Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Dr. Hoodbhoy said:

"Why did a man known for his integrity fight shy of expressing his beliefs openly and forthrightly? The answer lies in the political reality of building a coalition of zamindars, pirs, and parts of the Indian Muslim elite. Mr. Jinnah surely did not share the retrogressive views of the feudal elements who chose to have him as their leader. Had Jinnah campaigned for a liberal, secular Pakistan – and that too in competition with the secular Indian National Congress under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru – he would have certainly lost the leadership of the Pakistan Movement. So, Jinnah opted for ambiguity, hoping that:

a) People in his Muslim League would not notice his lifestyle too much.

b) That the contribution he was making to the welfare of Muslims – by helping level the playing field – would dominate everything else.

c) That a liberal, secular Pakistan would one day follow once the messy business of partition was over with, and it was unnecessary to raise the issue of secularism now."



which I think is very closer to the truth.

Jinnah had ball of his youth in Bombay and London. He got political lessons from Pherozshah Mehta and idolised Ranade and became the disciple of Gokhale.

BUT, when he needed a launching into politics he needed to take the route of as a Mulism rep of Bombay at National Assembly in Delhi (in 1910s).

WHY?

That's the GAP btw the idealism and reality in India.

Jinnah's love affair with idealism went up to 1930s and from then on realipolitic and the rest is history. As a Metro Muslim his knowledge of Islam is as good as that of Salman Khan's.

When he advocated Sharia and calling Muhammed as a true democrat and true secualrist (kinda), who he thought was the true ideal of Muslims he's obviously resrting to rhetoric and playing to the gallery.

Nevertheless his 11/8 speech is still a mystery to me. How can he say two different things? Was he too naive, like Gandhi was abt Hindu-Muslim unity?

For me, Dr. Hoodbhoy's piece gave me some clues (as quoted above).

rozaiba

As pointed out by various interactors - J-man talked about koran, islam all the time - "islam is in danger" was his rallying motto... compared to that his talks on secularism were few and far between...

So - what he really wanted is anybody's guess - but his politics clearly pointed towards an islamic system... which is why muslim masses were interested and enthused in the first place... a few acts of "secuarlism" on part of J-man is considered acts of omission rather than then his real intent...

J-man may not have wanted sharia as such - but it doesn't matter... abdul wants sharia, abdul wants more islam, abdul does NOT want secularism - secularism is NOT what abdul fought for... abdul fought for "pakiland ka matlab kya - la illlah illah hillah"... abdul fought for "no god but allah"...

J-man is dead... abdul is young and alive... he doesn't believe in secularism, he doesn't believe that J-man actually wanted secularism... he has his speeches to prove it... what are you going to do?

Ranjit #: ....i have always been interested in threading through the history of south asia, under the british rule, to figure out what is accurate and what is inaccurate.....it is quite interesting to find out that much of what has been taught to us, is not correct......

.....i am reading up on the 1857 phase, at the moment....muslims and hindus seem to have been living quite comfortably together up til this phase.......it was, primarily, the hindu soldiers who carried out the mutiny......muslims joined in later - both soldiers and volunteer jihadis.......

......in fact, 4/5th of the british forces were natives as well - primarily punjabis (and pathans) - ....this would imply, they were sikhs and muslims......

.......the hindu soldiers went to shah zafar - a muslim king - to lead them.....zafar's mother was a hindu......what is even more interesting are the speeches that were made......natives were aroused to defeat the kafir, who was trying to destroy their muslim and hindu religion.....the kafir being the christian british.......

...so somehow or the other muslims and hindus were living together quite comfortably.....in fact, there is a theory that much of the problems started, after 1857, when the british, deliberately, belittled muslims to paint them as the cause of the historical problems against the hindus....

.......in any case, it would be interesting to understand the psyche of hindus and muslims, in terms of demoralization, circa 1857 and 1947........

i think people, greatly, overblow gandhi's religious leanings......once again, another effort by individuals who are hell-bent to belittle anything they do not agree with.....

.....i am actually quite a fan of gandhi......i think his ideas, circa 47, are exactly what was needed in south asia......and jinnah was quite ok with him also.....had gandhi's ideas been implemented, south asia would have been a far more peaceful place today......and that is what should be given importance.......not how religious or secular a person happens to be.....

too many inidividuals on this site have taken religion and secularism to the point of becoming fanatically indulged in both......

#104 Ranjit

This was one of your best! And so consize, too.

#116

1. Indians would love to see Pakistan fail, as is obvious from chowk.
2. Indians would love to see maulvis determine the future of Pakistan, as is also obvious from chowk.

Luddu mian: Thanks for making things crystal clear. :-)

#116

1. Indians would love to see Pakistan fail, as is obvious from chowk.
2. Indians would love to see maulvis determine the future of Pakistan, as is also obvious from chowk.

Luddu mian: Thanks for making things crystal clear. :-)

Re: # 107
".....the words islam and quran appearing everywhere, from jinnah's many speeches to the objectives resolution, i.e. the words of the country's founder and in the legal document laying the country's foundation, is ignored......"

bulleya ji is right.

Mullahs have first claim over Pakistan , just as they have the first claim over Islam.

So, shut up you ignorant western educated elites. Burn away your western books and libraries, burn its laboratories, throw away every thing and stick to using pebbles and lotas for ablution.
conform to shariah or get your head chopped off because that is what pakistan means - Paksitan ka mutlub hai La ilaahi illilah!!! - and Raj Karega Mull-allah.

Well said Rozaiba.

It would be quite remarkable for a man who was born in a community that could be summed up as the 'minority of the minority of the minority' (ie Ismailis) to argue for a shariah/theocratic state under which his community would face fatwas of heresy.

There is much that Jinnah said that is manipulated by the Islamists to justify a shariah-based state. However, Jinnah's actions prove contrary to the assumptions taken from his words. The first law minister of Pakistan, appointed by Jinnah, was a kafir. In 1400 years of Islamic history, I've not read of a kafir administering and formulating shariat legalities of an 'Islamist State'.

Re:bulleya#110

The muslim masses were backward as well, more in the physical sense in terms of jobs, education etc. However, psychologically speaking, muslims had lost power only in 1857, so their sense of loss and demoralization was probably lower as compared to hindus who had been in political wilderness for centuries.

To be fair, there were other social reformers among hindus starting with Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Gandhi definitely leveraged that foundation. Where he excelled was in marrying social reform with political opposition to the british - making it a strongly coupled joint objective. That yielded significant benefits for India both socially and politically. Interestingly enough, Gandhi tried to pull in muslims into this process as well by appealing to core muslim values just as he appealed to core hindu values for hindus. The objective was to reject british and western values and develop confidence in our own capabilities.

As the americans debate whether to bomb or not to bomb pakistan, as mushy denies any deals with benazir so that she, a pakistani citizen can return to pakistan, when teh president of pakistan can be woken up at 2 AM by a mere secretary of the american govt to instruct not to declare emergency, when the leader of the ruling party in pak assembly declares that recognising taliban and sending the jihadis to India and teh world over is the appropriate approach for pakistan,


my dear pakistanis, there is nothing for you to celebrate on this day.

If you havnt committed suicide in disgrace, at least hold your in your palm and curse the man who delivered this day to you.

Bulleya,

I am not sure where you drew that conclusion from. You have a curious habit of inventing myths and breaking them.

The argument is and always has been very simple:

a. Jinnah- the one time secular Indian nationalist- championed the cause of Muslim minority in United India. His struggle was for and on behalf of the Muslim people(s) who he termed a nation so that there may be a consociationalist solution at the centre.

b. As a result of Jinnah's efforts, Pakistan was created advertently or inadvertently... and Jinnah was opposed by all theocrats.

c. Jinnah spoke consistently of a Pakistan where the state would be impartial to faith of the citizen, where minorities would have equal rights and where priests with a divine mission will not run the state.

Now that c. is what the contention is about. Most people would say that this amounts to a secular state. Jinnah himself knew - as a lawyer- that legally anything that is not theocratic is by default secular. However... I for one have NEVER had any qualms with those who wish to call such a state Islamic. But where the hell is such a state? Atleast make it before you declare it secular or Islamic.

Now coming to your equally ignorant argument about the word secularism... could you produce a single artefact from say the foundation documents of the United States which has the word "secular" or "secularism". How about France? Does the word secular or any french variant thereof appear in the original declaration?

The issue of secularism has always been a separation of Church and State- thus a secular state is:

1. One without a clergy determining law of the state.

2. One where the state is impartial to a person's faith.

3. One where all citizens are equal before law.

4. Sovereignty rests with the people.


Now...

1. "In any event Pakistan is nto going to be a theocratic state to be run by priests with a divine mission".

2. "You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state"

3. Numerous statements quoted in #1.

4. Read Jinnah's interview with Doon Campbell where he says sovereignty will rest unconditionally with the people.


Now all you can prove by Jinnah's references to Islamic ideals and Quran etc can only prove that Islam endorses above mentioned principles... but it cannot prove the opposite no matter how much you try.

The litmus test will be to show a single act or piece of legislation by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that sought to Islamise the Constitution or Civil or criminal laws.... under Jinnah- who was a powerful civilian ruler.

Objectives Resolution- passed after Jinnah's death- marked a departure from these principles enunciated by Jinnah...

Not only that it violated the basic principle on which you created Pakistan:

No permanent majority by sheer majority can dictate to a permanent minority

Secular, religious or something else this was the only principle Pakistan was created on. The objectives resolution was voted against by all Non-Muslims and one Muslim League Muslim as well. Therein lies the irony of those who claim nonsense like you've done in your post.


Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah stood unequivocally for the kind of system which would be described in modern parlance as a secular democracy. If it could be defined as an Islamic democracy as well just proves that Islamic democracy is a fancy term for Secular democracy. Jinnah certainly thought his vision was compatible with Islam...

The real question we should be asking is that whether Jinnah was right in proclaiming his essentially secular vision of the state as Islamic?

I think this article also argues the same thing.

Ranjit #108:...interesting analysis......probably quite accurate.....

though, i am not sure how, "demoralized" the hindu community was during the times you have mentioned......my guess is muslim community may have been quite a bit more demoralized.....the later had fallen behind in all spheres of life, had no leadership, and were, totally, unsure of how they would survive as a minority......in addition, after 1857, the british had made it a point to demonize them even further.....

As the pakistanis sing their national anthem written in Persian language which no one knows in pakistan, as they chant kashmir banega pakistan in the backdrop of gunshots to celebrate, as the helicopter gunship shoot down the jihadis created by earlier governments, as most of karachi is in darkness due to power cuts, I wonder when will it all end, the mostrocity created by one man on a typewriter, which fitted into the colonial designs of divide and rule.

I find that Zeemax is back, this time I thought he will post pictures of pak soldiers de-capitated by the jihadis rather than the dead indian troops.

Then again zeemax will not do that , that will be contarary to the jihadic mores of killing the kafirs.

The again, the pak TV stations are portraying the soldiers as martyrs, entitled to the 32 houris, supporting my view that pak army is a jihadic army.

What a way to celebrate, it was not independance for pakistan, it was only slavery under TNT that Jinnah promised.

So my dear pakistanis, do not celebrate, shed a tear for the jihadis being created and now killed for a few silver, no no just paper dollars

Manto,

At the turn of the century, racist views against blacks were part of the mainstream views in western countries. It certainly changed later on and Gandhi changed as well. Similarly caste was part of the hindu ethos at that time, probably hundred times more than it is today. So it would be quite usual for a young hindu to have caste based thinking at that time. However, Gandhi moved away from casteism later on and tried his best to modify the system. He knew that he could never erase it but he tried to soften the boundaries and get buy in from hindus to relax the extreme barriers, especially at the lower end for untouchables.

The fundamental thing to analyze is what was happening in India at that time. The main issue in India was the lack of self-confidence and complete demoralization of the vast masses of Indians at that time. Indians, especially hindus, had been subjugated for so long and by so many, that they were basically nothing more than a bunch of habitual losers. They had regressed into an ossified social structure, blinded by superstition, narrow minded thought processes (for e.g. traveling outside India could get you kicked out of your caste) etc. They suffered from acute poverty both physical and intellectual. They had an overwhelming inferiority complex, especially about the westerners who were percieved as superior beings with a superior culture.

Gandhi was among the first few politicians to understand the deep rooted malaise in Indian society. He understood that the british rule was primarily responsible for the rot that had set in although Indians were themselves responsible for the mess as well. Therefore, he took on two objectives - resistance against british and reforming India's dilapidated society. He was able to figure out that the two objectives were deeply interlinked. Resistance to british required a reawakening of India which would lead to a further increase in social awareness that would lead to even more resistance to the british and so on. This would eventually become a self propelled dynamic as it would snowball into an increasingly greater resistance to the british even as India woke up.

This is where Gandhi displayed his genius in that he was not just a regular freedom fighter who simply wanted to replace one political system with another. He wanted to funamentally alter Indian society's value system and he succeeded to a large extent. His approach of rejecting western values and appealing to core Indian values enabled ordinary Indians to get the confidence to question the need for british rule. They regained their self-respect back. That is how the masses got involved in the process. And his partnership with muslims was a core part of that strategy.

i hope this article puts to rest the myth that secularism was ever a part of the idea of pakistan......perhaps it should have been......but it wasn't.......

....i have gone through speeches, and articles and constitutions and what not - related to pakistan - and i have yet to find even the word, "secularism" written anywhere.....forgot about a debate on the subject, during those times.......the written grammatical word, "secularism" doesn't even appear anywhere.....not in jinnah's speeches, not in zafarullah's, not in liaqut's.......not in constitutions....nowhere......

there is thus, not a single artifact of any kind, related to pakistan, during any time frame, which connects even the word, "secularism" with pakistan......much less the concept of secularism......

....the fact that individuals pushing secularism in pakistan have, still, been able to create a myth that pakistan was to be, by design, a secular society, is quite an achievement on their part......they have done so, without ever seeing this word, "secularism" anywhere in relation to the history of pakistan......this makes their achievement, even more impressive (if not more hypocritical)!......

.....the myth is created in the following manner.....

1. pakistan should be what jinnah wanted it to be....it should not be what the current people of pakistan want it to be....it should also not be what any other leader - present or past - of pakistan wanted it to be.....

2. jinnah was westernised and liberal, hence he wanted a secular set-up for pakistan......

3. jinnah repeatedly said pakistan will not be a theocracy, hence that means it was to be secular.....the tens of speeches in which jinnah mentioned islam and quran etc. are conveniently ignored

4. jinnah made a speech in which he said, "free to go to churches,"....once again, it is ignored that this was an impromptu speech, whose first part was, once again, based around religion and pakistan......and once again, his many commments with islam and quran are ignored.....not to mention the fact, that jinnah, once again, never used the word secularism in this speech either....

5. it is reputed that jinnah used the word, "secularism" with an american envoy.....this, "reputed" seems to be enough to declare pakistan a secular state.....once again, his many speeches in which he openly mentioned islam and quran are ignored......

6. liaqut ali khan and team (including zafarullah) architected some religion into the objectives resolution......however, it is stated that the reason they did so was because liaqut ali did not have a constituency in pakistan, and hence needed to appease the mullahs.....no facts or proof of this are given for this assumption.....it is just stated....the fact that literally every other muslim representative supported this non-secular resolution is also conveniently ignored.....includng the ahmedi leader zafarullah!

so based on the above house of cards, an argument is generated, falsely, that pakistan from the begining, under a design by jinnah was to be a secular state.......the word, "secular" and the phrase, "separation of religion and state" never appearing in a single text related to pakistan is ignored.....the words islam and quran appearing everywhere, from jinnah's many speeches to the objectives resolution, i.e. the words of the country's founder and in the legal document laying the country's foundation, is ignored......

yet there are people who cannot see this obvious reality...truly amazing!

as i always say, if people want to push secularism or religion in pakistan, they have every right to do so......what they should not do is distort history to suit there purposes.....

pakistan was never, by design, to be a secular state, nor was it, by design, to be a theocracy.......it was to be something in between......which is what it currently is.....neither shariah-based, nor secular.....a state with an islamic identity (in private and in public) which (somehow) provided equal rights to everyone......this shows up in jinnah's speeches and in constitutional documents......how this was to be achieved was left undecided.......and this is what pakistanis are still trying to figure out.......