Smokers’ Corner: Refiguring Jinnah
Illustration by Abro
Today many Pakistanis are aware of Jinnah’s August 11, 1947, speech in which he clearly explains Pakistan to be a democratic Muslim majority country where religion has nothing to do with the business of the state.
Well-known historians have all maintained that to Jinnah the Muslims of undivided India were a separate cultural entity requiring their own homeland.
Jinnah’s desire to see this through was born from his awkwardness with the idea of a post-colonial India subjugated by the ‘Hindu-dominated’ Indian National Congress: even though the Congress was almost entirely secular.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that Jinnah’s push to carve out a separate Muslim country was made in order to construct an Islamic state.
For years Pakistanis have debated about how Jinnah went about claiming Pakistan. Was he able to think it through, or did he fail to perceive the vulnerability of his claim?
Many also believe that his claim in this respect was too open-ended. That’s why it was easily exploited by some who eventually turned it into a monolithic entity and a militaristic bastion of Islam.
It is ironic that the first Pakistani head of state to sincerely try to realise Jinnah’s concept of Pakistan was a military dictator. Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s regime (1959-69) still remains perhaps the most secular in the country’s history.
Apart from, of course, sidelining the democratic aspects of Jinnah’s concept, Ayub otherwise went about defining (through legislation) his understanding of Jinnah’s Pakistan.
To him it was about a secular Muslim majority state sustained by the genius of entrepreneurial action, a strong military, and the spirit of modernistic and progressive Islam of the likes of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal and Jinnah.
However, in a naturally pluralistic society like Pakistan with multiple ethnicities, religions and Islamic sects, if one takes out democracy from the above equation, one would get (as Ayub did) ethnic strife, religious reactionary-ism and class conflict.
The class-based and multi-ethnic commotion in this respect opened windows of opportunity for well-organised leftist groups who were not only successful in forcing Ayub out (1969), but they also eschewed the religious opposition to the Field Marshal’s government.
Left parties like the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), National Awami Party (NAP), and student groups like the National Students Federation (NSF), in the former West Pakistan, achieved this by attacking Ayub’s ‘pro-rich policies’ (state-facilitated capitalism), and, on the other hand, neutralised the Islamic fundamentalists by adding a new twist to Jinnah’s image.
For example, the PPP advocated Jinnah to be a progressive democrat whose thinking was close to the ideas of ‘Islamic socialism’ first purported (in the region) by such leaders of the Pakistan Movement, as Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, and Iqbal.
After the breakaway of East Pakistan in 1971, and the coming to power of the PPP (led by Z A. Bhutto), the authoritarian centre-right secularism of the Ayub era (and concept of Jinnah), moved towards the populist left.
But the Bhutto regime was highly mutable. Though it remained populist, it regularly shifted from left to right on an issue to issue basis.
A study of Jinnah’s quotes used on state-owned media of the period suggests a regime trying to push Jinnah as a democrat who was not secular in the western sense, but a progressive Muslim whose faith was pluralistic in essence and ‘awami’ (populist).
Such quotes, that became a mainstay just before the main 9pm news bulletin on the state-owned PTV, suddenly changed track when Bhutto was toppled in a reactionary military coup by General Ziaul Haq (July 1977).
From 1977 onwards, no more was Jinnah being bounced between Ayubian secularists and Bhutto’s Islamic Socialists. He now became the property of the ‘Islam-pasand’ (pro-Islamic state) lot.
PTV and Radio Pakistan were ordered to only use those quotes from Jinnah’s speeches that contained the word ‘Islam’.
A concentrated effort was made to remould him into a leader who conceived Pakistan as an Islamic state with a strong military.
In 1978, the order of Jinnah’s celebrated motto, ‘Unity, Faith, Discipline,’ was reshuffled to put the word ‘faith’ first instead of the middle.
Then Zia’s information ministry suddenly unearthed a diary kept by Jinnah in which he had supposedly expressed his desire to see Pakistan as a country run on Islamic laws (instead of democracy), and emphasised the political and ideological role of the military. The diary turned out to be a desperate forgery.
Also, Jinnah’s August 11 speech was expunged from the school textbooks, as if it never existed.
By the end of Zia’s dictatorship (1988), Jinnah had been turned into a pious, 20th century caliph of sorts who presided over the creation of a ‘citadel of Islam’.
However, a decade later during the self-contradictory military dictatorship of General Parvez Musharraf: who was advertising himself as an updated version of Ayub Khan: Jinnah was made to slightly shed the facial hair that Zia had hung on him. Jinnah now became an enlightened moderate.
But Jinnah’s emergence of (now) becoming a moderate Muslim, at once clashed with his more pious, quasi-Islamist image that was cultivated for more than a decade by the Zia regime. This reignited the debate about exactly who or what Jinnah really was.
Today, with Pakistan facing the deadly spectre of Islamist terrorism, growing societal conservatism, a free (and somewhat anarchic) media, an activistic judiciary and the steady resurgence of the secular Muslim intellectual: all trying to figure (or refigure) Jinnah, something unprecedented happened.
Not since the Ayub dictatorship and during the early years of Bhutto’s government has a mainstream political party openly described Jinnah as a progressive, secular Muslim. But recently the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) did just that.
Well, this means at least in Karachi, the Jinnah who wanted a progressive, secular and democratic Muslim majority country is back. And this time he’s not confronting grumpy Islamic parties, but a monster that not only considers him a heretic, but a majority of Pakistani Muslims too.
Biggest irony of the whole situation is that Jinnah feared for Muslim minority in a Hindu majority India but look at what happened to minorities in a ‘Muslim majority’ Pakistan. Every day Pakistanis are discovering new minorities in their country to persecute.
Truth and Right will always prevail and people like Jinnah will damned by history for their short-sightedness and causing destruction in order to serve their vested interests. ….Satyamev Jayate…
Rightly said . I also mention Mr.jinnah was a clear Winner in his diplomatic and communal game and Mr.Gandhi was a clear failure . But Whole world and History will remember Gandhi for his sacrifice for the world and Mr.Jinnah will be remembered as a opportunist.satyam eb jayate……
and then someone who thought like you do murdered Ghandhi.
The Mahatma Gandhi was not murdered by a Muslim.
My comment was directed at someone using nickname Kumar (not a Muslim name for sure). My comment also did not suggest that MG Ghandhi was murdered by a Muslim. Then why your correction? I wish you read things properly before passing comments.
“First they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Yes, every day we are discovering new minorities to persecute. The moderate Sunnis need to understand this clearly.
“The whole Nazi stuff was being inculcated into us at school,” One of his teachers had made pupils draw a large swastika in pencil on the first page of their exercise book. On another page they had to draw up a list of Germany’s enemies – chief among them, Britain, Russia and the US.”
.
“Now pupils let us draw up a list of Islam’s enemies.”
After reading all the comments by Pakistanis , I think After some odd 60 years, pakistanis are still confused about how and why they got a country . Who created the country and what was his motive ?Facts are like this.
1>Who created the country :Mr.Jinnah
2>Why he created : he created a country for Indian muslims and for their interests.
3>What was his main argument : Muslim minority can’t coexist with Hindu majority.(It is In records)
4>What did he do to silence the critics: Non Muslims can stay in harmony in Pakistan , can go to churches and temples.
Everyone agrees to it .Right ? But What Indians ask :
1>If non-Muslims can stay in harmony in Pakistan (according to Jinnah), they why didn’t Muslims stay in harmony with non-Muslims in pre-partioned India ?
2>Where is this harmony mentioned by Jinnah right now . Indian Muslims have become the size of Pakistan population , but non Muslim population in Pakistan has become peanuts .Even some sects of Muslims are being butchered everyday.
Conclusion : Pakistan was a mistake and this kinds of things shouldn’t happen again . I think I didn’t do any bias and presented views of both the sides . Conclusion was mine and everyone is free find out the conclusion.
I can only agree partially with your analysis. My conclusion is that Pakistan is our country. We are fortunate to be free. We should look at the mental and social condition of Indian Muslims and thank Jinnah for giving us a free homeland. Pakistanis have every reason to make Pakistan better. What has happened so far is nothing to be proud of. Yet, Pakistanis have the potential to turn things around. If this potential is lost, we may even lose our country (God forbid). Regardless of debate on ideology of 1947 Pakistan, we have every reason to make Pakistan a progressive, secular State. If Pakistanis do this, we will be doing ourselves a big, big favor. With time, secular Pakistan has become writing on the wall. All other models have not yielded any result. But people in the media (NFP being one example) need to educate masses that secularism is different from communism and individual’s right to have and practice their religion is perfectly safe under secularism.
I don’t think Jinnah had any idea what would become of the country he was suggesting.
Jinnah wasn’t a pre-schooler… He was a seasoned politician. He clearly knew what he was doing – Creating a rift between Muslims and Hindus which will not fill in a long time to come. I see many issues plagued by the Indian sub-continent tracing back to ‘Two-nation theory’ proposed by him.
No. He did not, because like most true Muslims he made the mistake of believing that everyone is good. He dreamed of Pakistan as a utopian future for all.
.
“East is East and West is West and never the two shall meet.
KIPLING
NFP great article once again. You’re doing a great service to the youth of this confused country. However, I have always wondered why you still havn’t written a book? With the kind of big following you have, isn’t it time that wrote one?
Also, please also elaborate on why it was now MQM that turned to be the party that began advocating Jinnah as a secular after so many years. Thanks.
NFP is no spokesman of MQM. He is just a columnist and analyst. But if he writes a book, consider one copy sold (this will also give me a chance to call myself youth if the book is intended to educate youth).
Unwittingly Jinnah was the best friend of the non-Muslims of India. Prior to Partition Muslims were about 25% of all of India but their percentages varied by region. In what is now Bangladesh Muslims were 67%. In Punjab they were 55% but more on the west side than on the east side of Punjab. In Sindh Muslims were between 55% and 60%. It was in the rest of India other than Balochistan and NWFP that theye were a significant minority, hovering around 10%. That is why it was Muslim population of what is now India that was most passionate about Pakistan. But after Partition, as usual, Nehru proved to be the true friend of Muslims and the true enemy of non-Muslims. He signed a Pact with Liaqat Khan that forbade the automatic migration of Muslims to Pakistan and of Hindus and Sikhs to India. This was in 1951. But by then most Hindus and Sikhs had already fled to India and they were less than 1% in Pakistan. But most Muslims in India were in the interior and could not go to the land they had fought so hard for. had all Muslims left for east and West Pakistan India would be a truly secular and prosperous non-Muslim country. But now Muslims have grown from 9-10% after Partition to perhaps 20 and another Partition of India is inevitable.
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah created Pakistan to save the Muslims of sub continent from same mind set likes of Rani Sharma.
I don’t agree. May it’s her frustration from what she (as all of us) has seen happening for last 65 years. Without the non-sense of ‘Two nation theory’, the violence of ‘Direct action day’, and the final tragedy of partition, the same person would sing a different tune. For Jinnah and his followers it was about a piece of land, for the rest of Indians it was about their mother-land. UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
There are always two nations.
The Republicans make a living for themselves, and the Democrats make a living for others.
I have met dozens of Indian Muslims in my life so far. When I observe the mental slavery they are in and the way they have accepted Indian / Hindu superiority, I feel extremely lucky to have a country of my own. Selfish but it comes straight from my heart: I would prefer to die any day than be an Indian Muslim. I do acknowledge Pakistan has a long way to go to be a good country. But at least we have a great advantage of having Pakistan. (I am not sure if Dawn’s moderators will publish my comment or not, but I have expressed myself most honestly).
Indians do have a snooty, superior attitude they learned from the British.
Muslims believe others should be directed according to their religious insights.
All ultra religious people are masters at both defining and limiting God’s will.
These religious pecking orders leave God no room to breathe on His own.
Thank you Dawn for publishing my comment as above. I do admit the comment is selfish, insecure, emotional, and somewhat harsh. But it is guaranteed to be my deep, honest feeling. My apologies to those that find it offensive. I am deeply hurt every single day when I read about killings and oppression happening in Pakistan. That is the reason why everybody finds it so convenient to speak against my country. Even Afghanistan spares no opportunity to bash Pakistan. Inshallah Pakistanis will learn from this down phase and emerge as a better nation. Please Pakistani nation, learn to value the independece we have and work towards a better country.
I think Jinnah saahab wanted a secular nation. PERIOD. I am with MQM on this.
Well NFP, in the last few months I have read a few articles in Pakistani newspapers regarding whether Mr. Jinnah was secular or not. I don’t know what he actually was, but as an outsider, one thing is clear to me…….the very reason that even after 65 years you guys are still debating on what he was means…..either Jinnah had a lot of contradicting beliefs in his mind and he himself did not really understand the deep implication of what he was speaking( the various speeches and notes of him that different groups in Pakistan are referring to to define Jinnah) OR he was very smart and clearly understood the implications of what he was speaking and hence he played to the gallery by giving all kinds of speech to all kind of people so that everybody will see him according to his/her own belief system ( i.e secular/non secular/religious/non religious etc).
I will not get into debate of defining secularism or whether Jinnah was secular or not. But i would point out two of his contradictory beliefs…..
1. Muslim minority can not stay in social harmony with Hindu majority in undivided India.
But,
2. Hindu/Sikh/Christian minority will stay in social harmony with Muslim majority in Pakistan
Are not the above two beliefs contradictory ?
Hmm..you have a very good point . But at that time he was hell bent for a separate nation and at that time 5+5 was 20 for him.
you have not understood the issue, the issue was not that Muslims cannot live with hindus, it was that we Muslims are a nation in our own right and we should not have to live in our own land as a minority with rule from some far off hindu dominated land. If you understood indian history better you would understand the indian subcontinent has always been a collection of sovereign independent states. The concept of a ‘united india’ is essentially a creation of the British by force. Yet indians cannot read their own history and realise they are propagating essentially a British concept. they think india has always been one country, it has not! read your history!
Excellent piece by NFP. Without going into the debate that whether Jinah really wanted a separate Muslim state or whether such a demand was a folly, fact of the matter is that the man was a secularist to the core. During his entire career, one can’t cite even one example wherein he could be seen as something propagated by people like Zia. True, Pakistan need to look toward future but it can have a better future only if the real Jinah is introduced to Pakistanis. MQM deserves a pat!
He raised the bogey of ‘Direct Action Day’; That was a purely communal call. That started the mayhem, a million people died, lost home and honour. He never said a word to condemn or regret ‘direct action day’.
Jinnah again and agin said that Muslims will live in Pakistan and non-Muslims in India. This was in response to questions as to how he would move all Muslims to Pakistan when there Muslims in every village. he may not have wanted to have a theocratic Pakistan because he himself did not practice Islam and had non-Islamic habits. But he did want all Muslims to move to Pakistan.
I think Jinnah wanted pakistan to be secular with a muslim majority,just as the united india was which was secular but had more hindu majority,
A good article
Isn’t good an understatement?
A very interesting observation by NFP at the end. I too didn’t realize what he pointed out: i.e. No mainstream party or government ever since the Ayub regime and the early years of the Z A Bhutto government described Jinnah as secular. Not until MQM did it many decades later.
From my limited knowledge of histroy, I would agree with NFP. Yet, I would refrain from giving any credit to Ayub Khan for calling Quaid-e-Azam secular. I think too many people who knew too much about Jinnah were alive and Ayub Khan could not dare distort history like Zia did. Please realize Zia had the advantage of misguiding the later generations who did not know much about Jinnah. Also, perhaps Ayub Khan was less influenced by Jamaat-e-Islami than the clever Zia. Yet, Ayub Khan did enough to take Pakistan off the secular track and re-named Jinnah’s Pakistan as Islamic Republic and played in the hands of those that opposed Pakistan movement with their full might. Even ZAB, being a populist, could not help but entertain mullah lobby to some extent. About MQM, it is indeed the only party at present that is openly talking about Jinnah being secular. MQM has the advantage of loyal vote bank and at the same time has enough vandetta against JI. But remember, these big political parties do not quite mean a lot of ideology even when they take clear positions. For them it is more important to keep their voters pleased. So, don’t be surprised if MQM sways from its present stance about Jinnah and stops talking about this topic any more. Then there are likes of Musharraf who could take a 180 degree turn in one day. Perhaps MQM, ANP, PPP would not ditch their ideological supporters in Musharraf style but these parties have the potential to bow out to the strong right.
pak must look to future…this can be done by removing hate from text books..atleast that is easy to do than declaring secularism…once that is done..common people will be more open to the idea of secualrism..bangladesh has done well by de-focussing religion and emphasizing ethnicity and language.
To-the-point and insightful article by Mr Paracha but I think it’s important to emphasize that we should decide Pakistan’s future looking forwards instead of looking back to Jinnah at every step of our search for identity. What Pakistan needs right now could be different from what Jinnah (who, in my opinion, was a somewhat contradictory personality who shouldn’t be above criticism) wanted back then and we should be doing what the needs of the moment call for.
Mr. Jinnah was a hypocrite. He divided India on the basis of religion and then before dying said that “you are free to go to your temples”. How does that make sense? Besides, his legacy of Pakistan is a failure.
To prove my argument I suggest you look at the murders of Shia, Ahmadi, Hindu, Chrisitans, Bohra, Sikhs, Sindhi and Baloch nationalists.
of course it makes sense – it made sense because under Jinnah’s state people were free to go to their temples without the fear of persecution, which in Jinnah’s mind was the single biggest issue remaining unresolved with the united india model.
You mean to say under united India (under the British) people were not free to go to their mosques, temples, churches etc. And secondly, in present day India (with lesser number of Muslims than that was in British India) people are not free to go to their mosques, temples, churches etc. He was wrong on the first count and on the second, history proved him wrong.
I think you meant to say present day Pakistan..because in India people of all faiths go to their respective worship places without any bomb blasts or mass killings..
My dear friend I’m totally disagree with your thoughts because These sectarian and extrajudicial killings have got nothing to do with Mr Jinnah, you might have known that Mr Jinnah was passed away in very next year when Pakistan came in to being, so it was our duty to fulfil his dream of literate and moderate Pakistan, but unfortunately we fail to do this and now we are blaming him for everything, isn’t it called hypocracy?
See…I also don’t agree with those who says Britain educated Jinnah wasn’t secular . But He decision was wrong . He couldn’t see the implications of his decision.He put a Muslim majority in a place, created it for Muslims in the name of Islam(Islamic republic) following a violent path and expected his country men to behave with others in a secular manner .So I would say he couldn’t think like a visionary at that moment .When Gandhi had started non-cooperation with British with few of his friends , a Muslim asked him How can you fight with mighty British with handful people.Gandhi replied if Mohammad could defend Kaaba with only 26 soldiers , then Why can’t I ? Visionaries live in this way , but I reject those who say Jinnah wasn’t secular.
I do agree . Well It will be difficult for Pakistanis to digest it , even if I were in their position , I couldn’t have believed it .Fact is he did it for Muslim majority where a non-Muslim can’t be state head . If he was secular , why did he make it Islamic republic ? Why did he order direct action on the day of Islamic festival to show arrogance of his power , when poor Gandhi was visiting Bengal for unity among community and some mislead Hindus lastly killed Gandhi because Gandhi was the champion of unity in which he was failed .India had not faced any major communal violence before that and so he sowed the seed of hatred among each other after Mughals ?He also coined the term Hindustan for India , which most Indians generally don’t use and I frankly hate this word to use ?Things will be more cleared as we move on the path of future .
“He” did not declare Pakistan to be an Islamic Republic ever. That was decided two years later with the Objectives Resolution in 1949 and implemented in1956 and then turned to “Republic of Pakistan” by Ayub Khan and then again converted to “Islamic Republic” by him and Bhutto, since everyone other than Jinnah in the parliament in 1947-1951 was a feudal with no vision, interested only in protecting their property rights, and they eventually cowed down to the “Deoband” lot which had now started owning the country as its “own”. Yes there were exceptions in the parliament who spoke out against the OR, like the Hindu community in East Pakistan and Leftists like Mian Iftikharrudin from Lahore and female parliamentarians such as Begum Shah Nawaz from Lahore. As for Gandhi being an ideal “secularist”, although I’m a huge fun, his language and tactics during the independence struggle were quintessentially Hindu, and he and congress called for the Partition of Bengal and Punjab, while Jinnah wanted to integrate Bengali Hindus and Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs into Pakistan. It was very hypocritical of him to ask for separate electorates for Hindus and Punjab and Bengal, and reject it for Muslims in the rest of India.
How come Gandhi’s language and tactics were like Hindus ? You could have given some instances where he insulted any religion or supported any other .After seeing the partion , he was so sorry that he himself asked for a separate land for Muslims and that was he was murdered by some mislead youths . He had followers like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and other Congress Muslim leaders . before coming to India , He worked for black people in africa and poor people of UK and thrown away from running train.The only tactics he followed his non-operation and even fasted for odd 20 days after mobs burnt British police men . The only language he talked is non-violence. I think you have been mislead by your historians or leaders.
Don’t bother.. Pakistanis are fed via their textbooks that Gandhi was communal and Jinnah was a massiah. I don’t blame these innocent souls…
So true. Our current miserable state is own own doing, and started with the Objective Resolution of 1949, after Jinnah had already passed away.
I strongly wish there is a debate about true value and use of Objectives Resolution. It paves the way towards a theocratic state. It is about time to define boldly and clearly that Objectives Resolution should be taken out of 1973 Constitution (both preamble and main body of the Constitution). Also, institutions like Islamic Ideology Council, Sahriat courts, and the alike are not truly useful any more. Hence justice must be done to all such steps taken mainly in Zia era.
Jinnah’s misfortune was that he thought he will be able to create a secular country whose very foundation defied every logic of secularism (two nation theory).
One statement (Aug 11, 1947) in a house of landlords and opportunist can not make a movement secular. I will like to ask you why entire leadership of Muslim League was unaware about the modern secular vision of Jinnah, why Objective Resolution was passed with overwhelming majority in the house immediately after death of Jinnah. I will hold Jinnah responsible for running a confused Pakistan movement wherein his followers had no clue about his own vision about polity of Pakistan.
This is a myth that had Jinnah lived longer Pakistan would have been different. Lets take a look at the brief tenure of Jinnah as “Governor General of Pakistan”
Jinnah lived for only one year after the birth of the nation, but in that time he set the standard of a top-down administration, adopting
the style of Moghul emperors, not democratic leaders. To begin with, Jinnah decided not to become the country’s first prime minister, instead choosing to be the Queen’s representative to the new country as her first governor general. By any parliamentary standards or tradition, the post of governor general is largely ceremonial. It has the all the pomp and ceremony, but little true executive power. However, in the words of British Lord Louis Mountbatten, who oversaw the independence of India and Pakistan, Jinnah was incapable of resisting “pomp, the gaudy ceremonials of the top office of the state for which he had worked so hard.”
When Mountbatten tried to explain to Jinnah that, under Pakistan’s interim constitution, the governor general was a ceremonial head of state and real power lay with the prime minister, Jinnah told him curtly, “In Pakistan, I will be the Governor-General and the Prime
Minister will do what I tell him.” And that is how history would record his one year in office. Jinnah revoked the authority of the
Muslim League parliamentary group and chose the country’s new prime minister. He also named his prime minister’s first cabinet for him, and if that was not enough, as governor general also sat in cabinet. There is no question that Jinnah was an extremely popular leader, and his very word was the law. However, as is the case with all popular benevolent dictators, instead of leaving behind institutions of democracy, he left a trail of authoritarian precedents that are invoked and implemented to the nation’s detriment even today.
In the summer of 1947, one week after swearing in his new prime minister and cabinet, and as Pakistanis were celebrating their first
Eid-ul-Fitr holiday after Ramadan, Jinnah broke another sacred principle of democracy. He dismissed the duly elected provincial
government in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which borders Afghanistan. Dr. Khan Sahib, the chief minister of the province, had a comfortable majority. Jinnah installed his own party as the government, but when it failed to get a vote of confidence, he arranged to have all the dismissed members arrested, creating an artificial majority.
Nine months after dismissing the NWFP government, Jinnah demonstrated his arbitrary power again. This time he dismissed the government in the province of Sind, which belonged to his own party, the Muslim League. And as if this were not enough, the ailing leader of Pakistan then tried to stage a palace coup inside the provincial government of Punjab. In less than a year of the nation’s existence, the man who had created Pakistan as a democratic state for the Muslims of India had gone against the grain of democracy, invoked Islam to bring discipline among those who protested, and mere weeks before he passed away,
declared to the country’s majority Bengali population that their language was not worthy of being the nation’s national language as it
was not a “Muslim” language. Before he died, he had sown the seeds of the country’s breakup. The so-called language riots that broke out after Jinnah’s “Urdu Only” speech were the first step towards the ultimate secession of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh.
After Jinnah’s death in 1948, the top-down authoritarian model grew in strength. If the Father of the Nation had set the precedent of
arbitrary rule, who would dare stand in the way? The first test of democracy came in May 1949, during a by-election in the constituency of Tangail in then East Pakistan. To the shock of the ruling Muslim League, the party lost the election to the nascent opposition. Stung by the loss and taking it as a personal insult, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan declared the result null and void and the newly elected member of the constituent assembly was jailed along with numerous other opposition activists. One of those arrested, prominent communist leader Moni Singh, was to spend a total of twenty-two years either in jail or underground. He walked in freedom again only after Pakistan broke up in 1971.
After Jinnah’s death, the Islamists swooped in for the kill. Those who had opposed the creation of the country now became its guardians. With Islamists flexing their muscles on one side and a constitutional crisis looming, the new governor general, Ghulam Mohammad, upped the ante and outdid Jinnah. In 1952 he fired the prime minister, dismissed the cabinet, and started ruling by decree. By 1954, the country was lurching from one crisis to another, with the ruling party suffering massive defeats across the country in provincial elections. As the country was celebrating the founder’s birthday on Christmas Day, 1954, the governor general dissolved the Constituent Assembly. If Governor General Jinnah could dissolve provincial legislatures, surely, his successor argued, he could dissolve the federal legislature.
excellent insight
WOnderful assessment and knowledge of history. thanks for sharing all this with us. Your are very right in your assessments. What do you think about 1905 partition of Bengal? It is possible that the thought of Pakistan was actually subconsiously created at that time?
Excellent insight into pages of history….
I should mention that yours is the longest comment that was ever posted on this website….
Any references ? it would help me on passing on these things
While I personally agree with some points, I will have to do more research to be able to make overall conclusion that Jinnah was unclear in his mind about structure of the country he had founded. Remember that Jinnah was surrounded by people he did not trust very well. So, some of his actions may look arbitrary. But majority of Pakistan’s problems came from 1958-1968 Ayub Khan rule. Jinnah had already told Pakistan’s young army officers passing out after independence that their role was to safeguard the frontiers and not indulge in politics. Doesn’t that indicate that he smelled some ‘tendency’ in armed forces? By and large, Jinnah was a democratic man. You can refer to a number of speeches he made before independence. Whatever Jinnah did in his short life after independence did not justify Ayub Khan (first non-British Commander in Chief) usurping power and keeping it with him for 10 years (during which mental separation of East and West Pakistan happened, only to be materialized in 1971). I cannot prove it as it is a matter of historical fact but despite linguistic issue, Pakistan would not have broken down if it was not for heavy handed rule of Ayub. Subsequently, ZAB did some good and bad things till Zia’s martial law doomed almost everything for us. Only recently, some semblance of military receding from politics is being seen. I am sure, Pakistan have Turkey-like reforms and complete transfer of power to civilian politicians. Problems like sectarianism and terrorism (however unfortunate) are just a temporary waves and eventually sanity will prevail.
Dawn sets a new standard of open debate, by allowing your post.
For which you both deserve kudos.
Very well written article.Gives piece by piece,step by step,time by time view of history of Pakistan,Jinnah,Muslim League etc .It lightens up how Jinnah changed his stance every single moment as of a typical politician,especially calling Bangla language as unislamic,which finally led to creation of Bangladesh. Twists and turns of Pakistan history is very well documented by you sir.Kudos to your knowledge of history,your command over English grammar and how beautifully you conveyed the message.
By and large excellent analysis. In some areas you seem too harsh on Jinnah. For example, declaring Urdu as national language can be logical move as a diverse nation need’s some jelling factor’s to retain a level of uniformity at national level. That move might not be because Bengali was ‘Unislamic’. However Jinnah seems implemented these kind of changes rather hurriedly. How can one enforce a new language on region which is quite known for its love and take pride in its language??? A national leader ought to know these kind of intricacies rather well. Whatever history I have read about Jinnah, I am becoming more and more clear that he was not really sure what he wanted to do with Pakisthan or rather why he created one. I notice most of Pakisthani Intelligentia mentioning 11 Aug. 1947 speech of Jinnah in which he envisioned secular, liberal, democratic ….. Pakisthan. They ‘complain’ how their country is drifted away from ‘vision’ of their founding father since its inception. One cannot conveniently forget Jinnah’s various actions and words till 1947 were in severe contradiction of vision he proposed on 11th Aug 1947 speech. One cannot blame second/third layer of leaders that assumed power in Pakisthan for not properly implementing his vision after Jinnah’s death, For most of them his 11th Aug speech could have been ‘meaningless’ given Jinnah himself not followed these ideals before and even after landmark speech
Excellent piece as usual. I so wish that Pakistanis stop confusing Jinnah to be a mullah. He was not. Simple.
in my humble opinion , Jinah was Pure ( pre partitioned ) as every one of us 180 millions Pure ( post partitioned and post the thumbing of 1971 ) we have become ( add with a pinch of salt ) the Hypocrite . Every one used then and now the religion to divide then and even today . Ayub did it too perhaps you are forgetting the famous quote from him ” he told the gathering of so called ulemas from various spiritual thinking , define what is a Muslim and what is the Sharia , I will put that into the Law just now ! offcourse not 2 of the so jayyad aalms could agree on this basic defination of a Muslim ” so Ayub was not a secular but a cunning wizard who also used the religion to propagate and strengthen his own rule ………
and the cunning of them all (Zia ul Haq) took this further by patronizing armed extremist organizations.
The word secularism is the most miss-interpreted. According to Oxford dictionary, it means the attitude or way of life without religion or heavenly guidance. I think Mr jinnah , who was a practicing Muslim, never used this word in this sense . It is very strange that we are being confused that as Muslims what will be our politics, economy, laws, which were decided some 1400 years ago, according to Mr jinnah.
secularism is not in line islamic principles and hence you cannot blame muslims…those dreaming of secular pak must improve their knowledge of islam itself..in india this debate never arises coz hindu philosphohy states there can be multiple paths to god and hence inherently secular..
If Hinduism is inherently secular and India is a secular state, slaughter of cow would not be a crime (carrying a sentence of 7 years and a fine of 100,000 Rupees) in majority of the states in India. I find it highly hypocritical of Indian nationals or people of Indian origin living in Europe and USA, criticising Pakistan. They should clean up their house first.
pls post my comments
How is ban on cow slaughter communal? Please enlighten me.
is cow slaughtering in India is a crime?!!! Now that is something new for me. is it true guys?
No. I am a hindu, who love beef and can get it in any town (big or small) in India in either Muslim hotels or big 3-4-5 star hotels. Though I am not sure about the state of Gujrat.
You hang people just on the suspicion of a mentally disturbed girl defaming your religion and call your neighbours communal for banning the cow slaughter. Does that mean for India to be truly secular, it has to slaughter cows?
So, It is the doubt which baffles you ? We do it to maintain harmony among communities . We also prevent Hindus and Christians to stop slaughtering of Pigs, which is the mostly eaten meat in the world and muslims hate this animal .In many states , you can’t even a pig slaughtering center in radius of 5 km from mosque.It is sacrifice for each other.Your society is not that diverse to understand this fact . So you have been like a frog in the well…….
What pakistan is today is what jinna set the tone for though he may not have expeced this , just because it looks ugly with all inter muslim violence and terrorism one cannot absolve jinna from this mess he is culpable . pakistan will be like this since this is what subcontinental muslims wanted unknowingly. Inspite of indians being tamil. matai, bihari and what not its a secular country….and pakistan inspite of being entirely islamic is still not what it was.Some direct action is need within pakistan now.
Highly insightful article, especially for people like me who suffer from a lack of historical research..
History will, in decades to come, conclude that the tragedy of Pakistan was rushing through a process that should necessarily have been longer and guided by less extreme elements. The entire concept and raison d’ etre for establishing Pakistan was (if one discounts far fetched and fond ideas) thought out and pushed through within two or three decades. Then instead of post 1947, an essential period of incubation with final interpretation of the ‘correct’ method by the Qaid e Azam, when conflicting ideas emerged, the wisdom of Jinnah was unfortunately unavailable barely a year into the existence of Pakistan. Much as the Islamic version of the Sub-continent’s history would brusg aside, this was a land populated by non-Muslims for several millenia. The process of conversion and assimilation of the local population into Islam would take centuries, involving overwhelming local customs and beliefs, as it did. As a smaller, but no less vital a corollary, changes in deeply held beliefs of sects like Ismailis and Ahmadiyas (much less Shias and Sunnis) have yet to be addressed or reconciled. We will never know how the Qaid would have dealt with problems that face Pakistan today, though in all fairness most of them are creations of rulers who followed his demise. But what is a bitter truth is that many – if not most – of these problems would have not occurred in the first place had the Qaid’s idea of a secular Islamic state, where “the state has no business in religion” been scruplously followed. The Hindus were, reviled as they are, essential to Pakistani society – a necessary ‘inert’ component in what emerged as an explosive mix of inconsistencies within Islam.
Pardeep, you know what: if Pakistan was not created on Aug 14, 1947 I can assure you we would still be fighting for a country. So, Jinnah was a sage and a true visionary to strike when the iron was hot (that is, to accept Pakistan with some not-so-suitable borders).
We as a nation even after 65 years remain in identity search. ? muslim first then pakistani or ? pakistani first then muslim, ? secular pakistani muslims or ? non-secular pakistani muslims.
With every year passing buy the whole picture is getting more and more confused. Anyway, brilliant and thought provoking article.
Maybe even Jinnah didn’t know who Jinnah was.
Nevertheless, a insightful article looking at how he was shaped and then reshaped by various regimes.
Mobeen Jinnah exactly knew what he wanted? He was a khoja shia and never wanted a Wahabee/deobandee islamic state where shias would be called non-muslims and killed day and night. Jinnah wanted a TRUE muslim democratic state where not only Shias lived freely but also other minority religions, the white portion in our flag was put for them.
capt saab ,
with the present brand of Islam, true Muslim democratic state will be oxymoron.
Babu bhai any brand of islam that does not target the monorities, respects other humans and religions, excells in accademic education, brings economic oportuniteis for it’s citizens would be the ideal one today i guess.
we will be waiting and everyone would love to . But give us some deadline at least
agreed capt saab,how fast can any muslim nation ,achieve your idea,seriously i only see regression ,but in my heart i pray for your dream to come true.
@Paracha Saheb
I wonder How long will you and your country men defend Mr.Jinnah . Jinnah craved out a state for only muslims , yet he wanted it to be a secular ,he wanted religion not to play a role in state business ….How is it possible ?A common logical person can say that if a group of people of same mindset or any other similarity flock together , they will be monolithic and won’t allow other opinions to pop up .Secularism is a thing which you can’t impose on society , for that either you have to educate your society or make your society diverse .But for some moment , If I believe you , then I come to conclusion that Mr.Jinnah didn’t think about the future before doing this .
What people are not able to grab is quite a fundamental rule of Islam that allows minoroities to observe their religious rituals and may live according to their practices …..wonder why we still have an identity crises and our print and electronic media is not doing the justice to the fact that Pakistan ideation was based to the Modern Islmaic State and after 65 years we are criticising Mr. Jinnah for this tireless efforts to make it happen , an independent country that once was a dream.
This is really disappointing that we as a nation are not a nation . We are confused , we are detracked , we are directionless and bunch of orthodox minds …..
I am not aware to the sequential course of historical events and thereby I request to the writer to immediately invoke a debate on the national level which include most of the reliable scholars of this time to investigagte it once for all and let the people know what was the Pakistan of Jinnah…….
Even after 65 years we are asking each one of us , who we are are , why did we get this country ……jinnah never wanted Pak “an islamic state” …… what I think that most of the people do not really know what Islam is and what secularism is … this is just a facsion to talk more secular and in our country secularism is known as religion less that i think is wrong.
We thought that Islam is what one tribe of media potrays ” an extreme version” where there you can not even breath freely “. The other tribe lies on the other extreme of libralism where they say that we are free and we are free to do everything , we have no set limits …. we are as free as birds…..wonder where goes the real Islam…. wonder where goes the understanding of Islamic prudence that once drived the major part of the world and that neither was first extrem like i said before nor the second modern so called melo dramatic religion free extreme .
we are using our energies to prove that Jinnah was not right , he was confused …..Alas , a nation that does not really identify who helped the nation or rather who collected people on the single idea of an independent country , is a nation that eventually becomes a loser in the end if keep going the way it has been from the last 65 years ……
I disagree. Islam allows minorities to live in Muslim states, but only subject to some condition. The non-Muslims are never treated as equal citizens even under the best of Islamic principles.
Pakistan’s disastrous course was charted only after Jinnah had passed away. Pakistan got hijacked by the military and the religious right, who have used fear, fear of India and fear of Allah, to rule Pakistan. Without this fear, these two entities would not have any legs to stand on.
We will never know if the very concept of Pakistan was fundamentally flawed. The Pakistan of Jinnah was destroyed even before it had the chance to come out of its bud.
Good to see that some politicians and intellectuals are once again trying to revive Jinnah as a progressive. He’s been disfigured a bit too much in the last thirty years.
A very interesting article again NFP.