Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight

This is a very well written article. I think Jinnah himself summed it up in his address to Delhi Convention in 1943 (commenting on Pakistan's future constitution) :

"Is it going to be an Islamic government? Is it not begging the question? Is it not like passing a vote of censure on every Leauger? The constitution of Pakistan shall be what the people of Pakistan decide."

Here is the article I wrote on Quaid-e-Azam's vision... to argue whether it is secular or Islamic is besides the point... lets atleast get the substance right... i.e. a level playing field for all communities living in Pakistan.

Today being 11th August Day has a great significance in Pakistan’s history.

60 years ago, Mr. Jinnah, Pakistan’s undisputed Quaid-e-Azam, Governor General and elected President of the Constituent Assembly elaborated his vision for the future of Pakistan.

Jinnah’s vision is unambiguous.

1. The state would be completely impartial to religion of the individual.
2. The state where every citizen would be equal and there would be no distinction between citizen on the basis of faith or caste or creed.

A lot of controverey has emerged about this speech. Any student of political science would tell you that is the classic exposition of a modern secular democratic state. However, the issue of whether this constitutes a “secular” state or an “Islamic” state is besides the point. A rose by any name is after all a rose.

Here is what Mr. Jinnah said on that fateful day. It is worth reading in the full:

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of every one of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling the exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than has been done. A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgment there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record its verdict in favour of it. And what is more it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a United India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster. May be that view is correct ; may be it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities the Hindu community and the Muslim community-because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabies, Shias, Sunnis and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnvas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis, and so on-will vanish. Indeed if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection ; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time but for this. Therefore we must learn a lesson from this. You are free ; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places 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. As you know, history shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some State in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, 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. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the Government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today you might say with justice that Roman Catholic and Protestants do not exists ; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen, of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in 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 each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Many have alleged that this was the only time he expressed such a vision. Unfortunately, these people are not very well versed with the life and work of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, who was after all a staunch secular Indian nationalist for most of his life and had turned to the Pakistan idea only after exhausting all the options for a United India.
Here are some of his other statements regarding what kind of Pakistan he wanted:

25th October 1947. Interview with Reuters’ Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters’ Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where.

Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’

30th October 1947. To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore.

The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.

Same Day. On Radio Pakistan.

Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.

9th January 1948. Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi.

Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.

25th January. Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi.

I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.

3rd February 1948. Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh.

I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

21st March 1948. Mass Rally at Dacca.

Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said: We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.

22nd March 1948. Meeting with Hindu Legislators.

We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.

23rd March 1948. Meeting with the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’.

We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.

13 June 1948. Speaking to Quetta Parsis.

Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.

Jinnah’s address to the people of the US in Feb 1948.

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.

So what did Jinnah stand for?

He stood for justice and fair play for every one regardless of religion caste or creed. Let us make a solemn promise to ourselves on this 11th August Day (or the day I like to call Jinnah’s Pakistan Day) that we shall honor this vision of Pakistan as a pluralist, inclusive and progressive democratic state.



....

For all the so called references to Islam etc... there is not one measly piece of legislation in Jinnah's all powerful government that seeks to Islamise Pakistan.

re: Hoodbhoy

Jinnah's hand tailored suits were from Saville Row and not as you mentioned, "Seville Row". Seville is a city in Spain and there is, to the best of my knowledge, no Seville Row in London.

I will comment on the rest of the article later.

Ciao

Also...

You are right when you speak about Jinnah's usage of the words "secular state" in private. Its not just the American diplomat (i forget his name)... who left a rather flattering portrait of the man in his reports to the State Department even if disagreeing with Jinnah's demand for partition.

MAJ (pbuh) wanted a Pakistani state which would treat all its citizens equally, irrespective of their religious belief. Pakistan and ALL its citizens would be better off if his vision is implemented. Now whether that vision is dubbed as "secular" or "Islamic" is irrelevant.

Regards

Re: # 4 PBUH is for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Use RA (Rehmatullah Alaih) for people like the Quaid, Iqbal, etc.

Quaid wanted a Muslim State and not a Islamic One - rightly pointed by Pervez.
At a same time , what if the majority of the nation wants Shariah through democracy? What if people of Pakistan gives authority to a leader to bring Shairh Law?
( I personally don't agree with Shariah Law at all but for the sake of such a event - what will happen )

plus, I remember wily ol'Fazul ur Rehman once saying ( and he randomly say things which - he shouldn't ) 'that Quaid-e-Azam (rah) was not Ninaozubillah a Prophet - that whatever is said is correct ' after strong public reaction at the rally at his home town in Mardan he apologized.

This debate of being a Islamic State or a Muslim One seems to at times non-sense - Pakistan is a Islamic Republic ; we can not adopt Shariah Law because of two reasons :
a) we are not economically sound enough - people rob/loot for food and hunger
b) we are not a welfare state

Now lets try too look at those people who says Shariah' should be practiced. (ony Major Groups_

Political Parties:
i) Jamaat-e-Islami
ii) JUF (all of the factions)
iii) Threek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat ( a small time group )
iv) Tahreek-e-Jafaria

combine all of these party votes - it add up to only 5-7% of total votes caste in national assembly last election -

Ethinic Groups:
i) Phatans
ii) Punjabis

Phatans are the most religious of ethinic groups of Pakistan - who wants Shariah to be practiced in Pakistan.
Punjabis - are split into a 50/50 ratio

The whole debate about Islamic State seens boring at times -
because the audience which really needs to read the articles are in NWFP and Rural Punjab.
Cheers.

Thanks pervez for supporting what I had always believed, Jinnah had no vision, no vison detailed and carefully thought out that should have been put in a book. The man changed more often to put any chameleon to shame, and the persistent thread was hatred towards other religions and the notion that muslims cannot live with others. He was a consummate islamist, and political opportunist who integrated the islamic notion of kafirs into a political theory of TNT.

The masses understood his vision through his confusing and conflicting speeches to create the pakistan of today.

A great political leader who divided a nation with his TNT, did not have a coherent view to put into a book. Well legacy of Jinnah is the pakistan.

As the helicopter gunships slaughter the very same pakistanis created as jihadists by those who inherited the power them Jinnah, the pakistanis should well and truly understand the ideology and the vision of Jinnah, on this day, the 60 th birthday of the failed jihadic nation.

Islamic state no muslim state yes. Then there is the talk of islam is good muslims are bad.

Give us a break, the book is the ultimate truth for the muslims, and any state that has majority muslims will eventually become isalmic state. Tak3e the case of pakistan itself, over 60 years from a similar heritage, pakistan has institutionalized sharia laws.

What the pakistanis do not accept on chowk is the fact that sharia is the law of pakistan, and all that the lal majod guys were doing was enforcing it. I recall that in pakistan during Zia time people were be-headed in public. The laws havenot changed, but is not being done that is all.

Take the case of Muktara Mai the rape victim, the sharia requirement fo 4 male witnesses was not enforced, but due to international attention, teh rapers have been prosecuted.

The truth is that sharia is teh law in pakistan, and the choice is at teh whim of the police.

A true tribute to the opportunism of Jinnah

LoL author, another desperate diatribe:

Not being sufficiently well-versed in Islamic history or theology, Jinnah’s allusions to establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan cannot be taken seriously.

Keep hoping, or better dust-off your green card. The only hope for people like you is to unconditionally sign the surrender document or be prepared for the guillotine park in your sunday's best suits.

Finally, an article that looks at actual facts and not on the political motivations of the person presenting the facts........

......It is quite obvious that Jinnah left enough of a confusion on what kind of a state Pakistan would be......Till the end, he wasn't even sure there would be a Pakistan......

.......The only thing Jinnah clearly states about Pakistan, is what it will not be, i.e. a theocracy......Had he wanted a secular state, he would have mentioned it openly.......but as I have always stated, he never used the word, "secular" in any of his speeches.....why not?

Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a non-theocratic state.....Other than that, it is to be left to the people of Pakistan on what they want it to be......In fact, since Jinnah is dead, it doesn't much matter what he wanted it to be in today's world......

Using Jinnah's lines to push secularism or shariah in Pakistan is, thus, being historically and journalistically irresponsible.........

This shows that Jinnah made no definite statements and anyone could take any of his statements and spin it whichever way they please. That is perhaps why Pakistan continues to alternate between the whims of those at the helm of affairs. If a Mullah wants an Islamic state, all he has to do is look for a Jinnah statement where he says Pakistan will derive its inspiration from the Koran. If a Paki liberal wants a secular state, all he/she has to do is look for a statement in which Jinnah displays his utter contempt for the Mullah. As simple as that.

But some serious comments now, and some questions for the uninformed professor:

“You are free; 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…. You will find that in 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 each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” [Aug 11, 1947, Jinnah’s address to the First Constituent Assembly]

How does any of this contradict the Islamic Shariah-based system?

"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." [Feb. 1948, Jinnah’s broadcast address to the people of the United States of America]

Ditto as above.

The above speeches unequivocally demonstrate Jinnah’s strong sense of justice and secular leanings at a personal level.

Total BS as shown above.

Even when confronted by journalists, he would avoid giving a straight answer.

Attacking Jinnah for not being a slave and appeasing liberal thought.

Jinnah continued to hedge:

Ditto as above.

"Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck`s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

And he calls this statement of fact gleaned from very early Islamic History of the Prophet's time as 'hedging'.

Mr. Jinnah is evasive about what place Islamic law would have in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.

Again attacking Jinnah by calling him 'evasive' when Jinnah did not want to dictate to to the constituent assembly. In the author's mind he should have said "Hell no. I want no part of Islam"

Mr. Jinnah consciously seeks to articulate and protect this ambiguity.

Another attack on Jinnah for his diplomacy in getting Pakistan and not wishing it as a dictatorship of his views. And the author calls it 'ambuiguity'.

Mr. Jinnah left a legacy of ambiguity on what he wanted Pakistan to be.

Ditto as above.

“He was from first to last a constitutionalist who had argued at the time of the debate on the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1930 that if there was a clash between a so-called religious and public morality, then morality had to prevail, mullah or no mullah. There was no change in this basic outlook even as he made tactical adjustments in his later years to accommodate new political exigencies. When asked to discuss the future constitutional framework for the Muslim homeland he was demanding, he insisted that it would be up to the people of Pakistan to decide what sort of a state they wanted even though he had no doubt that their choice would be for a moderate, democratic and forward-looking state.”

This is correct. Ayesha Jalal has a better view on who Jinnah was compared with all these amateurs, but being the Islamophobe she is, she still misses the point. The 1300 year old democracy Jinnah spoke about (quoted above) and the Islamic values (also quoted above) incorporate all this stuff. That's what Jinnah wanted.

Jinnah was no enigma. It's just that the libero-fascists are trying to use his Saville Row suits and his peg of Whisky (not the ham sandwich which this author and others pick up from a single source of Wolpert but his closest companions with whom he regularly stayed on visits deny) to convince people that That's what Jinnah had wanted for Pakistan.

Arrey Bhai, Jinnah made Pakistan by hook or by crook single handedly, but refused to give it any ideology - unlike the comparable carved out state of Israel - being the utterly principled person he was, who made his exit when it was time, and left it upto the people to decide for themselves.

As it has turned out, 87% of Pakistan's people want Shariah (author's statistic). So that's what it will have to be.

It is quite contemptuous of libero-fascists to use a person like Jinnah to justify their nefarious ends.

#11 Posted by harish_hyd,

Although this will be wasted on you, but Islamic State is not a theocratic state. There's no concept of theocracy in Islam.

But you and your ilk as well as the author do not wish to go down the route of knowing what an Islamic State entails.

The article here shows that there is ambuigity in Mr Jinnah's statements regarding the adoption of a secular state or an Islamic State.

I believe that this state of affairs can be traced to the confusions that lie in the concepts of a secular or a religious state. If for example a secular state is adopted then there is a clash regarding what is right and what is wrong. Even in a secular state should divine laws be used as the source for moral authority or should we make laws based on our own reasoning. For a muslim defending a secular state this represents a clash of values and hence we see Mr Jinnah dodging this issue.

Good one, Dr. Hoodbhoy.

#13 by zeemax

Zee mian, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I didn't comment on the merits or demerits of an Islamic state. I only put forth my views on the ambiguities in Jinnah's pronouncements and the way it has been exploited by folks with their own agendas. Anyways, here's my response to your post.

Although this will be wasted on you, but Islamic State is not a theocratic state. There's no concept of theocracy in Islam.

If the examples of the Taliban and Saudia are close to what an Islamic state is, at least non-Muslims will not want anything to do with it.

But you and your ilk as well as the author do not wish to go down the route of knowing what an Islamic State entails.

Why would I want to know what an Islamic state is and how it functions? I'm perfectly happy with the imperfect system we have. It is for you Pakis to know and if it suits you, please go ahead and implement it because a majority of you anyway seem to want it.