Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

Re #95, YES it is a very bad thing. Slavery and being pro-slave master is a VERY BAD THING in my book, but then like the mass society in the US most people don't think that, they are Cheerful Robots, happy and cheerful in their enslavement....don't we have tahmed here singing the praises of colonization or the Missing Hamid mian who sings often enough how the white man is superior to all?

The under was in reply to Manto's #94

#95, Being pro-West to me suggests being subservient to the US elite, it signifies not only acceptance of the miserable history the colonials forced on us in the past but also the current fate they have relegated us to in the present world order. Therefore I consider it something very bad for people of the "Third World".

Krishna writes "The reason for this is that people's attitudes are shaped by the culture they are born into, and religion shapes the culture in most societies. And public attitudes reinforce the culture. For Muslims born into Islamic majority societies"

Hey Einstein don't write about culture and society without understanding either. People's attitudes are shaped moreso by social institutions and when those institutions are designed by colonials to serve externals then you cannot talk about "people power" regardless of the religion of the masses. Lack of democracy, (which by the way was an Islamic ideal long before the Hindu caste system "discovered" it, the Quran is explicit about "consultation" with the people regarding whom decisions are made and not forcing anything including God on them), of the kind in Pakistan is certainly not an occurrence in Muslim majority countries only. I only need to mention Mossadeq to show how the West has subverted democracy and democratic institutions in Muslim lands...

Asadi,
I am going to throw an interesting thing for you to consider.
If we put both Gandhi and Jinnah thru a Turing test, who do you think would come out looking like a machine?

Being pro-western in the subcontinent's context is being progressive and liberal from the next guy even when the answers are more mechanical.

Had Gandhi been left alone to lead the Indian independence struggle, he would have led India to a religious state but he was countered by a very effective Nehru and other progressive in the Indian National Congress.

Jinnah on the other hand was leading very primitive and regressive political bunch and the only way to keep them down for Jinnah was to stay as pro western as he could. Otherwise the Deobandis and Barelvis who were waiting in the wings would have taken over the whole movement.

Echoboom Posts: 85, 86, 86
Urdu Text could not be printed...there
Please check ilog page where the same post with URdu text is available.

#101, I don't see a difference between the two, except the former (pro-West) ensures long term misery that is carried out more sophisticatedly, while the latter (the religious fringe that distorts Islam) causes short term misery till the people take care of them. Given our condition today where the latter have been used as legitimation tool by the former to control and dominate the people, I still wouldn't consider pro-West to be something good...

Re:HP#101

HP, Gandhi is a very complex figure in history and I doubt that most people understand him properly. He started out as an ordinary Indian eager to ape the west and pick up the prevailing western culture. Manto is right about his racist views in his early days, which were very much in line with the typical European discourse at the turn of the century.

However, at some point in his life he began to change. Perhaps it was his bitter experience in South Africa. No one knows exactly when the change happened, but he started going back to his roots. He wanted to understand the ordinary Indian, the vast millions of unwashed, starving indians across the subcontinent. His objective was to mobilize the grassroots. His turn towards religion was less to do with an interest in ritualized religion or theocracy, but rather it was a way to reject western values and replace it with indian values. In that he drew upon his hindu background but was also willing to coopt muslim values as well.

Therefore Gandhi's interpretation of hinduism was radically different from the brahminincal hinduism as supported by the hindu right wing - a difference that ultimately cost him his life. For him hinduism was an expression of native, son of the soil culture. It was the espousal of a simple, inclusive ideology that emphasized on humanity and caring for the weak via social welfare, as compared to the brutal dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, materialistic and individualist culture of the west.

His natural affinity towards the muslim religious elements was borne out of a recognition that islam had a similar emphasis on social welfare. It was not an opportunisitic pandering as imagined by jinnahphiles like manto. Rather it was a natural alliance based on a similar value system. It was a radical rejection of western values.

Therefore, Gandhi was an unique politician while Nehru, Jinnah etc were typical run of the mill politicians who wanted to curry favor with the british with the objective of inherting the empire from the british by proving their impeccable brown sahib credentials. The british never quite understood Gandhi but they were very comfortable with Nehru and Jinnah and essentially split their empire to give each a piece of it. However, Gandhi's approach and mindset was something extraordinary, which the world recognizes as such. The irony is that both Indians and Pakistanis have totally rejected his philosophy and have gone full speed in aping the west, although the religious elements in Pakistan are still fighting against it.

#100 Posted by masadi

[Hey Einstein don't write about culture and society without understanding either. People's attitudes are shaped moreso by social institutions and when those institutions are designed by colonials to serve externals then you cannot talk about "people power" regardless of the religion of the masses.]

Who's talking about "people power", egghead? And in India there are enough institutions designed by us Indians. 79% of Pakis want Sharia enforced. Is that due to institutions created due to colonial conspiracy, or due to religion being constantly drilled into the Paki skull?

[Lack of democracy, (which by the way was an Islamic ideal long before the Hindu caste system "discovered" it, the Quran is explicit about "consultation" with the people regarding whom decisions are made and not forcing anything including God on them),...]

It is less than idiotic to discuss a third-rate cut-and-paste job cooked up by an illiterate bedouin for other illiterate bedouins.

[..of the kind in Pakistan is certainly not an occurrence in Muslim majority countries only. I only need to mention Mossadeq to show how the West has subverted democracy and democratic institutions in Muslim lands... ]

It is not a huge secret that you uncovered that the West has financial compulsions behind its geo-political strategies. The governments in the West are beholden to the machinations of the industry, which has resulted in a whole host of miseries for the world. All this is common knowledge.

We in India have democracy in spite of it. And that too without the koran!

If you want democracy, then bring it back, with the help of the koran. And without bombing civilians. And if you want "Islamic" democracy, then keep on the path you are on.

Good luck.

Dear Ranjit,

There are two points I want to make on that well worded post- even if I disagree with it:

1. Gandhi's racist views had little to do with European discourse but his own understanding of Hinduism and caste ideology. That some similarity could be seen between the Nazi ideology and Gandhi's view does not merit a blanket denunciation of European discourse. Great Britain for example was gripped with John Morley style liberalism which had vociferously rejected racism.

2. Nehru and Jinnah were the products of their English education(s). Jinnah was the product of the late victorian age which was proper and he was also deeply influenced by John Morley and Dadabhoy Naoroji... who were the bastions of liberalism in this late victorian age. Nehru was the product of the post-victorian age and was inspired by Fabian Socialism (even though Jinnah also joined fabian society in the 1930s according to Wolpert) ... neither of them wanted to curry favor with anyone. Jinnah till the 1930s wanted Indians to be raised as equals in the British empire ruling their own Dominion just like the white dominions of Canada and Australia... Nehru was more flirtatious with the "inquilabi" and revolutionary movements of a marxist bent... like the Kirtis, communists etc.

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.......

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.