THE WILL OF THE FATHER OF THIS NATION

Nusrat Pasha

Few nations are as fortunate as us, in that the founder of our nation has left behind for us explicit guidelines and profound words of guidance, in relation to the involvement of Religion in matters of the state.These words of wisdom embody the Will of Jinnah to the nation he founded. This nation still has hope if it succeeds in reverting to Jinnah’s Will :

1 : “….Religion should not be allowed to come into Politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God”.[Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935].

In this principled statement Jinnah draws a clear line between Politics and Religion, and also defines the parameters of Religion by the words “between man and God”. This statement of his harbours the soul and spirit of Secular Statecraft.

2 : “….in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans. ” [Jinnah, Speaking about the Shudras or Untouchables, during his address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934].

Jinnah’s pro-minority thinking is once again patent from these words. These words were not uttered before a Hindu gathering, which if they were, could have led some to argue that perhaps he was trying to win their favour. These words were, in fact, uttered during his address at a Muslim League session.

3 : “….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.” [Jinnah, Press Conference, 14 November 1946]

As late as November 14, 1946, which means merely 9 months prior to independence, Jinnah said, “….I am NOT fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.” Jinnah pursued Pakistan neither in the name of Islam, nor exclusively for Muslims. You see, Quaid-e-Azam was more than willing to endorse an undivided India, which he openly did when he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Congress leadership, not Jinnah wriggled out of this last chance of keeping India undivided. All that Quaid-e-Azam wanted was to ensure that the social and economic interests of the conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states remained secure. This was an assurance that Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were not willing to extend. The weaker and smaller conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states was at risk of being economically subdued by the larger and more prosperous conglomerate of the Hindu-majority states. Thus, Pakistan was created neither in the name of Islam, nor exclusively for Muslims, but rather in pursuance of a secure economic future for all the inhabitants of the Muslim-majority states of the Subcontinent. The two nations in the “Two-nation theory” were not the religious denominations of Hindus and Muslims, as perhaps many today would like to believe, but rather the Hindu-majority states and the Muslim-majority states of undivided India.

Jinnah did not pursue Pakistan in the name of Islam, as is commonly claimed. There is a huge difference between creating a state in the name of Islam and securing a safe politico-economic future for the inhabitants of the economically vulnerable Muslim-majority states of the subcontinent.

4 : “…. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State.” [Jinnah, Presidential address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Karachi, 11 August 1947].

Here again a clear demarcating line has been drawn between the religious identity of the Citizen and the business of the State. Tragically, in today’s Pakistan, not only are Pakistani Ahmadi citizens “not free” to go to their mosques, they are not even permitted to call them “mosques”.

5 : “….no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and Equal citizens of One State.” [Jinnah, Presidential Address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11 August 1947].

By virtue of the Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that Islam shall be the State Religion of Pakistan, we as a nation, have done a great disservice to Islam. On the other hand, by drawing religion into politics, we have done a great disservice to Pakistan.

6 : “…. Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of the individual, but in the political sense as Citizens of the State “. [Jinnah, Presidential Address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11 August 1947].

Seldom has anyone described a Secular State in words better than these. Jinnah talks about the State recognizing the status of these denominations as “Citizens of the State” and yet turning a blind eye to their religious identity.

7 : ” But make no mistake : Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.” [Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948].

The people of Australia made no mistake. We did. We made the grave and unforgivable mistake of allowing our country to drift helplessly in the direction of a theocracy.

8 : ” The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly…..Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught Equality of men, Justice and Fairplay to ‘EVERYBODY’…..In any case Pakistan is NOT going to be a theocratic State – to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims – Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are “ALL” Pakistanis. They will enjoy the SAME rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.” [Jinnah, February 1948.Talk on Pakistan broadcast to the people of USA]

The word “ALL” says it all. Whenever Jinnah uses the terms “Islam” and “Islamic” with reference to Pakistan, they are by no means in the sense of a Shariah State. Instead of focusing on the apparent tenor of Islam, which more often than not remains subject to diverse interpretations, debate and dispute, Jinnah very wisely remains focused on the SPIRIT of Islamic teachings, which in essence is also the spirit of every single known revealed religion. Thus he succeeds in upholding the secular cause without sacrificing the elements of morality and universal appeal. This spirit, according to him comprises of three elements – Equality, Justice and Fairplay. Any state capable of providing these three to “ALL” its citizens, would be, for all practical purposes in harmony with the spirit of Islam.

9 : ” Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws ?……Islamic principles today are are as much applicable as they were 1300 years ago……Islam and its idealism have taught Equality, Justice and Fairplay to EVERYBODY.” [Jinnah, 25 January 1948. Address to Bar Association Karachi].

An unequivocally secular state, operating on the lines of “Equality, Justice and Fairplay to everybody” is what Jinnah wanted. Again, the word “everybody” places all citizens on one plane.

Jinnah’s Secular philosophy of statecraft, is obviously evident from his use of the term “EVERYBODY”, with respect to all the citizens of the country he founded. Even if he did not use the term “Secular” as overtly and frequently as one would have wished him to, his vision is most certainly one of a “SECULAR PAKISTAN”. Without a spec of doubt, it can be stated that Pakistan was made neither in the name of Islam nor exclusively for Muslims. Pakistan was made to secure a prosperous social, economic and political future of “ALL” the inhabitants of the Muslim-majority states of our Subcontinent. Regrettably speaking, this future is still in the future. The dying father of this nation left for us a clear and practicable Will. For six decades we have ignored this Will.
Jinnah’s Will – the Will of the Father of this nation – is a truly precious and priceless pearl. We are already guilty of ignoring the worth of this pearl. Beware. Let us not be guilty of trampling this pearl beneath our feet.

201 Comments

Filed under Pakistan

201 responses to “THE WILL OF THE FATHER OF THIS NATION

  1. yakoo

    Can you pls clarify that if Jinnah wanted secular pakistan where every one was equal then how come he demanded state for indian muslims?; Its obvious that he and other muslims at that time felt that rights of Muslims in secular and undivided India would not be protected and Hindus and Muslims are two diffrent commnities….Hindus worship cows and muslims eat it…..so how can these communities live happily….. Its our bad luck that 180 million muslims stayed in India and they are persecuted lot, few bollywood, cricket and president ,apart ,in India they have no rights. My only question is that at the time of partition why did Liaquat ali passed law in 1953 disallowing Indian muslims to come to our cherished homeland pakistan. We supported in creation of Pakistan and we indian muslims were not allowed in our country pakistan,which we helped to create and now we indian muslims cannot protest for our own rights in india as we are told you had your Pakistan, what are you demanding now. I don’t have problem with India but i have problem with Pakistan, why were we not allowed in country which we helped create. Its all the fault of Liaquat Ali and Jinnah, they sold us so that rest of you can live in peace, we indian muslims were sacrificed at the altar of political expidiency….

  2. Junaid

    I don’t have problem with India but i have problem with Pakistan, why were we not allowed in country which we helped create. Its all the fault of Liaquat Ali and Jinnah, they sold us so that rest of you can live in peace, we indian muslims were sacrificed at the altar of political expidiency….

    The demand for Pakistan came more from Muslim minority provinces of British India. The Muslim majority areas were more or less on the side of Congress.

    Liaquat and Jinnah were also from present day India.

  3. Alakshyendra

    Another pathetic attempt to whitewash the crimes committed in the name of a homeland for Indian Muslims.

  4. Bin Ismail

    @yakoo (June 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm)
    @Alakshyendra (June 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm)

    There is a difference between creating a state in the name of the “Religion of Islam” and creating a state comprising of Muslim-majority provinces for the sake of “all” their inhabitants, regardless of their religious affiliations. Although the difference between these two situations is not as subtle as some claim it is, yet is quite understandable why some people seek to obfuscate things.

    Pakistan was created in pursuance of promising political, social and economic future for the conglomerate of the Muslim-majority states of undivided India. There is no doubt that a very large number of Indian Muslims residing in the Hindu-majority states did indeed make huge contributions to the Pakistan project, but it was not because each one of them had plans to move over to Pakistan, it was because they believed they were serving a just cause.

    Latter deviations or failures, caused by latter governments or other factors cannot be attributed to and linked to Jinnah.

  5. Khullat

    Inasmuch as some of our friends are committed to criticizing Jinnah at all costs, rationally speaking he is responsible only for what he did, not for the doings his successors.

  6. yakoo

    Ok let me put a very simple question….. Israel and Pakistan were created in name of religion….. Israel has aliyah programme, if you prove that you are jew, then you automatically get israeli citizenship and you can migrate there. Now if Pakistan was made by Indian muslims then why doesn’t Pakistan gives the same right of migration to Indian muslims!!!!

  7. Bin Ismail

    @ yakoo (June 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm)

    It appears you’re making comments without taking the trouble to even read the article in full.

    Pakistan was made as much in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism. Pakistan was made as much exclusively for Muslims as India was made exclusively for Hindus.

    Your comprehension of the genesis of Pakistan and Israel is evident from your drawing parallels between them, where there are none.

  8. Hayyer

    Yakoo:

    Are you certain that all Indian Muslims want to emigrate to Pakistan. Those who wanted to left over the years.

  9. sid

    @Bin Ismail

    “””Pakistan was made as much in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism. Pakistan was made as much exclusively for Muslims as India was made exclusively for Hindus.”””

    Damn you. Don’t spread wrong information, as if you know it all. Only Pakistan was made in the name of Islam. India existed from long before it, and it is not about Hindus and it has nothing exclusive for Hindus. If it had been for Hindus’ its might have been renamed to Hindustan, which it is not.

    Spreading lies like these will never make your country or religion any better.

  10. lal

    @yakoo
    “few bollywood, cricket and president ,apart ,in India they have no rights”
    could u xplain a bit more…….right to live,right to education,right to freedom of thought,right to freely practice & propogate religion,right to social security,right to work,right to throw stones @crpf,infact ‘first right to the resources of the country’ according to no less than prime minister of country…pls educate us

  11. skyview

    to bin ismail

    Pakistan had many makers. At least some did make Pakistan for islam, with islam in mind, for islam’s dream of sole power. Jinnah did not make Pakistan single-handedly. Why otherwise did he go about making speeches and meeting even mullahs and imams and weeping over the muslims’ situation and blaming the hindus for it and warning about them? He soon reaped what he sowed – namely, the fruits of slander and hatred. He had the fortune to exit early and escape and leave the mess upon the others, who were the majority. And many of them wanted an islamic Pakistan even as he was alive. That is why quoting Jinnah is not helping you get out of the mess. Why don’t you open your eyes to that bitter reality?

  12. Straight-Talk

    “Its our bad luck that 180 million muslims stayed in India and they are persecuted lot, few bollywood, cricket and president ,apart ,in India they have no rights”

    If majority of Muslims in India continue following the diktats from devbandi and barelevi and not listen to progressive, intellectuals and egalitarian voices of their society they will suffer like this. It is not fault of Hindus that they’re persecuted or oppressed, it is their leaders who in the name of Islam and in the name of unseen/unknown fear persecute them snatch their votes. Indian politicians continue to enjoy their votes until they woke up and demand for better education, employment and share in the 9% growth rate of India.
    It is true that Jinnah was susceptible for the well beings of Muslims of sub continent in majority ruled democratic India still he was ready for a solution within cabinet mission plan which planned for a federation of Indian states where residual powers belongs to states that would have resulted in powerful states and a weaker center. But Nehru and Patel would not accept this, reason they knows it very well that a diverse, multilingual, multiethnic and vast country like India can not be controlled by a weaker center and were not ready to accept the balkanisation of India as some intellectuals from the west had predicted. So neither Jinnah were ready to come down from his stated position nor Nehru/Patel were ready to accept weak and chaotic India so they preferred to part away with little bit instead of loosing everything.
    What an irony that what Jinnah feared was allayed from the start. Muslims in India have a very dominant electoral presence and exert influence on various political parties, which sometimes are blamed for Muslims appeasement.
    One thing more, maximum intellectuals and middle/middle-upper class Muslims bulwark of democracy, migrated to Pakistan that created a void and here remained persons like some of my friend of this site, who still believes that Pakistan was a better option than a democratic, secular and accommodating India.
    I still believe that Nehru’s option was although painful but correct, seeing the separatist movement in many places in India. We’re better because we’re united.

  13. Syed

    Most commentators are either missing the point or do not care for the simple truth. The author’s point is simply an assertion of the fact that Jinnah wanted citizens of Pakistan to practise their faith freely and that constitutional hurdles should not be placed to obstruct this. For example, forget the second ammendment, even the provision of 1973 constitution that only a Muslim shall be the President or Prime Minister of the country would have been unacceptable for Jinnah.

  14. Kaalket

    The onlee solution is Indian Muslims rightfully take half of current Pakistan in the name of Islam and shared sacrifices they made in partition struggle. Pakistan is joint property of IM as well the Muslamans living in current Pakistan.
    Bin ismael has o answer to the quetion that what was/ is wrong with Hindus dominating the political scene of pre /post 47 India . After all they being the sons of soil, better educated, sensible and in majority and now well proven record of defending Muslamans as done in 1971 for the sake of Bengali Musalmans. It was wrong decision by Jinnah and his party to leave so many Muslamans at the mercy of lesser capabilty people who lost half of it in 25 years and now on verge of loosing the rest not to mention economic survival depending on the Zakat from Kuffar world. No rational mind justify the excuses of 47 except that Relgion and religious hatred was the motivating factor.

  15. Bin Ismail

    @sid (June 28, 2010 at 6:55 pm)

    “…..Damn you. Don’t spread wrong information, as if you know it all. Only Pakistan was made in the name of Islam. India existed from long before it…..”

    Let us dispassionately recapitulate the facts – the right information.

    1. Until the clock struck 12:00 a.m. on 14th August 1947, there was neither a Pakistan, nor an India. There was a “British India”. Of course India had existed as a geographical entity all the while, but politically it was then British India.

    2. On 14th August 1947, a new political entity comprising of the Muslim-majority states of British India, appeared on the map of the world, under the name of Pakistan.

    3. On 15th August 1947, another political entity, 24 hours newer than Pakistan or one day younger than Pakistan, comprising of the Hindu-majority states of British India, appeared on the map of the world, under the name of India.

    4. Neither did Pakistan attain independence in the name of Islam, nor did India gain independence in the name of Hinduism.

    5. Pakistan comprised of the Muslim-majority states and India comprised of the Hindu-majority states.

    6. Neither did Jinnah envisage Pakistan as a Muslim theocracy, nor did Gandhi envisage India as a Hindu theocracy.

    7. At their inception, both these states emerged as two parallel secular states.

    Now these are the facts – whether you like them or not.

    Kind Regards.

  16. Syed

    @sid

    Was Jinnah’s effort for the Muslims of subcontinent? Yes.
    Was Jinnah’s purpose to marginalize other minorities? No.

    So where did Jinnah explicitly state something to the effect that Pakistan has been made in the ‘name of Islam’ with a divinely inspired national mission?

  17. Girish

    The two dominions of India and Pakistan came into existence at exactly the same moment, at midnight on 15th August 1947. That was the exact moment power was transferred from British to Indian and Pakistani hands respectively as per the Independence of India Act of the British Parliament. The celebration of 14th August as Pakistan’s independence day was a subsequent development, as a deliberate measure to separate the two independence days and to have it one day earlier than India in Pakistan. The actual independence day for Pakistan is 15th August, not 14th August.

  18. Kaalket

    With the exception of Sultanates time and Aurangjebs’s benevolent ,enlightened Shariat , i cant find any secular example of Musalman majority rule, country or kabila or Was M.A Jinnah taking the inspiration from the rule of Medina in 6th century by Prophet himself?

  19. P. Vengaayam

    Bin Ismael:”Let us dispassionately recapitulate the facts – the right information.”

    Yes, and let us also not obfuscate issues by repeating nonsense and pretending they are right.

    “Pakistan was made as much in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism.”

    Pakistan may have been created for muslims, but India has never accepted Jinnah’s two-nation theory, so get your facts right BEFORE you start your “dispassionate arguments” such as they are.

  20. P. Vengaayam

    Let me repeat to the factually-challenged Bin Ismael — the Indian constitution does not state that India is a hindu nation, unlike Pakistan which was created for the sake of muslims.

  21. Bin Ismail

    AG3L & Girish:

    Indeed it was the Dominion of India that inherited the U.N. membership of British India and indeed this inheritance enjoyed the recognition of the U.N., but this is hardly the aspect I was trying to discuss. The fact remains that the Dominion of India, an independent India was by virtue of its independence, a new state. The U.N. perspective has no bearing on the fact the an independent nation was indeed born.

    The technicalities of the 14th/15th August issue aside, the simple point I was putting across was that at the level of “identity” two independent nations were born, one on the 14th and the other on the 15th.

    The focal point of the entire discussion was that Pakistan was not made in the name of Islam. It was achieved so that a prosperous social and economic future could be secured for the then less-privileged conglomerate of Muslim-majority states.

  22. swapnavasavdutta

    What attempts were made by Jinnah and AIML
    to convince the non-muslims of muslim-majority
    province that it is fighting for their just rights?
    Were those non-muslims dissatisfied with hindus
    from hindu-majority provinces and afraid to loose
    rights and what rights? Did they or what
    percentage of them employ AIML and Jinnah as
    their representatives?
    Did AIML have members from non-muslim
    minority of muslim-majority provinces?

    One law minister and one anthem writer is not
    sufficeint, even the unofficial anthem writer ran
    away from Pakistan to India as soon as he
    completed anthem!

  23. skyview

    Jinnah did not create Pakistan single-handedly. Hence what he visioned for Pakistan went down the drain on the day he died. He had no real disciples or upholders. Many in the ML waited for him to die soon and then take over Pakistan. He was used by them. When they approached him to take over leadership of ML – although he was not a grass-root worker ever of ML – it was clear that they were only going to (mis)use him.

    It was like Indira Gandhi being made Congress chief in 1966 by the strong men of the party. They wanted to use her as a dummy. But she got rid of them all and took over the entire party. Jinnah did not achieve that feat in 1947, nor did he live long enough to do it.

  24. swapnavasavdutta

    bin ismael,

    even though Pakistan was not made in the name
    of Islam, there was enough Islam invoked during
    the Pakistan creation process and after to convice
    lot of Muslism (and non-muslims) that Pakistan
    was created for Islam and Muslims.

  25. Girish

    Apologies for the couple of typos in the above post.

    “what Pakistanis want” instead of “what Pakistanis wants”.

    “even the assurances of basic safety for the minorities are conditional” instead of “…is conditional”

  26. Bin Ismail

    @P. Vengaayam

    1. The two-nation theory was not an Islam vs Sanatan Dharm theory. It was a Muslim-majority states & Hind-majority states equation. This theory became the basis of the Lahore declaration. This theory was in harmony with the three-subfederations theory of the Cabinet Mision Plan, which Jinnah endorsed. This theory culminated in the emergence of the “two nations” of Pakistan and India. Whether anybody accepts it or not, is hardly of relevance. What matters is that it should not be misunderstood and misrepresented.

    2. Nobody said anything about the constitution of India. Getting defensive in anticipation is entirely uncalled for. As for the constitution of India, it is undoubtedly a secular one, and deserves to be respected for this attribute.

    @ Girish

    The 11th August speech was addressed to the country’s constitution makers. The Radio address was for the general populace. There were two different audiences and two different occasions. There was bound to be a difference in the themes and tones of both addresses. A challenge Jinnah had before him, when addressing the public was to convince them that secular statecraft was not in conflict with Islam. The other challenge was to keep Muslims reminded of their new responsibilities as citizens. Towards this end he was obliged at times to address Muslims.

  27. Girish

    But by explicitly excluding all but Muslims from first class citizenship? And telling the minorities that even their basic safety was conditional, at a time when thousands of people were being killed every day! And this is the icon of liberalism you want to point to in building a secular future for Pakistan! Good luck with that.

  28. Syed

    @Girish

    Jinnah never excluded non-Muslims from statecraft for their religious beliefs. So many of his friends and supporters were non-Muslims. In fact it was the later generation of Pakistani politicians who deviated from his wishes and guidelines. At the same time, Nehru and his entire Congress, for that matter, hardly offered the dispassionate, fair and fearless leadership which could match that of Jinnah’s.

  29. Amaar

    Jinnah’s legacy has been abused by his detractors from among Muslims and Hindus alike – our Mullah brigade and the Nehru-Patel group were brethren in their opposition to Pakistan and Jinnah.

  30. Boja

    @Bin Ismail “The two-nation theory was not an Islam vs Sanatan Dharm theory. It was a Muslim-majority states & Hind-majority states equation.”

    If Jinnah’s intention was to create a secular liberal state, how did that differ from the vision that Nehru and the INC had for post-British India? If they shared a vision for a secular, liberal republic, why go through the horror, misery and death of Partition just to create two states with identical political goals?

    If Jinnah feared that the Muslim-majority areas, rather than just all Indian Muslims, would be ‘dominated’ by the Hindu-majority areas, what basis did he have for this belief? Given that India was envisioned as a democracy (which implies proper protection for minorities against mob rule), why did he have any reason to fear that the Muslim-majority areas would be dominated by the Hindu-majority areas unless it was the fact of Hindus dominating Muslims, which only leads to the conclusion that he meant Pakistan as a haven for Muslims — but then why only those Muslims in Muslim-majority areas?

    If Jinnah wanted a secular liberal republic, why did he say “No doubt, there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like” in 1948, which is only one of innumerable times he explicitly stated that the political and economic setup in Pakistan was to be guided by Islam, even where this contradicted secular liberal principles?

    None of this makes sense unless you accept that Jinnah meant Pakistan to be for all Indian Muslims, not just for all the people in Muslim majority areas as you are claiming. Partition was for nothing if Pakistan was not made for ‘the Muslims’ of India.

  31. Girish

    Sure, and the tooth fairy exists and the abominable snowman makes his home in Tibet and …..

    The fact remains that Jinnah was like Advani was for the BJP (only an order or magnitude more deadly!). At a personal level, irreligious and secular. But politically exploited religion in a way that unleashed the worst passions amongst people, leading to terrible suffering. And then issued pious statements to distance himself from all the madness once the deed was done. Very dispassionate, fair and fearless leadership indeed! God save us from such leaders.

  32. Girish

    My previous post was addressed to Syed.

  33. P. Vengaayam

    Bin Ishmael:”Nobody said anything about the constitution of India. Getting defensive in anticipation is entirely uncalled for. ”

    Well, pointing out that you are lying about reality is hardly getting defensive.

    You stated that India was created for hindus and that is a bare-faced lie, since Indian leaders always pushed for a secular India, NOT A HINDU INDIA. I am sorry, lying about such basic facts does not help anyone understand the issues any better.

  34. Boja

    In any case, if the mission of Pakistani liberals is to work towards a moderate, secular Pakistan, why turn to Jinnah when so much of what he said and did is shrouded in ambiguity? It may seem clear to you what Jinnah meant, but it is obviously not so clear to many others.

    Why not leave history aside and create your own vision rather than draw on the ill-defined notions of the past? This is a genuine question/suggestion.

  35. Tilsim

    @ Boja

    I agree with you. Past is past. History is made by optimists not pessimists. The fundamentalist are optimists (and their narrative is winning); the liberals (are pessimist) and losing. This equation in Pakistan has to be reversed by the liberals. To do this, they need to decide whether their manifesto is:

    1) Secular State (different models; lots of precedence)
    2) Liberal Islamic State (lack of precedence; needs to be defined).

    I prefer 1 but feel it’s unrealistic in the short term given the reality of modern day Pakistan.

  36. Bin Ismail

    @Girish (June 29, 2010 at 12:53 am)

    On 15th August 1947, addressing the nation, Jinnah said:

    “Let us impress the minorities by word, deed and thought that as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations as loyal citizens of Pakistan, they have nothing to fear.”

    Girish, would you be gracious enough to point out more specifically, what you find objectionable in this quote:

    1. “…impress the minorities by word, deed and thought…”

    Would you have preferred if Jinnah had said, “by word only”?

    2. “…as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations as loyal citizens of Pakistan…”

    Is not every single citizen, regardless of whether he belongs to a majority group or a minority, expected to fulfill his duties and obligations as loyal citizens the state? Are not Muslim citizens of India expected to live as loyal citizens of India?

    3. “…they have nothing to fear…”

    Should any loyal citizen have anything to fear?

    I appreciate that you are not exactly an admirer of Jinnah, but surely it does not hurt to be fair.

  37. Boja

    @Mehak

    Shush! Don’t you see that an economically, socially and culturally successful and well-integrated Indian Muslim is a slap in the face of the Two Nation Theory? It challenges one of the major planks of the (original) Pakistan movement, that Muslims constitute a separate ‘nation’ that could never co-exist with the other ‘nations’ of India. Now, just don’t bring up 1971 and that other historical undermining of the TNT and your oversight might be excused…

  38. Bin Ismail

    @P. Vengaayam (June 29, 2010 at 1:46 am)

    “…..Well, pointing out that you are lying about reality is hardly getting defensive. You stated that India was created for hindus and that is a bare-faced lie…..”

    1. Before we consider who’s lying, may I remind you that while no mention had been made of the Indian constitution, you somehow preempted to defend it from an attack that wasn’t there – upon which I suggested that there was no need for being defensive.

    2. I did not say that India was created for Hindus. What I said was: “…Pakistan was made as much in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism. Pakistan was made as much exclusively for Muslims as India was made exclusively for Hindus…”(June 28, 2010 at 6:21 pm). Please take the “as much” into account and you will get the picture.

  39. S.A

    Its pathetic that even now people are arguing over simple facts. The point is that Jinnah envisioned a state where religion and politics were not mixed. I thank the author for reminding us the will of the father of this nation. Unfortunately, the government of Pakistan and the bigoted clergy decided a long time ago to repeatedly enforce their version of Islam on people and eradicate the rest of the communities. The situation is such now that whoever disagrees with mullahs is considered out of the pale of Islam and is wajibul qatil…no matter what faith one belongs to.

  40. Bin Ismail

    @Mehak (June 29, 2010 at 2:23 am)

    “…..In India Ahmadis are considered muslims and we don’t have to sign a statement that our faith is the greatest and the faith of others be damned to get our passports…..”

    Nobody’s denying that.

  41. Mehak

    Jinnah might have said all of this and let us assume that he may have been as secular as Gandhi but the fact remains that he did not put systems in place to make sure that his vision for Pakistan was realized and he couldn’t communicate that vision effectively to people across Pakistan.
    And this abuse of his vision began pretty much after his death.
    The fact is action speak louder than words. In India, after Independence the leaders took pain to make sure the minorities never felt discriminated against. Safeguards were put in the constitution for that.
    Did Jinnah put any such safeguards?

    In Pakistan the constitution was abused time and again to make life tough for minorities.

    The achievement of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Ambedkar was that to realise the vision of India that they had, they made sure that they had systems in place to have checks and balances, which is precisely where Pakistan failed.

    Pakistanis may now cry over spit milk but the truth is that a nation cannot be about an individual and what he says or believes it is a much much bigger identity and does not and should not depend on the personality of an individual.

  42. Girish

    Bin Ismail,

    The shameful fact is that in an atmosphere of great fear and uncertainty, where people were being massacred and others were refugees simply on account of their religious faith, the supreme leader of the country chooses to make something like the basic safety of the minorities conditional on their fulfilling duties and obligations as loyal citizens. The very fact that the Hindu and Sikh minorities were seen as “disloyal” to the idea of Pakistan was used to perpetrate violence against them and drive them out of their homes. Implicit in the statement is the inference that if the minorities were not following their duties and obligations as loyal citizens they had something to fear.

    Note also that this was addressed to Muslims. If somebody is disloyal and commits a criminal offense as a result, the monopoly on penal action rests with the state. Who are the Muslim majority in a secular state to test whether other citizens are being loyal and fulfilling their rights and obligations, and to guarantee their safety if they did (and not if they did not, by extension)?

    To a liberal (even as per the standards of Jinnah’s time), basic rights such as the right to life and liberty are inviolable and not subject to tests of loyalty to state or fulfilment of duties and obligations. The state retains the monopoly to take away these rights in extreme cases of criminal conduct, after due process and without any resort to cruelty. And of course in recent decades, the liberal consensus has moved away from the state’s right to take the life of an individual under any circumstance whatsoever.

    Even if there was no wilful desire to encourage violence (I don’t believe so), this was a highly irresponsible statement by Jinnah and the address as a whole would have hardly inspired confidence amongst the minorities that they were equal citizens in the new state. This was his first address to the nation on the occasion of independence, and on radio. In his official capacity as Governor General, not as leader of the Muslim League alone.

    I appreciate that you are an admirer of Jinnah, but surely it is only right to be honest.

  43. Boja

    @Tilsim

    Agree with your preference (1) and your assessment that it is not realistic today. The most challenging and long-term obstalce, I would think, would be to reverse the policies of incorporating religiously-justified hatred in Pakistani education (both madrassa and secular), and it would take perhaps decades before that to build the social/political momentum to execute these changes, among others.

    Most importantly, as long as the military is in power (direct or indirect), there will be no such change. The challenge for you liberals is to explicate how exactly you plan to get the power to achieve such changes. I look forward to hearing these ideas.

  44. Chote Miyan

    Bin Ismail,
    “The fact remains that the Dominion of India, an independent India was by virtue of its independence, a new state. The U.N. perspective has no bearing on the fact the an independent nation was indeed born.

    The technicalities of the 14th/15th August issue aside,”

    I am impressed by the technicalities in this statement. Are you a math graduate? That reminds me of one of the real analysis theorems.🙂

    Well, jokes aside. I had a small comment. I think there is much to be said about what Jinnah didn’t say, rather than what he said. I am not aware but can anyone throw light on his specific comments regarding a scenario where some Islamic laws came in conflict with the internationally recognized laws. For example having a legal freedom to have four wives does not exactly confirm to the international laws, no matter what the merits of such a law may be. I think the liberal lobby’s argument would stand on a much firmer ground if they clearly delineated this aspect.
    Thanks.

  45. Bin Ismail

    @Girish (June 29, 2010 at 2:42 am)

    The carnage that took place around partition, was not confined to Hindu and Sikh casualties. The fact is that the number of Muslim casualties was far greater. Just as the violence that occurred on the Indian side had nothing to do with Gandhi, the violence that took place on the Pakistan side had nothing to do with Jinnah.

    Mob violence among South Asians, can unfortunately be the greatest departure from humane behaviour. Even if it had been Jesus on the radio, instead of Jinnah, pleading all factions to offer the other cheek, the results would not have been different.

    Yes, I admire Jinnah and I’m not apologetic about it, and I honestly believe what I have stated.

    Adieu.

  46. Girish

    Yes, and I did not say that he caused the mob violence or even that he wanted it. However, the fact remains that his words in an address to the nation give implicit justification for the violence, even if he did not mean it that way. Also, it provides some indications that he saw Muslims in a different, higher position in the new state than minorities. And that despite his pious words on 11th August 1947, he had not given up his communal worldview. What he wished for is totally unclear from his words. You selectively use some words of his to justify a secular state, others will selectively use other words to justify the exact opposite.

    It would be far more honest, and perhaps more effective, to argue for what you want based on its merit, rather than on the basis of a dishonest mythology created around Jinnah’s persona.

  47. Girish

    Bin Ismail,

    If you can’t see the narrow-mindedness and communalism in Jinnah’s first address to the nation, let me by way of contrast, present an excerpt from the first address to the nation by the highest political leader on the Indian side, Nehru. This was the only reference in his entire speech to religion or religious community.

    “All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action.”

    No special address to any community to the exclusion of any other. No assurances to minorities about what “us” (the majority) will guarantee “them” (the minorities) and in return for what. Equal citizens of a free country don’t receive any of their rights or freedoms (least of all freedom from fear) from other citizens. They receive it as a matter of right, just as any other citizen.

    Jinnah’s first address to the nation foretold the Objectives Resolution and the slippery slope that followed.

  48. Syed

    @Girish

    Fine words by Nehru. Nehru was constrained to using a secularist language because given the caste system in India and what its entails, an alternative Hinduistic narrative could not be used to explain his message to the masses (most of whom were Hindu). Jinnah, conversely, could borrow Islamic terminology of ‘massawaat’ – equality of men.

    Our religious parties, responsible for hatred in the name of religion in Pakistan, were joined at the hip with Nehru’s party.

    Furthermore, secularism notwithstanding, how do you explain Baburi mosque vandalism, Gujarat pogrom, Kashmiris’ plight…?

  49. Girish

    Syed,

    Yes, yes. Islam equals secularism and everything good that can be found in the world. All other religions contain only terrible untruths, particularly Hinduism. Since there was nothing good in Hinduism, Nehru had to either speak in Islamic terms or secular terms. He choose the latter, the hater of Islam that he was.

    Now run along with the satisfaction of having made a killer logical argument that nobody has any answer to.

  50. Androidguy

    Syed, you obviously were inside the mind of Nehru to know that he couldn’t use Hinduistic narrative. Does it ever occur to you that he wasn’t looking for a Hinduistic narrative at all? And that is why he said what he said in that speech? And for all its fault, Indians and the world itself, see India as secular, as secular as it can be in the real world in practical terms. Babri masjid vandalism and Gujarat porgom are blotches on the Indian consciousness just as a highly secular Europe stood by ethnic cleansing and the holocaust, and I won’t even mention what happened in erstwhile East Pakistan….

  51. Hassan

    Using two lines from two statements spread over 12 years period, really does not make the case that the author is attempting to make. His many speeches are available on the net and some speeches would contradict the two lines used here.

    As someone above mentioned, there is no point in invoking Jinnah and his dubious statements, if liberals and progressive would like to see Pakistan a secular state. They will need to struggle for it on the merits of the case and not on Jinnah’s statements.

    I believe using Jinnah as the symbol of secularism and using couple of lines from his thousands of speeches, is counterproductive.

    Otoh, I don’t think Pakistan will ever be a secular state. That is just an impossible dream. This best approach is to struggle for social and religious equality in the country.

  52. Boja

    @Syed

    It says a lot about you that you cannot fathom how Nehru could have used secular language unless he was ‘compelled’ to because he could not use the religious language of Hinduism.

    Implicitly you are revealing that, to you, the natural first preference in politics is religious language (and systems), but if the religion is not ‘pure’ enough, then (sadly) one must fall back upon Plan B: secularism. Thankfully, Jinnah was able to draw upon the pure religion of humanist secularist rationalism, which is why he (naturally) used it.

    If that is the underlying mentality of the Pakistani ‘liberal’, no wonder the liberal movement is in such a shambles in Pakistan.

  53. Kaalket

    Folks,
    I just want to remind you people that Mehak lives freely in the Kuffar land dominated by Hindus and Sikhs . The Ahmadi HQ in Kadian is a revered place by ” peeple” of all walks of life and it was/ is this India set by our caste ridden, Hinddootavadi leaders that Jinnah and his Muslim followers feared. Well Bangladesh is another matter where the programme for bettering their genetic make up by West Pakistani failed because of the conspiracy by the enemies of Islam . Bin Ishmael, YLH what harm is there in accepting that Pakistan and islam are joined together and the glory of Pakistan is the glory of islam and that Pakistan must show the whole world what Islam means in thought ,deed and spirit. Jinnah deserve and must be honored with this narrative along with Muhhamad Bin Qasim who brought pure Islam to land from the original source in Arabia. Beside show me any secular Musalman Majority Nation on the planet?
    Girish , what Jinnah was saying make perfect sense if you look at his word in the context of Dhimma practice of Islam. The US vs Them will be clear to you but ask so called liberals if they want live under the rights and previlages of reverse Dhiimi rules.

  54. Girish

    This discussion (and this blog in general) has fascinated me. I am fascinated by the obsession with what Jinnah wanted and the reliance by self-identified liberals on his vision to propose and justify a vision for the future of Pakistan.

    By comparison, I think there are more critics of Gandhi and Nehru in India than there are lovers of them. Personally, I respect Gandhi for some of his actions, totally disagree with others and think that some of his views were outright wacky – it is best that these ideas died with him. I admire the fact that Nehru was a democrat and a modernizer, but simply cannot agree with his views on the economy. I admire his secular outlook but think that his selective mollycoddling of some hues of communalists has resulted in lasting problems which we have not fully solved yet.

    The point I am trying to make is that there are many visions of India, many of them represented by Indian participants here. But I don’t see any of them being justified on the basis of what Gandhi wanted or Nehru wanted (or even Savarkar wanted, for those who are on the far right of India’s political spectrum).

    What on the Pakistani side has caused this obsession with what Jinnah wanted? He was a very popular leader in his time, but so were Gandhi or Nehru in their own times. What is different about Jinnah and Pakistan that its future depends on settling the question of what this one man wanted?

  55. @ Girish. While I agree with you that this obsession with with Mr. Jinnah said is unhealthy and detracts from the broader aims of Pakistani liberals, one must realize that any movement needs an ideological basis, not just a practical one and I see these articles as an attempt at constructing such a basis.

    M.A. Jinnah was probably not as secular as some people might like to think, and not as communal as some others might, his words cannot be taken literally and without context. There is no point in these arguments. Whats needed is an ideological basis for secularism in Pakistan that includes Jinnah’s views but isnt completely dependent on them.

  56. @ Girish, as far as our own country is concerned I think the middle class’s collective intellectual capacity has suffered greatly due to the collective ‘forgetting’ about leaders like Gandhi, Ambedkar and Jinnah.

    Very few of our generation and even fewer of the coming ones know these people except for their names. The lack of principles and values is there for all to see. Perhaps we should start reading and debating these people more if our elite and consuming classes are to discover any kind of moral rudder.

  57. Peria V.

    Bin Ismael:”1. Before we consider who’s lying, may I remind you that while no mention had been made of the Indian constitution”

    Let me repeat it to you slowly this time since you seem to get off on going on pointless tangents.

    You asserted “Pakistan was for hindus like India was for hindus” which is a false claim because the Indian leadership, and the constitution that was derived from those views. So India was NOT created for Hindus as you boldly proclaim, which makes your assertion a bare-faced lie. That’s all.

  58. Peria V.

    Bin Ismael:”The two-nation theory was not an Islam vs Sanatan Dharm theory. It was a Muslim-majority states & Hind-majority states equation.”

    Bin Ismael, to be clear, I have not claimed in any of my posts to have any issues with the above.

    I will quote verbatim your false claim:

    “Pakistan was made as much in the name of Islam as India was made in the name of Hinduism.”

    That’s all.

  59. Gorki

    Nusrat Pasha’s above article and subsequent posts by Bin Ismail among others, makes for poignant reading.

    They highlights one essential impulse common to all men of honor the world over; to stand firm against bigotry and injustice and to empathize with others of our kind.

    How else can one explain such obviously secular and universal message in response to sectarian killings coming out of a country that is often accused of being a den of religious fanatics and even now is being torn apart in the name of religion?
    It is all the more remarkable that even decades of brainwashing under self appointed Mard-e-Momeens, Mullahs and the army strongmen, the universal human decency and empathy is still alive and well among so many in Pakistan!

    Whether MAJ was a liberal, secular constitutionalist or a narrow minded opportunist has been endlessly debated by many; more recently in the controversial book by Jaswant Singh.

    In time, perhaps history will settle that question to everyone’s satisfaction; however, right now is not that time because our locus of observation is far too close to the actual events for any of us to be objective observers.

    For now it should be enough that if the nascent liberal and secular stream in Pakistan finds inspiration in MAJ’s words and wants to rally around his legacy then it is immaterial what Indians here believe about his original intentions.

    Even if one can’t admire the efforts of these people, it does not help anyone, least of all India, if Indians taunt and insult the very people in Pakistan who are trying so hard to laying the foundation of a nation that the Indians can some day live peacefully with as friends and neighbors.

    Someone quoted a passage from Nehru’s speech above. I think Nehru himself would argue for a similar stance; for India of his dreams was not an island in itself but a land of men and women who could themselves empathize with such universal and liberal ideas.

    Here are some more passages taken from the same speech as quoted above:

    “Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagine that it can live apart Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this One World that can no longer be split into isolated fragments.”
    “To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we make an appeal to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.”
    “We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good and ill fortune alike.”
    “All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action.”
    “To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.”
    -JLN Speech Aug 14th 1947

    Regards.

  60. Girish

    Bin Ismail’s point is not that India was created for Hindus. Rather his point is that Pakistanis was not created for Muslims either, but for people living in the Muslim majority areas that constituted Pakistan. i.e. his point is that neither India nor Pakistan were constituted by their founders for any religious community.

    I disagree with his view and have pointed to just one piece of evidence in this thread – the message to the nation from the father of Pakistan himself – that points to the fact that he thought of Pakistan as a homeland for the “Muslim nation”. But that is his view.

  61. Girish

    Gorki,

    It is immaterial what Indians think of Jinnah. However, my point is that Pakistanis themselves are unlikely to come around to the consensus that Jinnah envisioned a secular future for his country. His own speeches can be used to show diametrically opposite visions for the country. Hence, it is a futile effort in my opinion. If it would work, who cares what I or anybody else thinks. But it won’t work.

  62. lal

    @ girish
    excellent riposte….i appreciate wat bin ismail and ylh are trying to do…dey r trying to create a secular myth around Jinna and use it to counter d fundementalism in there community.sitting here we may not be able to appreciate their necessities.and probably it has to do a bit with islams history.as u kno in islam khuran is a sacred book and whatever is in it has to be followed.so shud the words of muhammed irrespective of the current realities as according to there belief system it contains answers for all times and all situations.without any such background,i think we can always live in the present,critiscize and/or ridicule the deeds in history and plan for the challenges of future.i believe it becomes easier for pakistani liberals to challenge the islamic fundementalism if they can quote from the only national hero whom they all admire.equally given the ambiguous nature of many of his speeches it can quickly backfire

  63. Girish

    Ishtiaq Ahmed has an article in the Daily Times today that is closely related to this debate. It is part of a two-part series on the topic of nationalism that is inspired by religion and the monsters it is capable of unleashing. I think he is making the point that Jinnah attempted to bottle the Frankenstein monster that had been let loose by the Pakistan movement, but without much success.

    I do think Jinnah made an attempt to steer Pakistan towards a liberal, secular future, but that it was a half-hearted attempt. His 11th August speech demonstrates that attempt, but the 15th August address is a full step backward, just 4 days later! One can continue to see this in subsequent times, with steps forward and backward at different times.

  64. Syed

    @Girish

    Your attempts at rejecting Jinnah’s aspiration for a secular and decent Pakistan appear frantic and desperate! You would rather have 1947 Congress party’s cronies -Jamiat-i-Ulema-Islam or Ahrar- run Jinnah’s country.

    Well Jinnah was no bigot or hypocrite. After all he spared Nehru embarrassment when the latter’s ostensible correspondence with Lady Mountbatten was caught. Jinnah could have exploited this for political gain but he had none of it claiming, and rightly so, that nations are not created through blackmail.

    While this incident clears any obfuscations about Jinnah’s strength of character. He stood tall to the British aristocracy, Nehru-Patel group and the Mullah brigade and got Pakistan through purely legal and constitutional means. Now that is some achievement.

  65. Amaar

    @All Cross-Border Jinnah-bashers

    I think Jinnah’s references to Islam were to elicit the notions of justice, fairplay and equality which the Muslim masses of India could understand in their parlance. This was no sectarianism as Muslims were indeed vulnerable to exploitation by Hindus in a united India. As for other minorities, his cabinet comprised members of other faiths some occupying critical posts.

    To accuse Jinnah of factionalism merely because he referenced Islamic terms is akin to saying that Gandhi’s ascetic lifestyle promoted Hinduism as a state religion for India.

  66. yasserlatifhamdani

    Only an idiot (from whatever nationality) will ign0re Jinnah 40 year long political career and claim the nonsense that Girish, lal, their Mullah friends in Pakistan and other Indians who for some reason so obsessed with driving down Jinnah that they would prop up everyone and anyone who plays into their little nationalist bigotry.

    Why does this “myth” (ok if you say so) bother all of you idiots at Bharatrhakshak so much? It is not this “myth” that causes Mumbai does it? Or is it that deep down you know it is not a myth and it shatters your cheap and third rate “India-shining” mythology?

    Anyway… you are all a bunch of losers… now get a life.

  67. yakoo

    Ok my friend yasserlatifhamdani, Can you pls enlighten us on the basis and objectives of Two Nation Theory. Why was it envisoned?.

    I really do appreciate you effort as liberal person who wants to bring rationality in mullah obssesed Pakistan.

    I know people with your view points are far between in Pakistan and you deserve the whole hearted support of all the liberals.

    Point is just that, most, non pakistanis beleive that Two Nation theory is communalist,which assumes muslim superiority.

    As the gratest achievement of Jinnah in his life was creation of Pakistan on the basis of the theory, he is assumed as a communal person and not secular, though in actual life he was chain smoking, pork eating, non practising muslim.

    Also tell me, because of this theory 15 million people were uprooted from their birth place, overnight, and 1 million people died. Now tell me if Jinnah and Nehru were such visionaries whom respective countries praise as great leaders. Then i have to laugh at collective wisdom of both Indians and Pakistanis.

    Both these leaders were power hungry to whom normal life of human did’nt matter. So i donot respect both of them. ( but i beleive for Two nation theory Jinnah was maily responsible and because this theory i do not respect him. Though as an individual, jinnah; may have impeccable credentials but this one act; caused death of million people, irrespective of religion.)

  68. Prasad

    Yakoo – is your first name abdulla panicky by any chance ??

  69. yasserlatifhamdani

    Yakoo… your understanding of Two Nation theory is rather poor and superficial…

    You may read my article on Two Nation Theory and enlighten yourself …

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C06%5C07%5Cstory_7-6-2010_pg3_5

  70. yakoo

    Dear yasserlatifhamdani,

    Your points are very valid, and i understand it but the question is if the political leaders of stature such as Jinnah, could not see the consequences of their political action. Like : partion of Punjab and Bengal, Jinnah opposed it. But could he not see that when he says that muslims cannot live with hindu majority then how could he assume that hindu and sikhs would accept minority status in Punjab and Bengal.
    2) Now imagine the population of muslims in undivided india ( india + pakistan + bangladesh) with 170 +180 + 150 million muslims = 500 million muslims in south asia as of 2010, now dont tell me 500 million people could not safeguard their rights in undivided india. Is it logically even possible.
    So my point is Jinnah’s two nation theory was just a tool for political power and he was the worst leader indian muslims can have. Because Indian mulsims had leader like him, that Pakistan is today 10th most failed nation on this planet just below afghanistan.

    My comment may seem offensive, and inappropriate but pls do not reply in cliches, think logically.

  71. YLH

    Yawn. Not another one. It can’t be that both my points are valid and then your conclusions follow. You are either stupid enough to consume that defaecation you call an argument or you are not.

    Precisely why CONGRESS partitioned the country… Jinnah’s Pakistan was not based on partition of India …but rather the demand of a sovereign state was a maximum demand to bring Congress on the bargaining table.

    Now I have answered these stupid notions that chappies like you have a zillion times. I don’t have the stomach for debating with people who are clearly below me in intellect as well as humanity. Henceforth if you address a post to me, it will be deleted without prejudice with the contempt it deserves.

  72. @Prasad

    I thought so too, but I am informed that they are different. Good guess, and in my personal opinion very close to a hit.😀

  73. YLH

    Erratum “yahoo” not yakoo.

    Ref: Gulliver’s Travels.

  74. Sahal

    This is the reason why Pakistan was created.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6938090.stm

    Indian Muslims lag behind. Even though my community has been persecuted by Indian Muslim Mullahs who migrated to Pakistan. I thank God we have Pakistan and I would not leave it for the world.

  75. lal

    Myth- a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people (princeton.edu-webdefinition for myth)

    or webster
    1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
    2 a : a popular BELIEF or tradition that has grown up AROUND something or SOMEONE; especially : one embodying the IDEALS & institutions of a SOCIETYor segment of society

  76. yakoo

    @prasad : & @ vajra
    tumne jo comment likha hai na “abdulla panicy” shows your mindset. You mean to say being indian muslim, i am panicked by state of affairs of Pakistan. My friend,, noooooo…… If you had read the above comments properly, i was trying to understand pakistani mindset, if you do not know others view than you cannot understand the shit we are going through……and comments like these irk me, i donot need nationalsitic certificate from you, so if you do not have balls for honest debate then donot debase it.

    @ ylh
    {EDITED- YLH … reason stated previous post}

  77. 😀

    @yakoo

    I am afraid you have misunderstood that particular byplay.

    Some weeks ago, a hard-right shock-jock had come on board and was busy giving everybody a rollicking good time. At one stage, he thought it funny to log in as an Indian Muslim of a particularly ghastly sort, which probably does not exist in reality even to the extent of a single specimen. The nick he logged in under was Abdullah Panikkar (the person concerned was from a part of the country, where this sort of name would be possible). His style was to say the most grossly exaggerated Mullah-like things, and to keep taking that line further and further in each successive post. It lasted until finally he himself got tired and left (leaving us all very thankful).

    I believe that Prasad was referring to that incident; I, too, had suspicions that you were he. It seems not to be so. That is what I was informing him (Prasad and I hate each other, btw, ever since the day when he criticised my English). We rarely talk to each other on the blog.

    Let me answer your comments, but first, please have the goodness not to address me in Hindi or Urdu; neither is my language, and I will not dance to your tune or to anybody else’s. Either address me in English in future, or go climb your left leg, whichever you prefer.

    1. You mean to say being indian muslim, i am panicked by state of affairs of Pakistan…

    No, not at all; that was not what I thought, I thought it was a deliberate attempt at provocation by you, and that you were possibly a non-Muslim playing the fool. It seems from your very angry remarks that I was wrong.

    2. If you had read the above comments properly, i was trying to understand pakistani mindset, if you do not know others view than you cannot understand the shit we are going through…

    Why do you think I am here? To understand the Pakistani mindset, so that knowing their thinking, I would better understand the shit that we are going through.

    Perhaps the ‘shit’ you are referring to and that which I am referring to are different; the motivation at the outset was probably identical.

    It is another thing that coming here, and to ATP, I discovered the following things, which I am presenting to you gratis:

    (a) There is no such thing as a Pakistani mindset. They are a lively, very individualistic people, and each has his or her own very strong views and they don’t hesitate to express them. Sometimes we happen to be in the way, but every traffic policeman faces greater risk to life and limb every day.
    (b) We are in the wrong place here, if we want to find out what the jehadi crowd (to use an incorrect expression out of sheer laziness) think. For that, the web-sites and blogs are different.
    (c) This blog belongs to another set of people who are completely at the opposite end of the spectrum, and getting their views, unfortunately, is more or less hearing ourselves speak with a Punjabi accent (sometimes with a Pakhtun accent, or with a Sindhi accent).
    (d) If you are interested, the broad consensus on this blog can be summed up in the words of a man much cleverer than I (a Pakistani, btw): These people don’t undertand that borders are more or less drawn… and now we need to move the world in a certain direction beyond national prejudice, towards a sort of global liberalism where each country is brought at part with global standards of freedom of religion, speech, personal liberty…[snip]…we all have this uphill battle… the issue is of jurisdictions. Pakistan is my jurisdiction… India is yours. But our alliance is transjurisdictional. Jinnah’s Pakistan is the only idea in Pakistan that liberals can logically take a stand on. If Xxxx Xxxxx and the lot think that driving down Jinnah or selectively quoting him helps them, then they are obviously on the other side of this [snip] civilizational battle….

    3. comments like these irk me, i donot need nationalsitic certificate from you, so if you do not have balls for honest debate then donot debase it.

    The intention was not to irk you, although I confess to finding your posts irksome. My father taught me never to insult anyone accidentally, so I shall beg your pardon till such time that I can find something to insult.

    No certificates were sought by you, none were offered by me, but it is true that I have in the past gifted free certificates of malevolence to trolls. Since you are not one, there is nothing I have for you, except possibly an amused ear (to understand how to amuse an ear, draw a smiley on it in fluorescent ink).

    4. Regarding the line of questioning that you have launched yourself upon, I have a favour to ask of you. Would you consider giving these questions a little, a very little more time? You may find a clear, neat logical set of answers readily available, not only for the questions that you have posed, but also for those that have been found to follow with a fatal inevitability.

    This is only a request, but it is made with perfect sincerity and honesty of purpose. It is for you to decide if you wish to depend on our performance or find out for yourself through an independent enquiry of your own.

  78. @Syed

    I read through this thread in some detail just now, largely having been brought here by Yakoo’s anguished post of protest, which deserved an explanation and an apology.

    When I was going through the thread, I found your gem hiding coyly somewhere in there. Fine words by Nehru. Nehru was constrained to using a secularist language because given the caste system in India and what its entails, an alternative Hinduistic narrative could not be used to explain his message to the masses (most of whom were Hindu). Jinnah, conversely, could borrow Islamic terminology of ‘massawaat’ – equality of men.

    Our religious parties, responsible for hatred in the name of religion in Pakistan, were joined at the hip with Nehru’s party.

    Furthermore, secularism notwithstanding, how do you explain Baburi mosque vandalism, Gujarat pogrom, Kashmiris’ plight…?

    Are you serious? A ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ will suffice; I promise to do the rest of the heavy lifting.

  79. yakoo

    thanks vajra…..anyways this is my last visit to this blog……bye bye…

  80. yasserlatifhamdani

    good bye and good riddance.

  81. @Syed

    I have just been reminded that I have no business indulging in exchanges on others’ comments, until I have finished what was to be done. I am sorry, but the only thing that can be offered is the same offer made to Yakoo:

    Would you consider giving these questions a little, a very little more time? You may find a clear, neat logical set of answers readily available, not only for the questions that you have posed, but also for those that have been found to follow with a fatal inevitability.

  82. yasserlatifhamdani

    “Fine words by Nehru. Nehru was constrained to using a secularist language because given the caste system in India and what its entails, an alternative Hinduistic narrative could not be used to explain his message to the masses (most of whom were Hindu). Jinnah, conversely, could borrow Islamic terminology of ‘massawaat’ – equality of men.”

    On the contrary the issue was entirely different…

    Nehru could use secularist language because Hindus were enlightened enough to see the benefits of secularism. Jinnah had to use the idiom of Islam even when promoting secularism, because his people, by and large, were ignorant and dogmatic.

  83. Hayyer

    Many Indians in the narrations above are guilty of the same crass insensitivity that afflicted Gandhi and Nehru in the 20s and 30s when they could neither deal with a liberal secular Jinnah, nor understand the fear of Muslims for their political future.

    Gandhi in particular went about it the wrong way in pandering to fundamentalist Muslim sentiment in the Khilafat movement, and Nehru was content to hide behind Gandhi, pretending not to understand what Jinnah was talking about. The Congress had no space for a secular Jinnah after Gandhi took over the Congress.

    Not till the September of ’43. Then he was practically on his knees, but Jinnah was now the unbending one. He had the British behind him in his negotiations. The price of refusing to take a secular Jinnah seriously was having to deal with the sole spokesman for Muslims.

    Jinnah wanted to create a secular state. When he used Islamic references they were invariably to persuade Muslims that Islam was compatible with secularism and democracy. His constituents were Muslim and he used Islamic contexts to gather the flock.

    The Congress while rejecting secular Muslim professionals had no problem with the Muslim fundamentalist Mullahs. Nehru apparently only saw the problems of Muslims after August 15 1947. Thereafter he was their biggest champion. Supposing he had been as clear sighted ten years earlier?

    Our Indian commentators above think that Muslims should have had faith in Hindu majoritarianism. Perhaps they should, but there was no reason in the 20s and 30s for such an optimistic view. It was a matter for careful negotiation. In Punjab and Sindh Hindus and Sikhs ran a government along with with majority Muslims but the ratios and quotas of each were carefully delineated and defended. It was such a system of quotas and reservations that the Muslims sought in Hindu majority areas and for the whole country. This had been the scheme for constitutional development of British India. Nothing would have been lost by acceding to it.

    As Tilsim outlines in one of his posts, the choices for Pakistan are between a pure secularism and a liberal Muslim state. Jinnah desired the former though some of his utterances convey a contrary opinion. I agree with Tilsim that the Islamic reference cannot be excised from the constitution so easily. Look at the effort Nehru and Ambedkar had to put in to get the Hindu legal codes passed, and Ambedkar even quit because he felt that Nehru was compromising his principles. Pakistan had no one of Nehru’s stature or commitment to see things through after Jinnah died.

  84. Giri

    Hayyer,

    The discussion here, at least the part I was in, had nothing to say about the period before 1947. It was about what Jinnah said “after” partition had already become a reality. One can jump and shout all one likes, but one cannot erase the fact that Jinnah expressed completely liberal principles sometimes, and illiberal ones at others. After partition. He knew he was riding a tiger, and perhaps wanted to leash it. But he couldn’t and he knew he couldn’t. He therefore rode along at times and tried to restrain it at others.

    Also, if the best YLH can do is to ban a person simply because of his views, and to indulge in ad hominem attacks, one has to wonder about the claims that this site represents the most liberal side of the Pakistani liberal space.

  85. P. Vengaayam

    “It was such a system of quotas and reservations that the Muslims sought in Hindu majority areas and for the whole country.”

    Quotas are acceptable to right historical wrongs, and muslims cannot claim to require a religious quota “just because”, because the fact of the matter is no religion is special, and that includes Islam. If Muslims choose to isolate themselves from hindu society because they are “better than hindus”, that kind of behaviour cannot be rewarded by quotas.

    Because once that precedent is set, it just sets the stage for divisive caste/quota/reservation politics (which is rooted in quota freebies) as the kind we are seeing in India nowadays, and which will be the reason for India’s downfall in the long term.

  86. Giri

    BTW, I am Girish. I had to change my nick because I could no longer post under my old nick. People can judge for themselves about this site based on this.

  87. Ved

    “Jinnah had to use the idiom of Islam even when promoting secularism, because his people, by and large, were ignorant and dogmatic”.

    I think that is the real confusion in India and Pakistan over Jinnah’s actual motives. Intelligence of Jinnah can not be understood by common man in India and Pakistan. Ignorant common man were fooled by their masters by manipulating facts and portraying his real images wrongly.
    In India people criticized him for partitioning India without knowing his actual objectives and his political ideas.
    Congress could never understand him. Its thinking was that it is a secular and has the backing/support of more conservatives orthodox Mullah and Jamat-e-Islami on their side ( but where were the modern, educated and intellectual Muslims?) and could not accept Jinnah’s contention that only League represents Muslims. May be congress was right, may be Jinnah was too hell bent on his demand that only League be accepted as real representative of Muslims of sub continent is another question for debate.
    But we still are not ready to understand him so when someone like Jaswant Singh came out with facts, he was ousted very smoothly from political scene.
    In Pakistan, majority of people thought that they got the nation in the name of religion so religion should rule supreme, here also people were ignorant and could not understood him that well. Mullahs took the benefit of this ignorance who before 1947 were opposed to partition now moved to Pakistan and after demise of Jinnah, tried to gradually occupy the political scene and influence the masses by giving example of creation of Pakistan in the name of Islam so only Islam and Sharia should be identity and guiding force for modern Pakistan while same time disguising and ignoring Jinnah’s real plan for secular, modern, progressive and democratic Pakistan.

  88. Giri

    One other thing. It is not that I have ignored Jinnah’s 40 year career. I think he himself is guilty of ignoring his lifelong career as a liberal politician when he chose sectarian politics and rabble rousing instead.

    One other thing that shows either dishonesty or laziness on the part of many commentators is to point to the alignment of the JUI-H and Deobandis with the INC as some evidence that Congress stood for obscurantism, while the League represented the liberal side of Muslim society in India at the time. The Congress was a rainbow coalition and welcomed everybody on board. This had been true as much during the time of Gokhale as it was after Gandhi’s arrival on the scene. Second, the JUI-H and Deoband represented conservatism in the field of religion for sure, but there was great heterogeneity in terms of political views. Many of them, particularly the ones closest to the Congress, stood for a composite civic nationalism, rather than one based on religion. At the same time, many of the religious leaders aligned with the League at the same time may have been less conservative in religious terms, but much more illiberal in political terms.

    In any case, leave these issues aside. My point is simple. It is not to show Jinnah as liberal or not. It is that there are so many different sides to Jinnah even in a contemporaneous sense (i.e. at the same time) that you can find justification for a secular society as well as the exact opposite in Jinnah’s own words and uttered as few as 4 days apart. Hence, it is futile, in my view, and quite dangerous, to base the entire argument for liberalism and secularism on the basis of what we think one man wanted. Would it not be more useful to be forward looking?

  89. Chote Miyan

    Hayyer,
    With reference to the following lines:
    “Gandhi in particular went about it the wrong way in pandering to fundamentalist Muslim sentiment in the Khilafat movement”

    I think that one point has been belabored beyond all limits. In light of ylh’s astonishingly frank statement that “Jinnah had to use the idiom of Islam even when promoting secularism, because his people, by and large, were ignorant and dogmatic.” I think you should cut Gandhi some slack. Political Islam is as old as the religion itself. Let’s not obfuscate that.

    “and Nehru was content to hide behind Gandhi, pretending not to understand what Jinnah was talking about.”

    I guess that was one of the reasons I suggested re-reading his book. There was a fundamental disagreement between Nehru and Jinnah and had little to do with his ‘hiding’ behind Gandhi. If you read JNL’s various letters as well as his book, it is clear that he just didn’t agree with Jinnah on various issues. They were looking at the same problem in fundamentally different ways. Above all, Nehru, in contrast to Jinnah, was in favor of a strong center. Anyone who has followed the Indian History would readily sympathize with Nehru’s fears. I think that was THE fundamental difference between the two. The rest of the differences followed from that essential disagreement. And, let’s be honest: ML’s politics in UP in the late 40’s wasn’t exactly the recipe for a harmonious settlement.

  90. yasserlatifhamdani

    Chotemiyan,

    Read Hayyer’s post again… there is a difference between using Islamic idiom… and using Islamic Mullahs … Gandhi did the latter.

  91. yasserlatifhamdani

    “One other thing that shows either dishonesty or laziness on the part of many commentators is to point to the alignment of the JUI-H and Deobandis with the INC as some evidence that Congress stood for obscurantism, while the League represented the liberal side of Muslim society in India at the time. The Congress was a rainbow coalition and welcomed everybody on board. This had been true as much during the time of Gokhale as it was after Gandhi’s arrival on the scene. Second, the JUI-H and Deoband represented conservatism in the field of religion for sure, but there was great heterogeneity in terms of political views. Many of them, particularly the ones closest to the Congress, stood for a composite civic nationalism, rather than one based on religion. At the same time, many of the religious leaders aligned with the League at the same time may have been less conservative in religious terms, but much more illiberal in political terms”

    This shows dishonesty and laziness on your part Giri.

    Anyone even remotely familiar with the politics of Deoband and Majlis-e-Ahrar… the foremost “composite nationalist” conservative Muslims in Congress camp… would know that they were, are and will always be the most illiberal and bigoted political forces in history.

    The entire Ahmadi issue in Pakistan was manufactured by Ahrar … read the Munir Report in detail and it might open your mind.

    The fact of the matter is that fundamentalists were acceptable only because they countered liberals like Jinnah who were unacceptable because they wanted actual share in sovereignty…

    I can’t believe that there are people still willing to deny history of Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind and other fundamentalists…

    Here is what Patwardhan who was a Congress socialist had to say:

    ‘It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ‘HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’

  92. yasserlatifhamdani

    “stood for a composite civic nationalism”

    Copying from Ishtiaq mian’s article I see… the truth is that the “composite civic nationalism” of Congress was rooted in 19th century Hindu reform as well as Gandhian revival.

    Did you really think Muslims were going to see it as composite civic nationalism … when its potent symbol Vande Mataram was taken from Anand Math a virulently anti-Muslim novel… when the main symbol of this composite civic nationalism was a Mahatma who dressed like the Hindu peasant and spoke of Ram Rajya ?

    Or do you think they should have embraced composite “Civic” nationalism of Congress when Gandhi played up Pan-Islamism as a force to defeat British imperialism…

    The only time Congress really stood for “civic nationalism” (very different from “composite” nationalism mind you) was between 1892-1919 and between 1955-1964.

    Gandhi Hindunized Congress and gave Muslims a Pan-Islamic ideal…. to expect Hindu-Muslim Unity after that was foolish.

  93. yasserlatifhamdani

    Infact I think this calls for a detailed rebuttal to Ishtiaq Babu’s piece…

  94. Giri

    [[EDITED: Reconsider re-writing your post after drinking a glass of water – YLH]]

  95. Boja

    @YLH

    Your assertion that Gandhi brought in obscurantist religious/spiritual thinking into the politics of the time is a fair one, but it is unfair to think it worked in Nehru and the INC liberal’s favor.

    On the contrary, Gandhi’s vision for India (a spiritualist, Hinduism-based, rural and agricultural society) differed sharply from Nehru’s modernist, socialist vision.

    Accepting for a moment the argument that Jinnah had a secular vision for the future of the subcontinent, then one must accept that both Nehru and Jinnah had secular visions, and in this they were united in diverging from Gandhi’s vision.

    Nehru’s (and the INC liberals) response to this Gandhian religious challenge was to quietly but firmly move away from incorporating any of Gandhi’s religious/spiritualist doctrines into the structure of India, and in this they succeeded, because they overcame Gandhi’s injection of religion into politics and still managed to build a secular state.

    Jinnah’s response to Gandhi’s religious challenge was to ‘fight fire with fire’ and try to use religion to carve out a separate state that he then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer into a secular state. In this he clearly failed.

    So even if you place all the blame for injecting religion into politics in India at Gandhi’s feet, you must realize that this presented an equal challenge to the secularists Jinnah and Nehru, and recognize that one of them dealt with the challenge much better than the other did.

  96. bciv

    @Girish

    The Congress was a rainbow coalition and welcomed everybody on board.

    and it was determined to ensure that only and only the congress rainbow exits in the indian sky. anybody who disagreed was a communalist traitor. well, they had the majority, so why not? isn’t that what democracy is all about?

    the JUI-H and Deoband represented conservatism in the field of religion for sure, but there was great heterogeneity in terms of political views.

    well, the muslims of india knew them better than you. they ran roughshod over the mullahs’ wishes and dreams… and yours. practically all of them voted for AIML. you can carry on misunderstanding and standing up for the mullahs. it would be better for muslims of south asia, even today, to think of you as being little different than the mullahs as far as the interests of muslims are concerned.

    most of us consider those who disagree with us to be illiberal. you stop being like the mullah and i shall stop disagreeing with you.

  97. Giri

    YLH: And consider living up to the ideals of liberalism that you claim to stand for. That involves not censoring people simply because of their views.

  98. yasserlatifhamdani

    Boja mian…

    It is not as simple as that. History is not marked out like Darth Vader, Darth Sirius, Darth Tyrannus (Jinnah, Jinnah all Jinnah) v. Master Yoda (almighty Gandhi) ….

    Jinnah tried for 20 years after Nagpur to bring Hindus and Muslims together. He didn’t fight fire with fire.

    On Nehru etc, read Hayyer’s post. Nehru was not very strong in the Congress and after initially showing some independence was willing to kneel down to Gandhi whose views he could not stand.

    Jinnah would not have any of it. That was the only difference between the two… who otherwise were both card carrying members of the Fabian society.

  99. Giri

    bciv:

    The Muslims voted enmasse for AIML in one election. In a charged atmosphere, using slogans such as “Islam Khatray Mein Hay”. And after AIML had abandoned any pretense of being a liberal political outfit. The AIML was comprehensively defeated in the previous election. And who knows what would have been the outcome if there were another election in calmer times.

  100. yasserlatifhamdani

    Giri,

    Your views have not been censored. Your last post was an intemperate attack on me which sidestepped all the points I raised and resorted to the same old strawman fallacy that most of you who can’t argue properly and respectfully do so.

    So if you wish to proceed respectfully, please continue. Otherwise … it is my pleasure to show you the door.

  101. yasserlatifhamdani

    you write: using slogans such as “Islam Khatray Mein Hay”.

    Can you quote where exactly Jinnah used this phrase in either English or Urdu (or Marathi or Gujurati or Cutchie what have you?)

  102. Giri

    So what if Jinnah did not personally use the term. Will you deny that the AIML leaders and supporters were using the term?

  103. Giri

    Warning about what?

  104. yasserlatifhamdani

    Why don’t you quote some of them please … this precise phrase in any language… I would be very interested in finding out the basis of this unsourced phrase…

  105. yasserlatifhamdani

    “warning about what”

    Don’t personalize the discussion. That is what the warning is about.

  106. bciv

    @Girish

    AIML was comprehensively defeated in the previous election

    and AIML’s electoral ally at the time, INC, did even worse as far as the muslim electorate was concerned. (ignoring whatever you mean by “comprehensively defeated”)

  107. yasserlatifhamdani

    “The AIML was comprehensively defeated in the previous election. ”

    Muslim League won UP where it actually contested. And if Muslim League was beaten on Muslim seats in Punjab … would Girish mian tell us how many Muslim seats Congress won in Punjab in 1937 elections?

    In 1937 League was in alliance with the Congress… in 1946 it was opposed to it. That is what changed if you think about it.

  108. bciv

    @Girish

    Will you deny that the AIML leaders and supporters were using the term?

    will you deny that malwiya was (twice) president of congress just as he was presiding over the hindu mahasabha? or lajpat rai – one of the more original authors of the Two Nation Theory – too? and yet even in 1937, AIML was allied to congress during the election.

  109. Giri

    YLH:

    I have not been disrespectful, used bad language or indulged in ad hominem attacks in any of my posts. Please restore the posts so people can see for themselves.

    To your question about the “Islam in danger” slogan, please refer to Governor Glancy’s fortnightly report, quoted recently by Ishtiaq Ahmed as well. It is from a compilation of Governors’ fortnightly despatches, edited by Lionel Carter and brought out in 3 volumes in 2006. Khaled Ahmed also recently wrote a review on these volumes.

    “The ML [Muslim League] orators are becoming increasingly fanatical in their speeches. Maulvis and pirs and students travel all round the province and preach that those who fail to vote for the League candidates will cease to be Muslims; their marriages will no longer be valid and they will be entirely excommunicated…It is not easy to foresee what the results of the elections will be. But there seems little doubt the Muslim League, thanks to the ruthless methods by which they have pursued their campaign of ‘Islam in danger’, will considerably increase the number of their seats and Unionist representatives will correspondingly decline”

    BTW, what is also forgotten and ignored is that the same JUI-H, whose support to the INC in 1946 is such a cause of heartburn amongst many, supported the Jinnah-led AIML in 1937. Why was something that was ok for the League to do in 1937 suddenly such a bad thing to do for the Congress in 1946?

    Nehru’s lack of judgement in 1946 was in thinking that talking about economic and social issues would strike a chord amongst the Muslim masses and would trump identity issues. If he had recognized the real and imagined issues Muslims were facing, maybe history would have been different.

  110. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    I used the term “Political Islam.” Whether Gandhi used Mullahs or Jinnah used idioms, I thought it was the reigniting of political Islam by Gandhi that had been the sore point with most people here. I agree that it was not a good choice but has anyone thought how the message is played out in the streets, idiom or whatever you want to call it. Plus, ML’s role in demand for separate electorates would have been deeply uncomfortable for anyone working for a common goal of freedom, whatever the merits of the case may be. And, let’s not forget– we have the benefit of hindsight.

  111. Chote Miyan

    Giri,
    “Nehru’s lack of judgement in 1946 was in thinking that talking about economic and social issues would strike a chord amongst the Muslim masses and would trump identity issues.”

    Nehru has not been alone in making that mistake. There is a whole generation of leaders and intellectuals that have made the same mistake, and some are repeating the same drivel even today. Witness the tiring arguments about deprivation and exploitation being been the driving force behind the suicide bombers.

  112. Giri

    bciv:

    The Congress, like I said, was always a rainbow coalition. Attempting to bring all shades of opinion under one roof, with the objective of bringing about political, economic and social freedoms. This was true in the 1889-1919 period as well, that YLH refers to as one of the two civic nationalism phases of the Congress.

  113. yasserlatifhamdani

    Once again… little knowledge is dangerous. JUH (not JUI-H) was part of the Muslim Unity Board for a few months out of their own accord in 1937 after being in existence for 18 years. Guess who encouraged its founding in 1919 and who it was allied with through out this period. Gandhi attended the original meeting of the JUH. The Muslim Unity Board – which consisted of the League- was itself allied with the Congress in 1937 elections.

    Ultimately secular Nehru chose JUH instead of coming to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah… what does that tell you? It tells me that in a menu of choices available … secular Nehru and Congress chose the rabid Islamists over liberal Muslims because liberal Muslims drove a hard bargain.

    Muslim League btw was greatly chastened by its 6 month long alliance and other than those 6 months, Jinnah’s Muslim League atleast had no truck with JUH… but Congress has been allied to this day with Deoband… that is a 91 year long alliance now. It gave India such brilliant things as the overturning of Shah Bano case for example.

    BTW… Guess who Shah Bano’s lawyer was… It was Daniyal Latifi… doesn’t ring a bell? Latifi was Jinnah’s junior in law and the author of the “illiberal” Muslim League’s Punjab manifesto in 1946 elections… let us forget that the most people described it as the most progressive manifesto in 1946 elections.

    N0w instead of producing references to Gora master’s intelligence reports… why don’t you produce some direct statement which says “Islam in danger”… or did the League leaders only say it in hushed whispers?

  114. Giri

    Typo in my post above – it should read 1885-1919.

  115. bciv

    @Girish

    the same JUI-H, whose support to the INC in 1946 is such a cause of heartburn amongst many, supported the Jinnah-led AIML in 1937

    AIML and INC were in an electoral alliance at the time anyway. so what exactly is your point?

  116. Giri

    What is wrong with the Governor’s report? It was contemporaneous. It was from a third party observer.

    Post independence association of Congress with JUI-H or anybody else is completely irrelevant to this debate. Post independence politics was profoundly affected by partition and even the Congress itself was not the same organization either.

  117. yasserlatifhamdani

    bciv,

    I think Girish mian is being misled by NJ’s Arun Gupta clan… if he is not indeed one of them.

    JUH did not support AIML in 1937. AIML and JUH were part of the Muslim Unity Board which in turn was allied with the Congress.

    BTW AIML was supported financially by pro-Congress Hindu Industrialists in 1937 elections. Durga Das’ Curzon to Nehru states very clearly the financial backers of Jinnah were Congress’ Hindu Industrialists… till ofcourse Congress broke the alliance.

  118. yasserlatifhamdani

    Giri mian…

    How ironic that when I quote the Viceroy’s report on Calcutta… you don’t accept it.

    But my point is that there is no direct statement by any League leader that says “Islam is in danger” in any language whatsoever.

    The general impression is a different story.

  119. yasserlatifhamdani

    “Post independence association of Congress with JUI-H or anybody else is completely irrelevant to this debate. Post independence politics was profoundly affected by partition and even the Congress itself was not the same organization either.”

    Frankly- Nonsense. The post-independence alliance is the continuation of Gandhi’s and Nehru’s pre-partition alliance dating back to 1919.

    Anyway you don’t have a point. So have fun going in circles.

  120. bciv

    The Congress, like I said, was always a rainbow coalition. Attempting to bring all shades of opinion under one roof, with the objective of bringing about political, economic and social freedoms.

    so why did it feel it had to ignore its electoral understanding with the AIML in 1937 about coalition ministries? and why couldn’t it come to an agreement with the AIML in 1946? why did it find it easier to have within it the JUH and mahasabha leaders, including more original authors of the TNT, but not Jinnah? do you think there was never going to be a response to any of this? it’s no surprise that the stronger party did not like to see the challenge to its monopolistic claims. i guess it is no surprise either that it was determined to preserve the claim to monopoly, at all cost.

  121. Giri

    bciv:

    The point is that you cannot have your argument both ways. If it was such a bad thing to take the support of the JUI-H, Jinnah should not have done so in 1937. He did. So what if it was part of an alliance with INC or if the JUI-H itself was part of another organization that AIML was also part of. The same personalities were involved and they campaigned for League candidates.

  122. Giri

    What Viceroy’s report. I have not had any discussion with you about it.

  123. yasserlatifhamdani

    First of all for the umpteenth time it is JUH not JUI-H. Get your facts straight for god’s sake.

    Secondly… the argument is flawed on several levels and I have already explained why. AIML’s inclusion in Muslim Unity Board could at best be considered a brief electoral alliance with other Muslim parties… it was hardly ideological… at best an attempt to create a facade of Muslim unity which was bound to fail. It had no religious agenda…

    Congress’ alliance with JUH and Majlis-e-Ahrar (an even more bigoted group) was deep rooted and has lasted almost 100 years… and it started with Khilafat Movement – which was aimed at protecting Khilafat.

  124. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    “secular Nehru and Congress chose the rabid Islamists over liberal Muslims because liberal Muslims drove a hard bargain. ”

    So it was all about who gives a better deal and, therefore, just a war for political turf? In that case, if ML didn’t drive a hard bargain, do you agree that Congress would have allied with them? If yes, then why the needless labeling. I have never heard of any political party willingly give up political space. Congress does it even now and so do all other parties if they can manage it. As for Shah Bano case, I am sure you also know about Arif Mohammad Khan, who resigned in disgust at Rajiv Gandhi’s handling of the whole issue. Arif is a great admirer of Azad, and he posted the same interview that you junked as hoax on his website.

  125. Giri

    bciv:

    claim to monopoly. That was the crux of the problem and that is what, in my view, led to partition. The Congress was willing to compromise as late as December 1946 (refer the Objectives Resolution adopted by the Indian Constituent Assembly in its first session). But the experience of the Interim Government, where the League opposed even the nomination of a Muslim member by the Congress from its own quota of seats, and then played an obstructionist role when in Government, was instrumental in convincing everybody that there was no way forward.

    In any case, this is far apart from the original debate before YLH and you came in. The original debate related to Jinnah’s statements “after” partition was already a reality and whether they unequivocally showed a liberal vision for Pakistan or not.

  126. yasserlatifhamdani

    Chote miyan,

    What kind of an argument is that? So what? An exception to the rule.

    Who was Shah Bano’s Lawyer ? That is the real question. It was Daniyal Latifi… yes he was Jinnah’s man.

  127. yasserlatifhamdani

    I love the arguments here waisay… AIML was for a few months part of a body that JUH was part of … so it was okay for Congress to ally itself with Mullahs for a 100 years… brilliant.

    This has to be the biggest piece of crap I have read so far:

    “The Congress was willing to compromise as late as December 1946 (refer the Objectives Resolution adopted by the Indian Constituent Assembly in its first session). But the experience of the Interim Government, where the League opposed even the nomination of a Muslim member by the Congress from its own quota of seats, and then played an obstructionist role when in Government, was instrumental in convincing everybody that there was no way forward.”

    1. Read H M Seervai’s Partition of India Legend and reality.

    2. Pray tell what party Asaf Ali belonged to in the interim government? What League demanded and what League agreed to are two different things.

    Congress didn’t have to do much… it just had to accept that provinces would have the right to opt out from the groups only after the first constitution was made…. and not before it. This was the only proper interpretation of the Cabinet Mission Plan and it did not hurt Congress in any way.

    But Congress didn’t. So don’t give me crap and nonsense about Congress being open till December 1946…. this is utterly laughable to say the least and proves that you are completely dishonest and prejudiced and not worth anyone’s time…

    Maybe BCIV will sort you out…. I am done wasting my time with you.

  128. bciv

    @Girish

    I have never heard of any political party willingly give up political space.

    it was not about either party giving up ‘political space’. it was about one party stubbornly and falsely claiming a democratic mandate where it had none, in the face of the verdict of the ballot box (both in ’37 and ’46). it was lying and shamelessly upholding a false claim to monopoly over all ‘political space’.

    Arif is a great admirer of Azad

    and does he know about azad’s proposal to gandhi before the 1945/6 election? and gandhi’s response? if, yes, what does he think of the whole thing and its impact on the tone of the election itself?

  129. bciv

    the previous post was meant for chote mian. sorry about the typo, girish.

    @Girish

    indian OR and CMP had next to nothing in common, even ignoring the fact that it was, effectively, no backing down from the lying about mandate. INC’s conduct through the CMP didn’t exactly do them any favours. all independent parties agreed that the INC’s ‘acceptance’ of the plan was nothing but a dishonest and underhanded way of rejecting it. yet AIML came in on the interim govt. more pertinently, it backed down on the parity insistence within the interim govt.

    your conclusions only prove what YLH has already told you: have fun going round in circles.

    YLH

    i too have got better things to do than try and help this guy see that the tail he has been so frantically chasing is attached to his own backside.

  130. Giri

    bciv & YLH: If you cannot do anything other than indulge in ad hominem attacks, I am done with you as well. Adieu.

  131. Giri

    The League allied itself with other Mullahs and other religious men in 1946. What does anything prove? As of 1946, the Congress had not been in existence for a 100 years, making an association with Mullahs for a 100 years an impossibility.

  132. Hayyer

    chote miyan:

    “Above all, Nehru, in contrast to Jinnah, was in favor of a strong center.”

    It seems Jinnah also wanted a strong centre. He was forced to speak for the strong states because of the need to get Punjab aboard. Besides the Lucknow pact between the Congress and ML agreed on strong states. Ayesha Jalal is the one to read on what Jinnah really wanted and the role he was constrained to play after he became the AIML head.

    “Anyone who has followed the Indian History would readily sympathize with Nehru’s fear.”

    This raises issues of entirely a different sort which I would like to respond to but it would take up too much space and time.

    “And, let’s be honest: ML’s politics in UP in the late 40′s wasn’t exactly the recipe for a harmonious settlement.

    ML politics was by then operating on the Pakistan ka matlab kya principle even as Jinnah opposed it. Remember though that to Muslims the Congress Ministry in UP also seemed overtly pro Hindu.

  133. Giri

    BTW, some here seem to believe in the principle of “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth”. YLH states “Nehru chose the rabid mullahs over a liberal League”. First, it was the ulema who chose to support the Congress, not the other way around. Second, the Congress and its supporters did not use fanatical appeals or invoke fears about danger to Islam. They went to the people with a positive economic and social agenda. By contrast, the League used fanatical appeals. Whose campaign espoused liberal principles and whose was rabid in the 1946 election campaign?

  134. Ved

    To all
    1. AIML accepted cabinet mission plan which envisaged a loose federation of India where center was weak and state was stronger.
    2. INC would not accept it because It knows very well that weak center was dangerous for unity of India as it is a divers country. Seeing today’s problem it was a correct decision.
    3. Jinnah would not accept a strong center because he was skeptic about the dealing with minority in majority ruled democratic India and wanted loose federation.
    4. So what was the way out???? The partition was the one and only solution.

    We’re happy here, they’re happy their. Let us accept this truth and come out from partition ghost and blame game. Let us be friend, to be allowed to visit Lahore, Islamabad, Agra, Delhi, Mumbai without govt. hindarance.
    One more thing, ask any soldiers from Balochistan or Pakhtunkhwa if he would be happy to be posted in far flung areas of Manipur and Tripura or any Keralite or Madrasi soldiers to be in Khyber/swat agency or Balochistan near Iran border amidst Taliban. He will give the best answers about the unity of India and Pakistan.

  135. YLH

    Giri mian,

    You are clueless. AIML’s agenda – largely defined by the Communist Party’s activists- was the most progressive in Punjab. And the appeal to Islam was through Barelvis. But you would have to know history to know the difference between the low church and high church.

    As for 100 years… In 2010, it would 91 years since Gandhi first attended the JUH original convention. So yes it is 91 years not 100 years.

    BCIV,

    It would be better to put this idiot on spam frankly. But I leave that call to you.

  136. douglas

    Adoring or cursing old dead guys will bring nothing. They did what they thought was clever or right. They all were imperfect. They have left behind a huge heap of tragedies and lies.

    All debates crash into some Jinnah vs anti-Jinnah battle, with the real problems completely unattended to. If that is the result of Jinnah’s life then he stands cursed. What interest should someone have to curse him or glorify him today? Even his descendants (who avoid Pakistan like a ghoulish graveyard) have distanced themself from him totally (may be even are embarrassed about him). The verve of those pakistanis who still hope in him or try to justify him is an ill-directed zeal.

    Do the pak army’s (self-selected) bosses think Jinnah wanted a secular de-centralized state? Even if they do they will invent every bogey (esp. India and its supposedly aggresive stance) to make Pakistan a citadel of hating India in order to save their own privileges. The people of Pakistan are too cowardly or depraved to challenge the fascist elite that rules over Pakistan.

  137. Giri

    More ad hominems, coming only from you. The real face of the “liberals” on this site is quite obvious.

  138. Giri

    How does it matter if the League used the low church or the high church? The fact is that they used a fanatical campaign, through the Barelvis (but also the students and others who were campaigning on their behalf). The manifesto is one thing, how the campaign is run on the ground is a totally different thing.

  139. Giri

    Some quotes from the following reference (note that this is from one of YLH’s authors)

    Talbott, Ian A. (1980), “The 1946 Punjab Elections,” Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 65-91.

    “It had been official League policy long before
    I946 to use religious appeals in mobilizing support.”

    “League meetings were regularly held in
    mosques especially after the Friday prayers. The Quran was frequently paraded during the elections as the League’s symbol, pledges to vote for it being made on it. Students who played an important part in the League’s election campaign had in particular been trained to appeal to the electorate along religious lines. ”

    “Students from the Punjab Muslim Students’ Federation were advised to follow the Prophet’s example in all things the whole of the time they
    were in a village. They were to join in the prayers at the mosque or lead them like ‘Holy Warriors’. Their speeches were to be filled with emotional appeal and always to commence with a text from the Quran, invoking God’s protection and praising His Wisdom.”

    “Brothers in unity many of my friends, brother Sufis and my murids have asked my help as to whom they should give their votes in the Provincial Elections. I’m not only making an announcement but a compassionate appeal to my brothers in unity that they should give every vote to the nominated candidates of the Muslim League and prove their solidarity. The bold struggle of the Muslim League against a well organized party like the Congress has given it an immense respect as also has its provincial success. God willing after it has captured political power in the provinces, the Sun of the glory of the Muslim Government that has ruled India for 800 years and which set in I857 in the Red Fort of Delhi with its last ray of glory, will rise again from the land of India. We can see the harbingers in the dawning light of the sky of slavery and cruelty. God’s promise that He made in the Sura ‘Nur’ in the Quran will be fulfilled. If you are in love with Islam you should do things the way Iqbal asked you to do it.
    Sayed Ymdad Ali Shah Gilani, Sajjada Nashin Dargarh Hzrat Shah Muqim Nujravi. ”

    Note in the last quote from a prominent supporter of the League to fanatical references to the establishment of a Muslim government over all of India after the Muslim provinces have been captured.

  140. chote Miyan

    ylh,
    “What kind of an argument is that? So what? An exception to the rule. ”

    Just disputing your contention, even if tangential, that Congress had a hidden agenda in sidelining the “progressives” of ML, and that Congress deliberately wanted to keep Muslims backward and downtrodden. That’s all.

    An exception to the rule? Do you want me to reel off other names too, but then I am afraid you might brand them closet Mullahs.

  141. Giri

    I meant to say that Ian Talbott was one of YLH’s favorite authors. The word “favorite” was inadvertently deleted when I posted my last post.

  142. chote Miyan

    Hayyer,
    “It seems Jinnah also wanted a strong centre. He was forced to speak for the strong states because of the need to get Punjab aboard.
    Ayesha Jalal is the one to read on what Jinnah really wanted and the role he was constrained to play after he became the AIML head.”

    That is still a hypothesis. What if it was not true? In that case Ayesha Jalal’s theory would have been just that, a theory, and a weak consolation at that. I am not disputing that that well might well have been the case. But both sides were operating at what the current situation was and not on what was churning deep in their hearts. For that matter, Jinnah could have excused Nehru’s non acceptance of the Cabinet proposal as a one off thing. At least, Azad says that they reworked the Congress statement thereafter to assuage ML’s suspicions. It was an atmosphere of deep suspicion on both sides. No doubt, Nehru committed a big error, but I don’t fault him for not accepting the Cabinet proposals. If he has to pay the price of being judged as the chief culprit for the Partition, so be it.

  143. chote Miyan

    Hayyer,
    “This raises issues of entirely a different sort which I would like to respond to but it would take up too much space and time.”

    I agree. I am sure that you would now understand my reservations. People have mentioned as to how the Indian federation would have been like Canada. Maybe. I doubt that, however. A closer example would have been the fate of former Soviet republics and also the Arab states after the break up of the Ottoman Empire. I am surprised why no one quotes those examples. We are well aware of the cussedness of our local rulers and Sardars.

    “Remember though that to Muslims the Congress Ministry in UP also seemed overtly pro Hindu.”

    I was merely mentioning what MJ Akbar has mentioned in his book about Nehru.

  144. YLH

    Giri,

    That still doesn’t give any “islam in danger” quote. References to religion are unfortunate. But then Gandhi poisoned the well so completely I understand why thoroughly irreligious people also referred to religion.

    This is not the point. Why are you so obsessed with this and on a Pakistani website as well is the real issue.

    Moderators,

    It is clear to me after this latest flurry that this Girish fellow is just another nick for Sadna Gupta and her kin. Note especially reference to Ian Talbott,

    Douglass mian,

    Jinnah’s descendants especially Nusli is very proud of Jinnah. Infact I think I posted a TV interview with some Indian channel in which Nusli spoke in detail about Jinnah.

    I know people like you have a hard time playing fair …but don’t go on making things as you go along.

  145. chote Miyan

    bciv,
    “where it had none, in the face of the verdict of the ballot box (both in ’37 and ’46). it was lying and shamelessly upholding a false claim to monopoly over all ‘political space’.”

    Really? In ’37 too?

  146. Giri

    YLH:

    I know no Sadna Gupta. I have not been disrespectful or used personal attacks through this entire thread. I have given references when asked for. By contrast, you have been disrespectful, used foul language and deleted posts which had nothing to justify such deletion.

    If you must ban me, go ahead and do it. It is your site.

  147. YLH

    PS ofcourse an ignorant person not expected to understand low church v high church issue.

    League’s fabled use of religion in Punjab was to bring down Khizer Tiwana. The low church Punjab League used comprised Sufis, Pirs, gaddi nasheens and other local saints.

    Unionist Party used Maulvis.

    League’s campaign was largely organized by the very secular Communist Party of India and as such was not aimed at Hindus or even Congress. It was aimed at defeating Khizer Tiwana and the British bureaucracy.

    This is why Sajjad Zaheer – that leftist communist- declared that it was the patriotic duty of every Indian nationalist to support the Muslim League in Punjab in the elections.

    Far cry from the nonsense spun by Congress’ latter day apologists and superficial readers of history like Ishtiaq Babu.

  148. Giri

    And now references to Ian Talbott are a problem, are they? What is wrong with my giving quotes from a peer reviewed article published by him?

  149. YLH

    Yes chote miyan in 1937 also. Congress won 1 Muslim seat in UP in 37 as opposed to 29 seats of the League…in 1937.

    League’s so called defeat in 1937 was at the hands of Punjab’s pro-British Unionist Party…which is what forced League to change its strategy.

  150. Giri

    It wasn’t only in Punjab that the League used religious appeals. It was used in UP and Bengal as well as in the most unlikeliest of places – Madras. What role did Tiwana have in these places?

    I have already given a reference for the “Islam in danger” slogan. A perfectly legitimate, contemporaneous source.

  151. YLH

    Talbott is not the problem. It is just that your quote doesn’t have any Muslim Leader saying “Islam in danger”.

  152. YLH

    Giri mian,

    Can you show me from the legitimate source you quoted as to which leader it was who said “islam in danger” and on what date precisely?

  153. Giri

    I wasn’t giving the Talbott reference to fill your apparent gaps in knowledge about the use of that slogan. For that, I have already given a reference – a perfectly legitimate one.

    The Talbott reference puts a lie to the claim that the League campaign on the ground was a liberal one. It was a pretty fanatical one, irrespective of what was in the manifesto or what Jinnah wanted. That was not the only factor behind the League’s victory in that election of course, but that is besides the point.

  154. YLH

    So far you haven’t through any reference shown a single instance of a League leader actually using the words “islam in danger”.

    As I showed above using Pirs, Sufis and gaddi nasheens – the guardians of popular rural religion- as League did is very different the doctors of straitjacket Islam that Congress and Unionists deployed.

    How ironic that Mahatma ji jumps up and down half naked singing hymns and polluting politics with religion and that is “secular” but League’s use of Sufis and Pirs against Islamist orthodoxy cultivated by Congress was “fanatical”.

  155. YLH

    One example: during the civil disobedience campaign of the League against Khan sb ministry in NWFP, the Congress Mullahs denounced League women for being without Purdah.

    Pir of Manki Sharif – yes the same Pir of Manki the letter to whom is subject of so much hullabaloo- declared that League women were perfectly within limits by not doing Purdah and that the sharai Purdah did not require niqaab.

  156. bciv

    @chote mian

    YLH has answered your query. you obviously did not read my post of 8:18 pm.

    @Girish

    congress used the mullahs to hit AIML below the belt. AIML defended itself quite legitimately and well. the fact that the defence came in response to two decades of being at the receiving end of the kind of things i’ve already mentioned obviously means nothing to you. to you chronology of events is immaterial in a case of legitimate self-defence.

    the difference between low church and high church is important. as is their relationships with congress and AIML, respectively.

  157. Giri

    YLH,

    Why do I have to show an exact reference to a leader who used the term? Did I make the claim about a particular leader using the slogan? If so, the burden is on me to show a reference. I said that the slogan was part of the campaign and have shown you references for the same. Often, leaders like to keep their hands clean while others do the dirty work. We have similarly not been able to find a single direct quote from Modi inciting violence. Does it prove that he did not do it?

    Will you deny that the slogan was used in the campaign? For instance, Sarah Ansari in article in Vol. 24, No. 4 of Modern Asian Studies says the following,

    “…the familiar cry of ‘Islam in danger’ together with appeals to religious obedience were import-
    ant in determining the way in which support was won..”

    She is writing this as part of a review of one of Ian Talbott’s books and quotes this from his book.

    This message was very much part of the election campaign used by the League. Who used it is quite immaterial.

    bciv: you are going into the land of hypotheses and conjectures. I am focusing on the facts. What is legitimate self-defence versus not is not a fact, it is an opinion.

  158. Giri

    What makes politics sectarian vs. non-sectarian is whether it is used to unite people or divide them. You could argue with Gandhi’s wisdom at using religious symbolism (note that this was not Hindu symbolism alone – his prayer meetings regularly read from the Quran). But to me at least, that is less of a crime than using religion to divide people, incite them to indulge in violence and so on. Which is Jinnah’s (probably unintended) gift to our region’s politics.

  159. Amaar

    I think the ‘Indians’ are not contributing much to the discussion here. Pakistan needs a separation of state and religion for the sake of both Islam and Pakistan. But these ‘Indians’ want the status quo – a mess – to remain.
    No wonder they and our religious parties form a natural alliance!

  160. bciv

    @Girish

    chronology is fact, not hypothesis or conjecture. you choose to ignore it. your choice.

    you also choose to ignore the difference between the likes of deobandis and barelwis as well as their relationships with congress and AIML, respectively. and the difference between ahrar and khaksars. your choice again.

    your first choice ends the argument. thank you.

  161. Giri

    One clarification: when I say “probably unintended”, what I mean is that Jinnah probably did not intend for fanaticism his campaign for Pakistan had unleashed to be a persistent factor in the future. He probably hoped that once his political demands had been met, either in a united India or in an independent states, he could bottle the genie again. He was wrong in this view and I think he realized that before he died. Hence the flip flopping, perhaps in an attempt to stay in control while still attempting to steer things towards the direction he wanted them to go.

  162. bciv

    … and you do not know the difference between a minority’s use of identity as opposed to the majority using it. especially, when the minority has been forced to identify itself.

    assimilation/compositing is great, but only if it is a voluntary and two-way process.

  163. Giri

    Amaar:

    I for one want a secular future for Pakistan. I just don’t think it will be achieved by putting all eggs into the basket of showing that this is what Jinnah wanted. It cannot be shown and the whole endeavor is then of no use. As I said, if building a false mythology around Jinnah would serve the cause, all power to you. But even that is not feasible, as discourse between Pakistanis themselves demonstrates.

    Why not try to build a convincing case about why secularism is good for the Pakistan of today, leaving history for historians to debate?

  164. YLH

    So in other words you don’t have a single League leader actually saying “Islam in danger”. How interesting.

    I don’t know how people come to this conclusion that Gandhi’s use of religion was not divisive. Gandhi not only alienated secular minded Muslims but he was directly responsible for violence that resulted such as Moplah uprising. By using Hindu symbols on the one hand and encouraging Muslims on to the route of Pan-Islamism on the other, Gandhi made Hindu and Muslim identities non-negotiable. Jinnah on the other hand tried for another twenty years to bridge the gap that Gandhi created between Hindus and Muslims.

    So advertent or inadvertent – division and religious hatred is Gandhi’s lasting legacy to South Asia. I am frankly sick of this inability of people like you to be honest about this.

  165. YLH

    The only false mythology is that of a mahatma who was non-violent. That is just utter nonsense. Everyone of Gandhi’s non_violenet movements ended up in violence. He was warned against using religion because it would turn hindus and muslims against each other but the mahatma wouldn’t listen.
    Patrick French perhaps put it best when he said that if Gandhi is your hero prepare for heart break. Anyway I have no concern if some loser wants to believe in the Mahatma. What I don’t understand is how crooks like this Giri fellow get about denying history vis a vis Jinnah.

    Giri mian…

    Why are you going in circles like a true Gandhian crook? Why don’t you produce the name and exact occasion of when and where the Muslim League leaders used “islam in danger” slogan… Surely you must have some actual proof other than quoting reviews and intelligence reports. Is there no documentary evidence that actually can pin a League leader down?

    I think H M Seervai’s book and several other historians make it plain as to who was ultimately responsible for partition. Hint: it wasn’t Jinnah.

  166. Giri

    You perhaps cannot see that I don’t care about who was responsible for partition. A retrospective view tells us that it was probably a good thing for everybody concerned. So our thanks should be to whoever was responsible for it.

    As to your spinning of lies, continue on. You are a master at it.

  167. YLH

    Yawn. Make up your mind.

  168. P. Vengaayam

    YLH:”The only false mythology is that of a mahatma who was non-violent. That is just utter nonsense. Everyone of Gandhi’s non_violenet movements ended up in violence.”

    Ah, so Gandhi actually committed violence under the table while pretending to be non-violent? How interesting.

    If we go by this protrayal of Gandhiji as a violent man pretending to be peaceful and liberal, then a lot of the Pakistani liberals here are very Gandhian in their ways indeed.

    It is a good idea to never lie about things that can be verified with a simple google search, as that only destroys the credibility of the liar.

  169. YLH

    I didn’t delete any of your posts but I am glad somebody did.

    Liars and crooks like you ought to be taught a lesson …I am sick of bigots and obsessed freaks like you who deny history the way you do.

    Do read Patrick French’s book and weep.

  170. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    “The only false mythology is that of a mahatma who was non-violent. That is just utter nonsense. Everyone of Gandhi’s non_violenet movements ended up in violence.”

    I guess, one can say the same thing about MLK Jr. as well. Sigh! How our icons have fallen..

  171. Amaar

    The abject disrespect to Jinnah by our `Indian’ friends shows their venom against a man who spearheaded the real fight for a minority’s rights.

    As for their Mahatama, it does not help when all you do is run the charkha and sermonize on peace and harmony from far away. Show us a single incident where Gandhi truly exercised positive role in stemming violence and passions between communities and stopped mobs from their frenzy. ‘Gandhi-esque Nonviolence’ is but another name for intransigence and bulletless belligerence.

  172. Tilsim

    @ Amaar

    I believe you need to study the life of Gandhi before coming to such a definitive view. I know the man too little but just one example: I do know that the reason an RSS man killed him was because he tried to stop the murder of Muslims in India through his fasts post partition.

  173. Boja

    A question:

    Can someone explain to me exactly what was the danger perceived by Jinnah in an undivided post-British India?

    What sorts of things did he foresee happening to the Muslims (variously defined by people even on this site as all Indian Muslims or only those Muslims in Muslim-majority areas) if their ‘interests’ were not ‘safeguarded’ either through constitutional guarantees, or failing that, a separate country?

    Did he think that Indian Muslims would not be able to compete for the best jobs? That they would not be able to change their negative attitude towards modern education so long as they were in a minority? That their language and culture (assuming these were distinct from their Hindu compatriots) would be somehow lost? That their votes would count for less? That they would be subjected to mob rule by the majority? That their feelings would simply be hurt if they were ‘ruled by Hindus’?

    This is a genuine question, as I have not seen a clear articulation of this perceived danger; at least, nothing more concrete than that ‘Muslim interests would not have been adequately protected’. Someone please bring some substance to this abstract articulation for me.

  174. Chote Miyan

    Amaar,
    “The abject disrespect to Jinnah by our `Indian’ friends shows their venom against a man who spearheaded the real fight for a minority’s rights.”

    Half of the subcontinent’s problem would be solved if we stop harping on this respect thing. In case you didn’t know, Internet is a free forum and no one is expected to show unnecessary respect to anyone. If you want respect stay at your home and lecture your wife and kids. Ylh mentions this website address along with his columns, which means that people can come here and use the resources available, and comment as well. Some of the comments are derogatory, but that’s human nature. So deal with it.

    “As for their Mahatama, it does not help when all you do is run the charkha and sermonize on peace and harmony from far away. Show us a single incident where Gandhi truly exercised positive role in stemming violence and passions between communities and stopped mobs from their frenzy. ‘Gandhi-esque Nonviolence’ is but another name for intransigence and bulletless belligerence.”

    Remember Noakhali?

  175. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    I think I got my info wrong, but I thought Congress did pretty well in the ’37 election. Here is what I found somewhere. It may be wrong, but I think I read somewhat similar things. I know, of course, that in 46 the league did very well.
    “The total Muslim votes cast was 7,319,445of which league got only 321,772 i.e. 4.4 %. It must be stressed once again it was proved that though the electorates were communal but they rejected the league . In Madras, the League got 10 out of 28 Muslim seats, in Bombay 20 out of 29 ; in Assam 9 out of 34 ; in Bengal 39 out of 117 ; in UP 27 out of 64 ; and in Punjab 2 out of 84 ; In NWFP could not secure a single seat out of 36 ; none also out of 36 seats in Bihar ; 14 seats in CP and 4 seats in Orissa. “

  176. Gorki

    Dear Amaar:

    “The abject disrespect to Jinnah by our `Indian’ friends …..”

    Jinnah is the father of Pakistan and as such worthy of respect from outsiders. This point was driven home by none other than LK Advani when he wrote his comments as the visiting Indian home minister in the visitors book at the Qaid’s monument of India.
    While many Indians disagree with his politics, most sane Indians agree with his one gesture.
    ……….

    “Show us a single incident where Gandhi truly exercised positive role in stemming violence and passions between communities and stopped mobs from their frenzy”

    Gandhi was at his finest towards the end of his life.
    1. Noakali was mentioned above.
    2. Gandhi alone among the giants of his time (Nehru Patel, Jinnah..) died a hero’s death by dying at the hands of a fanatic while fasting for Pakistan’s rights demonstrating that the principle of fair play should be held above narrow nationalism.

    3. But he truly behaved like a great leader by distancing himself from the celebrations in New Delhi on the eve of Independence but instead by staying in Calcutta to help prevent a replay of rioting seen the year before.
    Please note the context and the oft reported quote below (also note the mention of his ‘second in command’) :

    In August, the month of Independence, Gandhi started a “fast until his death” to stop the incredible Hindu versus Muslim violence in Calcutta. His success prompted Mountbatten, a firm supporter of Gandhi, to write:

    “In the Punjab, we have 55 thousand soldiers and large scale rioting on our hands. In Bengal, our forces consist of one man, and there is no rioting.

    As a serving officer, as well as an administrator, may I be allowed to pay my tribute to the One Man Boundary Force, not forgetting his Second in Command, Mr. Suhrawardy.”

    The eye witness account of the ‘Miracle of Calcutta’ is available on various web sites if one is interested.

    Regards.

  177. YLH

    Chote miyan,

    Why are you being a prick. Congress did do well on general seats. On Muslim seats it did the most poorly. It only won one seat in UP.

    Muslim League did badly vis a vis Unionists in Punjab. Congress did even worse.

    I am a little surprised by how you people can’t understand plain English language.

  178. YLH

    And we are talking about the 1937 elections … I don’t know why people assume that since the League lost in Punjab it was Congress who won. Had Congress won Muslim seats, there would be no question of League whatsoever. That is the crux of the problem.

    Anyway I frankly sick of educating idiots.

  179. shiv

    Did anyone ever say that Islam was in danger? Perhaps not.

    But just do a Google search for “enemies of Islam Quran” and this throws up a wide variety of agents, actions and attitudes that constitute enemies of Islam.

    As a rhetorical question, let me ask “If an enemy of Islam were to be allowed to rule over people or gain power, would Islam be in danger or not?”

    Does Islam have no enemies?

    Can those enemies not, under certain circumstances gain more power than they should?

    Whose duty would it be to fight those enemies of Islam? Would it be anybody’s duty to do that?

    What should be the nature of the fight against enemies of Islam?

  180. Honestly corrupt

    @YLH is born india hatter and is fanatic of his own kind, we need people like Kamran Shahid who can shoo him out , These are the great word’s of his master in disguise…..
    “We do not want in any circumstances a constitution of an All-India character with one government at the Centre. We will never agree to that. If we once agree to that, let me tell you, the Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence. We shall never be tributaries of any power or any government at the Centre so far as the North-West and Eastern zones of our free national homelands are concerned.” [Jinnah’s Presidential Address at 28th Annual Session of AIML; Madras, April 1941]

  181. Bin Ismail

    While going through the comments in this discussion, one is gratified to note that among our Indian friends, there are gentlemen like Gorki, Hayyer and Vajra who discuss – not despise. The contribution of these persons adds to the intellectual flavour of the discussion and inspires respect. There are also those, from among our neighbours who seem less interested in the discussion itself and more committed to divulging their long-nurtured rancour towards Jinnah. These participants, vindicate exactly what Amaar said – “The abject disrespect to Jinnah by our `Indian’ friends shows their venom against a man who spearheaded the real fight for a minority’s rights.” A discussion – call it debate if you like – is in progress on what is perceived by many Pakistanis, including my humble self, as Jinnah’s unwritten Will. They hold Jinnah and his vision of a secular and forward-looking Pakistan in high esteem. They also contend that the course of this nation was altered shortly after Jinnah’s death, and that Pakistan’s present plight is largely due to this change of course from secular statecraft to mixing of politics and religion.

    Let us all discuss – not despise. Let us also stick to the topic of discussion.

    1: Originally, the Two Nation Theory germinated as a preservative political measure to secure the “political and social”- not religious – identity of the “politically insecure” Muslim community of British India.

    2: From this germination-point, the theory evolved into an equation that could be termed a “Muslim-majority states & Hindu-majority states” equation.

    3: From this equation, this theory further evolved into the concept of three sub-federations within an undivided India, as proposed in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946.Jinnah endorsed this plan and the Congress leadership evaded commitment to the proposal.

    4: From the concept of the “3 sub-federations”, it took the final shape of the two nations of “Pakistan and India” – with the Muslim-majority states of India, clumping together “politically” to form Pakistan.

    Throughout the various phases of this metamorphosis, never was the Two Nation Theory perceived and promoted by its proponents as an “Islam vs Sanatan Dharm” theory. Post-independence, rather “post-Jinnah” to be precise, there was an impressively massive influx of rightists into the Muslim League – who till then had been conscientiously kept at bay by Jinnah – and the party-thinking changed tracks. Facts were systematically replaced with myths, to the convenience of many, at every possible level of information-dissipation. An “ideology” called “nazaria-e Pakistan” unknown to Bani-e Pakistan, suddenly cropped up from nowhere. A permanent secret back-door for any possible latter advent of the clergy into the corridors of political power, were flung open and assuredly kept open.

    5: Jinnah’s commitment to secular statecraft was lucid, firm and lasted till his last breath.

    6: Jinnah’s use of terms such as “Islam”, “Islamic” or “Muslim” suggest little beyond the fact that he was dealing with a muslim-majority nation, just as Gandhi’s frequent use of terms that have roots in Hindu theology do not prove that Gandhi wanted India to be a Vedic State.

    7: Pakistan today, is at the crossroads of its destiny. Pakistanis will have to choose between being eternal hostages to Mullaism or segregate State and Religion and move forward.

  182. Chote Miyan

    ylh,
    “I don’t know why people assume that since the League lost in Punjab it was Congress who won.”

    Where did I assume that it was Congress that won? It’s you that assumed that stuff on my part. Bin Ismail said that the Congress leadership was being a jerk not acceding to ML’s demands to be recognized as the biggest voice of the Muslims. Frankly, if you get only 4.4% of your constituent votes, it’s rather hard to accept those claims. In fact, it would seem quite presumptuous. You, of course, did not mention NWFP, Bengal, etc.

  183. Chote Miyan

    Gorki,
    A big thanks! I am actually quite surprised by ignorance showed by people here when it comes to Gandhi. I mean, go ahead, abuse him as much as you can, but do that after knowing a little bit about the man. I am not such a huge fan of Jinnah(and for that matter Patel, Nehru, etc. too) but at least I am asking for clarifications before going on a rampage abusing all and sundry.

  184. bciv

    Gorki! ***Welcome back!***🙂

  185. Chote Miyan

    Bin Ismail,
    I agree with you: let’s discuss and not despise. And, if you were fair, you would also look at some of the needless personal attacks that we have to endure when we try to discuss anything. After any bit of discussion, there is a statutory addendum as to how we are fools, bharatrakshak(I do not know what that means) idiots, blah, blah, blah.

    “These participants, vindicate exactly what Amaar said – “The abject disrespect to Jinnah by our `Indian’ friends shows their venom against a man who spearheaded the real fight for a minority’s rights.””

    I think we have a different understanding of “respect”. I don’t want to sound churlish, but with respect to Hayyer, Vajra, et al., there may be a case of generation gap. For some of us, who are in their 20s, respect has a different connotation. I can understand why you are so riled up by the comments about Jinnah by my countrymen, but you should hear us discuss Gandhi and Nehru. They are equally, if not more, excoriated. It’s just a function of a democratic milieu. For example: when Americans discuss if Abe Lincoln was gay or not, they are not disrespecting him. They just want to know more. In the same manner, Ayesha Jalal may be a terrific scholar, but we don’t take her interpretation as the gospel truth. To doubt is a healthy thing. I have a question for you: Do you support Islamic countries’ proposal to modify the internationally recognized “Right to free expression” on the basis of showing “respect” to cultures, etc. Apparently, Pakistan is spearheading that project.
    As for Jinnah, you can’t blame us alone. It’s not yet a settled debate even in Pakistan. As this discussion gather more weight, you would find a lot of curious Indians going out(and coming here) to find more. Till Jaswant stirred this whole debate, a lot of us were just not aware of this debate raging in Pakistan. We thought that the whole thing was settled, once and for all, in ’47.

  186. Chote Miyan

    erratum:
    “Where did I assume that it was Congress that won **the muslims seats**

  187. yasserlatifhamdani

    Chote miyan…

    The argument was with respect to your question to BCIV vis a vis mandate.

    The 1937 connection my dear sweet chote miyan ji is that in UP League emerged as the largest Muslim party by a long shot which was in any event allied to the Congress. The election was contested on the basis of a tacit understanding and agreement between League and Congress of making a coalition government.

    Congress ofcourse on general seats did fantastically well… but won a solitary Muslim seat. It no longer needed ML for coalition and made all sorts of ridiculous demands (read Curzon to Nehru by Durga Das)… then instead of making a government with the League in UP, it turned to Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind…

    The argument – which Romilla Thapar also makes in the second volume of her book as well as Maulana Azad and Jaswant Singh and Seervai and S K Majumdar and countless others- is that had Congress not dictated insulting terms and forced League into opposition in UP in 1937, League wouldn’t have had to go to Punjab, Sindh etc and begin to champion the Pakistan demand.

  188. Chote Miyan

    “my dear sweet chote miyan ji”
    That was cute…thank you :)…of course, you didn’t mention ML’s changing demands…I quoted from MJ akbar’s book..

  189. Bin Ismail

    @Chote Miyan (June 30, 2010 at 3:49 pm)

    1. “…..I think we have a different understanding of “respect”…..there may be a case of generation gap…..”

    The gap you’re talking about, should in all likelihood, not be more than a single generation. There are certain norms of respect, however, that are not bound by time.

    2. “…..when Americans discuss if Abe Lincoln was…..”

    If the American understanding of “respect” is disrespect, then I’m afraid it does not deserve emulation. In this respect, I suppose the Canadians excel the Americans. Their “hate laws” as they are commonly called – in reality anti hate laws – allow the society to move ahead without unnecessary friction and conflict. With reference to matters relating to human interaction, it is irrelevant what Pakistan spearheads. The cause should be evaluated objectively.

    3. “….Till Jaswant stirred this whole debate……”

    You rightly said, “Ayesha Jalal may be a terrific scholar, but we don’t take her interpretation as the gospel truth”. May I add to this that Jaswant Singh’s book is no gospel either.

  190. Chote Miyan

    Dear Ismail,
    I am glad you wrote that because it gives me an idea of where we stand.
    “The gap you’re talking about, should in all likelihood, not be more than a single generation.”

    Trust me. You would be surprised at how large that gap is. It’s a very curious and irreverent generation. May I add here: most of the discussions about Jinnah and his role vis-a-vis Gandhi et al., has been held to a packed and a young audience so much so that it has led MJ Akbar to lament that Gandhi has lost his relevance(not sure I agree with him.)

    ” There are certain norms of respect, however, that are not bound by time.”

    And, who do you think decides that. It’s a slippery slope. Once you start regulating these things, it takes a dynamic of its own. I should add here that a lot of references to Gandhi here has been really quite obnoxious– some of them of smacking of pure derision, some deliberately misspelling his name to Ghandi, even in national newspapers(it actually sounds funnier than insulting.) How many of us have reacted to that insult? Maybe one or two and that too has been of the mild sort. Any tangential “disrespect” to Jinnah, however, and all hell breaks loose. The problem is that you are expecting the sort of respect which we don’t even accord to our national leaders. We have to get beyond this nit-picking.

    2. “…..when Americans discuss if Abe Lincoln was…..”
    “If the American understanding of “respect” is disrespect, …..In this respect, I suppose the Canadians excel the Americans…”

    Yeah, sure. 300 yrs of existence, and America has given us Jazz, Disney, Civil Rights among others. What has Canada given to the world? Maple syrup, probably, and a bunch of leaders that needed a tan more than anything else.

    3. “….Till Jaswant stirred this whole debate……”

    “May I add to this that Jaswant Singh’s book is no gospel either…”

    Neither do we. From what I have gathered from the reviewers, including CM Naim, that it is a horribly written book and more of an exercise in Nehru bashing than anything else. There are some rare photographs of Jinnah for the more visually inclined.

  191. Bin Ismail

    @ Chote Miyan (June 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm)

    Thank you. I assure you, I do not at all endorse any disrespect shown by Pakistani participants to Gandhi. However, I believe you do appreciate that since PTH is a Pakistani site, most discussions are Pakistan-relevant and initiated by Pakistanis, with Indian guests joining in subsequently. If the topic of discussion is, say “Jinnah”, it would be quite natural to expect that, any comment of such nature from a Pakistani would only be in response to a comment from a guest. Nevertheless, I do not, on a personal level, endorse expression of disrespect to those who are held in esteem by any group of people. I consider this elementary civility.

    Jazz, Disney, Civil Rights etc. are all good contributions, but I still am of the opinion that the Canadian anti-hate laws are more admirable than the corresponding American laws.

    Regards.

  192. @Chote Miyan
    @Bin Ismail

    I hope I may chip in, since my name occurs more than once, not in a particularly flattering manner as far as one party is concerned.

    It is not just a question of a generational difference between different sets of Indians, leading to a circumspection among the older set, and a refreshing irreverence among the younger ones. It is also a question of the responses from the other side, the Pakistanis. In case it has not cropped up yet, people age in Pakistan as well as in India.

    So there are older people responding to these border-hoppers that we are, as well as another set, a – dare I say it? – young, refreshingly irreverent set which matches the young, irreverent set from the other side that sets out to stir things up, and in their insatiable quest for knowledge, will acknowledge no plaster saints, and leave no sacred cows ungrilled. So, dear Chote Miyan Sir, you f*****g half-wit, your counterparts will deal with you in the way that you deal with their ideals, and you have to sort it out at your level; since you believe that you have the license of relative youth to talk and act the way you do, which whether you like it or not may be unacceptable and even offensive to others, you thereby grant them a like license to talk and act in that manner. If you think they are being stupid and abusive, you might like to consider that by ignoring what they have already discussed, argued about and concluded, commencing nearly a year before Jaswant Singh had even been heard of, perhaps to them you appear stupid and abusive. As a witness to those events and discussions, even as a participant in some measure, I would find it difficult to blame them without some limitation on the censure. But then, being the generation that I am, my censure obviously should not count.

    Just think about it, before you get so judgemental, so holier than thou. Talking of which,

    ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT

  193. Amaar

    No offense meant to Gandhi.

    The purpose of some of my previous comments was only to demonstrate to the critic that if Gandhi was judged by the same yardstick as Jinnah has been, then so many flaws in Gandhi’s approach can be found.

  194. Tilsim

    @ Amaar

    Thanks for the clarification of your intention. This previous comment did not sound like you.

  195. YLH

    And what kind of a crook equates secularist case on Jinnah with the Islamist case on Jinnah. Not even someone like Ishtiaq Ahmed – a critic- would say that the Islamist case on Jinnah holds true.

    That would mean setting aside 99 percent facts and hiding behind ambiguous statements with positive references to Islam.

    Boja … I don’t need advice from third rate crooks. Those who know me and my stances – which have brought me to personal harm and physical threat- know what I am about.

    As for “sole repository” why don’t you take a suppository instead and leave us alone.

    Any liberal movement in Pakistan hits inevitably the wall of Mullah lie “Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam”… Only Jinnah then comes to the rescue of Pakistan’s liberals …not Boja mian and other such crooks.

    Moderators please remove this idiot.

  196. YLH

    PS I wonder why Haji Adeel of ANP – a follower of Bacha Khan and an ANP senator- appeals to Jinnah ? Could it be that he is also merely trying to defend Jinnah?

    Highly unlikely. As a liberal legislator Haji Adeel uses Jinnah as a shield against the Mullahs.

  197. Bin Ismail

    Jinnah never envisioned Pakistan and India as rival neighbours, one representing Belief and the other Disbelief – certainly not. In November 1946, he said: “The two states [Pakistan and India] will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America.”

  198. Bin Ismail

    In my opinion, a secular state can best be described along the following lines:

    #1: The Secular State does not at all mean an anti-God, anti-religion, Godless or religionless nation.
    #2: Secularism simply means that the State will not hold the religious affiliation of the Citizen to the advantage or disadvantage of the Citizen.
    #3: There should be no State Religion in place.
    #4: No particular religion or adherents of a particular religion will enjoy state-granted privileges, exclusive to that religion.
    #5: Adherents of all religions, without exception will enjoy equal civil rights and have equal civil responsibilities.

    Any country, whatever the religion of its majority, if governed along the above principles, should be categorized as truly “secular”. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be run along these lines. Latter deviations, in all fairness, cannot be attributed to Jinnah. A deviation is a deviation.

    The best and most prudent way to avert the disastrous outcomes of this deviation is to pursue and materialise Jinnah’s vision of a truly secular Pakistan.

  199. Nusrat Pasha

    Even the most pathetically incompliant and rebellious posterity shows respect towards to the will of its dying father. The vision and will of the father of this nation was a “Secular Pakistan”. Not only was his will not respected, it was defied contumaciously. And we, as a nation, have paid most dearly for this mutiny against the founder of the nation.

    We must repent, and repent now. We must revert towards carrying out the will of the Father of this Nation by fulfilling Jinnah’s vision of a “Secular Pakistan”.