Hidden Hindus
Shandana Minhas September 27, 2000
#179 Posted by krashid on October 2, 2000 1:30:17 am
Cheema #153
What year did the shooting occurred because of Holi in Dow Medical college. Because as far as I know shooting happens there if you have guts to say Altaf Murdabad. Also shooting happened there in past by liberal Punjabi medicos, Sindhi medical association etc with all their drinking and girls. Mostly scion of land lords. Are you exaggerating.
Can you give the name of silent killing of professors and students being minorities. Even at the peak of Zia and Jamat-e-Islami, it did not happen in Sind as far as I remember.
Also the strength of America lies in building on slave ownership and now on exploitation of world resources by force politely called American interest.
What year did the shooting occurred because of Holi in Dow Medical college. Because as far as I know shooting happens there if you have guts to say Altaf Murdabad. Also shooting happened there in past by liberal Punjabi medicos, Sindhi medical association etc with all their drinking and girls. Mostly scion of land lords. Are you exaggerating.
Can you give the name of silent killing of professors and students being minorities. Even at the peak of Zia and Jamat-e-Islami, it did not happen in Sind as far as I remember.
Also the strength of America lies in building on slave ownership and now on exploitation of world resources by force politely called American interest.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#180 Posted by krashid on October 2, 2000 1:30:17 am
Umair #
You have rightly pointed the Ayah.
The thing which I need to add. The basis of Islam is there is no partner to God in any form. HE is all powerful, omnipresent etc.
And any form of ``Shirk`` or partnership is the greatest sin.
It is I think in Hadith that God can pardon any sin except ``Making partner with HIM.
I think I tend to agree with HamidM. He does not want to tolerate Hypocrisy which is done in the name of Islam in our country.
You have rightly pointed the Ayah.
The thing which I need to add. The basis of Islam is there is no partner to God in any form. HE is all powerful, omnipresent etc.
And any form of ``Shirk`` or partnership is the greatest sin.
It is I think in Hadith that God can pardon any sin except ``Making partner with HIM.
I think I tend to agree with HamidM. He does not want to tolerate Hypocrisy which is done in the name of Islam in our country.
#182 Posted by ylh on October 2, 2000 1:30:17 am
A minority writer`s perspective on Jinnah and Pakistan ...
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20000716.htm
The sole statesman 1
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
``The government of the United States invariably does the right thing after having exhausted all other possibilities.`` So said Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, the premier statesman of last century.
Had Churchill been alive today, and still ruminating over the loss of the Empire (``I have not become the King`s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire`` ) he would have said of Pakistan of the year 2000 that the government of General Pervez Musharraf makes the right noises but too often swiftly retracts its words when one or more of the unrepresentative obscurantists of the country voices an objection.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a proud man, proud for good reason; by the overriding force of his indomitable will, and that alone, he carved out a country for us. Not following the form of his day, Jinnah did not go to jail for a single day, never embarked on a hunger strike, did not encourage rowdy protest marches, he abhorred any form of violence. Liberal-minded and self-confident he did what he liked, ate and drank what he liked, dressed as he liked, encouraged others to do the same, held his head high - and kept to his faith.
``Do your duty and have faith in God. There is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan.`` This conviction was soon to be proved wrong. His buoyant optimism and his firm certitude in the future of this country clouded his perception of the calibre and character of the leaders who would immediately and later follow him. He failed to conceive that through their lack of ability, lack of integrity, their avarice, their unquenchable greed, their hunger for power, pomp, pelf and position, they would be the undoing of Pakistan.
He was the sole statesman this country has had. Those who followed were small men, narrow of thought, fearful of others, who grabbed at today and ignored the morrow. Within a quarter of a century half of Jinnah`s Pakistan was lost. What was left slid swiftly down the slithery hill. It is now an overpopulated, illiterate, bankrupt country, the principal aim of its leadership being to fight to acquire a disputed territory. Its main claim to fame, of which it rarely ceases to remind the world at large, is its nuclear prowess.
To repeat (and it bears repetition ad nauseam), when Jinnah addressed the first constituent assembly of the country on August 11 1947 he embodied in his speech the core of his philosophy, his ideas, and his vision for the state he had founded. It was a fine piece of rhetoric; too fine, too moral, too democratic, too liberal, too full of justice, too idealistic for the Philistines. This speech has been interpreted in many different ways, it has been subject to distortion, it has inspired fear in successive governments, which would have been far happier had it never been delivered. It is to the misfortune of the people of this country that their so-called leaders have refused to live with, or up to, the principles by which Jinnah wished them to be guided.
It is a matter of national shame that, from top to bottom, the citizens of this country live in dread of contamination by the truth - such is the measure of self-deception, insecurity, disunity, indiscipline, and faithlessness.
On August 11, 1947, before the flag of Pakistan had even been unfurled, Jinnah told his people and their future legislators:
``You are free, 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 states 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 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 Catholics and Protestants do not exist; 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.....``.
[This particular passage has been subject to deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, inspiring the dishonest dogmatists who misappropriated the country after his death with such fear and unease that in the official biography of Jinnah commissioned by the Government of Pakistan, written by Hector Bolitho, published in 1954, it was censored to falsely read: ``.....You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State..... Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal....``. (Most of the above passages were ommitted).]
That same August day, he made it clear to the future legislators and administrators that ``the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.`` He told them he would not tolerate the evils of bribery, corruption, blackmarketeering and ``this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery,`` the daily bread of powermongers. Little did he know that day that these prime evils were to become prerequisites for the survival of the politicians in and out of uniform and of the administrators of all ranks and grades for the maintenance of their power.
In a way, it was fortunate that Jinnah did not live long enough to see the negation of his principles, the perversion of his vision. A man of high ideals, of impeccable moral and material honesty, tolerant, open-minded, liberal to the core, a consummate statesman - his disillusion would have been too great to bear.
This newspaper of record founded by Jinnah carried an editorial on December 25 1989, his 113th official birthday, headed `Back to Quaid`s ideals`, from which I quote :
``At this juncture, a true appreciation and understanding of the precepts and practices of the Quaid-i-Azam is crucially important. His visionary concepts of statecraft could provide the basic guidelines in charting an unfaltering democratic course for the nation. What is needed is a revivification of the basic postulates that the Father of the Nation enunciated in various speeches and policy statements he made during the struggle for, and immediately after, the creation of Pakistan. A serious effort must be made to rediscover the essence of his message and vision from the plethora of twisted interpretation of his acts and utterances. We have been guilty of passivity in the face of deliberate misrepresentations and selective distortions of the Quaid`s precepts by a whole tribe of charlatans, pretenders and crafty autocrats to serve their selfish ends . .. . It was neither theocracy nor feudalism nor exploitative capitalism that the Quaid ever approved of. What he basically desired was a sovereign state for the Muslims of the subcontinent based on the principles of constitutionalism, democracy, federalism and Islamic social justice in which the civil liberties and human rights of all citizens would be guaranteed without any discrimination on any ground whatsoever.. . . . ``
Oxford University Press in its Millenium Series has just published a book of Jinnah`s speeches and statements made in 1947-48, with an introduction by S M Burke, historian and writer, successively an ICS judge, a diplomat of Pakistan, and Professor and Consultant on South Asian studies at the University of Minnesota. It is essential reading for the generals and the others who rule over us from Islamabad.
The sole statesman - 2
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
EACH time a government changes in Pakistan its supporters and detractors, the liberals, extremists and obscurantists alike, try to form and propagate their own version of the ideology of Pakistan.
The touchstone on which Pakistan was conceived and founded was the will of the man destined to be, for the first half century of its life, its sole statesman, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He decided that his fellow Muslims of the subcontinent, in order to survive and prosper, must be given a homeland, which they would share with others of any creed or denomination who lived in it. This he did.
The redeeming feature is that, despite the efforts of those who have their own expedient agenda for this nation, Jinnah`s words, sayings and speeches survive and hold the field, and men of learning, for the good of the country he founded, continue to write on his life, ideals and vision.
To refer once again to the OUP book published this year `Jinnah - Speeches and Statements 1947-1948` (ISBN 0 579021 9) with an excellent introduction written by the Pakistani historian, writer and diplomat, S. M. Burke, there are certain passages which need to be quoted, particularly in the present distorted environment by which this country has been successfully invaded and under which it seems to be sinking.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a good Muslim, a far better Muslim, in the true sense of what being a Muslim entails, than the men who now set themselves up as their religion`s saviours, carried no chips on his narrow shoulders. He was a Muslim and at the same time a man of the world, who looked to the future, who was open to ideas and to learning. As a young man, he was sent off from Karachi to Britain to complete his education. Burke relates :
``Almost immediately after his arrival in London (1892), Jinnah came under the influence of Dadabhoy Naoroji who had been elected to the House of Commons in July that year as a Liberal. Naoroji took a fatherly interest in Indian students of all denominations. Jinnah, who later won acclaim as Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, reminisced in his presidential address at the Thirtieth Session of the All-India Muslim League at Delhi in April 1943 that he had learnt politics `at the feet of that great man, Dadabhoy Naoroji` and that it was `men of the character of that Great Dadabhoy who inspired us with some hope of a fair and equitable adjustment` between Hindus and Muslims.
``In fact, the Liberals at that time were very much in evidence ... Jinnah told Dr Ashraf that during the last two years in London his time was `utilized for further independent studies for the political career he already had in mind`. Jinnah also said, `Fortune smiled on me and I happened to meet several important English Liberals with whose help I came to understand the doctrine of Liberalism. The Liberalism of Lord Morley was then in full sway. I grasped that Liberalism, which became part of my life and thrilled me very much`.``
He returned to India as a barrister, decided to live and practise in Bombay and to involve himself in politics :
``It is not surprising that Jinnah should have joined the ranks of the idealists and become a member of the Congress party (1906). After absorbing British liberalism in London he had taken up residence in Bombay which was India`s most cosmopolitan city where the mores of social life were set by the highly westernized Parsee community. Jinnah found their way of life congenial to his own refined tastes and he made many Parsee friends. He later married a Parsee socialite.
``But the decisive reason why Jinnah became a member of the Congress party was that the three persons who dominated Congress at that time were his political mentors. The three in question were the Parsees Naoroji whom he had first met in London and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, and the Chitpavan Brahman, Gokhale.``
After Gokhale`s death in 1916, Jinnah felt he had no place in the Congress party and that his future lay with the Muslim League. Burke writes:
``In marked contrast with Congress` arrogant policies, Jinnah persevered with his secular politics and carried on his mission to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity based on a constitutional accord between the two major communities of India. At the Muslim League session at Lahore, under his presidency, in 1924 he said :
`` `We must not forget that one essential requisite condition to achieve Swaraj is political unity between Hindus and the Mohammedans, for the advent of foreign rule and its continuance in India is primarily due to the fact that the people of India, particularly the Hindus and Mohammedans, are not united and do not sufficiently trust each other. The domination by the bureaucracy will continue so long as the Hindus and Mohammedans do not come to a settlement. I am almost inclined to say that India will get Dominion Responsible Government the day the Hindus and Mohammedans are united`.
``Jinnah followed secular politics till the experience of Hindu rule in the Congress provinces (1937-39) finally drove him to the conclusion that if the Muslims wished to practise their religion and culture freely they would have to achieve an independent homeland of their own. During his speech in the Central Legislative Assembly on February 7, 1935 he said that `religion should not be allowed to come into politics... Religion is merely a matter between man and God ... `.``
Burke naturally refers to the most famous, the most relevant and by far the most important of Jinnah`s speeches, the one embodying his creed :
``Some commentators have suggested that Jinnah was too westernized to conceive Pakistan as an Islamic state. To support their argument they usually cite his speech at the inaugural session of the Pakistani Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 (the relevant unexpurgated portions of which were printed in my column last Sunday).
``However, when this is read with Jinnah`s other pronouncements it becomes quite clear that he was recommending generous treatment of non-Muslims not as a commendable secular principle but as a mandatory Islamic injunction. Only thirteen days later during the transfer of power ceremony on August 14 when Mountbatten praised the Emperor Akbar`s policy of political and religious tolerance, Jinnah pointed out: `The tolerance and goodwill that the Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back to thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs`.
``In his Eid Day message on November 13, 1939, he had already pointed out that `no injunction is considered by our Holy Prophet more imperative and more divinely binding than the devout but supreme realization of our duty of love and toleration towards all other human beings`.``
Finally, as says Burke : ``He remained a good Muslim all his life but was too sophisticated ever to be a narrow-minded one.``
There is no single word in the Urdu language into which the English word `secular` can be translated. I am the proud owner of a facsimile of the dictionary published by Dr Samuel Johnson in 1755, ``A Dictionary of the English Language: In which the words are deduced from their originals, and illustrated in their different significations by examples from the best writers, to which are prefixed, a history of the language, and an English grammar.`` The adjective `secular` therein is defined as: ``[secularis, Latin; jeculier, French] Not spiritual; relating to affairs of the present world; not holy; worldly.``
From a 1984 editorial in `The Times` : ``Samuel Johnson died on the evening of December 13 1784. He is a more suitable patron saint for the English than our Palestinian soldier-saint, George, or that other candidate for the role, Thomas A Becket. For one thing Johnson spoke English. More than that, his work as lexicographer and Hercules of English literature, helped to make English the world language that it has become.
``The chief glory of the English is their language; and Johnson`s `Dictionary`, the only one in any language compiled by a writer of genius, had a lot to do with its rise to glory. It is an irony that might have amused him eventually, after a bear`s growl or two, that his `Life` written by his young Scottish friend is far more widely read than any of Johnson`s own more literary works.``
Now let us hope that no great scholar of our country comes up with the suggestion that it would be in the interests of Pakistan that the usage of the English language be banned.
The sole statesman-3
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
NO set of documents (nor even one single document) exists which spells out the `ideology of Pakistan`. Thus, every man with a thought process available to him is entitled to his own conception of what this ideology is. However, it would be absolutely logical to assume that the ideology should rightly spring from what our sole statesman envisaged for the country he created and, more accurately, from what he wrote and said.
There are many who hold that the Objectives Resolution, which was drafted and came into being a mere six months after the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, is the embodiment of the `ideology`. There are others who hold that it is not quite what Jinnah had in mind as the ideological cornerstone of his nation.
The Objectives Resolution, the text of which, in English and in Urdu, was embossed on brass plaques and once mounted in the hall of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has been pronounced by our successive democratic and other leaders to be a reminder to us all of the purpose of the creation of Pakistan. It is regarded as the main source of guidance for whatever dispensation of justice exists, for the execution or non-execution of the affairs of the state. On the day in March 1993 when the present Supreme Court building was inaugurated by the then prime minister, Nawaz Sharif (later to be its ultimate demolisher), he declared that not only had the Objectives Resolution been affixed to the wall of the highest court of the land, but that it was imprinted in the hearts of every loyal Pakistani.
Right. Now let us look at this Objectives Resolution. It was moved and adopted on March 7, 1949, on the first day of the fifth session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, meeting in the Assembly Chambers at Karachi, at four of the clock in the evening. The official report for the 1949 day`s debates records:
``The Honourable Mr Liaquat Ali Khan (East Bengal, Muslim) : Mr President, Sir, I beg to move the following Objectives Resolution embodying the main principles on which the Constitution of Pakistan is to be based.
``In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;
``Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limit prescribed by Him is a sacred trust ;
``This Constituent Assembly, representing the people of Pakistan, resolves to frame a constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan ;
``Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people ;
``Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed ;
``Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna ;
``Wherein adequate provisions shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures ;
``Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed ;
``Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to the law and public morality ;
``Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes ;
``Wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured ;
``Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights, including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air, will be safeguarded ;
``So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honoured place amongst the nations of the world and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.``
But it was not the true English text of the original Objectives Resolution which was sanctified that day in 1993 on the wall of our apex court. The plaque in the Supreme Court gave a modified version of this Resolution. The original stipulated that ``adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures.`` On the plaque, in the English version, the word `freely` was deliberately omitted.
Now to quote from Liaquat`s subsequent address to the President, the Honourable Mr Tamizuddin Khan, a quotation which must bear constant and frequent repetition :
``. . . the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy . . . . In the technical sense, theocracy has come to mean a government by ordained priests, who wield authority as being specially appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position. I cannot overemphasize the fact that such an idea is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, therefore, the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam. If there are any who still use the word theocracy in the same breath as the polity of Pakistan, they are either labouring under a grave misapprehension or indulging in mischievous propaganda.
``. . . . . Therefore, there should be no misconception in the mind of any sect which may be a minority in Pakistan about the intentions of the state. The state will seek to create an Islamic society free from dissensions, but this does not mean that it would curb the freedom of any section of the Muslims in the matter of their beliefs. No sects, whether the majority or a minority, will be permitted to dictate to the others and, in their own internal matters and sectional beliefs, all sects shall be given the fullest possible latitude and freedom. Actually, we hope the various sects will act in accordance with the desire of the Prophet who said that the differences of opinion amongst his followers are a blessing. It is for us to make our differences a source of strength to Islam and to Pakistan and not to exploit them for our own interests which will weaken both Pakistan and Islam.
``. . . . We believe that no shackles can be put on thought and, therefore, we do not intend to hinder any person from the expression of his views.``
To return to the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the plaques initially affixed to the walls of the entrance hall. In 1993 I made a vain attempt to get through to Chief Justice of Pakistan Afzal Zullah, to impress upon him that the English version of the Resolution should be amended to contain the word `freely` which in the Urdu version had not been omitted. Then came Chief Justice Dr Nasim Hasan Shah, a man with a great sense of humour with whom it is always a pleasure to converse. An expert at ping-pong, Dr Shah said he would do what he could do to set the record straight. Nothing happened. He was followed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who settled the issue by having both plaques, the English and the Urdu versions, removed from the hallowed walls which still remain bare.
Sajjad Ali Shah`s court was later, on November 28, 1997, stormed and morally destroyed at the behest of the then born-again prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Those who have followed Sajjad in the Supreme Chair have still to identify and punish the desecrators of the people`s apex court.What our sole statesman`s reaction would be to not only the Objectives Resolution, but to all those men and women and events that have followed it down the years can only be imagined.
The sole statesman - 4
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
THOSE alive today who knew Mohammad Ali Jinnah (and strangely the number is increasing by the day) were well aware of what he wanted. He achieved his ambition and founded for us what he intended to be a democratic, forward-looking, modern, secular state. Those who did not know him, have, for reasons of expediency, conjured up their own version of what he wanted. Jinnah`s Pakistan died with him.
In the last fifty-three years this country has changed its name and status three times. It started life as a Dominion, which it remained until 1956, when under the constitution promulgated that year, it became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In 1962, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, who had abrogated the 1956 constitution when he took over the country in 1958, promulgated his constitution and declared it to be simply the Republic of Pakistan. Then he became a politician, expediency came to the fore and by his First Constitutional Amendment Order of 1963 we again became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, now suspended by General Pervez Musharraf, certain paragraphs of the Objectives Resolution of 1949 are reproduced and one sentence reads: ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;``
Under Article 2-A of the 1973 Constitution the Objectives Resolution has been made a substantive part of the Constitution and reproduced in the Annex. In this reproduction the sentence quoted above reads : ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;`` The word `freely` has been deliberately omitted. Mischief?
Now to a press conference held by Mohammad Ali Jinnah on July 14, 1947, in New Delhi. The text of this conference is to be found in the book recently published by Oxford University Press ``Jinnah - Speeches and Statements 1947-1949`` (ISBN 0 19 579021 9) and from it I quote relevant portions :
Q. Could you as governor-general make a brief statement on the minorities problem?
A. At present I am only governor-general designate. We will assume for a moment that on August 15 I shall be really the governor-general of Pakistan. On that assumption, let me tell you that I shall not depart from what I said repeatedly with regard to the minorities. Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship. Therefore, the minorities have their responsibilities also, and they will play their part in the affairs of this state. As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.
Q. Would your interest in the Muslims of Hindustan continue as it is today?
A. My interest will continue in Hindustan in every citizen and particularly the Muslims.
Q. As president of the All India Muslim League what measures do you propose to adopt to assure the safety of Muslims in Hindu provinces?
A. All that I hope for is that the Muslims in the Hindustan states will be treated as justly as I have indicated we propose to treat non-Muslim minorities. I have stated the broad principles of policy, but the actual question of safeguards and protection for minorities in the respective states can only be dealt with by the Constituent Assembly.
Q. What are your comments on recent statements and speeches of certain Congress leaders to the effect that if Hindus in Pakistan are treated badly they will treat Muslims in Hindustan worse?
A. I hope they will get over this madness and follow the line I am suggesting. It is no use picking up the statements of this man here or that man there. You must remember that in every country there are crooks, cranks, and what I call mad people.
Q. Would you like minorities to stay in Pakistan or would you like an exchange of population?
A. As far as I can speak for Pakistan, I say that there is no reason for any apprehension on the part of the minorities in Pakistan. It is for them to decide what they should do. All I can say is that there is no reason for any apprehension so far as I can speak about Pakistan. It is for them to decide. I cannot order them.
Q. Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?A. You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.
A correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
A. Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a ducks`s back. When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.
Just under one month later, on August 11, Jinnah addressed his Constituent Assembly at Karachi. He told the future legislators :
``. . . . . . . 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.
``Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play without any, as is put in political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.``
As long as the majority of our people remain uneducated their thinking can only be narrow and bigoted. All we can do is constantly keep on reminding them of what Jinnah, the founder of their country, said and wrote.
The sole statesman - 5
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
``NEVER was there a nature whose outer qualities provided so complete an antithesis of its inner worth. Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammed Ali Jinnah`s attenuated form is the deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance.
``Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks for those who know him a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman`s, a humour gay and winning as a child`s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.``
So wrote the Indian Congresswoman and poet, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, after meeting Jinnah for the first time at the 1906 annual session of Congress held at Calcutta.
Now to what Mohammed Ali Jinnah had to say on the future constitution of Pakistan in his broadcast to the American people in February 1948: ``The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.
``Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught the equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. 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. ``
There is more than enough on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jinnah intended Pakistan to be a democratic, forward-looking, modern, secular state. The bigots and the uneducated will always preach otherwise - and it will remain their privilege to so do.
On July 25, 1977, I was asked by the general who had just removed Bhutto and taken over the country, ``Mr Kawaasjy, what can you do in 70 days to improve the ports and shipping of Pakistan? When I enquired why he had specified `70 days` I was told, ``I promised the people when I took over that I would go back to the barracks in 90 days time. Twenty of those days` have passed.``
He was reminded that history records that it was in the fifth century BC that the last dictator-general voluntarily went home. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus returned happily to his farm having successfully led the Roman armies and saved the republic from the barbarians. I suggested that he read Basil Henry Liddell Hart on the subject of `Dictators` and later sent him a copy of the following extract from Liddell Hart`s book `Why Don`t We learn From History`, published posthumously in 1971:
``On gaining power: they soon begin to rid themselves of their chief helpers, `discovering` that those who brought about the new order have suddenly become traitors to it.`` [ General Pervez Musharraf has, so far, not done so.]
``They suppress criticism on one pretext or another and punish anyone who mentions facts which, however true, are unfavorable to their policy.`` [Musharraf may not have to follow Liddell Hart`s pattern if he treads well and wisely. He has so far very correctly allowed the press full freedom to publish whatever criticism it may wish to print. In fact, when his flip-flop spin doctor, Javed Jabbar, addressed a gathering of columnists in Karachi on July 6, some complained that whereas the press publishes all they write the government does not respond to their criticism. But why should the government respond? And whatever it does, it must not even consider banning in any form any information or facilities available on the Internet.]
``They enlist religion on their side, if possible, or, if its leaders are not compliant, foster a new kind of religion subservient to their ends. [Zia did it, but Musharraf does not have to do so. In fact, he should get rid of some of the reputed fundos who are close to him.]
``They spend public money lavishly on material works of a striking kind, in compensation for the freedom of spirit and thought of which they have robbed the public. [There is nothing to spend. On this score we are safe.]
``They manipulate the currency to make the economic position of the state appear better than it is in reality.`` [ So far the currency has not been manipulated. ]
``They ultimately make war on some other state as a means of diverting attention from internal conditions and allowing discontent to explode outward. [The Kashmir `sizzle` takes care of this one.]
``They use the rallying cry of patriotism as a means of riveting the chains of their personal authority more firmly on the people. [After Benazir and Nawaz, both twice removed, anyone is acceptable to the people barring the politicians whose `hookah-pani band hogaya hai`. And besides, was Washington not a general of the army, as was Eisenhower? Was Carter not a peanut farmer, and Reagan a film actor?]
``They expand the superstructure of the state while undermining its foundations - by breeding sycophants at the expense of self-respecting collaborators, by appealing to the popular taste for the grandiose and sensational instead of true values, and by fostering a romantic instead of a realistic view, thus ensuring the ultimate collapse, under their successors, if not themselves, of what they have created. [Unfortunately this country breeds sycophants with the greatest of ease. We have 139 million of them. If the general surrounds himself with too many they may well be his undoing.]
``This political confidence trick, itself a familiar string of tricks, has been repeated all down the ages. Yet it rarely fails to take in a fresh generation.`` [ When each new government takes over many of us fervently hope that it will prove Jinnah`s old prediction to be wrong: `Each succeeding government of Pakistan will be worse that its predecessor.`]
Zia not only read the extract carefully, but managed to get hold of a copy of the book and ordered that it be reprinted by the Services Book Club of Pakistan. The printing took nine years and naturally infringed on the copyright laws. The book is a `must` read for Musharraf.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20000716.htm
The sole statesman 1
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
``The government of the United States invariably does the right thing after having exhausted all other possibilities.`` So said Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, the premier statesman of last century.
Had Churchill been alive today, and still ruminating over the loss of the Empire (``I have not become the King`s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire`` ) he would have said of Pakistan of the year 2000 that the government of General Pervez Musharraf makes the right noises but too often swiftly retracts its words when one or more of the unrepresentative obscurantists of the country voices an objection.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a proud man, proud for good reason; by the overriding force of his indomitable will, and that alone, he carved out a country for us. Not following the form of his day, Jinnah did not go to jail for a single day, never embarked on a hunger strike, did not encourage rowdy protest marches, he abhorred any form of violence. Liberal-minded and self-confident he did what he liked, ate and drank what he liked, dressed as he liked, encouraged others to do the same, held his head high - and kept to his faith.
``Do your duty and have faith in God. There is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan.`` This conviction was soon to be proved wrong. His buoyant optimism and his firm certitude in the future of this country clouded his perception of the calibre and character of the leaders who would immediately and later follow him. He failed to conceive that through their lack of ability, lack of integrity, their avarice, their unquenchable greed, their hunger for power, pomp, pelf and position, they would be the undoing of Pakistan.
He was the sole statesman this country has had. Those who followed were small men, narrow of thought, fearful of others, who grabbed at today and ignored the morrow. Within a quarter of a century half of Jinnah`s Pakistan was lost. What was left slid swiftly down the slithery hill. It is now an overpopulated, illiterate, bankrupt country, the principal aim of its leadership being to fight to acquire a disputed territory. Its main claim to fame, of which it rarely ceases to remind the world at large, is its nuclear prowess.
To repeat (and it bears repetition ad nauseam), when Jinnah addressed the first constituent assembly of the country on August 11 1947 he embodied in his speech the core of his philosophy, his ideas, and his vision for the state he had founded. It was a fine piece of rhetoric; too fine, too moral, too democratic, too liberal, too full of justice, too idealistic for the Philistines. This speech has been interpreted in many different ways, it has been subject to distortion, it has inspired fear in successive governments, which would have been far happier had it never been delivered. It is to the misfortune of the people of this country that their so-called leaders have refused to live with, or up to, the principles by which Jinnah wished them to be guided.
It is a matter of national shame that, from top to bottom, the citizens of this country live in dread of contamination by the truth - such is the measure of self-deception, insecurity, disunity, indiscipline, and faithlessness.
On August 11, 1947, before the flag of Pakistan had even been unfurled, Jinnah told his people and their future legislators:
``You are free, 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 states 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 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 Catholics and Protestants do not exist; 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.....``.
[This particular passage has been subject to deliberate distortion and misinterpretation, inspiring the dishonest dogmatists who misappropriated the country after his death with such fear and unease that in the official biography of Jinnah commissioned by the Government of Pakistan, written by Hector Bolitho, published in 1954, it was censored to falsely read: ``.....You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State..... Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal....``. (Most of the above passages were ommitted).]
That same August day, he made it clear to the future legislators and administrators that ``the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.`` He told them he would not tolerate the evils of bribery, corruption, blackmarketeering and ``this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery,`` the daily bread of powermongers. Little did he know that day that these prime evils were to become prerequisites for the survival of the politicians in and out of uniform and of the administrators of all ranks and grades for the maintenance of their power.
In a way, it was fortunate that Jinnah did not live long enough to see the negation of his principles, the perversion of his vision. A man of high ideals, of impeccable moral and material honesty, tolerant, open-minded, liberal to the core, a consummate statesman - his disillusion would have been too great to bear.
This newspaper of record founded by Jinnah carried an editorial on December 25 1989, his 113th official birthday, headed `Back to Quaid`s ideals`, from which I quote :
``At this juncture, a true appreciation and understanding of the precepts and practices of the Quaid-i-Azam is crucially important. His visionary concepts of statecraft could provide the basic guidelines in charting an unfaltering democratic course for the nation. What is needed is a revivification of the basic postulates that the Father of the Nation enunciated in various speeches and policy statements he made during the struggle for, and immediately after, the creation of Pakistan. A serious effort must be made to rediscover the essence of his message and vision from the plethora of twisted interpretation of his acts and utterances. We have been guilty of passivity in the face of deliberate misrepresentations and selective distortions of the Quaid`s precepts by a whole tribe of charlatans, pretenders and crafty autocrats to serve their selfish ends . .. . It was neither theocracy nor feudalism nor exploitative capitalism that the Quaid ever approved of. What he basically desired was a sovereign state for the Muslims of the subcontinent based on the principles of constitutionalism, democracy, federalism and Islamic social justice in which the civil liberties and human rights of all citizens would be guaranteed without any discrimination on any ground whatsoever.. . . . ``
Oxford University Press in its Millenium Series has just published a book of Jinnah`s speeches and statements made in 1947-48, with an introduction by S M Burke, historian and writer, successively an ICS judge, a diplomat of Pakistan, and Professor and Consultant on South Asian studies at the University of Minnesota. It is essential reading for the generals and the others who rule over us from Islamabad.
The sole statesman - 2
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
EACH time a government changes in Pakistan its supporters and detractors, the liberals, extremists and obscurantists alike, try to form and propagate their own version of the ideology of Pakistan.
The touchstone on which Pakistan was conceived and founded was the will of the man destined to be, for the first half century of its life, its sole statesman, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He decided that his fellow Muslims of the subcontinent, in order to survive and prosper, must be given a homeland, which they would share with others of any creed or denomination who lived in it. This he did.
The redeeming feature is that, despite the efforts of those who have their own expedient agenda for this nation, Jinnah`s words, sayings and speeches survive and hold the field, and men of learning, for the good of the country he founded, continue to write on his life, ideals and vision.
To refer once again to the OUP book published this year `Jinnah - Speeches and Statements 1947-1948` (ISBN 0 579021 9) with an excellent introduction written by the Pakistani historian, writer and diplomat, S. M. Burke, there are certain passages which need to be quoted, particularly in the present distorted environment by which this country has been successfully invaded and under which it seems to be sinking.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a good Muslim, a far better Muslim, in the true sense of what being a Muslim entails, than the men who now set themselves up as their religion`s saviours, carried no chips on his narrow shoulders. He was a Muslim and at the same time a man of the world, who looked to the future, who was open to ideas and to learning. As a young man, he was sent off from Karachi to Britain to complete his education. Burke relates :
``Almost immediately after his arrival in London (1892), Jinnah came under the influence of Dadabhoy Naoroji who had been elected to the House of Commons in July that year as a Liberal. Naoroji took a fatherly interest in Indian students of all denominations. Jinnah, who later won acclaim as Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, reminisced in his presidential address at the Thirtieth Session of the All-India Muslim League at Delhi in April 1943 that he had learnt politics `at the feet of that great man, Dadabhoy Naoroji` and that it was `men of the character of that Great Dadabhoy who inspired us with some hope of a fair and equitable adjustment` between Hindus and Muslims.
``In fact, the Liberals at that time were very much in evidence ... Jinnah told Dr Ashraf that during the last two years in London his time was `utilized for further independent studies for the political career he already had in mind`. Jinnah also said, `Fortune smiled on me and I happened to meet several important English Liberals with whose help I came to understand the doctrine of Liberalism. The Liberalism of Lord Morley was then in full sway. I grasped that Liberalism, which became part of my life and thrilled me very much`.``
He returned to India as a barrister, decided to live and practise in Bombay and to involve himself in politics :
``It is not surprising that Jinnah should have joined the ranks of the idealists and become a member of the Congress party (1906). After absorbing British liberalism in London he had taken up residence in Bombay which was India`s most cosmopolitan city where the mores of social life were set by the highly westernized Parsee community. Jinnah found their way of life congenial to his own refined tastes and he made many Parsee friends. He later married a Parsee socialite.
``But the decisive reason why Jinnah became a member of the Congress party was that the three persons who dominated Congress at that time were his political mentors. The three in question were the Parsees Naoroji whom he had first met in London and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, and the Chitpavan Brahman, Gokhale.``
After Gokhale`s death in 1916, Jinnah felt he had no place in the Congress party and that his future lay with the Muslim League. Burke writes:
``In marked contrast with Congress` arrogant policies, Jinnah persevered with his secular politics and carried on his mission to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity based on a constitutional accord between the two major communities of India. At the Muslim League session at Lahore, under his presidency, in 1924 he said :
`` `We must not forget that one essential requisite condition to achieve Swaraj is political unity between Hindus and the Mohammedans, for the advent of foreign rule and its continuance in India is primarily due to the fact that the people of India, particularly the Hindus and Mohammedans, are not united and do not sufficiently trust each other. The domination by the bureaucracy will continue so long as the Hindus and Mohammedans do not come to a settlement. I am almost inclined to say that India will get Dominion Responsible Government the day the Hindus and Mohammedans are united`.
``Jinnah followed secular politics till the experience of Hindu rule in the Congress provinces (1937-39) finally drove him to the conclusion that if the Muslims wished to practise their religion and culture freely they would have to achieve an independent homeland of their own. During his speech in the Central Legislative Assembly on February 7, 1935 he said that `religion should not be allowed to come into politics... Religion is merely a matter between man and God ... `.``
Burke naturally refers to the most famous, the most relevant and by far the most important of Jinnah`s speeches, the one embodying his creed :
``Some commentators have suggested that Jinnah was too westernized to conceive Pakistan as an Islamic state. To support their argument they usually cite his speech at the inaugural session of the Pakistani Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 (the relevant unexpurgated portions of which were printed in my column last Sunday).
``However, when this is read with Jinnah`s other pronouncements it becomes quite clear that he was recommending generous treatment of non-Muslims not as a commendable secular principle but as a mandatory Islamic injunction. Only thirteen days later during the transfer of power ceremony on August 14 when Mountbatten praised the Emperor Akbar`s policy of political and religious tolerance, Jinnah pointed out: `The tolerance and goodwill that the Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back to thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs`.
``In his Eid Day message on November 13, 1939, he had already pointed out that `no injunction is considered by our Holy Prophet more imperative and more divinely binding than the devout but supreme realization of our duty of love and toleration towards all other human beings`.``
Finally, as says Burke : ``He remained a good Muslim all his life but was too sophisticated ever to be a narrow-minded one.``
There is no single word in the Urdu language into which the English word `secular` can be translated. I am the proud owner of a facsimile of the dictionary published by Dr Samuel Johnson in 1755, ``A Dictionary of the English Language: In which the words are deduced from their originals, and illustrated in their different significations by examples from the best writers, to which are prefixed, a history of the language, and an English grammar.`` The adjective `secular` therein is defined as: ``[secularis, Latin; jeculier, French] Not spiritual; relating to affairs of the present world; not holy; worldly.``
From a 1984 editorial in `The Times` : ``Samuel Johnson died on the evening of December 13 1784. He is a more suitable patron saint for the English than our Palestinian soldier-saint, George, or that other candidate for the role, Thomas A Becket. For one thing Johnson spoke English. More than that, his work as lexicographer and Hercules of English literature, helped to make English the world language that it has become.
``The chief glory of the English is their language; and Johnson`s `Dictionary`, the only one in any language compiled by a writer of genius, had a lot to do with its rise to glory. It is an irony that might have amused him eventually, after a bear`s growl or two, that his `Life` written by his young Scottish friend is far more widely read than any of Johnson`s own more literary works.``
Now let us hope that no great scholar of our country comes up with the suggestion that it would be in the interests of Pakistan that the usage of the English language be banned.
The sole statesman-3
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
NO set of documents (nor even one single document) exists which spells out the `ideology of Pakistan`. Thus, every man with a thought process available to him is entitled to his own conception of what this ideology is. However, it would be absolutely logical to assume that the ideology should rightly spring from what our sole statesman envisaged for the country he created and, more accurately, from what he wrote and said.
There are many who hold that the Objectives Resolution, which was drafted and came into being a mere six months after the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, is the embodiment of the `ideology`. There are others who hold that it is not quite what Jinnah had in mind as the ideological cornerstone of his nation.
The Objectives Resolution, the text of which, in English and in Urdu, was embossed on brass plaques and once mounted in the hall of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has been pronounced by our successive democratic and other leaders to be a reminder to us all of the purpose of the creation of Pakistan. It is regarded as the main source of guidance for whatever dispensation of justice exists, for the execution or non-execution of the affairs of the state. On the day in March 1993 when the present Supreme Court building was inaugurated by the then prime minister, Nawaz Sharif (later to be its ultimate demolisher), he declared that not only had the Objectives Resolution been affixed to the wall of the highest court of the land, but that it was imprinted in the hearts of every loyal Pakistani.
Right. Now let us look at this Objectives Resolution. It was moved and adopted on March 7, 1949, on the first day of the fifth session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, meeting in the Assembly Chambers at Karachi, at four of the clock in the evening. The official report for the 1949 day`s debates records:
``The Honourable Mr Liaquat Ali Khan (East Bengal, Muslim) : Mr President, Sir, I beg to move the following Objectives Resolution embodying the main principles on which the Constitution of Pakistan is to be based.
``In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;
``Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limit prescribed by Him is a sacred trust ;
``This Constituent Assembly, representing the people of Pakistan, resolves to frame a constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan ;
``Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people ;
``Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed ;
``Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna ;
``Wherein adequate provisions shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures ;
``Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed ;
``Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to the law and public morality ;
``Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes ;
``Wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured ;
``Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights, including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air, will be safeguarded ;
``So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honoured place amongst the nations of the world and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.``
But it was not the true English text of the original Objectives Resolution which was sanctified that day in 1993 on the wall of our apex court. The plaque in the Supreme Court gave a modified version of this Resolution. The original stipulated that ``adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures.`` On the plaque, in the English version, the word `freely` was deliberately omitted.
Now to quote from Liaquat`s subsequent address to the President, the Honourable Mr Tamizuddin Khan, a quotation which must bear constant and frequent repetition :
``. . . the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy . . . . In the technical sense, theocracy has come to mean a government by ordained priests, who wield authority as being specially appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position. I cannot overemphasize the fact that such an idea is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, therefore, the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam. If there are any who still use the word theocracy in the same breath as the polity of Pakistan, they are either labouring under a grave misapprehension or indulging in mischievous propaganda.
``. . . . . Therefore, there should be no misconception in the mind of any sect which may be a minority in Pakistan about the intentions of the state. The state will seek to create an Islamic society free from dissensions, but this does not mean that it would curb the freedom of any section of the Muslims in the matter of their beliefs. No sects, whether the majority or a minority, will be permitted to dictate to the others and, in their own internal matters and sectional beliefs, all sects shall be given the fullest possible latitude and freedom. Actually, we hope the various sects will act in accordance with the desire of the Prophet who said that the differences of opinion amongst his followers are a blessing. It is for us to make our differences a source of strength to Islam and to Pakistan and not to exploit them for our own interests which will weaken both Pakistan and Islam.
``. . . . We believe that no shackles can be put on thought and, therefore, we do not intend to hinder any person from the expression of his views.``
To return to the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the plaques initially affixed to the walls of the entrance hall. In 1993 I made a vain attempt to get through to Chief Justice of Pakistan Afzal Zullah, to impress upon him that the English version of the Resolution should be amended to contain the word `freely` which in the Urdu version had not been omitted. Then came Chief Justice Dr Nasim Hasan Shah, a man with a great sense of humour with whom it is always a pleasure to converse. An expert at ping-pong, Dr Shah said he would do what he could do to set the record straight. Nothing happened. He was followed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who settled the issue by having both plaques, the English and the Urdu versions, removed from the hallowed walls which still remain bare.
Sajjad Ali Shah`s court was later, on November 28, 1997, stormed and morally destroyed at the behest of the then born-again prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Those who have followed Sajjad in the Supreme Chair have still to identify and punish the desecrators of the people`s apex court.What our sole statesman`s reaction would be to not only the Objectives Resolution, but to all those men and women and events that have followed it down the years can only be imagined.
The sole statesman - 4
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
THOSE alive today who knew Mohammad Ali Jinnah (and strangely the number is increasing by the day) were well aware of what he wanted. He achieved his ambition and founded for us what he intended to be a democratic, forward-looking, modern, secular state. Those who did not know him, have, for reasons of expediency, conjured up their own version of what he wanted. Jinnah`s Pakistan died with him.
In the last fifty-three years this country has changed its name and status three times. It started life as a Dominion, which it remained until 1956, when under the constitution promulgated that year, it became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In 1962, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, who had abrogated the 1956 constitution when he took over the country in 1958, promulgated his constitution and declared it to be simply the Republic of Pakistan. Then he became a politician, expediency came to the fore and by his First Constitutional Amendment Order of 1963 we again became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, now suspended by General Pervez Musharraf, certain paragraphs of the Objectives Resolution of 1949 are reproduced and one sentence reads: ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;``
Under Article 2-A of the 1973 Constitution the Objectives Resolution has been made a substantive part of the Constitution and reproduced in the Annex. In this reproduction the sentence quoted above reads : ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;`` The word `freely` has been deliberately omitted. Mischief?
Now to a press conference held by Mohammad Ali Jinnah on July 14, 1947, in New Delhi. The text of this conference is to be found in the book recently published by Oxford University Press ``Jinnah - Speeches and Statements 1947-1949`` (ISBN 0 19 579021 9) and from it I quote relevant portions :
Q. Could you as governor-general make a brief statement on the minorities problem?
A. At present I am only governor-general designate. We will assume for a moment that on August 15 I shall be really the governor-general of Pakistan. On that assumption, let me tell you that I shall not depart from what I said repeatedly with regard to the minorities. Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship. Therefore, the minorities have their responsibilities also, and they will play their part in the affairs of this state. As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance, and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.
Q. Would your interest in the Muslims of Hindustan continue as it is today?
A. My interest will continue in Hindustan in every citizen and particularly the Muslims.
Q. As president of the All India Muslim League what measures do you propose to adopt to assure the safety of Muslims in Hindu provinces?
A. All that I hope for is that the Muslims in the Hindustan states will be treated as justly as I have indicated we propose to treat non-Muslim minorities. I have stated the broad principles of policy, but the actual question of safeguards and protection for minorities in the respective states can only be dealt with by the Constituent Assembly.
Q. What are your comments on recent statements and speeches of certain Congress leaders to the effect that if Hindus in Pakistan are treated badly they will treat Muslims in Hindustan worse?
A. I hope they will get over this madness and follow the line I am suggesting. It is no use picking up the statements of this man here or that man there. You must remember that in every country there are crooks, cranks, and what I call mad people.
Q. Would you like minorities to stay in Pakistan or would you like an exchange of population?
A. As far as I can speak for Pakistan, I say that there is no reason for any apprehension on the part of the minorities in Pakistan. It is for them to decide what they should do. All I can say is that there is no reason for any apprehension so far as I can speak about Pakistan. It is for them to decide. I cannot order them.
Q. Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?A. You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.
A correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
A. Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a ducks`s back. When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.
Just under one month later, on August 11, Jinnah addressed his Constituent Assembly at Karachi. He told the future legislators :
``. . . . . . . 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.
``Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play without any, as is put in political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.``
As long as the majority of our people remain uneducated their thinking can only be narrow and bigoted. All we can do is constantly keep on reminding them of what Jinnah, the founder of their country, said and wrote.
The sole statesman - 5
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
``NEVER was there a nature whose outer qualities provided so complete an antithesis of its inner worth. Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammed Ali Jinnah`s attenuated form is the deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance.
``Somewhat formal and fastidious, and a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks for those who know him a naive and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman`s, a humour gay and winning as a child`s. Pre-eminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguise a shy and splendid idealism which is of the very essence of the man.``
So wrote the Indian Congresswoman and poet, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, after meeting Jinnah for the first time at the 1906 annual session of Congress held at Calcutta.
Now to what Mohammed Ali Jinnah had to say on the future constitution of Pakistan in his broadcast to the American people in February 1948: ``The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.
``Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught the equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. 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. ``
There is more than enough on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jinnah intended Pakistan to be a democratic, forward-looking, modern, secular state. The bigots and the uneducated will always preach otherwise - and it will remain their privilege to so do.
On July 25, 1977, I was asked by the general who had just removed Bhutto and taken over the country, ``Mr Kawaasjy, what can you do in 70 days to improve the ports and shipping of Pakistan? When I enquired why he had specified `70 days` I was told, ``I promised the people when I took over that I would go back to the barracks in 90 days time. Twenty of those days` have passed.``
He was reminded that history records that it was in the fifth century BC that the last dictator-general voluntarily went home. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus returned happily to his farm having successfully led the Roman armies and saved the republic from the barbarians. I suggested that he read Basil Henry Liddell Hart on the subject of `Dictators` and later sent him a copy of the following extract from Liddell Hart`s book `Why Don`t We learn From History`, published posthumously in 1971:
``On gaining power: they soon begin to rid themselves of their chief helpers, `discovering` that those who brought about the new order have suddenly become traitors to it.`` [ General Pervez Musharraf has, so far, not done so.]
``They suppress criticism on one pretext or another and punish anyone who mentions facts which, however true, are unfavorable to their policy.`` [Musharraf may not have to follow Liddell Hart`s pattern if he treads well and wisely. He has so far very correctly allowed the press full freedom to publish whatever criticism it may wish to print. In fact, when his flip-flop spin doctor, Javed Jabbar, addressed a gathering of columnists in Karachi on July 6, some complained that whereas the press publishes all they write the government does not respond to their criticism. But why should the government respond? And whatever it does, it must not even consider banning in any form any information or facilities available on the Internet.]
``They enlist religion on their side, if possible, or, if its leaders are not compliant, foster a new kind of religion subservient to their ends. [Zia did it, but Musharraf does not have to do so. In fact, he should get rid of some of the reputed fundos who are close to him.]
``They spend public money lavishly on material works of a striking kind, in compensation for the freedom of spirit and thought of which they have robbed the public. [There is nothing to spend. On this score we are safe.]
``They manipulate the currency to make the economic position of the state appear better than it is in reality.`` [ So far the currency has not been manipulated. ]
``They ultimately make war on some other state as a means of diverting attention from internal conditions and allowing discontent to explode outward. [The Kashmir `sizzle` takes care of this one.]
``They use the rallying cry of patriotism as a means of riveting the chains of their personal authority more firmly on the people. [After Benazir and Nawaz, both twice removed, anyone is acceptable to the people barring the politicians whose `hookah-pani band hogaya hai`. And besides, was Washington not a general of the army, as was Eisenhower? Was Carter not a peanut farmer, and Reagan a film actor?]
``They expand the superstructure of the state while undermining its foundations - by breeding sycophants at the expense of self-respecting collaborators, by appealing to the popular taste for the grandiose and sensational instead of true values, and by fostering a romantic instead of a realistic view, thus ensuring the ultimate collapse, under their successors, if not themselves, of what they have created. [Unfortunately this country breeds sycophants with the greatest of ease. We have 139 million of them. If the general surrounds himself with too many they may well be his undoing.]
``This political confidence trick, itself a familiar string of tricks, has been repeated all down the ages. Yet it rarely fails to take in a fresh generation.`` [ When each new government takes over many of us fervently hope that it will prove Jinnah`s old prediction to be wrong: `Each succeeding government of Pakistan will be worse that its predecessor.`]
Zia not only read the extract carefully, but managed to get hold of a copy of the book and ordered that it be reprinted by the Services Book Club of Pakistan. The printing took nine years and naturally infringed on the copyright laws. The book is a `must` read for Musharraf.
#183 Posted by ali1 on October 2, 2000 1:30:17 am
There is an article in today`s (Monday`s) Jang by Master Harghomal Pataraam
www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2000-daily/12-10-2000/editorial/col3.htm
He has given some sound arguments in support of separate electorates for minorities in Pakistan. He has also described in detail the collaboration between the high caste Hindus and the feudal lords to keep the Bheels deprived of their social and political rights.
The link above doesn`t seem to work so you have to find your way around their website. The article is entitled, ``Tariqa Intekhab aur Aqaliatain``.
www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2000-daily/12-10-2000/editorial/col3.htm
He has given some sound arguments in support of separate electorates for minorities in Pakistan. He has also described in detail the collaboration between the high caste Hindus and the feudal lords to keep the Bheels deprived of their social and political rights.
The link above doesn`t seem to work so you have to find your way around their website. The article is entitled, ``Tariqa Intekhab aur Aqaliatain``.
#184 Posted by ylh on October 2, 2000 1:49:14 am
Ardeshir`s memorable article which made a lot of people like me cry.... maybe this will serve as a wake up call...
`On His 118th Birthday`
- Ardeshir Cowasjee
I greet you, Mr Jinnah, as we near your 118th birthday. I, and many others, thank you for having
ordained that the anniversary of your birth coincide with that of the Second in Trinity, so that
Christmas Day will be a holiday in our country for as long as your name is revered. Seven years ago
in this newspaper. on August 14. 1987, I wrote in your name: You have collectively and dissolutely
pakdanced all along the Way down the year,—one step forward, whirl, sidestep, swirl, two step
backward, twirl, twist, turn four steps backwad.
``Neither surprised. nor confounded—certainly not shocked` am I. Long ago I fathomed your genious
(with hindsight, I now realise how exceedingly well). Therefore, all those years ago, I deviated from
my initial adherence and set myself the task of carving out a nation for you, a territory in which you
could survive, for you to tend, a country your successors would proudly be able to call their
fatherland. Given the circumstanes, and tbe short time I had left to me, I did the best possible.
``It was not easy, negotiating with the tiresome British, dealing with the wily Mahatma, his discordant
Mahadevs, and the ironclad Sardar. It was rough going. It was not until August 7th, 1947, after
taking off from Delhi for Karachi and settling down in the Dakota, that with great satisfaction I was
able to mutter to my young ADC, Ahsan `Well, that`s that`.
``It will serve no purpose for me to now enumerate for you the multitude of your follies, shortcomings
and losses. The Master Reteree exonerated me many years ago, and I now rest content upon my
laurels. But you, on your part, could at least have made the effort to do better, rather than blindly
blunder along and merely survive.
Since you have made it beholden upon yourselves to remember me my wish is that you remember
me as I was. I do not want to be the object of hagiography I do not want to be remembered as is
momentarily convenient or politic. I want to be remembered as the normal human being I was. with
faults, foibles and failings. Yes, I took upon mysell a mission which by fortune and fate I was able to
accomplish. Having accomplished it, I died, highly apprehensive of the honesty, integrity, and
capability of those I was leaving behind to care for my cre.
``Why is it that I am so often misquoted and misunderstood? Let me be clear. I conceived and
created a nation-state, with the steadfast unwavering intention that it should be forward-looking,
democratic, and secular. Bigotry, theocracy, intolerance, hatted played no role in my ideology. Three
days before the outset, before the start of the countdowns I unequivocally declared in my speech to
your first constituent assembly: `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`.
``These words, spoken On August 11th 1947, embody my faith, my creed and my testament to my
countrymen. Whether you like it or not, whether it suits you or not whether it all be too liberal,
humanitarian hill, tolerant and progressive for your warped minds to grasp, this is the ideology I had
planned for my country.``
To bring you up to date, Mr Jinnah. The remaining half of the country you made is now inhabited by
some 123 million mainly uneducated souls, multiplying like rabbits. They, in their illiterate state, by
ticking various symbols have elected in a free and fair election the latest of your disastrous
governments. We are now led by an awesome (or awful, depending upon how you look at it)
husband and wife twin-act. Our de jure prime minister is the wife, Benazir, for the second time
around. De facto prime minister is the husband, Asif. also for the second time around. As is the
custom in the Islamic world, husband must dominate wife in all ways, thinking included.
Those they have chosen to rule by their sides. or rather, under them, are a motley lot bereft of brain,
bone, and shame. To them, to a man, to heal- is to obey. Under their tull control and at their mercy
they have the judiciary, the bureaucracy, finance foreign investment, energy, power generation,
communications, defence, education, health, population planning, the environment—you name it.
As has been said so many times, what makes the mare go is pelf in tandem with power. But even in
pay-offs today there is `no foal, no fee` is 110 honesty. The principle of `no foal, no fee` is either
unknown. or if known, blithely disregarded.
Your profession, the law is in a shambles. The men who practise it are demoralised divided. The
judiciary is on a leash with many judges hand-picked on probation, or just plain scared.
Indpendence to them is but a dream. The dignity of our courts, as you will agree, should not be
dependent, as it is, upon the law of contempt. It should, as you would have hoped, be based on
more solid foundations. We also know that judges must be above suspicion, as white as driven
snow. This does not now hold true with us. Sitting on one high court bench we have a judge who is
out on bail on a murder charge.
As I write this, I am still recovering from the news about the appointment of new law minister.
Benazir`s original one this time around, Groovy Haider, has just been sacked. He was as honest, as
corrupt, and as supine as the rest of them, but he obviously failed tc hear the voice of the emperor
`Roma locuta est; causa finita est`. The new man, Nabi Dad Khan, is a lecturer who calls himself a
professor. Perhaps he is unable to dif ferntiate hetween the two. He is an advocate of mediocrity, no
hot-shot lawyer he. But then, what has any hot-shot lawer law minister ever done for your country?
This minister is unlikely to make any law or take earth-shaking decisions. What he is likely to do is to
give t he Press a field day when he rises to utter in the Assembly.
One most perturbing and distres sing factor of life these days, in what you quite simply and cleanly
named ``Pakistan``, is the habit of land-grabbing From head honcho downwards, to the most lowly
man in a position to do so, they all grab for themselves land that rightly belongs to the nation, its
redidual worth. So much in a hurry is each man or woman in power to grab as, grab he or she can,
that now land that is under water even at low tide planned to be reclaimed for the people, is being
taken. This greed has unbelievably also extended to land belonging to the University of Karachi, that
once fine institution. We would have expected that a university-educated head of government would
have put her foot down on this. But no.
Our anthropologist professor, Akbar Ahmed, is planning a film on your life. We await this with much
trepidation as we all know that the life portrayed on celluloid will be a know that the life portrayed
on celluloid will be a far cry from the life that was lived. He has full `government support``. The
commercially minded, amongst those sponsoring the adventure, should endeavour to put the real
Jinnah on the screen. The government of the day would then ban the film, making it a riproaring
success.
Your mazar, architecturally hideous as it is, is a focal point for all successful, and I stress the word
`successful`, politicians, sportsmen, artists, and so forth. The minute a man wins an election, or a
match, or a medal, he is to be found in Karachi, at your grave, grabbing with piously folded hands a
photo opportunity. You had the entire triumphant hockey team the other day. Had they lost the
World Cup they would not have been seen anywhere near your tomb.
The barren spaces around your resting place have luckily and by some stroke of fortune been saved
from land-grabbers (not that they did not try). The people of Karachi have now taken it upon
themselves to plant trees for you. `Treemazar` is at work and one day soon, the entire area will be
wooded.
This last is the only good news I can give. I refrain from listing today the woes of the city of your
birth, which the government is incapable of governing. Fortunately, you remain beyond `their` evil and
destructive reach.
`On His 118th Birthday`
- Ardeshir Cowasjee
I greet you, Mr Jinnah, as we near your 118th birthday. I, and many others, thank you for having
ordained that the anniversary of your birth coincide with that of the Second in Trinity, so that
Christmas Day will be a holiday in our country for as long as your name is revered. Seven years ago
in this newspaper. on August 14. 1987, I wrote in your name: You have collectively and dissolutely
pakdanced all along the Way down the year,—one step forward, whirl, sidestep, swirl, two step
backward, twirl, twist, turn four steps backwad.
``Neither surprised. nor confounded—certainly not shocked` am I. Long ago I fathomed your genious
(with hindsight, I now realise how exceedingly well). Therefore, all those years ago, I deviated from
my initial adherence and set myself the task of carving out a nation for you, a territory in which you
could survive, for you to tend, a country your successors would proudly be able to call their
fatherland. Given the circumstanes, and tbe short time I had left to me, I did the best possible.
``It was not easy, negotiating with the tiresome British, dealing with the wily Mahatma, his discordant
Mahadevs, and the ironclad Sardar. It was rough going. It was not until August 7th, 1947, after
taking off from Delhi for Karachi and settling down in the Dakota, that with great satisfaction I was
able to mutter to my young ADC, Ahsan `Well, that`s that`.
``It will serve no purpose for me to now enumerate for you the multitude of your follies, shortcomings
and losses. The Master Reteree exonerated me many years ago, and I now rest content upon my
laurels. But you, on your part, could at least have made the effort to do better, rather than blindly
blunder along and merely survive.
Since you have made it beholden upon yourselves to remember me my wish is that you remember
me as I was. I do not want to be the object of hagiography I do not want to be remembered as is
momentarily convenient or politic. I want to be remembered as the normal human being I was. with
faults, foibles and failings. Yes, I took upon mysell a mission which by fortune and fate I was able to
accomplish. Having accomplished it, I died, highly apprehensive of the honesty, integrity, and
capability of those I was leaving behind to care for my cre.
``Why is it that I am so often misquoted and misunderstood? Let me be clear. I conceived and
created a nation-state, with the steadfast unwavering intention that it should be forward-looking,
democratic, and secular. Bigotry, theocracy, intolerance, hatted played no role in my ideology. Three
days before the outset, before the start of the countdowns I unequivocally declared in my speech to
your first constituent assembly: `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`.
``These words, spoken On August 11th 1947, embody my faith, my creed and my testament to my
countrymen. Whether you like it or not, whether it suits you or not whether it all be too liberal,
humanitarian hill, tolerant and progressive for your warped minds to grasp, this is the ideology I had
planned for my country.``
To bring you up to date, Mr Jinnah. The remaining half of the country you made is now inhabited by
some 123 million mainly uneducated souls, multiplying like rabbits. They, in their illiterate state, by
ticking various symbols have elected in a free and fair election the latest of your disastrous
governments. We are now led by an awesome (or awful, depending upon how you look at it)
husband and wife twin-act. Our de jure prime minister is the wife, Benazir, for the second time
around. De facto prime minister is the husband, Asif. also for the second time around. As is the
custom in the Islamic world, husband must dominate wife in all ways, thinking included.
Those they have chosen to rule by their sides. or rather, under them, are a motley lot bereft of brain,
bone, and shame. To them, to a man, to heal- is to obey. Under their tull control and at their mercy
they have the judiciary, the bureaucracy, finance foreign investment, energy, power generation,
communications, defence, education, health, population planning, the environment—you name it.
As has been said so many times, what makes the mare go is pelf in tandem with power. But even in
pay-offs today there is `no foal, no fee` is 110 honesty. The principle of `no foal, no fee` is either
unknown. or if known, blithely disregarded.
Your profession, the law is in a shambles. The men who practise it are demoralised divided. The
judiciary is on a leash with many judges hand-picked on probation, or just plain scared.
Indpendence to them is but a dream. The dignity of our courts, as you will agree, should not be
dependent, as it is, upon the law of contempt. It should, as you would have hoped, be based on
more solid foundations. We also know that judges must be above suspicion, as white as driven
snow. This does not now hold true with us. Sitting on one high court bench we have a judge who is
out on bail on a murder charge.
As I write this, I am still recovering from the news about the appointment of new law minister.
Benazir`s original one this time around, Groovy Haider, has just been sacked. He was as honest, as
corrupt, and as supine as the rest of them, but he obviously failed tc hear the voice of the emperor
`Roma locuta est; causa finita est`. The new man, Nabi Dad Khan, is a lecturer who calls himself a
professor. Perhaps he is unable to dif ferntiate hetween the two. He is an advocate of mediocrity, no
hot-shot lawyer he. But then, what has any hot-shot lawer law minister ever done for your country?
This minister is unlikely to make any law or take earth-shaking decisions. What he is likely to do is to
give t he Press a field day when he rises to utter in the Assembly.
One most perturbing and distres sing factor of life these days, in what you quite simply and cleanly
named ``Pakistan``, is the habit of land-grabbing From head honcho downwards, to the most lowly
man in a position to do so, they all grab for themselves land that rightly belongs to the nation, its
redidual worth. So much in a hurry is each man or woman in power to grab as, grab he or she can,
that now land that is under water even at low tide planned to be reclaimed for the people, is being
taken. This greed has unbelievably also extended to land belonging to the University of Karachi, that
once fine institution. We would have expected that a university-educated head of government would
have put her foot down on this. But no.
Our anthropologist professor, Akbar Ahmed, is planning a film on your life. We await this with much
trepidation as we all know that the life portrayed on celluloid will be a know that the life portrayed
on celluloid will be a far cry from the life that was lived. He has full `government support``. The
commercially minded, amongst those sponsoring the adventure, should endeavour to put the real
Jinnah on the screen. The government of the day would then ban the film, making it a riproaring
success.
Your mazar, architecturally hideous as it is, is a focal point for all successful, and I stress the word
`successful`, politicians, sportsmen, artists, and so forth. The minute a man wins an election, or a
match, or a medal, he is to be found in Karachi, at your grave, grabbing with piously folded hands a
photo opportunity. You had the entire triumphant hockey team the other day. Had they lost the
World Cup they would not have been seen anywhere near your tomb.
The barren spaces around your resting place have luckily and by some stroke of fortune been saved
from land-grabbers (not that they did not try). The people of Karachi have now taken it upon
themselves to plant trees for you. `Treemazar` is at work and one day soon, the entire area will be
wooded.
This last is the only good news I can give. I refrain from listing today the woes of the city of your
birth, which the government is incapable of governing. Fortunately, you remain beyond `their` evil and
destructive reach.
#185 Posted by bahmad on October 2, 2000 4:32:31 am
In response to dost-mitter (Reply # 185)
Dear Dost-Mitter:
Your story is almost identical to the one that I am going to narrate. The father of a Hindu friend of mine came to visit him in the U.S. (5-6 years ago). His village in India is not too far from Aligarh. I invited my friend and his father for dinner. My friend`s father, while eating at my place, said: ``In my whole life, I had never eaten food in any Muslim home. Yours is the first.`` I said: ``I am honored.`` My friend asked his father: ``Pitta ji, how about uncle Ahmad`s home.`` His father replied: ``Never.`` My friend then asked: ``Did uncle Ahmad ever eat in our home?`` His father said: ``Never.``
I was truly honored, but wondered how divided the people still are? I also wondered, how a change of context sometimes change the outcome of human relationship?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Dost-Mitter:
Your story is almost identical to the one that I am going to narrate. The father of a Hindu friend of mine came to visit him in the U.S. (5-6 years ago). His village in India is not too far from Aligarh. I invited my friend and his father for dinner. My friend`s father, while eating at my place, said: ``In my whole life, I had never eaten food in any Muslim home. Yours is the first.`` I said: ``I am honored.`` My friend asked his father: ``Pitta ji, how about uncle Ahmad`s home.`` His father replied: ``Never.`` My friend then asked: ``Did uncle Ahmad ever eat in our home?`` His father said: ``Never.``
I was truly honored, but wondered how divided the people still are? I also wondered, how a change of context sometimes change the outcome of human relationship?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#186 Posted by Urstruly on October 2, 2000 9:14:54 am
RE: Umairr # 178
Dear Umairr,
A very well argued post that was based on un-deniable facts. But, unfortunately, IMHO, you used a wrong set of arguments. One must understand that the Hamidm`s contention has its basis in the ``beleif`` that (all) religion(s) is (are) evil. One must also understand that when there is a fact vs. beleif argument, the beleif always ``wins``- even if the beleif is a non-religious one.
Dear Umairr,
A very well argued post that was based on un-deniable facts. But, unfortunately, IMHO, you used a wrong set of arguments. One must understand that the Hamidm`s contention has its basis in the ``beleif`` that (all) religion(s) is (are) evil. One must also understand that when there is a fact vs. beleif argument, the beleif always ``wins``- even if the beleif is a non-religious one.
#187 Posted by Urstruly on October 2, 2000 9:25:18 am
RE: YLH
I hope you read your own posts before you paste them on the board. I urge you to go through your post # 186 and #188 when you are not in a hurry to post something more. Read between the lines and see how contradictory they are. After you have analysed them (and not just read them) would you be kind enough to write a short note and share your thoughts with us.
THank you.
I hope you read your own posts before you paste them on the board. I urge you to go through your post # 186 and #188 when you are not in a hurry to post something more. Read between the lines and see how contradictory they are. After you have analysed them (and not just read them) would you be kind enough to write a short note and share your thoughts with us.
THank you.
#188 Posted by fuzair on October 2, 2000 10:01:04 am
Re: Umairr, Hamidm and Haider Irfan
All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation. The problem arises from the knowledge that you are privy to the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. `Truth` here is an intimate knowledge of God`s will, as manisfested by your reading of His `Book.` If you know the Truth, everybody else who refuses to acknowledge it must surely stand condemned in God`s eyes. Therefore, to tolerate dissent, differing interpretations or clashing `Truths` is to deny God. And what penalty can there be for denying God? Guess.
I think what the Reformation and Luther did was to make acceptable the idea that no one has a monopoly on the interpretation of God`s words (the Holy Mother Church`s position) and that Person A`s interpretation is as good as Person B`s. Having laid this theoretical ground, the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment and the quest for Rationality.
Thus, even most religious Christians in the West don`t feel that their version is the sole Truth but that they have the privilige of seeing one aspect/facet of the multi-faceted jewel that is the Truth. When you think that you can, at best, know only a few facets of Truth, this is less likely to make you want to go out and smite the infidel hip and thigh.
The problem with Islam was/is that it has managed to marginalize all reform movements and focus on the Truth. Thus our beardos, mullahs and ordinary Joe Schmuck does not look into a multifaceted jewel when he wants to see the Truth, he simply looks into a mirror. And what do you see when you look into a mirror? Yourself, of course.
So the problem with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, that knows the Truth as a single facet is that it has to be intolerant. It is only when you have doubt that you are tolerant.
So, with all due deference to Prof. Bilal Ahmad and his humanitarian impulses, I side with the eradicateurs in Algeria and call for a mullocaust. And the same for their fellow-travellers.
For those fans of Hill Street Blues, ``Lets do it to them before they do it to us!`` For those of you who don`t know what I`m talking about, forget it. It will take too long to explain.
Regards
All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation. The problem arises from the knowledge that you are privy to the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. `Truth` here is an intimate knowledge of God`s will, as manisfested by your reading of His `Book.` If you know the Truth, everybody else who refuses to acknowledge it must surely stand condemned in God`s eyes. Therefore, to tolerate dissent, differing interpretations or clashing `Truths` is to deny God. And what penalty can there be for denying God? Guess.
I think what the Reformation and Luther did was to make acceptable the idea that no one has a monopoly on the interpretation of God`s words (the Holy Mother Church`s position) and that Person A`s interpretation is as good as Person B`s. Having laid this theoretical ground, the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment and the quest for Rationality.
Thus, even most religious Christians in the West don`t feel that their version is the sole Truth but that they have the privilige of seeing one aspect/facet of the multi-faceted jewel that is the Truth. When you think that you can, at best, know only a few facets of Truth, this is less likely to make you want to go out and smite the infidel hip and thigh.
The problem with Islam was/is that it has managed to marginalize all reform movements and focus on the Truth. Thus our beardos, mullahs and ordinary Joe Schmuck does not look into a multifaceted jewel when he wants to see the Truth, he simply looks into a mirror. And what do you see when you look into a mirror? Yourself, of course.
So the problem with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, that knows the Truth as a single facet is that it has to be intolerant. It is only when you have doubt that you are tolerant.
So, with all due deference to Prof. Bilal Ahmad and his humanitarian impulses, I side with the eradicateurs in Algeria and call for a mullocaust. And the same for their fellow-travellers.
For those fans of Hill Street Blues, ``Lets do it to them before they do it to us!`` For those of you who don`t know what I`m talking about, forget it. It will take too long to explain.
Regards
#189 Posted by Urstruly on October 2, 2000 10:30:35 am
Fuzair`s reply # 192 is the Exhibit A to elaborate and prove the point that was raised in my post # 190.
#190 Posted by fairdinkum on October 2, 2000 12:28:41 pm
I see two extreme views in this discussion of religion. On one hand we have some people simply refuse to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with blasphemy laws, discrimination against Hindus, Ahmedis, Christians, and other minorities. They can justify murder on the basis of their beliefs. On the other hand we have people who regard religion as evil…the root cause of all that is wrong with Pakistani society, and similar societies of the third world countries. For them religion is absolutely useless.
The arguments presented for and against religion, so far, take no notice of an overwhelming majority of people who prefer to tread a middle path. For whom religion is a personal matter, and plays an important role in their lives.
Thomas A. Idinopulos, Professor of Religion at Miami University of Ohio writes:
“When religion and life blend as they do for my mother, religion ceases to be anything distinctive, objective, something external, a mere practice. It is well-known that religious people do not think of themselves as religious, because they cannot imagine themselves as other than religious. One could think of authentically religious people as growing a kind of skin which covers whole body, gives them their appearance, holds them together, contains the pores through which they breathe; when breathing stops, they are buried with this one skin and no other. To such people, religion is not something ``practiced,`` something that could be listed on a list of personality traits and career achievements. When one is religious as my mother is religious, the word ``religion`` loses its meaning or becomes irrelevant.” (What is religion?)
I suppose it is the same for my mother too.
Also, she gets equally distressed about the plight of minorities in Pakistan & slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia/Kosovo or Israel. For her, it doesn’t make sense that such evil is propagated in the name of religion. There are a lot of people like her in this world. People, who don`t see any sense in the grand narratives of religion or ideologies. Who are more pragmatic than most of us educated. Who draw strength from religion and spirituality in their lives, but do not wish to see anybody get hurt in the name of religion.
Religion has been a part of human life, a part of human being since pre-historic times. Why can’t we understanding that most people need it….it obviously fulfils a very deep human need.
In my view, the problem arises when religion gets organized as an institution (a political movement or a business venture) and individuals are asked to see things from somebody else’s perspective (usually a priest or a Mullah) and their personal deep relationship with God/spirituality severed as a result.
The arguments presented for and against religion, so far, take no notice of an overwhelming majority of people who prefer to tread a middle path. For whom religion is a personal matter, and plays an important role in their lives.
Thomas A. Idinopulos, Professor of Religion at Miami University of Ohio writes:
“When religion and life blend as they do for my mother, religion ceases to be anything distinctive, objective, something external, a mere practice. It is well-known that religious people do not think of themselves as religious, because they cannot imagine themselves as other than religious. One could think of authentically religious people as growing a kind of skin which covers whole body, gives them their appearance, holds them together, contains the pores through which they breathe; when breathing stops, they are buried with this one skin and no other. To such people, religion is not something ``practiced,`` something that could be listed on a list of personality traits and career achievements. When one is religious as my mother is religious, the word ``religion`` loses its meaning or becomes irrelevant.” (What is religion?)
I suppose it is the same for my mother too.
Also, she gets equally distressed about the plight of minorities in Pakistan & slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia/Kosovo or Israel. For her, it doesn’t make sense that such evil is propagated in the name of religion. There are a lot of people like her in this world. People, who don`t see any sense in the grand narratives of religion or ideologies. Who are more pragmatic than most of us educated. Who draw strength from religion and spirituality in their lives, but do not wish to see anybody get hurt in the name of religion.
Religion has been a part of human life, a part of human being since pre-historic times. Why can’t we understanding that most people need it….it obviously fulfils a very deep human need.
In my view, the problem arises when religion gets organized as an institution (a political movement or a business venture) and individuals are asked to see things from somebody else’s perspective (usually a priest or a Mullah) and their personal deep relationship with God/spirituality severed as a result.
#191 Posted by Urstruly on October 2, 2000 2:39:21 pm
RE: Fairdinkum
Thanks for submitting Exhibit B, i.e #194
Thanks for submitting Exhibit B, i.e #194
#192 Posted by Urstruly on October 2, 2000 3:07:00 pm
Dear Shandana!
Please read the article by Master Harkho Mal Pata Ram on the editorial page of Jang of October 3, 2000. He discuses the issue of Separate Electorate specifically elaborating the perspective of Hindu Minority. You might find an answer to your question about the pragmatic minorities, at the other board.
(Finally something related to your article)
Please read the article by Master Harkho Mal Pata Ram on the editorial page of Jang of October 3, 2000. He discuses the issue of Separate Electorate specifically elaborating the perspective of Hindu Minority. You might find an answer to your question about the pragmatic minorities, at the other board.
(Finally something related to your article)
#194 Posted by ylh on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Rsaxena,
Your statement in which you stated Farrakhan to Islam ... has just just clearly shown how knowledgeable you are.
Clearly you hate Pakistan and everything about us. So please do yourself and us a favor leave us alone? Really your posts dont anger as anymore, but your ``excrement`` is annoying as in its smelly.
I am sure there are a hundred of Indian sites where you can contribute?
Chalo beta abba jaan (meaning YLH) ka kehna mano aur hume tang naa karo ...
YLH!
Your statement in which you stated Farrakhan to Islam ... has just just clearly shown how knowledgeable you are.
Clearly you hate Pakistan and everything about us. So please do yourself and us a favor leave us alone? Really your posts dont anger as anymore, but your ``excrement`` is annoying as in its smelly.
I am sure there are a hundred of Indian sites where you can contribute?
Chalo beta abba jaan (meaning YLH) ka kehna mano aur hume tang naa karo ...
YLH!
#195 Posted by pullu on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Sadhana #re 132
I don`t see anything wrong with your post 21.
You were getting tangled in arguments.That`s why I said move on to other posts and other views. You are more experienced at chowk, you should no better. One can express his views but to convince is very difficult. That too on the web!
You just got into a mood,I once retorted,you don`t seem to get into. :)
Faidinkum #138
You seem to have a lot of amusing anecdotes. Keep posting more, on any topic. I thought chinese were cute!
Pullu
I don`t see anything wrong with your post 21.
You were getting tangled in arguments.That`s why I said move on to other posts and other views. You are more experienced at chowk, you should no better. One can express his views but to convince is very difficult. That too on the web!
You just got into a mood,I once retorted,you don`t seem to get into. :)
Faidinkum #138
You seem to have a lot of amusing anecdotes. Keep posting more, on any topic. I thought chinese were cute!
Pullu
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: Eklavya: please dont split... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: GF #83: while india's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: tahmedji and harish A correction:... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: om prakash #75 agreed.... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: harish #77 we could... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
