History is commonly devoid of the verity and probity that may best characterise a man who is surprisingly as relevant today as he was over 100 years ago. The world is not short of examples of influential figures retaining lasting historical significance for the people of their nations. However, one fumbles for words to honestly describe someone who is so excessively quoted, often cited, and frequently remembered by the literati and intelligentsia of even rival states in both favourable and unfavourable terms.

In a similar vein, words beg for more equivalent alternatives both from native and foreign languages to portray someone who was buried in a marbled mausoleum over seven decades before but remains a central point of reference even in the contemporary nationalist discourse of the nation next door. Lurking behind a secular façade, they ruthlessly engineer false narratives by sponsoring a cabal of contrary historians, who, out of inner resentment and ingrained malice, tamper with historical records to the extent of rampant vituperation and state-funded vilification of those who dared to hold a different view.

Even though the yearly observance of December 25 as the birthday of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, has been reduced to just another public holiday or state ritual, the relevance it holds for present-day Pakistan, along with its neighbour, is as significant as it was before the country was created as an independent Muslim state in the 1940s.

When discussing Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, one often wonders about his transformation from an ardent Indian nationalist and a fervent supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity to a unanimously endorsed ‘Quaid-i-Azam’, or Great Leader — the flag-bearer of a separate and sovereign state for Muslims to be carved out of Hindu-majority British India.

No doubt, the creation of Pakistan as an independent Muslim state was not an ordinary achievement, nor was the emergence of Jinnah as the face of the All-India Muslim League, the sole representative of Muslim rights and interests in India. Jinnah is often erroneously compared with the leaders of his era, namely Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, but neither of them altered the course of history, changed any geography or established a new nation-state out of thin air. Jinnah, as famously eulogised by Stanley Alber Wolpert, did all three.

When viewed through the prism of history, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah stands far taller than other political leaders of his era.

Odd man out

It is always worth mentioning that, for the Muslim majority of united India, Jinnah was seemingly the odd man out and was initially ridiculed, fiercely taunted, and often looked at with suspicion by the crème de la crème of Muslim literati because of his beardless looks, Western-inspired outfits, and modish appearance untypical of a ‘standard Muslim’ of that era. He was neither passed out from a madrassa nor had any religious background. To cap it all off, he could not read Urdu, let alone Arabic or Persian, the major languages spoken by the Muslims of India.

However, even for contemporary historians, what is more surprising is the steady rise of Jinnah as the leading Muslim voice in the subcontinent. A few years before the creation of Pakistan, the intent of the entire leadership of the All-India Muslim League, not excluding Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was vociferously questioned by the Muslim clergy, who challenged the Muslim electorate if they could ever find a ‘prayer mat’ in the houses of their Muslim League leaders. In marked contrast, a significant chunk of the Muslim clergy in India decided to move to Pakistan after its creation, and they referred to the nascent country as the ‘Castle of Islam’ even though those who led the Pakistan Movement were initially seen as British agents who had nothing to do with religion.

Despite the presence of such towering religious scholars as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi, Hussain Ahmed Madani, Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, and many others, Jinnah’s steady emergence as the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims was not a coincidence. From a historical perspective, his journey from Jinnah Poonja to Quaid-i-Azam was the destined outcome of a historical process that led to his phenomenal rise as the voice of India’s largest yet cornered minority, which, since ages, had been suffering from the lack of strong political leadership to safeguard its cultural, political and socio-economic interests in a religiously heterogeneous country.

A leader for the Muslims

The watershed moment came when the Indian Revolt of 1857 took place, and soon after that, British forces started targeting India’s Muslim minority in general and ulema in particular, mainly because of their active role in challenging colonial rule tooth and nail and fuelling Anglophobia through the pulpit. Post-1857, a large number of ulema, now mockingly referred to as maulvis and mullahs, were ruthlessly executed by canon, and their unsung sacrifices sowed the seeds of independence, laying the foundation of a separate country for Muslims 90 years before its actual creation and a couple of decades before Jinnah was born. Still, their divided and out-of-place interpretation of the existential crises facing the Muslims of the subcontinent left an enormous political void, which was later filled by Jinnah and his followers.

Most importantly, the then representatives of the Muslim clergy, along with their opinion leadership, could not shrug off the romanticism of Hindu-Muslim unity in pursuit of a fancied nationhood in a united India and shied away from the mainstream political process owing to misinformation and various conspiracy beliefs hatched by those opposing Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and his Aligarh Movement. Intrinsically divided on the basis of seminary ideologies, sectarian beliefs, and political understandings, the Muslim religious leadership of the late 19th century could not put its finger on the pulse of the time.

Later, those who opposed Jinnah and his pursuit of a separate Muslim homeland thought they were doing so in the name of Islam, as they perceived the Pakistan Movement merely as a ploy to divide the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent and reduce their strength vis-à-vis an unassailable Hindu majority. Interestingly, those who supported Jinnah and fully endorsed his demand for a separate country did so also in the name of Islam, as the idea of a new model Muslim state on the map of the world was akin to a Muslim uprising which would also strengthen the ummah as a whole, help the other occupied states rid themselves of colonial powers, and be a model welfare state to be emulated by the rest of the Muslim world.

Much to the dismay of liberal and secular intellectuals, Islam was the dominant factor throughout the Pakistan Movement, as evidenced by the flag adopted by the All-India Muslim League, a flurry of slogans raised during the movement, the literature created by leading writers and poets, and speeches delivered on various occasions by none other than Quaid himself. The Muslims of the subcontinent, under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam, were driven mainly in the name of Islam since, other than Islam, no compelling reason or power could have steered over five million Muslims to leave their centuries-old ancestral homes, lands, and possessions behind and go through the throes of a blood-ridden migration to settle in a nascent country where everything had to be started from scratch.

It was all out of a sense of profound brotherhood and religious fervour that the real struggle for a separate Muslim state, to be made in Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, and North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), was waged by the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Central Provinces of India. Those who want to eliminate Islam from Pakistan’s independence movement history need to first eliminate Muhammad Ali Jinnah from it, as his miraculous rise from Jinnah to Quaid-i-Azam would not have been possible had he not departed from the illusory idea of a united India to one of absolute Muslim independence both from British colonial rule and the emerging Hindu hegemony in one go.

A man for the times

At a historical juncture when institutional democracy was fast replacing coercive means of governance worldwide, the idea of a separate nation for Muslims could have only been championed by a rational voice like Jinnah. The time needed a consummate statesman, a seasoned negotiator, and a firm believer in a peaceful and democratic struggle who could rise to the occasion to defend Muslim independence and address their concerns on a larger horizon, that too, in a language and mannerism that could be well understood and appreciated by the Empire.

More than an advocate of militant struggle or a firebrand rabble-rouser pitting the vulnerable Muslim minority against the colonial Goliath, the political dimension of the Pakistan Movement required an astute lawyer who had never lost a case in his career and could best defend the case of Indian Muslims, enumerated in millions. That was Jinnah’s commitment, which helped him self-award himself the case of his life, which he won by establishing an independent nation-state for Indian Muslims. For an accomplished barrister like Jinnah, the Pakistan Movement was not about freeing an innocent individual from an erroneous court conviction and unfair persecution; it was about saving the country’s largest minority from impending disaster in the form of British colonialism and Hindu hegemony after the exit of British forces.

When viewed through the prism of history, Jinnah stands taller than other political leaders of his era. In a political career spanning over four decades, Quaid-i-Azam stayed away from the politics of agitation and intimidation — uncommon characteristics in today’s political milieu. Although the top leadership of the Indian National Congress in general, and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in particular, promoted in their rhetoric the principle of satyagraha, or non-violent resistance, to British colonial rule, it was Muhammad Ali Jinnah who always steered clear of populism and demagoguery and never stirred popular discontent or exploited collective frustration to advance his political agenda. He was not known for staging a long march or sit-in for political point scoring or calling for a civil disobedience movement at the expense of innocent people’s lives, widespread anarchy, and a heavily compromised law and order. Similarly, his dictionary had no such words as political blackmailing, non-cooperation drive, protest strike, work stoppage, and boycotts of British manufacturers and institutions.

Thus, the Quaid’s political modus operandi marked a radical shift in the subcontinent by winning mass support from all quarters of Muslim intelligentsia and social strata through non-violent rallying instead of inciting public angst.

Standing tall

Since the creation and breakup of Pakistan, the entire state machinery of India has been moving heaven and earth to depict Jinnah in a negative light for his role in making an independent Muslim state carved out of India. However, his foresight and prudence, along with their relevance to the contemporary subcontinent, keep emerging as acceptance of the inevitable for the people of both India and Bangladesh.

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, on the one hand, has stood firm with his entire ideology as the nation’s founder since the creation of Pakistan 77 years ago. The people of Bangladesh, on the other hand, have not only demolished the statutes of their purported founding fathers after the country’s creation 51 years ago, but also observed this September the death anniversary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the bona fide founder of both Pakistan and its erstwhile eastern wing, realising the fact that “Pakistan would not have been created without him, and without Pakistan, Bangladesh too would not exist.”

“If Bangladesh had not been part of Pakistan in 1947, we would have been in the same position as Kashmir today, with the Indian junta holding weapons to our necks. Bangladesh gained independence because of Pakistan, which Jinnah helped create,” said one of the speakers on the 76th death anniversary of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which was commemorated at the National Press Club in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in September this year.

In 2022, in New Delhi, India’s capital, the farmers of the Indian Punjab were seen hoisting the placard, “Jinnah! You Were Right.” If Jinnah had emerged as the key proponent of the Two-Nation Theory a hundred years before, the current plight of religious minorities, including Muslims, in India alludes to the more advanced version of the theory, describing its evolution from Hindus vs Muslims to Hindus vs non-Hindus, thanks to the divisive Hindutva ideology steering the country in the opposite direction.

Back to first principles

Although today’s Pakistan does not reflect his ideals, Quaid-i-Azam and his relevance to our times are irrefutable for several reasons. Above all, those who regard Jinnah as merely a glorious chapter of the past yet fail to find a true leader within their ranks, may draw the most important lesson from his ultimate struggle: a man of principles, he never looked towards the ruling establishment for favouritism or wheeling and dealing. In his entire political career, he never compromised his principled stance in return for vested interests, asked the establishment to intervene in matters beyond its jurisdiction, or held any backdoor negotiations with them.

Jinnah was a consummate proponent of a legitimate political process through dialogue and consultation with all stakeholders. In the first two decades of the 20th century, his rise to the political scene at the Indian National Congress platform was marked by sobriety, high principles, firm uprightness, absolute honesty, and iron discipline. Those were some of his trademark qualities, out of many, and which he adhered to till his last breath in September 1948 as Pakistan’s founder and the country’s first governor-general. From day one, his political credentials were bolstered by his resolute personal standing as a learned, well-bred, untainted leader with a strong sense of political dignity and statesmanship.

As things currently stand, the phrase ‘Unity, Faith, and Discipline,’ Jinnah’s guiding principles, as well as Pakistan’s motto, has been reduced to cliché for the citizenry en masse and for those at the helm of power. However, the phrase best describes Jinnah as a person of high principles and character. It also sums up his underlying approach to achieving the formidable task of carving out a separate country for his people despite all odds.

When it came to unity, for example, Jinnah was tasked with the most challenging job of bringing together a scattered people historically known for internal division, profound disunion, and diverse factions based on sectarian adherence, seminary affiliation, caste, language, and region. Yet again, Jinnah’s exemplary leadership put Indian Muslims on a single political platform to pursue a single-point agenda, kept them united until the cause was fulfilled, and never allowed them to lose their faith — one of the essential components of his core principles. Jinnah was aware of the fact that the making of a separate nation-state would be a distant dream until the fragmented Muslim community turned into a disciplined single force. Thus, over and above individual success, such key attributes as ‘Unity, Faith, and Discipline’ are the sought-after characteristics a country must also possess to thrive in the comity of nations. Pakistan is no exception.

Having lost over seven decades in our failed nation-building efforts and fragmented transition to becoming a modern, welfare Islamic state, the need of the hour is to refer back to the ideals as envisioned by the Father of the Nation and supported by generation after generation of the Indian Muslims all through the Pakistan Movement.

The writer is associated with a local publication as a member of its editorial board. He can be reached at faizanusmani76@gmail.com