The Place of Debate

RE: Reply #: 232 dost-mittar

``And if Pakistanis are by and large doing as well as the Indians, then the Indian Muslims can be deemed to be worse off than Pakistani Muslims.``

This statement is disingenous, considering how partition skewed such demographic comparisions in a wholesale manner. It is like skimming the fat from a can of milk and then pointing out it`s wateriness. I suspect Pakistanis keep pointing out such statistics to reinforce their nationalism which, after all, is based on being the inverse of India.

India continues to struggle with creating a identity synonomous with the majority faith and with inculcating this unique version of history among its innocent young.

Hindustan Times Feb. 12, 2002

“The archaeology of faith

RS Sharma

The archaeological evidence doubting the historicity of Ayodhya in 2000 BC has been deleted by the NCERT (Ch.3, pp.20-21). Although the Puranic genealogy is not the same in different Puranas, sometimes it is argued on this basis that Rama Dasarathi ruled around 2000 or 1800 BC.

H.C. Raychaudhuri, great political historian, states that Rama is not mentioned in the Rig Veda (Political History of India, 1972, pp.71-72). The latest archaeological evidence shows that Ayodhya was not settled on any scale until 500 BC (Sharma, The State and Varna Formation in the Middle Ganga Plains, 1996, pp.85-6). Valmiki’s Ramayana, which contained 6,000 verses in the beginning, came to have 24,000 verses by the 12th century AD. Hence the historical existence of Rama seems to be doubtful.

Similarly, my discussion of the idea of an epic age and the existence of Krishna has been removed from my book (Ch.6, p.21). It is well- known that the Mahabharata consisted of 8,800 verses in the beginning, and the text was known as Jaya. These rose to 24,000 later, and the text came to be known as Bharata. The final number rose to 100,000, and the text came to be known as Mahabharata.

According to tradition, Krishna was actively associated with Mathura, but this place was not settled until the 7th century BC (M.C. Joshi in An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, II, ed. A. Ghosh, pp. 283-86). I personally visited the Mathura Museum to look for Krishna’s representation in any image or piece of sculpture, but I did not find it in that museum which contains numerous antiquities of pre-Kushana and Kushana times.

It would be wrong to think that the presentation of archaeological findings on Ayodhya and Mathura will hurt religious feelings. People worship gods because of faith and belief, not because of archaeological finds. Why are Durga, Ganesha, Shiva and Vishnu being worshipped almost all over the country without any historical appendage being attached to them? It is necessary to cultivate faith and not to distort history for worshipping a divinity.

On the advice of some Jains of Digambara sect, I included the name of Rishabhadeva as a founder of Jainism. In my book published in January 2001, I wrote that the Jains strongly believe that Rishabhadeva was the first tirthankara and the founder of Jainism. I retained the original passage according to which eastern UP and Bihar, in which traditionally many tirthankaras were born and carried on their activities, were hardly settled by the sixth century BC. I wrote that the historicity of the earliest tirthankaras is doubtful and their existence seems to be mythological (Ch.10 p.92).

The activities of Rishabhadeva are traditionally associated with Prayag and Ayodhya. But archaeologically none of the two sites was even fairly settled until 500 BC. Traditional chronology would place Rishabhadeva around the ninth century BC. Ajit Jain, a Jain scholar, questions the historicity of the first tirthankara in a Jain research journal Shodhadarsha (Nov, 1998) because in his view Ayodhya was uninhabited until the 8th century BC.

The books of R.C. Majumdar, K.A. Nilakanta Sastri and H.C. Raychaudhuri are read as textbooks all over the country. Majumdar states that the “first 22 tirthankaras are unknown to history”. According to Raychaudhuri, only Parshva out of 23 pre-Mahavira tirthankaras seems to have been a historical figure (An Advanced History of India, Part I Ancient India). Therefore, my doubts about the historicity of the pre-Parshva tirthankaras are not based on my ‘convictions’ but on the writings of three great historians of ancient India. I cannot think of any greater authority on the history of ancient India. If these great historians do not adopt the concept of history propounded by the NCERT, it is not my fault.

Moreover, the specialists who have examined Jain Prakrit sources do not support the historicity of Rishabha. Chamanlal J. Shah mentions Rishabha but considers only the last two tirthankaras to be historical personages in his Jainism in North India 800 BC-AD 546, Delhi 1989. Similarly, G.C. Chaudhary, former professor at the Research Institute of Prakrit and Jainology in Bihar, does not recognise the historicity of the pre-Parshva tirthankaras in his Political History of Northern India from Jain Sources, Amritsar, 1954. A.N. Upadhye, former professor of Jainology and Prakrit in Mysore University, mentions Rishabha but does not consider him a historical person (A Culture History of India, ed. A.L. Basham, OUP, London, 1975).

Although the mention of Rishabha’s name in my account of Jainism satisfied the Jain complainants, in the 2001 January edition of Ancient India, my sentences relating to archaeology and mytho-logy were expunged by the NCERT. A copy of this newly-printed book has neither been made available to me nor is found in the market.

This is an utter breach of the agreement of 1980. According to this agreement, adaptation or modification in the text can be made only with the approval of the author. I was never consulted about this deletion. Subsequently, six other deletions relating to different themes have been made without informing me. The school teachers have been asked not to refer to these deletions while teaching Ancient India, which (1999 edition) contains this deleted matter in print.

Nevertheless, the concerned Jains of Digambar sect should feel free to believe in the supernatural abilities of Rishabhadeva and revere him like Rama and Krishna. For the benefit of school students I have underlined the valuable contribution of Jainism to society, economy, language, literature, art and architecture (p 94, 1999 edition.)

The NCERT has deleted the passage regarding the Brahmanical reaction against Ashoka and have asked the teachers to discard it in teaching. What I have stated in this passage is based on the findings of great indologist M.M.P. Harprasad Shastri (Journal and Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1910, pp.259) who edited many Buddhist manuscripts brought from Nepal. My generalisations are supported by Ashokan inscriptions.

Ashoka undoubtedly asked the people to respect both sramanas (Buddhist monks) and Brahmanas (D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions, I, Calcutta, 1965, no.14). But the Brahmanas considered themselves superior to all the other sections in society and hence resented their placing in the sramanas category. Ashoka prohibited the killing of birds and animals and derided superfluous rituals performed by women ( Ibid. No.6).

All this was the result of the anti-sacrifice attitude of Buddhism which Ashoka had adopted. Such a policy naturally caused losses to the Brahmanas who lived on the gifts made to them in various rites and sacrifices.

More importantly, Ashoka introduced the policy of equality in civil law (vyavahara-samata) and also in criminal law (danda-samata) for all sections of society. The rajukas were asked to implement this policy (Ibid., No.27). This adversely affected the legal position and privileges of the Brahmanas which are sanctioned by the Dharmashastras (for lesser punishments for Brahmanas in criminal laws see P.V. Kane, History of Dharmashastra, II, Pt. 2, pp.141, 152; for the privileged status of the Brahmanas see Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, Delhi 2001, pp.161, 243-44).

Since the Ashokan policy hit the existing interests and privileges of the Brahmanas, they became hostile to the Maurya empire. The last Maurya ruler, Brihadratha, was killed by his Brahmana minister Pushyamitra Shunga.``

dost-mittar,

I think we need to analyse the IAS/IFS numbers a bit more. If I am not mistaken, majority of muslims are in the BIMARU states (Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, UP) where literacy rates and development of the entire population (not just muslims) is not too great anyway.

I think it would also be instructive to see the region and caste-wise break-up of the IAS/IFS officers.

dost-mittar,

I am from an IIM and remember being shocked that the number of muslims was less than 1% in my batch. OTOH, the number of Sikhs was far more than their %age of population ;-)

Then again, the CAT entrance tests are supposed to be among the toughest in the world.

dost-mittar,

I am from an IIM and remember being shocked that the number of muslims was less than 1% in my batch. OTOH, the number of Sikhs was far more than their %age of population ;-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

All passengers from flights originating from Pakistan and all passengers holding Pakistani passports would be subject to extra security.After the shoe-bomber incident, the security of passengers, particularly from high-risk countries like Pakistan, has been tightened.

Pakistani official entourage coming with President Musharraf also had to pass through the extra security grill at New York`s JF Kennedy airport. Pakistani Commerce Minister Razzaq Dawood was asked to remove his shoes so that security officials could be sure he was not carrying any bomb in his heels.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service is also looking for illegal Pakistanis staying in US. All illegal Pakistanis maybe deported if found guilty.

Sameerjb,

Well put, though I hope you clarify that the quote you put up is what you think Jinnah would have said and not what he said.

On a side note: For plain historical curiousity, does anyone have an estimate of exactly how many people died at Partition because to the best of my knowledge through the reading of `Freedom at Midnight` the estimate was 565 000, but incident reports especially even when you include the major ones pre-August 1947 like Rawalpindi Killings of Hindus and Sikhs, and Amritsar killings, and Calcutta killings... don`t seem to add up.

PREM #215

how do those who refuse to drink the cup of exclusivist bigotry from their religious books energize themselves? Specifically, for us Indians, as the legacy of Gandhi/Nehru recedes in time, how do we maintain the force of religious universalism, as against religous exclusivism, alive and strong?

True, the force resides embedded deep in Indian psyche. But can we take things for granted when Hindutva vadis and Islamists (and all other religious advocates) make blantatly religious appeals, pulling people - young and old - in opposite camps?

Anybody got any practical ideas?``



Prem,EK..

Were you gone to India?

I watched a debate (not really) between BJP ,Congress & Samajwadi from La Mateniers College lucknow on Star T.V. few days back.I think the audience were far smarter than the leaders out of which the ? Singh Samajwadi was the most inarticulate ,Though the BJP guy was most fluent articulate he was bigot like his party ,The congress ..Tiwari was too slik to be trusted

All in all India in my opinion has a signifuicant number of people who UNDERSTAND ,the dynamics of manipulation both by right wing fanatcs like bjp but also dalit caste passion playing by yadav etc. as in Bihar.

So what is the constituency of ppl. who dont believe in schism,its the professional ,who run the country hospitals ,institutions & dont delve in party politics directly .

Ansaari--217

I wish you brilliant success in your upcoming exams.

As you can see that after thinking hard I did ``err`` on the right side ;). (trying to be funny here).

I checked your poem again(about people & poetry). That also has a similar refrain.Please develop it.It`ll turn out real good, because of the intensity you feel about the subject. I fact, one day it might be born & surprise you. That is how it works, isn`t so ?

About the profoundness of simplicity;have you watched the movie, ``Being There`` ?

Re: Romair

``...Its a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. Take the feudals or the Generals...``

Would it be fair to suggest that a continuation of British rule and greater self-rule under their watchful eyes would have been a better alternative?

BTW, here is a good summary of the history of the Iranian revolution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1814000/1814141.stm

Romair 222

The choice has in essence been already made - barring the election of radical Liberals (leftists) in the US or Europe - it is the policy of the West to encourage a hybrid state to evolve in third world countries. And the primary reason most populations of the third world will have to accept this, is the failure of their politicians to agree to the rules of the game. Business and the armed forces (more and more the armed forces are becoming agents of the middle class, of the scientification of society) will no longer tolerate the politicians patronage state.

As Indian interlocutors keep telling us about their inability to comprehend our obession with ``corruption`` - afterall corruption exist in India as well, they remind us, but the armed forces do not sieze control of the state - On the other hand the politicians do not engage in corruption that makes $$ billionaires of them either, the Indians need to be reminded - the Indians need to be made aware as to who are the people who hold the majority of the domestic public debt in Pakistan? Does one imagine they do not want an explanation of they will be repaid? or are we to believe they will not resort to coersion if they sense betrayal?

How does one explain to the ordinary Pakistani, how is it that the figures (poverty) you quoted apply in Pakistan, whereas elsewhere the exact opposite was true - how does one explain the state of affairs where young doctors write on Chowk to explain why they are choosing to leave.

Explain to the ordinary pakistani that Singapore has a GDP greater than Pakistan`s - how does that make any sense? Does the ordinary Pakistani eat unearned bread? Does he or she desire less in life for their children?.

To illustrate my point about hybrids, Mr. Tony Blair has been visiting west African nations - his message to the militaries in these countries has been that we (the West) will support you in your effort to maintain stability in your countries. In the US, the call for ``Democracy`` in Pakistani is notable, primarily by its` silence.

On a slightly different note, I invite your attention to the Jan. issue of ``Defense Journal`` and the interviews with Mr. Musharraf. It seems clear that the establishment means to deal harsly with any politicians unwilling to play by the rules. While the Pirs and Gujratis battle it out, Ms. Bhutto/Mrs. Zardari and her alliance with the religious parties will come to naught. the establishment wants a Majlis that can legislate the social and economic restructuring agenda it has directed. While ordinaces are sufficing for now, the more dramatic changes require constitutional and parliamentary remedy - and these they will have.

Prem 215

I only feel sorrow to questions such as you posed - even Atlas will recognize Sissyphus in your question.

It is a mistake to lump peoples and ideologies that may seem similar, together. Hinduism is not a universal religion - it is for the most part confined to India, whereas the Abrahamic religions are truly universal in both their message and distribution. yet Hinduism and Islam are ideal tests for one another.

Hindus should be defended by other Hindus and non-Hindus, if they suffer persecution. And Muslims will be.

It is with pain and confusion, that I see the endless unease you express, to see Muslims and Hindus as different ideas, different ways of looking at or organizing life - Why?

As you live and work in the States, most people you run across are neither Hindus nor Muslims, do you feel a similar need to convert them into a single or one?

Hindus, and any Hindu that denys this, is a liar, as they grow more conscious of their histories feel an injury done to them by Muslims - Muslims also claim an injury done to them by Hindus, but also I think the Muslim case is a more complicated, multifacteted case (nameless and cutandpaste). Please do not give yourself injury, time has to take its course and animating personal consciousness, is a difficult humility teaching course.

I am sure all you terrorists will enjoy this (sic! ultee aa gayee)....
It is in this weeks Time magazine. Can the Islamic scholars please explain...In the war against indidels .....is this what Mal-e-ganimat is ? explanations with verses and stuff only need be submitted

Monday, Feb. 18, 2002
Widow Shah Jan sits in an icy room with mud walls in a snowfield on the edge of Kabul. She wipes her tears with the edge of her grimy sweater as she recalls the day in August 1999 when the Taliban set fire to her home in the vineyards of the Shomali Plain and kidnapped her best friend, Nafiza. ``The Taliban burst in with their guns and torches,`` says Shah Jan. ``None of us even had time to put on our veils.``

With the women stripped of their burkas, it was a simple task for the Taliban invaders to cull the young beauties. Nafiza was one of them. Green-eyed, with raven-black hair that grazed her waist, Nafiza had rushed to help Shah Jan get her three kids out of the burning house. A Taliban fighter spotted the woman with the emerald eyes. She was his prize. With the butt of his AK-47 rifle, he slammed Nafiza into the dust and dragged her, crying and pleading, to the highway. There, Arabs and Pakistanis of al-Qaeda joined the Taliban to sort out the young women from the other villagers. One girl preferred suicide to slavery; she threw herself down a well. Nafiza and women from surrounding villages, numbering in the hundreds, were herded into trucks and buses. They were never seen again.


Only now, two months after the Taliban`s fall, are the dirtiest secrets of their persecution of Afghan women coming to light. The Taliban often argued that the brutal restrictions they placed on women were actually a way of revering and protecting the opposite sex. The behavior of the Taliban during the six years they expanded their rule in Afghanistan made a mockery of that claim. The United Nations and relief agencies picked up warning signals of these abuses from women refugees fleeing the conquering Taliban. Now it is clear from the testimony of witnesses and officials of the new government that the ruling clerics systematically abducted women from the Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other ethnic minorities they defeated. Stolen women were a reward for victorious battle. And in the cities of Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad and Khost, women victims tell of being forced to wed Taliban soldiers and Pakistani and Arab fighters of Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaeda network, who later abandoned them. These marriages were tantamount to legalized rape. ``They sold these girls,`` says Ahmad Jan, the Kabul police chief. ``The girls were dishonored and then discarded.``

In the mud-fortress villages above the Shomali vineyards, more than 600 women vanished in the 1999 Taliban offensive. Yet these abductions are considered such a great dishonor that the victims` families almost never mention them. Says Qadria Yasdon Parast, leader of Freedom Messengers, a Kabul women`s rights group: ``If you ask about the missing, they`ll say, `Our daughter`s dead,` or that she`s off married in Pakistan.`` Many of the women probably did end up in Pakistan--but were sold to brothels or kept as virtual slaves inside homes, say officials from relief agencies. None have come back. Even if they could escape, these women would probably calculate that their families would no longer welcome them.

The trail of the missing Shomali women leads to Jalalabad, not far from the Pakistan border. There, according to eyewitnesses, the women were penned up inside Sar Shahi camp in the desert. The more desirable among them were selected and taken away. Some were trucked to Peshawar with the apparent complicity of Pakistani border guards. Others were taken to Khost, where bin Laden had several training camps. The al-Qaeda Arabs had a hard time finding voluntary brides among the Afghan women, but they did have money. One Arab in Khost spent $10,000 on a teenage Afghan beauty, says Ahmad Jan, but abandoned her a week later, when the U.S. air strikes began.

Orders to abduct women came from the Taliban leaders, say the Kabul police, but not all commanders obeyed. In the Shomali Plain, Taliban commander Nuruludah says, he saw women being forced onto trucks by Pakistani members of al-Qaeda, so he gathered 10 men, ambushed the trucks and released the women. In Jalalabad too, a few local Taliban eventually stormed the camp and freed the women who remained there. These were the heroic exceptions. For others, apparently, the profound degradation of women seemed perfectly tolerable.

Stuka #212: ``My question is (and no I don`t have an answer) that if the Army keeps taking power, then how are other institutions ever going to emerge?``

You have hit the Catch-22 of Pakistan`s politics, i.e. for strong political institutions to emerge, the Army has to stay out of politics. However, whenever the Army is out of politics, politics is dominated by the feudals. The feudals themselves ensure that no strong political institutions are allowed to emerge. This can be seen from the fact that PML and PPP (the two dominant parties in Pakistan) never hold internal elections, and rarely if ever, hold local bodies elections. NS and BB are the lifetime presidents of these parties. They approved a Constitutional amendment, under which, anyone who votes against their leader in the NA, can lose his/her seat.

Its a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. Take the feudals or the Generals.

That is why people actually celebrate every coup. And then hate the General who carried out the coup, when he doesn`t leave. And more importantly, the opposition parties actually call for a coup, when they are out of power.

The essence of democracy is that election after election will eventually get rid of bad rulers. This is based on the premise that people have the option to vote freely, and that there are fair elections. However 2/3rd of Pakistan is led by feudals. And in their lands, the people do not have the option to vote freely. They have to vote for the plantation owner, lest they lose their livelihood. That is why despite living in pathetic conditions, the peasants keep electing the same feudals again and again. The only areas where elections have led to some filtering are the cities. But urbanites only elect around 35% of the politicians. And even those 35% of the seats and votes are divided amongst many different parties, including feudal parties (MQM, PPP, PML, ANP, Tehrik Isaaf, Jamaat Islami etc.)

This is a vicious circle, and will not be broken until the backs of the feudals are broken. Once that happens, democracy will emerge automatically. However, the feudals will themselves never break their own backs. They will obviously never pass laws that will limit their own power.

Unfortunately, none of Pakistan`s military leaders solved Pakistan`s political problems. Had they done so, the Martial Laws would have been worth it. Ayub Khan led an industrial revolution in Pakistan, taking it from being a backwards country in South Asia, to the wealthiest in South Asia. Apart from that the military dictators did more harm than good. In essence, it was the worst of both worlds. There was no politics, and there was no reform. If a country is going to be destroyed politically, it might as well be done by elected feudal dictators than by unelected military dictators.

The 90s could have been a turning point. Pakistan had more elections in the 90s than 95% of the world. Yet each election led to an even more corrupt govt. The corruption of the 90s was unprecendented even for a corrupt society like Pakistan`s. Through a lot of hard work and good luck, Pakistan despite all its other problems, in 1990 was at its lowest level of poverty in its history at 18% (Shahid Javed Burki, Dawn). By the last days of NS around 2000, it was at its historically highest level of poverty of 40%, and getting poorer. Imagine where it would have been had BB and NS continued on. Since their parties had dominated the previous elections, due to the feudal nature of Pakistani politics, they would have dominated all future elections also.

So perhaps the solution is that an honest, enlightened and patriotic and dictatorially powerful feudal comes into power and takes out his own powerbase, i.e. introduces land reforms, and restructures Pakistani politics, handing the power over to non-feudals. Fat chance of this happening (Bhuttos are the most sophisticated versions of feudals available, and look what they have done). The second solution is for one party to dominate all urban centers of Pakistan, and take on the feudals. This will not happen since the urban vote is divided amongst too many different partes, two of whom (PPP and PML) are feudal. NS is after all an urbanite, but his powerbase is completely feudal.

The final solution is that a General comes into power and does the above. So far that hasn`t happened. The second generation of Generals has actually joined the feudal parties (Gohar Ayub and Ejaz-ul-Haq). Musharraf is the first one who is trying to do so (and hopefully his son will remain in Boston). Pakistan`s whole social, beaurecratic, political, religious, and military structure is being overhauled. More importantly, Musharraf will set an unheard of precedence of leaving the powerful position of CMLA volutarily in October. Hopefully, all of this will happen successfully, in which case this maybe the first Martial Law which was actually worth it.

In regard to Shahbaz Sharif, he was quite efficient. However, he was part and parcel and part owner of Ittefaq Industries, which is considered by many to be the most corrupt business house in Pakistan. His companies were massive tax evaders. Corrupt efficient people should also be prosecuted, alongwith with corrupt inefficient people.

Check out the following site. It is quite funny and has an MQM bias against Ittefaq house (the Sharif`s family business). But it makes interesting reading:

http://www.karachipage.com/nawazsharif/nawaz.html

``Nawaz and Shahbaz pay no tax

ISLAMABAD: The billionaire club of the Pakistani politicians, including the deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif, does not pay any tax.

Despite having declared assets of Rs 676.8 million of the Sharif family, both the brothers filed a zero income tax and deficit wealth tax returns, last year. This very fact motivated donors to force the authorities to publish tax records of all the parliamentarians and senior bureaucrats, which is due now shortly.....

According to the tax statements of June 30, 1998, total income tax paid by the 11-member Sharif family was just Rs 0.25 million. The family also paid Rs 0.55 million as wealth tax and 0.13 million as agriculture tax raising the total tax payment of the family to Rs 0.94 million. This amount is just a peanut, keeping in view their business empire that actually runs into many billions.

The tax statements declared majority of the industrial concerns in losses and the income tax was computed largely on the salary paid to the directors of the group or on the dividend paid by Chaudhry Sugar Mills. The total income tax, wealth tax and agriculture tax paid by the family, with a gross worth of Rs 676.8 million, was just Rs 0.94 million or a little above 0.1 per cent of the total declared asset value of the family.

The 11-member family includes Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mrs Shamim Akhtar, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif, Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs Nusrat Shahbaz, Hamza Shahbaz, Mian Abbas Sharif and Mrs Sabiha Abbas. Majority of the assets were in the name of elders, minors and wives of the Sharifs.`` (Jang-Group Oct-17 1999)

All 11 (except Hamza, I believe) are sitting comfortably in Saudi Arabia. Good riddance!!!!!

Re: Had Jinnah lived longer

Ali1, Syed Ahmed and Romair: Sorry for not being able to respond earlier. I hope the topic is still worth discussing. Based on the amount of information Syed Ahmed presented, he wins the argument because of his insightful post and everybody else who based their assumptions on Jinnah’s secular mind is also right. Nonetheless, we are still extrapolating his past in predicting future because of its high degree of probability. Predicting what would have been the case on non-linear basis can not be said with higher degree of confidence. It also opens the door to wild guessing. Was I wild guessing when I said that he would have use Islam to win election?

First of all it must be agreed upon that he would have opted for election rather than hanging on to the results of 1946 elections. Secondly, it is even more important the way he would have introduced Islam into politics - if he did - as I suggested. Before getting into discussing the very smart mind of Jinnah and the possible innovative ways, he could have introduced Islam (as Ali1 quoted from his speeches) into politics without diluting his secular credentials, let me respond to couple of possibilities, Syed Ahmed presented. The suggestion of him being assassinated could not be said with any reasonable degree of certainty. It comes under wild guessing arena because it defies the logic of extrapolation with respect to time as well as contrary to any discussion on the topic, “Had Jinnah lived longer”. Secondly, about him being sidelined would have only been possible through Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy. No other leader was capable and popular enough to challenge him. The parochial issues in Punjab (only 25 percent of then Pakistan) were in the hand of inept leadership following the death of Sardar Sikander Hayat Khan in early forties and in NWFP, the Pashtun were not in great majority as it is the case today, in comparison to Hindo speaking belt who was solidly behind Jinnah. Even the combined victories of Ghaffar Khan and old unionists in Punjab, grabbing half the seats could not have unseat Jinnah unless he lad lost in East Pakistan. Bengal and Suharwardy are the key in any discussion of Jinnah losing or being sidelined. Now back to Islam.

It is almost given for the last 20 or so years that any talk of introducing Islam means Islamization. This, Jinnah would have never done. In a 97 percent Muslim country of the third world, going against Islam wins nothing. Jinnah’s secularism in Pakistan would have been “secularism with local flavor”. Introducing Islam in politics does not mean exclusively to make and amend laws according to Sharia or Quran. Running the nation according to Quran, Sunnah and Shariah was and still is the stand of religious parties. A promise to run the country according to Islam and a promise not to make any laws that are contradictory to Islam appear to be same suggestion due to affirmation in the first case and double negative in the second; but they are quite different in practice. Pakistan can not make laws that are contradictory to Islam is the stand dost-mittar has taken, somewhere on chowk, due to the make up of Pakistan as overwhelmingly Muslim country. A promise and follow up to protect the interests of Muslims in Pakistan by Islamization of Pakistan is dumb and stupid half whereas a promise and follow up to protect the interests of Muslims of Pakistan by not making any law contradictory to the basic tenets of Islam is the smart and intelligent half of the whole. Pakistan, in essence ran according to the second half until ZAB switched to fist half by relegating non-Muslim Status to some Pakistanis, banning alcohol, horse racing and changing to Friday as official holiday. Zia followed with his Huddod, Sharia,…………..Rest is history. There is no need to ban alcohol, decide about the definition of a Muslim, Hudood or Sharia according to “no laws contradictory to Islam” because state is indifferent to such issues. A contradiction to Islam would be to allow duty-free alcohol import or give tax break to alcohol consumers. When there is no law on either side, it is not a contradiction to Islam. If there is no law about polygamy and second marriage for men is made difficult through legal maneuvering, it is not against Islam. I can go on and on to distinguish between Islamization and not making any law contradictory to Islam. One can be perfectly secular with the promise of not making any law contradictory to Islam and present it as a protection, reason and meaning of the creation of Pakistan.

Jinnah would have followed the later path in the elections and in practice. I can even image him speaking in any political rally, passionately using Islam without a word about Sharia, Islamization, Islamic banking, etc etc.

“Pakistan was created to protect the interests of the Muslims of sub-continent, presently in the geographical boundaries of Pakistan. Any law contradictory to Islam will only be enacted over my dead body. ……….”.

Why introduce Islamiat as compulsory subject in schools when not introducing is not contradictory to Islam. Were we not Muslim before Islamiat was made compulsory? What have we gained from it?

Jinnah was a practical man and wouldn’t have wasted time and money in enacting laws that make no difference than not enacting them.

This is what secularism with local flavor means. Lot more rhetoric about protecting Islam by not supporting any law, which is contradictory to the basic tenets of Islam and, in practice, lot more effort in remaining indifferent to Islamic injunctions that open the door to Islamization.