India has more Muslims as a percentage now than at the time of partition. Pakistan has decimated its non-Muslim population.
It is 65 years since independence and yet we're debating over what the founding fathers wanted or didn't want in 1947. Pakistan has just three areas of concern: Iran, Afghanistan and India. Have economic trade union with Iran. Help Afghanistan stand on its legs. Have a summit with India. Many Indians will be okay with giving away all of Jammu and Kashmir (including Ladakh) provided you also take all of Indian Muslims as well. Defence budgets on both countries will go down and that can be used for removing poverty, providing health care and education for all the citizens.
@gp65, Maam i dont agreed with your last comment if jinnah doesnot said any thing on hindu migration then on other hand nehru/gandhi were silent too when east punjab got cleaned from its muslim papulation even nehru / gndhi were happy.
@Hasan Mehmood: "Those who claim Jinnah indeed wanted a religious state, cannot in their wildest imagination imply that he would have condoned religious bigotry"
Sir, I agree with most of your opinions but would like to ask you 2 questions. - Direct action Day that Jinnah called for - do you think that was not based on religious bigotry? - http://tribune.com.pk/story/388663/who-orchestrated-the-exodus-of-sindhi-hindus-after-partition/ I am quoting from this OpEd by HAider Nizamani. According to him 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". IF this is true then Jinnah silently supported bigotry of the most vicious kind.
The important point that the author, Nadir and many others seem to make is that regardless of what Jinnah wanted, it is time for Pakistanis to define what kind of Pakistan they want. Do you want it to be democratic/Caliphate/army rule? DO you want it to be Islamic or secular? Do you want it to be tolerant or intolerant? Do you want to give freedom of worship to all or not? The problem is not the lack of consensus about what Jinnah wanted but increasing consensus towards what Pakistanis want
@mind control "A. Sir, let us not be dismissive of ‘Most Muslims’ ‘jalal’ (I guess you meant Jahil from Jahalat) or not. If Pakistan is/was not a one man’s personal fief then one has to take into account not only what Mr Jinnah wanted, but also what the Muslim League wanted and what the voters who voted for Pakistan wanted. This is where the masses come in. The latter two were vociferous about ‘Pakistan ka Matlab Kya…’ and Mr Jinnah was either ambiguous or fully supportive, depending on which ‘historian’ you are reading. However, he was not opposed to it for whatever reasons. Therefore the balance of majority and history appears to be on the side of an Islamic State. And that is what Pakistan turned out to be'."
You and me are in agreement here. The vote of the majority and history was/is on the side of an Islamic state. However that does not mean I agree with what this majority wants because -- forgive me for expressing what no doubt sounds like an harsh opinion -- only a jahil person will fail to see that imposing political Islam has and will only make things worse for our country. It is only a primitive culture that fails to differentiate between reason and unreason in its politics. And we are it. This has nothing to do with being religious, it is about institutionalizing jahalaat (moral, economic, social, political regression) in the name of implementing God's will. I know that the majority of Pakistanis think Ahemdis are heretics, however that does not make it just.
Lastly, my only argument was with the author who despite being a history professor made a very inaccurate claim. If mullahs or Islamists want an Islamic state, fine try your best and we'll see how well that ends for you, but have the courage to admit this is not what Jinnah would've wanted. Have the courage to admit you do not want Jinnah's Pakistan.
@Rex Minor: Finally a post yours that I agree with completely.
I think we should work for a Welfare State and Everybody will agree on that. Islamic State under Caliph is supposed to look after citizen's basic needs while we see secular countries like sweden doing that. So lets agree on the Welfare part and work to achieve a welfare State.
@Nadir: Well done again.
Those who claim Jinnah indeed wanted a religious state, cannot in their wildest imagination imply that he would have condoned religious bigotry, One sided Blasphemy Law, moving back to stone age with barbaric punishments, spread of extremely narrow minded version of Sharia by a very small minority by threat of beheading / bombing the overwhelming moderate majority, sectarian warfare and blatant (not latent) persecution of minorities etc.
All the above problems we have to deal with irrespective of Jinnah's personal / public views. We don't need endorsement of Jinnah for that. Application of common sense and attempt to follow the universal values of humanity is more than sufficient for the purpose. Therefore all the hair splitting being done is totally pointless. Let me ask that if indeed Jinnah was proved to be an ideal secularist, will that be a good enough reason for law makers to roll back regressive legislation and the misguided minority to change its hate filled mind set. Alternatively if we prove he was indeed committed to an Islamic State, will that be a good enough reason for the likes of Taliban to continue on their present path. I REPEAT IT IS A USELESS DEBATE.
Moderator ET: Please publish. Those with neutral views must also be given similar space. Thanks.
can we just follows god book now instead of what quaid want it this or that.. and make better pakistan with health care, schools, clean water, social security for elders, medicaid for poor and pregnent women. can we do this.
Let us go to basics;
. Mr Jinnah was born a muslim, has participated in nursing communal passions, whch resulted in political discussions and negotiations as well as street violence and finaly Pakistan separated from India.
Can anyone call this great man a secular! I say NO to this thought. Did he want a secular Governance of the land after it was created and to what extent? This is what in my view the author is asking for a discussion. Those who want secular Governance( by the way I got this term from Mr Anoop) ae they also of the opinion to borrow from the western constitutions, as it neighbour India or do they want Pakistan to copy the Tukish version or develope their own. Those who claim to know more about Mr Jinnah, including Ayesha Jamal, should tell us the personal choice of Mr Jinnah:
Rex Minor
Please Jinnah is not a secular. When Jinnah was young he went on the wrong paths but as he grew older he came back to Islam. He wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state. You seculars in your dreams wish him to be a Kemal Ataturk. Your will never win. Pakistan will be and always be Islamic state. As for the Islamic state, it is a ruling authority, and a political entity that looks after the citizens' affairs according to the Shari'ah rules.
I am not sure why the moderator of this forum is approving personal attacks on me above but not the comments in response.
Bangash has moved completely from his earlier argument. He has conceded the point about Muslim definition and also NWFP. He has now modified his argument to say that Jinnah promised Islamic rule to Muslims and secular state to minorities. This is a complete distortion of history.
Not only are there countless speeches to Muslim audiences saying the same thing but Jinnah's 11 August speech was made to a mainly Muslim audience. So again - the trolling aside- the facts are that this article is as usual low on facts and high on rhetoric.
It is good to remember history, but it should not be made a stigma. To round off the discussion; why not to have a country of today's living souls instead of Jinnah's Pakistan. By the way there is no more Jinnah's Pakistan the majority has made it Bangladesh. There should have a discussion in 1971 on the new name as majority discarded the name Pakistan.
A Peshawary
Why should you have to go back to history and Jinnah, if you are serious about sorting out the problem of the present Pakistan? If a country doesn't have a clear constitution to govern by and enforceable with the power of the judiciary, there will be chaos, which seems to be the problem right now in Pakistan.
Dead cannot come back to life unless if you are Jesus Christ and same goes for nations!
Now that you have compared with India, more people will oppose you than before. Even those rational folks who may have supported your previous article will write more about the denial of your lines about India.
That said, the best line in the entire piece is this one...
"Only if everyone in Pakistan did not think that they had the ‘right’ version of history and that everyone else was mad, Pakistan would be a much saner country."
This is however true for any country's ultranationalist narrative. Not just Pakistan. Perhaps in Pakistan, the number of people who truly believe such a narrative may be way higher than other countries.
Unfortunately for Pakistani liberals, Jinnah and his legacy is the only hope for the minorities of that country. Today's liberals feel the right has hijacked their founding father values to satisfy their own cause for last 65+ years. Quaid-e-Azam is revered and respected by the masses in pakistan(old and young, rich and poor, rural and urban) and so what is wrong in projecting him for a good cause.
@Marvi Sirmed He, and his political party, moreover, might have used Islamic Symbolism to mobilize muslims but once the creation of the state was confirmed, his speech to the first constituent assembly of Pakistan reflects nothing other than secularism, no? The point remains that if he didn't say "secularism" loud enough, it shouldn't be translated into acceptance for a theocratic state and over here I disagree with Mr.Bangash and believe that there is a very firm constitutional binary between a religious state and a secular one. The Gulf states, Pakistan and the many muslim countries in the world today are without doubt religious states. Ultimately, its upon us Pakistani's to push for a secular Pakistan and I do really hope that happens.
@Sam: Even if he wanted Sam, he never said so. On the contrary, he said so many things so many times about Islam and Islamic state. Now figure!
Much as I respect YLH's opinion and his passion for Mr. Jinnah, I agree with you Mr. Bangash. The confusion about the new state that lingered for 7 years between 1940 and 1947, appears to be deliberate to me. A clear stance means providing clear lines of division among many schools of thought & opinion. A confused and ambiguous message appealing to a larger religious identity would gather more people. Probably tats why most of confidants around Mr. Jinnah did not know what his intentions / plans were. His letter to Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif is one such effort. Amassing support using attractive promises. To staunch Muslims, the promise was of an Islamic state. To moderates and to minorities, it was of a state with equal rights to all and of a non-theocratic state. I think he never used the word 'Secular' in any of his addresses, statements and media interviews. Did the word exist at that time? :O
@Alex: Facts are not 'answered Alex. They are faced.
Does it matter what Jinnah wanted back then? Pakistan was created on the basis of giving Muslims a separate country where they could practice their religion and politics without prejudice.It was not however closed to people of other religions. At the end of the Jinnah was a man-and a politician. His main goal was the creation of Pakistan- this would provide a separate political sphere. Wether he he wanted people to have freedom to practice religion or not is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is what we can see happening right now. We see minorities being killed for no reason except hate. This is wrong- we know this is wrong. Does it matter if Jinnah would agree? He is dead. We need to worry about our minorities and protecting the lives of those who are alive.
@Author
Thank you for writing the rebuttal. Even though i completely agree with your first article it is important to have a dialogue going, not to win the argument but to bring out both sides or however many sides that exists. I am not form Pakistan but i read the newspaper , not for "trolling" as many here seems to believe all Indians are upto, but to simply hear the other side of the argument.
As for Jinnah being secular my biggest questions to all who support the claim is this, How can a man who demanded a country solely on the basis of a religion be secular? When he demanded a country for muslims he sowed the seed for an Islamic state. Accept that and go ahead and strive for what you want to make the state you want now
Show me one document of the Muslim League from 1910 to 1947 where they talk of an Islamic state. Secondly the minute you associate religon with state you cannot be secular. By definition anyone who does not belong to that religon becomes a second class citizen. Also please note that there is a difference between an Islamic State and a State for Muslims.
Brilliant and brave as ever. Let us assume the so called liberals are right. What is stopping them from coming out in the streets to fight for the "secular" way of the Quaid? The liberals try to find in the Quaid what he relinquished. But at the end of the day, it is merely an argument between two bookends of Islam for power. There is no committment to equality, dignity and justice for non-Muslims by either one of them. One is open about it, the other isn't.
Excellent point of view. The important thing is the living population and what they want rather than endlessly debating which politician said what in what context, a million years back. They were politicians. The label says it all. They would have said anything, if it suited their interests.
Its in everyones interest from Pakistan to India to build a better Pakistan for its present citizens and not for people long dead.
abcde
Professor Bangash wrote:
"That said, most ‘rebuttal’ attempts were made by part-time historians and sycophants of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which made the discussion an amateur and childish screaming match, rather than a sensible conversation."
Repeat: "most ‘rebuttal’ attempts were made by part-time historians and sycophants of Muhammad Ali Jinnah"
Professor Bangash did not write that everyone who has a different view is part-time historian and sycophant of Mr Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Ayesh Jalal did not write a rebuttal.
Well the confusion is because people confused Islam with theocracy and confused freedom of religion and equality before law with centralist secularism. Jinnah's support was diversified and the initial idea of Pakistan was to make a country where muslims can practice Islam (including sharia) and non-muslims can practice their own faith.
This can only be possible in a very limited govt. and decentralization of governance, legislation and economy. due to years of martial laws and feudal nature of society,Pakistan is largely a tight centralized state with all power in the center so every group wants to capture the center. Neither theocracy nor centralized secularism can work in pakistan.In a diversified society like Pak even muslims dont ve one single faith, culture or set of customs so we need to think some other solution than we have today.
i agree with the part :These arguments aside, I want to note that on a level it is rather futile to get so caught up in the views of a man long dead.
@abcde: Cowasjee was Parsi, as such you support the author's argument that Jinnah promised secularism to non-Muslims. His personal life suggests he was secular, however by surrounding himself with such bigots as Liaqat and Nurul Amin, he did follow a policy of means (whipping up communal passions, denying political validity of Muslims not part of Muslim League - Azad, Ghaffar Khan and G.M. Syed for example) to attain the ends (protecting Indian Muslims from what he believed to be the hegemony of caste Hindus in the Congress - a significant degree of truth in that, yet it is also true that power compromise arrangements really weakened this hegemony ).
Unfortunately, as history teaches us through several examples, means matter. The communal frenzy that he whipped up decades ago to win the 1946 election after a dismal showing in the previous one, still leaves a legacy in all 3 nations of the subcontinent, and especially in Pakistan. Perhaps we should view his story as a Shakespearean tragedy - to stave off one monster, he ended up creating a much bigger one.
@abcde: BEfore rebutting the specifics, let me assure you on one thing I agree with you 100% i.e. partition was a good thing for both India and Pakistan. You will find that except for some fringe, most people in India will agree with me on that. Also at least in India we have not chained ourselves to Gandhij, Nehru or Patel's vision though we are immensely grateful to them and all other people who sacrificed their lives to fight a foreign occupation. IT is possible for you to define what type of Pakistan you want today regardless of what type of Pakistan Jinnah wanted way back then and without in any way being ungrateful to Jinnah.
Now onto specifics: "Would you call M.J Akbar a part time historian too?"
Since you referred to him, let us see what he has to say in article titled "JINNAH WAS LIBERAL-SECULAR FOR MOST OF HIS LIFE, BUT NOT ALL HIS LIFE!"
Also in the article he says : "Jinnah responded with the unbridled use of the communal card, and there was no turning back. His protest culminated in the call for Direct Action; this in turn engendered the carnage of the Calcutta riots; which, in turn, led to the massacres of Bihar riots. The prospects of unity were washed away in the blood on the streets and mudpaths".
No one including Mr. Bangash says that Jinnah was communal all his life. His record before 1930 was decidedly secular. When we talk about Jinnah's Pakistan though it refers to the period that he led the Pakistan movement and it is in this period that Mr. Bangash indicates that Jinnah wasn't secular by promising an Islamic state.
"What about Cowasjee? Keep in mind that man knew Jinnah. "
This is directly related to the discrepancy between Jinnah's assurances to non-Muslims and his promises to Muslims that Yaqoob Bangash refers to.
More importantly - some very fundamental questions: 1) Jinnah wanted to safeguard Muslim rights not rights of all Indians. IS this a secular formulation inherently? 2) Jinnah said in his Lahore Resolution of March 1940 that Hindus and Muslims were 2 Nations and could not be yoked together. Is this a secular statement? Does this show tolerance for the 'other'?
Finally want to share one more thing from Wikipedia. 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
IS the slogan of Pakistan ka matlab kya used during the Pakistan movement sound like a secular movement?
@abcde: Sorry, what is the point? Are you going to negate the perceptions people have from either personal contacts with Mr Jinnah or from his speeches, which may diffe from Ayeha Jamal?
Rex Minor
Islam give more protection to minorities for example Mughals didnot trys to converts 150 millions indians in 1500 when they came in and i think mr bangash want pakistan more like turkey or malaysia where every thing runs together and funny things is he is saying Gulf states are islamic hahaha with ligour in homes and on airports.(iran,saudi arabia are exceptional).
These discussions are getting ridiculous. Whether Pakistan is an Islamic state or a secular one, common humanity should not seize to function. If we agree that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state, does that justify the blasphemy law? No! If we agree that Jinnah wanted a secular state, does that justify the blasphemy law? No. We can go on and on, but Jinnah's interpretation is not the end all of everything Pakistan related. Let us all agree to disagree, and make a personal journey towards what we believe Pakistan should be. No interpretation from any decent Pakistani should justify tax evasion, law breaking, terrorism or illiteracy.
a Janus-faced statesman1
It is a crime to be able to see in the empire of the blind and the wilful blind.
India wants to create a Gandhi’s India (which would be rather odd) or Nehru’s India (which would be a mild version of the erstwhile USSR).
India got created with a strong foundation in 1950..Rest of the things that happened later on are enhancements.The people of India while trying to understand the past, moved on and worked on building India..
You talk of sensible conversation, yet belittle Yasser Latif Hamdani as a 'part time historian.' By what standard are you a 'full time' historian as it were? I am not dismissing you, but YLH has a book to his name, and the subject is Jinnah. So what makes you better than him? Secondly, calling all liberals deluded only plays to the gallery so to speak, as some comments above mine have already proven. Would you also call Ayesha Jalal a part time historian? Because her view is that Jinnah's Pakistan was absolutely a secular state. Would you call M.J Akbar a part time historian too? What about Cowasjee? Keep in mind that man knew Jinnah. This could go on, but the point is made.
Good article Bangash!
@Muhammad Ali Ehsan "..... but i am sure that Mr Jinnah’s aristocratic English life style,Victorian manners and secular outlook suggests us something……"
The same jinnah with 'aristocratic English life style,Victorian manners and secular outlook' also married a parsi woman, who converted to islam to marry according to 'islamic' guideline of nikkah/marriage ( in orthodox islam marrying a non-muslim is null and void).
The same jinnah with 'aristocratic English life style,Victorian manners and secular outlook' also didn't approve of her daughter when she married a parsi (irony as her being a daughter of a born parsi!) and said her to the effect.."can't to find a good 'muslim' boy in all of india?"
That my friend is the point of Mr. Bangash, jinnah changed his tune according to the audience he was entertaining!
it is sad to see the confusion among Pakistanis on creation of their nation & its ideology even after 65 years.
Jinnah unambiguously wanted a secular state. Read Ayesha Jalal and learn some history please.
"All I said was that Jinnah promised Islamic rule to the majority and a rather more secular rule to the minorities — hence, the confusion in Pakistan."
Uh, no. You said unambiguously that Jinnah wanted an Islamic state:
"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."
So, basically your argument is Jinnah must've wanted an Islamic state because people suggested he wanted an Islamic state:
"Introducing the Objectives Resolution in March 1949, which clearly put Pakistan in the religious state ambit, Liaquat noted: “I would like to remind the House that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-e-Azam, gave expression to feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms. Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this subcontinent wanted to build-up their lives in accordance with the traditions and teachings of Islam…”. Similarly, Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar noted in the same debate: “Pakistan was demanded with a particular ideology, for a particular purpose and this Resolution… is just in accordance with those solemn pledges which the Quaid-e-Azam gave…”. I can go on and note the views of almost every Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly, who argued that the Objectives Resolution was in accordance with the will of Jinnah and that it was not possible to divorce religion from politics."
Has it occurred to you that these leaders took liberties with interpreting what Jinnah wanted because they knew after Jinnah's death nothing apart from Islam was capable of keeping the country together? Because political Islam was imposed on the country democratically? Because the League was too politically weak to stop it and could not impose dictatorship?
There is no doubt Jinnah was ambiguous about Islam's place in a new Pakistan at times -- because he obviously had other massive issues to deal with. And openly proclaiming secularism would have made Pakistan impossible given the jalal nature of most Muslims. But that does not mean he wanted an Islamic state. Don't be a typical Pakistani and have the courage to admit when you're wrong.
I would remind everyone that the worst atrocities on minorities happened after partition in the 1947-1955 period as Jinnah before his death and Liaqat looked the other way, to put in mildly. If ever in doubt refer to the resignation letter of J Mondal, who was a cabinet minister in Jinnah-Liaqat cabinet.
"Or is it that the liberals of today are actually deluded?" This is the fact that must be answered........
@Mr. Bangash:
You have excelled once again! What an amazing article, rebuts all those fan-boys (especially YLH) out there with their revisionist narratives attempting to make Jinnah into the person they desire. . Also I must express my appreciation for you bringing up Jinnah's numerous impassioned appeals in front of minority audiences and abroad. That was a facade that was never followed up with action as can be seen from Joginder Nath Mandal's anguished resignation letter who quit for that precise reason.
I will not indulge the author's personal attacks on those who wrote the rebuttals.
All I can say is that when Mr. Bangash says:
"I never said that Jinnah was an Islamist. All I said was that Jinnah promised Islamic rule to the majority and a rather more secular rule to the minorities — hence, the confusion in Pakistan. Here it would be erroneous to consider that the choice is only between a theocracy and a secular state. While Jinnah was clearly against a theocratic state (rule by mullah’s), he did promise a rather undefined ‘Islamic state’"
.. he is contradicting his own words in the first article.
Well, I may partly disagree with a lot of stuff that you say, but without getting emotional let's face the fact that Jinnah was all for an Islamic state; right or wrong is beyond the scope of this piece so no point discussing.