How vividly I remember that the Quaid found the time to inaugurate my grandfather’s hospital in Bantva. I was the flower boy. All flower boys have a very pleasant duty. This duty is to present the flowers to the chief guest. This was my reward for being the flower boy. He placed his hand on my forehead and said, “My son, it is for you that I have created this nation. Go and prosper. This is your country. May God bless you.” It brings tears to my eyes when I recollect this moment.
Fatima Jinnah was his favourite sister and most ardent supporter. When the Quaid passed away she was the heir. She was a constant visitor to our home. She shared our joys and sorrows. She was lonely but she was courageous. The likes of Ayub Khan could never have destroyed the spirit and dedication of this brave woman if we, the people of Pakistan, had not abandoned the vision of the founder. The question I want to raise for this nation today is the age-old one. It is what Julius Caesar said to Brutus, his killer, “Et tu, Brute?”
Those who have betrayed the Quaid are now preaching again — they will never give up their fascination for describing democracy and the Constitution and legal rights. I am by nature a sourpuss. I like to throw cold water on their deeply cherished notions. I would like the champions of constitutional law to educate me on this. What merit is there in the Constitution if it does not mandate that power belongs to the people and not to the politicians? I would like to define the terms ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’. Some of my learned friends are so fond of these terms that they throw them at us at every opportunity. I believe these terms need to be reviewed. I would substitute the word ‘de facto’ with ‘de fected’. It’s a defected system that does not understand that sovereignty belongs to the people and not to the rulers. This is why I am constrained to ask the people of Pakistan, Et tu, Brute? This Betrayal is extraordinary and complete. I ask you now the People of Pakistan, Et tu, Brute?
Mountbatten was not prepared to give Jinnah more than ‘a truncated Pakistan’ while Jinnah was not interested in accepting “a moth-eaten Pakistan”, and insisted on having a ‘full Pakistan’. What a price we have paid for the politicians’ blind support to militants.
It was only after the Quaid’s death that these politicians bartered the future of Pakistan. Children are dead and the dead conscience of the people has been aroused. They want the hang-man to do the dirty work and punish. Would this have happened on the Quaid’s watch, he to whom the protection and promotion of minorities were a life’s work, his only priority? Would Jinnah have slept in peace while children were being slaughtered? Too soon, the murdered children will have been forgotten and it will be life as usual for the politicians. Would Jinnah have watched the massacre of Christians? Would he not have condemned the destruction of temples? Would he not have embraced the Hazaras and fought with them for their rights?
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”
What inspiring leadership, what vision, what a definition of secularism. No one could have said it better and I doubt anybody ever could find the words to express this thought. To understand Jinnah, you must understand the composition of his cabinet. It was a rainbow. No section of what constituted Pakistan was ignored. These were all good men, tried and tested and faithful to the Quaid and his dream.
Finally I ask, Would Jinnah not have embraced Malala and said to her what he did to me many years ago, “My child, it is for you that I have created this nation. Go and prosper. This is your country. May God bless you.”
Published in The Express Tribune, December 25th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Jinnah and Pakistan are tied in an eternal and inseparable bond. The Pakistan he visualised was not a fallacy. It was a "Pakistan for All" and he gave all he had to make this vision come true. We have tried to reinvent him and governments have tried to misconstrue his words on several occasions but Jinnah in the hearts of the very people he made Pakistan for continues to live as a man who kept principles above prejudice and reason above personal opinion at all times. If we are to model Pakistan the way Jinnah wanted then nothing else but his incorruptibility should be adopted as our most protected and cherished principle. The Pakistan he wanted was to be a corruption free society. A society that shunned nepotism, jobbery and opportunism. A society where merit prevailed. And what better example than Pakistan's first cabinet.
Pakistan indeed a great country with two official languages three diffrent court systems five diffrent education systems and peoples like zardari, sharifs, altaf, mullah diezel, and jamat islami who calls this need to be change but stricly part of this system and crruption are rulling and junta just have there own govt untouchable and holy moly.... jaye pakistan
Very well written. Brings out a number of beautiful quotes that we should always remember.
I am not sure I understand the following statement by the author: (Mountbatten was not prepared to give Jinnah more than ‘a truncated Pakistan’ while Jinnah was not interested in accepting “a moth-eaten Pakistan”, and insisted on having a ‘full Pakistan’. What a price we have paid for the politicians’ blind support to militants.) Well, if you read history, you will know that Mountbatten told Jinnah either to take his "moth eaten Pakistan" or forget about the whole thing. Jinnah is indeed a paradox. Here was a very secular man (whom Sarojini Naidu called the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity) who later became an ardent believer of a muslim state and did not think that hindus and muslims could live together in peace. Hence, one of the most secular person in prepartition India became the founder of a "muslim nation". That muslim nation today has become an "Islamic nation".
Jinnah is a living paradox. He means many things to many people. No wonder that those who worship him are as confused as the man himself was. It's no irony that he is worshiped by both the liberals and the fundos.
Well the reality is that this line has to be read and understood in the context of all that he had said during the movement for the creation of Pakistan and afterwards till he died.
http://operationpakistan.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/in-loving-memory-of-quaid-e-azam-muhammad-ali-jinnah/