By Yasser Latif Hamdani
On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of Lincoln Memorial- dedicated to the memory of the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln- in Washington DC and made that famous pronouncement, to a multitude of people joined together in a quest for racial equality, which has gone down in history as the “I have a dream” and “Let freedom ring” speech. It is one of those rare speeches that become ingrained in the conscience of nations, where the speech takes a life of its own, standing alone as a shining light of truth against terrible darkness.
Dr. King started off his speech with a reference to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. He spoke of the “great beacon light of hope” that the “Negroes” had seen 100 years prior to that. He went on to describe the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as a “promissory note” on which the US had defaulted. Dr. King then spoke of his dream to see a fulfillment of that promissory note, to live in a land where all men are created equal, where the descendants of slave owners could live together with the descendants of slaves in a bond of brotherhood and where race would no longer be a limiting factor. He then finished off with those historic words “Lets freedom ring…”
Two scores and five years later, as we stand at the threshold of a transformational US presidency, Dr. King would be proud- its been a “long time coming” but the long march to DC is finally over. The Americans have finally elected a “negro” to the White House and not only that but this new proud American president has a middle name that was till recently associated with one of America’s most hated foreign enemies. Much indeed was made of the fact that Obama was “secretly” a Muslim (which he is not) but perhaps the real spirit of America and what it stands for was captured by Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, and who should’ve been the first African American President of the US eight years ago if not twelve. Powell responded to “Muslim” allegation against Obama – criticizing his own party- by saying “Even if Obama was a Muslim, so what? Are you telling me that a seven year old Muslim American kid can’t dream to be president one day? This is not how we do things in America.” For us in Pakistan this is a poignant lesson, for we too have our own speech- the kind of speech that Dr. King delivered in Washington- which in many ways is a promissory note unto itself, one which we have defaulted on badly.
On August 11, 1947, at the inaugural session of the constituent assembly, the first Governor General of Pakistan – the first person of Asian birth and origin to ever hold that exalted post in the British commonwealth- M.A. Jinnah, who we in Pakistan fondly remember as the “Quaid-e-Azam”, stood up to speak for the first time after being elected as the first president of the Constituent Assembly – the first session of which was very symbolically presided over by Joginder Nath Mandal, a scheduled caste Hindu, who was also soon to become Pakistan’s first law minister. Immediately before his speech, the Congress leader from East Pakistan, Kiran Shankar Roy, had spoken congratulating Jinnah on his achievement and requesting that Jinnah make a clear pronouncement clarifying whether Pakistan would be a secular or a theocratic state. The 1700 word-long speech that Jinnah gave did exactly that.
He spoke of a Pakistan where life, liberty and religious belief of every citizen regardless of religion caste or creed would be fully protected, where religion would be a “personal faith” of the individual, where neither caste nor creed shall be any business of the state and where there would be no bars on any citizen for any reason whatsoever. This was not the first time or the last time that Jinnah said those things, but the way he said it that day in front of Pakistan’s highest legislative and constituent body about to embark on the onerous task of constitution-making left no doubt the kind of country he wanted. Sadly precious little of what he said was followed by Pakistan, hence our current nightmare. Yet what he said that day lives on as our national conscience. It is this – that uneasy feeling, the despair and pain we feel as Pakistanis when we see this state failing to fulfill the dream of a secular democratic welfare state based on social justice for all its children- be they Hindu, Muslim, Ahmadi, Christian and the non-believer, whether their language is Urdu, Sindhi, Punjabi, Pushto or any other language spoken in this land of ours.
We must ask ourselves if a Non-Muslim Pakistani can ever dream of becoming the president or prime minister of this country? It is not even constitutionally possible sadly. Our current constitution bars a Non-Muslim from becoming the president of this republic and the oath for the prime minister is that of a Muslim, creating, therefore, a de facto bar there as well. This while our giant neighbour despite being 83% Hindu, has had two Muslim presidents and currently has a Sikh Prime Minister. The ruling party is led by a Roman catholic and knocking on the doors of Delhi is a Dalit woman. It is worth dwelling on whether if Jinnah had known this turn of events, he would ever agree to the creation of Pakistan?
The steps of Jinnah’s mausoleum await Pakistan’s Dr. King.
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer in Islamabad, Pakistan
35 Comments
January 6, 2009 at 4:03 am
Reading this reminds me one of the most controversial decisions of Mahatma Gandhi to withdraw the Non-cooperation movement. He practiced and preached non-violence path and when few of the protestors in the country dreaded to violence, setting a police station on fire, he withdrew the movement., Though it invariably delayed the Freedom.,But what it gave birth was this unimaginable concept of satyagraha. People realized that their small emotion could hamper the greater cause!
India has slipped away sadly from those values.
Who will in this world, yet again claim that his life is his message?
January 6, 2009 at 6:53 am
you have the answer but you dont want to accept it.
the concept of cultural majority/cultural minority is a watershed and utter nonsense.
examples:
bangladesh did not have same cultural identity as pakistan
a tamil/bengali/gujrati muslim has much more cultural similarity to their hindu counterparts than say with a pujabi/kashmiri/bihari muslim. (not to say that punjabi/kashmiri/bihari have similarity either…is just an illustartion)
probably balochi/pakhtun cultural identity is separate(my question why to invite trouble with this concept)
founding a country based on religion and then vying for secular credentials is like dog trying to catch its tail.
I am sorry to say that the concept of pakistan was an error and the leaders of pakistan had short sighted personal agrrandizement motives behind the same.
How and why did you live with and supported jihadi elements which incited/inflicted violence not only on paramilitary forces but on common indian public. (to my knoledge i do not know of any jihadi elements in India against Pak. of course RAW vs ISI argument is always there but there are no LET, Jaish operating here overtly.)
why were you so naive in cooperating with US in fuelling jihad against USSR. Isn’t your consent your responsibility as well?
A lot of work has to be done by your public/government/army to put things back on track (yes i know India has to do a lot desirable too but what india has to do pales in significance and importance of what pakistan has to do)
Best of Luck
January 6, 2009 at 7:10 am
alok mian,
With all due respect I have already answered your pathetic jingoistic garbage on several occasions. Merely repeating hogwash cannot lend credibility to it. It might have worked in Nazi Germany… it won’t work here.
Your failure to respond to my posts on “Quaid-e-Azam” board speaks volumes about “substance” in your “answer”. Suffice to say What you’ve written above is garbage which has been debunked by historians and authors of much great credibility than you like, H M Seervai, Ayesha Jalal, Patrick French etc.
Now stop this dishonesty and be on your way. But then again, the followers of racist casteist Hindu fascist misogynist bigot like Mahatma Gandhi have a hard time giving up social conditioning.
January 6, 2009 at 7:20 am
again you bring mahatma gandhi into it. you have an obssesive complusive disorder. consult a shrink
January 6, 2009 at 7:28 am
It bothers you doesn’t it….
The fact is that my bringing Gandhi into it has nothing to do with the fact that you and your Mullah fascist counterparts in Pakistan are dead wrong about Pakistan being founded on “religion”. Pakistan was founded on a very progressive secular principle: a permanent cultural majority should not dictate to a permanent cultural minority on the basis of sheer numbers alone.
Had things taken a wrong turn in the US … had the whites acted like Hindus did in India in face of the civil rights movement, and had the Blacks seceded- would you call that Black nation (as once envisaged by malcolm X) a country founded on race?
Your problem is an intolerance of a point of view which challenges the comfortable untruths you believe in. I’ll continue to bring your “Mahatma” so long as you continue to try and tell us what is right and what is wrong. Identity is always imagined … get it in your head.
January 6, 2009 at 7:36 am
Had Pakistan followed its basic principle of respecting diversity… Bangladesh would be part of Pakistan’s federation. And there wouldn’t provincial dischord.
And also… lets not forget that it was Nehru who insisted on having Bangladesh part of Pakistan as a whole in 1947…. Jinnah had approved Sarat-Suhrawardy plan for an independent and united Bengal.
So what the hell are you going on about?
Personal aggrandizement? Partition itself was caused by personal aggrandizement of Congress’ flawed and petty leaders.
January 6, 2009 at 7:44 am
a fact even confirmed by Congress’ loyal pithu Maulana Azad in his book “India wins freedom” … for which he earned the ire of Raj Mohan Gandhi…
And thank god for honest Indians like H M Seervai and Pakistanis like Ayesha Jalal who have acted as whistle-blowers for history-distorters and myth-makers.
January 6, 2009 at 8:03 am
of course coveniently those who side with you are honest and others are history-distorters and myth makers.
just like one of the zen masters said once:
‘ask a question closer to home’. (question your own motives biases than the veracity of outside events.)
January 6, 2009 at 9:23 am
alok swain…
H M Seervai merely took the transfer of power papers and made his conclusions upon examining them. Ever since the transfer of power papers have come out, it seems that academics increasingly take the view that you so desperately want to deny.
January 6, 2009 at 6:19 pm
interesting take by ayesha jalal in one of the interviews, full can be found in nytimes article:
What has angered so many Muslims here and in her homeland is Ms. Jalal’s assertion that the revered founding father of Pakistan, the slender, eloquent Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had feet of clay. She argues that the 1947 partitioning of India — the event that opened the door for the creation of Pakistan — was an accident, a colossal miscalculation. What’s more, she says that Jinnah never wanted a separate Muslim state; he was only using the threat of independence as a political bargaining chip to strengthen the voice of the Muslim minority in the soon-to-be sovereign India.
For proof, she maintains, one need look no further than Jinnah’s reaction to the partition. Today’s officially sanctioned ”nationalist attitude seems to suggest that what Mr. Jinnah had dismissed as a mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan is what they were actually fighting for,” Ms. Jalal, 42, said in a recent interview, explaining that Jinnah twice rejected what turned out to be the final model for Pakistan.
This is heresy to most Pakistanis, for whom the partition is a point of pride, a landmark historical event comparable to the declaration of the state of Israel for Zionists. And to many Pakistanis, the individual most responsible for the partition is nothing less than a Muslim paladin. ”It’s as though you’re telling Americans that George Washington wasn’t a starry-eyed nationalist but a coldblooded, opportunistic militarist,” remarked David Ludden, an associate professor of South Asian history at the University of Pennsylvania.
of course Ayesha jalal the true historian not the pack of liers
January 7, 2009 at 12:16 am
alok
its a profile, dude, not an interview. chill.
may be you can spend your time better, on fact finding.
or at least tell us your argument.
January 7, 2009 at 5:20 am
it may be aprofile….
but you cannot deny that she said jinnah’had feet of clay’ on foundation of pakistan…or may be you can even deny that…now a days pakistan anyways is in a mood of denial…
January 7, 2009 at 5:47 am
Yasser mian,
it was Nehru who insisted on having Bangladesh part of Pakistan as a whole in 1947….
The Indian leadership had disapproved of the Hindoo majority part of Bengal being excluded from India. They had no objection to the Muslim majority part of Bengal becoming part of Pakistan or Bangistan or going wherever. In this they were also supported by Bengals Hindoos (barring a few traitors like Sarat babu and Kiran Roy).
Jinnah had approved Sarat-Suhrawardy plan for an independent and united Bengal.
So when that was rejected, no one prevented East Bengal from becoming Bangistan right from day one. You cannot blame (undivided) Pakistan’s difficult geography on Indians.
Regards
January 7, 2009 at 10:09 am
Azhar,
Alok is not mentally very lit up.
Barring Ludden’s take on Jalal’s book which Jalal herself disagrees with, the article establishes exactly the thesis that H M Seervai presented and which alok calls “controversial”. It shows that Jinnah bent over backwards to keep India united… Ayesha Jalal”s book is a must read.
Poor alok just put his foot in his mouth without realizing it. Even freethinker pointed it out on the other board.
January 7, 2009 at 10:28 am
Majumdar,
You are right but if you consider alok’s argument …it seeks to demolish the cultural thesis by pointing to the differences between various ethnicities.
The fact that Sarat Chanderbose and Suhrawardy came to an arrangement on the basis of Bengali identity and it was accepted by Jinnah shows that that TNT existed in opposition to INC’s one nation theory and not to the various ethnic identities.
This is precisely why Jinnah told Mountbatten that a Punjabi or a Bengali was a Punjabi and Bengali before he was a Hindu.
It is clear that religious identity was middle tier of the the layered framework of multiple identities and TNT recognized this abundantly.
This is why my point remains valid in this construct.
Now to the question of whether Indian National Congress would have accepted a separate Bangladesh minus Hindu majority districts…that is hypothetical but my feeling is that they won’t for the fear of Balkanization. Because Nehru would fear West Bengal breaking away and joining Bangladesh at some later date. This is my view…atleast.
I feel though that Congress’ fear in this case would be unfounded given the class conflict between the peasants and Bhadralok and other classes.
January 7, 2009 at 10:32 am
“Hindu Or a Muslim ”
The exact quote was “these provinces have built up their lives over a century. A punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Hindu or a Muslim”
This is what Jinnah said to which Mountbatten said that the same argument could be applied to India which was once again circular.
January 7, 2009 at 10:54 am
Yasser mian,
This is precisely why Jinnah told Mountbatten that a Punjabi or a Bengali was a Punjabi and Bengali before he was a Hindu.
He was completely off the mark on this. As Master Tara Singh and his Muslim counterparts would soon point out to his chagrin.
It is clear that religious identity was middle tier of the the layered framework of multiple identities
Not at all. Religion is the primary identity of the sub-continent. Most Bengali Hindoos would rather co-exist with Madrasi Hindoos in Hindoo majority India rather than with Bengali Muslims in United Bengal. Same ways, Mojos of Pakistan would rather co-exist with Sindhi and Punjabi Muslims in Pakistan (as prolly Aisha boudi wud concur) than with Hindi-Urdu speaking Hindoos of UP.
Regards
January 7, 2009 at 10:56 am
Yasser mian,
Since MAJ (pbuh) and AIML did not bother about INC’s disapproval of partition I dont see why they had to bother whether JLN wud approve of Independent East Bengal or not. My personal feeling is that fear of Hindoo domination kept the two wings together in 1947.
Regards
January 7, 2009 at 11:29 am
On the contrary partition did not happen till Congress agreed to it on its own terms.
I am surprised that Congress’ terms in 1947 fit so exactly the letter written by VP Menon to George Abell on January 23rd 1946.
This is before the Cabinet Mission Plan.
I think religion may be the primary identity but it was never the only one. In terms of the British raj, religious identity was more important to people than one Indian identity but less important than their regional and linguistic identities. That fact is visible in most tensions internally in India and Pakistan today.
January 7, 2009 at 11:41 am
YLH your personal attacks are in very poor taste and very childish.
I of course understand your predicament that to deny the creation of pakistan as a legitimate and worthy conclusion will put your identity at risk and hence you are so vehement opposing it but anyway that does not prevent me from criticising a sessionist agenda based either on cultural differences(as you claim) or religion on a conceptual basis(mind you which is not too far from India’s position on kashmir).
You are indeed very erudite and brilliant in your deliberation and perhaps will make a great lawyer but to let someone have his/her views is the mark of maturity/tolerance.
majority/minority politics is still the bane of the subcontinent and i believe secular politics(which you so much desire and espouse in pakistan) should steer absolutely clear of religion, culture,caste,creed and race.perhaps to my assumption the start in pakistan has not been correct, but as they say all is well that ends well.
United we stand, divided we fall
January 7, 2009 at 12:49 pm
YLH also ponder that it is not a Indian hindu/pakistan muslim question.(which is often your point)
Indian muslims are as numerous and perhaps more in number than pakistan muslims and all of them rejected the demand of a separate nation whether on cultural/religious grounds and hence they did not move to pakistan.
So we would have to conclude that if they made the right decision then you would be proved wrong and vice versa.
Thomas friedman (who is not much loved in pakistan because of obvious reasons) gives many reasons why indian muslims are better off than pakistani muslims:(please note this is a point of view not necessarily right or wrong)
consider this :
“India is the second-largest Muslim country in the world, but the cartoon protests here, unlike those in Pakistan, have been largely peaceful. One reason for the difference is surely that Indian Muslims are empowered and live in a flourishing democracy. India’s richest man is a Muslim software entrepreneur. But so many young Arabs and Muslims live in nations that have deprived them of any chance to realize their full potential.”
I do not speak from a jingoistic platform: You may refer to Ramchandran Guha’s book on India after 1947 and realise how belying nehru’s fear linguistic formation of states have actually helped India unify more which points to the fact that cultural differences(which on subcontinent are often on lingusitc lines) including religious ones are not averse in formation of a strong common national identity( which is why you will appreciate my hesistation in accepting your two nation theory and secluarism at the same go)
January 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm
lol Ramchandra Guha? Ok. He is one of the most fanatical ideological pseudo-historians I have come across who can’t argue logically, is always off the mark factually. He is the biggest jingoist out there. So the fact that you can quote him and then claim that you don’t have a jingoistic point of view. Very funny.
So just because a New York Times author said it, it has become true? Thomas Friedman’s analysis is superficial at best.
Even after your so called shining India blitz, the per capita income of Pakistani Muslims would be double that of the Indian Muslims at the very least. This is especially true considering that Indian Muslims’ share in the Lucrative business fields is much less than their population. I am not even going to talk about the armed forces etc. Just because Premji made it (and even his grandfather was a rich businessman long before India existed as an independent country) doesn’t mean everyone has.
Indian historian Sumit Sarkar did a fine analysis which proves that had there been no Pakistan, there would be no real bourgeoisie amongst Muslims and the regions that formed Pakistan would be provincial backwaters. Quoting some fool who hasn’t a clue and trying to pass it off as fact is a novel technique but it would not count as an argument. So whatever reasons you think Friedman gives, he is neither a historian nor a scholar.
Pakistan’s benefits have been many. And there could have been many more for India and Pakistan had there been no Kashmir issue. Furthermore … Pakistanis have achieved a lot despite having faced one crisis after another. As democracy takes root, you will see that analyses like Tom Friedman’s shall be laughed off by historians in general.
January 7, 2009 at 3:28 pm
BTW… which one is it? You quoted Ayesha Jalal above saying that Jinnah was ready to scale down his demands… this is what I have been saying all along.
So what is your point exactly? What secessionist agenda? Cultural majority and minority are a fact of life. I’ve already shown how any attempt to deny this is disastrous. This denial on part of Hindu Congress led to the creation of Pakistan. And then a similar denial on part of Pakistan’s ruling elite led to the creation of Bangladesh.
Unity can only come through acceptance of diversity.
January 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm
YLH is like our local domestic Cricket talent,love to play at his home flat pitch…tryin to pull everyone to ball him on it….Havin a 100 plus strike rate and Avearage….never mind friend Hamare paas Aisa Eik hi hai….
January 7, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Hey Ali Gram!!
Welcome back!!!
BTW Have you changed your position on your Chief Justice Dogar ? Are you still trying to come up with excuses as to why Chief Justice Iftikhar shouldn’t be restored or why judiciary should not be independent?
I’d play you on any pitch… and still hit you for a six. You should try playing gilli danda instead.
January 7, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Hades,
I didn’t quote 200k. Like I said I don’t know but to me Hamoodurrahman’s figures sound about right if we consider Sarmila Bose’s conclusions. 26k would probably be the number of Bengali dead including Mukti Bahini combatants. If you include Biharis, West Pakistanis and army numbers this would be at 50 to 60 thousand.
On Ayesha Jalal’s sole spokesman:Jinnah, Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan, Ms. Jalal has spoken about the issue since 1985 when the book came out. She has thrown out the bargaining chip contention as a simply bad interpretation of her book.
Her contention, as she has explained it in her lectures and in her articles, is that Jinnah was very serious about Pakistan but exactly Pakistan meant was open for negotiation. The Lahore Resolution was sufficiently ambiguous to allow for several interpretations and left room for several options including a completely sovereign Pakistan.
That Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan on conditions much less than those they had put up, on Jinnah’s prodding, showed that Pakistan did not necessarily mean a partition or a complete severing of ties.
That complete severing was the prerogative of the other side. Pakistan demand could have been fulfilled within or without India. Indian National Congress chose the latter.
So the question of Jinnah’s competence doesn’t come up because he delivered on Pakistan as best as possible. The question of whether this and unity of India were mutually exclusive was answered by Nehru and that answer was negative. Hence complete separation.
January 7, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Sorry wrong board.
January 7, 2009 at 5:58 pm
YLH>>>>>>>>>>Zaid Hamid P2
January 7, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Ali gram,
Last I checked it was you who was :
1. Defending Deobandi Mullahs as being paragons of virtue and abusing “secular fundamentalists” like me?
2. Abusing the lawyer’s movement for speaking for independence of judiciary and for fighting against Musharraf.
3. Abusing capitalism as a grand conspiracy against the people.
4. Claiming that Pakistan was not meant to be secular.
Shouldn’t you have that honor of being called Zaid Hamid part 2 instead of me? Aliarqam ibn Zaid Hamid no?
Now these cheap shots and grow up.
January 7, 2009 at 6:16 pm
To quote Baba Bulley Shah:
Na mein Hindu na mein Turk Peshori
I am neither a Hindu nor a pious Peshawari Turk (Muslim) …
This is what bothers you since you claim to be both.. a Hindu and an Islamic fundamentalist.
January 7, 2009 at 7:12 pm
this is my last quote on the topic and that too a borrowed one
Rumi:
I was once, like you, ‘enlightened’,'rational’,
I too scoffed at lovers.
Now I am drunk, Crazed, thin with misery -
No one’s safe!Watch out!
January 8, 2009 at 1:14 pm
gr8 Alok
January 8, 2009 at 1:24 pm
That was U who Praise Jinnah for using religion as a tool in politics….like JUI,JI,PML(N) and Q…
Smart politics=communal politics=sectaranist politics=Fundamentalism….
I once predicted U are a liberal JMAATIA and I was right….Sorry for that
U claimed there was two funerals for Jinnah but never ever proved that…
U calimed Capitalism is right choice..and now Capitalists cry for state support….
writing ibn e zaid hamid…U know what U meant…but eeverything is exprected from an amateur like U….Zaid Hamid praises Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal…thats the way political orphans like U adopt…..Koi nai mila to Jinnah o Allama Marhum k Daaman ko Gosha e Aafiat Jaana…It suits to U both
January 8, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Can you please for once in your life learn to make sense?
You accuse Jinnah of using religion, when you know well that it was Gandhi who brought religion into politics. Even your little insignificant mullah Obaidullah Sindhi says so.
How am I a jamaatia when jamaat e islami and jamiat e ulema supported your kind in 1947 and JUI-F last year refused to recognize Jinnah as a freedom fighter?
Is that all you’ve got? I am like Zaid Hamid because he too speaks of Jinnah and Iqbal? Are you stupid or are you just acting dumb?
Why do you always insist on making it about me personally and never about the topic at hand. You call me names and when I call you ibne zaid hamid you react like your honor has been outraged? In the future don’t call me this that or the other if you can’t handle it.
And you are calling me a political orphan? What does that mean exactly? Does that mean that I don’t follow the crook called Obaidullah Sindhi?
Now tell us : have you changed your pro-establishment views on judiciary or not?
Like I said above- people like you try to be both a Hindu and a Turk Peshori at the same time and I wish to be neither. If that makes me a political orphan so be it.
January 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm
political Orphans use covers….even very thin like Iftikhar Chauhdry