Jehad and The Curriculum
Beena Sarwar April 2, 2004
#145 Posted by ferozk on April 10, 2004 8:14:33 am
re: echoboom # 131
The book may be indeed all you claim, but it is also an interpretation of history. I noticed that it was written in 1981, when Zia-ul-Haq`s Islamization of education was at its height and there were attempts to portray everything Jinnah did as Islamic-centric. That in itself casts a pale of doubt on its veracity as a credible source of history.
The quotes you have provided to support your viewpoint only support the contention that Jinnah wanted religion to have no influence in the affairs of the state. All those quotes and analysis, which you have provided suggest that none of those ideas were followed up and Pakistan of today is a far cry from what was envisaged of it as a nation state. Pakistan is not a welfare state nor is it a Islamic democracy, but Pakistan is dangerously flirting with the idea of a theocratic state. The preamble of the 1973 consitution leaves no doubts as to which laws can exist in Pakistan or how they be created and it states clearly that sovereignity does not reside with the government, but with Allah and that is a theocratic declaration of the state`s political intentions. In theoretical terms, Pakistan has all the Islamic rights for its citizens and minorities and makes no distinctions upon them, but in practical terms the minorities of Pakistan are denied their basic constitutional rights and the issue of seperate electorates clearly proved this hypocricy between the state`s claims and its practices.
One more point. Pakistan as a nation state has to exist according to paradigms of the twenty first century and not the seventh century. Pakistan cannot regress into the historic past in order to define its future and articulate its present existence. Pakistan can look to its past to seek an answer to its present problems, but its historic experience is not in Arabia but it lies within the Indian history. The Arabs were not natives to India and they were an alien conquering army from outside of the collective Indian historic memory, which easily pre-dates the advent of Islam and its political development by thousands of years. Islam was assmiliated within the India`s social mores but it never erased or dominated the Indian social or cultural development; it fused into the Indian experience - Islam was more influenced by the Indian experience than it influened the Indian cultural development. Indians may have agreed to Muslim rule and adapted to its realities of power, but they never accepted the Muslims as a natives of India and in that sense, Muslims in India are were seen as recent immigrants who civilizational presence in India was only 1000 years old. Indian civilization is many times older than the Muslim civilization in India.
Muslims in India did not all migrate to India with the arrival of Islam in the eight century from Arabia, but were most likely converts from the low caste Hindus, who converted to Islam to escape their social caste based limitations. Pakistanis and Pakistan have a historic affinity with Indian history as their historic antecedent and they have to seek inspiration from the Indian political experience and not the Islamic Arabic political experience. Pakistan and its idea of Islam developed in relation to the role of Islam within the Indian sub-contient and its political developments and thus, it would be foolhardy to use an example of Islamic Arabia as a role model for developing Pakistan along Islamic ideals. Akbar`s tolerance of minorities was based on the Islam`s political experience in dealing with the Hindu majority and it stemmed from the political realities of ruling a pluristic empire and not due to any tolerant interpretation of Islam and its role vis-a-vis the minorities.
Consequently, Pakistan has to rationalize a political role for itself based on its own historic experience and not in seeking an imported historic role from another country, with whom it has no common identifying characteristics other sharing a religion and that too, a religion with a different interpretation of Islam. Just like an American style democracy or a British style parliamentary system, which is imposed on Pakistan will not work and so too, a religious model of goverance which is imposed on Pakistan will not work either. If Pakistan is develop into an idea of Islamic democracy and a Muslim welfare state, with equal rights and representations for the minorities, it will have to develope a political system, which is peculiar to Pakistan`s own historic experience and that, once again, lies within the Indian historic experience and not within the historic experience of Islamic Arabia.
Ciao
The book may be indeed all you claim, but it is also an interpretation of history. I noticed that it was written in 1981, when Zia-ul-Haq`s Islamization of education was at its height and there were attempts to portray everything Jinnah did as Islamic-centric. That in itself casts a pale of doubt on its veracity as a credible source of history.
The quotes you have provided to support your viewpoint only support the contention that Jinnah wanted religion to have no influence in the affairs of the state. All those quotes and analysis, which you have provided suggest that none of those ideas were followed up and Pakistan of today is a far cry from what was envisaged of it as a nation state. Pakistan is not a welfare state nor is it a Islamic democracy, but Pakistan is dangerously flirting with the idea of a theocratic state. The preamble of the 1973 consitution leaves no doubts as to which laws can exist in Pakistan or how they be created and it states clearly that sovereignity does not reside with the government, but with Allah and that is a theocratic declaration of the state`s political intentions. In theoretical terms, Pakistan has all the Islamic rights for its citizens and minorities and makes no distinctions upon them, but in practical terms the minorities of Pakistan are denied their basic constitutional rights and the issue of seperate electorates clearly proved this hypocricy between the state`s claims and its practices.
One more point. Pakistan as a nation state has to exist according to paradigms of the twenty first century and not the seventh century. Pakistan cannot regress into the historic past in order to define its future and articulate its present existence. Pakistan can look to its past to seek an answer to its present problems, but its historic experience is not in Arabia but it lies within the Indian history. The Arabs were not natives to India and they were an alien conquering army from outside of the collective Indian historic memory, which easily pre-dates the advent of Islam and its political development by thousands of years. Islam was assmiliated within the India`s social mores but it never erased or dominated the Indian social or cultural development; it fused into the Indian experience - Islam was more influenced by the Indian experience than it influened the Indian cultural development. Indians may have agreed to Muslim rule and adapted to its realities of power, but they never accepted the Muslims as a natives of India and in that sense, Muslims in India are were seen as recent immigrants who civilizational presence in India was only 1000 years old. Indian civilization is many times older than the Muslim civilization in India.
Muslims in India did not all migrate to India with the arrival of Islam in the eight century from Arabia, but were most likely converts from the low caste Hindus, who converted to Islam to escape their social caste based limitations. Pakistanis and Pakistan have a historic affinity with Indian history as their historic antecedent and they have to seek inspiration from the Indian political experience and not the Islamic Arabic political experience. Pakistan and its idea of Islam developed in relation to the role of Islam within the Indian sub-contient and its political developments and thus, it would be foolhardy to use an example of Islamic Arabia as a role model for developing Pakistan along Islamic ideals. Akbar`s tolerance of minorities was based on the Islam`s political experience in dealing with the Hindu majority and it stemmed from the political realities of ruling a pluristic empire and not due to any tolerant interpretation of Islam and its role vis-a-vis the minorities.
Consequently, Pakistan has to rationalize a political role for itself based on its own historic experience and not in seeking an imported historic role from another country, with whom it has no common identifying characteristics other sharing a religion and that too, a religion with a different interpretation of Islam. Just like an American style democracy or a British style parliamentary system, which is imposed on Pakistan will not work and so too, a religious model of goverance which is imposed on Pakistan will not work either. If Pakistan is develop into an idea of Islamic democracy and a Muslim welfare state, with equal rights and representations for the minorities, it will have to develope a political system, which is peculiar to Pakistan`s own historic experience and that, once again, lies within the Indian historic experience and not within the historic experience of Islamic Arabia.
Ciao
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#146 Posted by rsridhar on April 10, 2004 9:36:53 am
re:#136 by Mantolives
Thanks for your post. I respect your knowledge about Jinnah. It is evident that you have studied him in great detail. My knowledge, alas, is only superfluous.
I am not suggesting that Jinnah is a dictator. It is possible that Jinnah felt that Pak needed a strong person with absolute powers to guide the nation in its formative years. All i am saying is that he elected himself as the Governor General. Rajaji also became the second and the last Governor General of free India but he did not have (at least i am not aware) the powers of former Governor Generals (as bestowed upon by the GOI ACT 1935).
In doing so, i think he set a bad precedent for lesser mortals who followed him. I think he lived too short a time to foresee the problems that Pak was getting into. Today, nobody can stand up and say that Pak needs democracy because Jinnah said so. He unfortunately did not leave such a legacy.
Sridhar
Thanks for your post. I respect your knowledge about Jinnah. It is evident that you have studied him in great detail. My knowledge, alas, is only superfluous.
I am not suggesting that Jinnah is a dictator. It is possible that Jinnah felt that Pak needed a strong person with absolute powers to guide the nation in its formative years. All i am saying is that he elected himself as the Governor General. Rajaji also became the second and the last Governor General of free India but he did not have (at least i am not aware) the powers of former Governor Generals (as bestowed upon by the GOI ACT 1935).
In doing so, i think he set a bad precedent for lesser mortals who followed him. I think he lived too short a time to foresee the problems that Pak was getting into. Today, nobody can stand up and say that Pak needs democracy because Jinnah said so. He unfortunately did not leave such a legacy.
Sridhar
#147 Posted by echoboom on April 10, 2004 10:02:05 am
M/O & F/k:
b By all the standards that matter in the modern world—economic development and job creation, literacy, educational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights—what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low.
Bernard Lewis [the known racist & islam basher; just can`t help to write this to maintain his crediblity]..atlantic monthly, jan. 2000 [2 BBB--before big bang]
Bringing western technology , management skills, elevation of blue-collar class, Demeaning of ``Officer`` [elite] class be it military, civil or feudal, Discouraging alien expensive ``culture`` in a country where avaam scrape for food, Putting some shame in the minds of those dressing-up alien-like and walking amid the avaam they claim to care about, Making available SAME kind of training facilities available to EVERYONE (even if it is ENGLISH only)
[Language and script never deIslamise anyone as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, England, USA and any lingo-group would testify. In fact it enriches them, because Arabic will always be there]
The country needs to be repaired, phsically. Why don`t you guys fight to make the plumber, electrician, mechanic, and any skilled-tradesman & artisan) earn more than & live in better neighborhoods than this ``officer`` class. Until the tradesman is at par with Doctors , engineers, and this ``officer`` class, nothing would work. The country needs more trade-schools than universities. Needs more for ``workers`` than for these Brahmin-beggar class known as ``officers``..That is ALL of US who are reading & writing HERE.
We are the scum, we are the exploiters, we are the ones belonging to this plexus of the military-management-money-marriage-mullah.
[Incidentally the word mullah has no antecedent with Islam. It is NOT an arabic word. It is a Farsi/pehalvi word. It was the zardashtee mullahs who were ridiculed and THEN the term was applied to a muslim preacher (not scholar..but preacher).Just like Brahmanism and Pundit is used in english now. It is for this reason you will find mullah as a last name among parsis only..never among muslims. Annand Naarain mullah, chief justice of Indian high court, is the only ``hindu`` I am aware of who gave himself this honorific because of his highlyly scholarly farsi. Mullah Vahidi is other in Pakistan. Both great men indeed]
Do something that strikes at the heels of YOUR own feet. Anything that brings discomfort in your lifestyle. Ask you capable of earning outside a ``job``. Can you run a small business. Can you, if need be, operate a khokaa a chhabRRi? If not you will never ever be free.
Only a self-made businessman can afford to be free. It is such kind who can afford to walk, talk, and dress as THEY want and not what their employer or instituitional ``culture`` dictates.
Try to make the arguments you make here in a dhotee & bunyaan in Panjaabi to those who do not know you and discover your own IQ..if they allow you to come near them.
b By all the standards that matter in the modern world—economic development and job creation, literacy, educational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights—what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low.
Bernard Lewis [the known racist & islam basher; just can`t help to write this to maintain his crediblity]..atlantic monthly, jan. 2000 [2 BBB--before big bang]
Bringing western technology , management skills, elevation of blue-collar class, Demeaning of ``Officer`` [elite] class be it military, civil or feudal, Discouraging alien expensive ``culture`` in a country where avaam scrape for food, Putting some shame in the minds of those dressing-up alien-like and walking amid the avaam they claim to care about, Making available SAME kind of training facilities available to EVERYONE (even if it is ENGLISH only)
[Language and script never deIslamise anyone as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, England, USA and any lingo-group would testify. In fact it enriches them, because Arabic will always be there]
The country needs to be repaired, phsically. Why don`t you guys fight to make the plumber, electrician, mechanic, and any skilled-tradesman & artisan) earn more than & live in better neighborhoods than this ``officer`` class. Until the tradesman is at par with Doctors , engineers, and this ``officer`` class, nothing would work. The country needs more trade-schools than universities. Needs more for ``workers`` than for these Brahmin-beggar class known as ``officers``..That is ALL of US who are reading & writing HERE.
We are the scum, we are the exploiters, we are the ones belonging to this plexus of the military-management-money-marriage-mullah.
[Incidentally the word mullah has no antecedent with Islam. It is NOT an arabic word. It is a Farsi/pehalvi word. It was the zardashtee mullahs who were ridiculed and THEN the term was applied to a muslim preacher (not scholar..but preacher).Just like Brahmanism and Pundit is used in english now. It is for this reason you will find mullah as a last name among parsis only..never among muslims. Annand Naarain mullah, chief justice of Indian high court, is the only ``hindu`` I am aware of who gave himself this honorific because of his highlyly scholarly farsi. Mullah Vahidi is other in Pakistan. Both great men indeed]
Do something that strikes at the heels of YOUR own feet. Anything that brings discomfort in your lifestyle. Ask you capable of earning outside a ``job``. Can you run a small business. Can you, if need be, operate a khokaa a chhabRRi? If not you will never ever be free.
Only a self-made businessman can afford to be free. It is such kind who can afford to walk, talk, and dress as THEY want and not what their employer or instituitional ``culture`` dictates.
Try to make the arguments you make here in a dhotee & bunyaan in Panjaabi to those who do not know you and discover your own IQ..if they allow you to come near them.
#148 Posted by rsridhar on April 10, 2004 10:02:05 am
re: Jehadi mind
There are jehadis and there are those with jehadi minds. My bet is the latter are much more numerous than the former. The guy who wrote the following article looks like one with a jehadi mind:
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=331652
A jehadi mind speaks of indoctrination and set of values forced upon someone from chiildhood. So they hold on to these values despite evidence to the contrary.
Read the following from that article:
1. ``The machinations of Pandit Nehru, Lord Mountbatten, and the role of the latter’s wife, Edwina Mountbatten, in the one-sided Partition of India are a matter of record and do not merit repetition. Suffice to say that every effort was made to ensure that Jinnah’s Pakistan was as truncated as possible so that Nehru’s prediction that ‘it will not last six months’ would come true``
My comments:
The above para suggests that in someway Mountbattens plotted with Nehru to deprive Pak of its fair share. This is what is being taught in Pak schools and colleges and is far from the truth. The only message to Mountbatten on his assuming office in India from Whitehall was: to set the stage for India`s independence ASAP. Even he did not know what went on in Cyrille Radcliffe`s mind. You can blame the British (Radcliffe to be specific) for being unfair but you cannot blame them for being cheats. This nexus between the Mountbattens and Nehru (throwing in a romantic angle between Mrs M and Nehru) is a creation of Paki Jehadi mind.
2. ``The Khalistan movement for an independent homeland for the Sikhs existed before Partition. They too raised their demand before the British government but London was not inclined to further divide India. Thus when Punjab was partitioned, the Sikhs were forced to choose between the two countries.
It is somewhat perplexing why the Sikhs showed such hatred for the Muslims during, and in the wake of, Partition – especially, because they normally got along better with Muslims. But perhaps it was owed to the fact that while the Muslims got a country for themselves they could not. In addition, the Muslims also got a share of the province of Punjab, forcing the Sikhs to choose between the two portions and they (the Sikhs) held the Muslims responsible for the division of their land. This also led to hatred. The sentiment did not last too long, but while it did, it took its toll.``
My comments:
I am amazed that such morons even get to write an OP-Ed piece. Did Khalistan movement exist before 1947? You bet it did not. There is no evidence that Sikhs wanted a seperate homeland as they were well integrated with the hindu majority community and freely intermarried.
The author of this excremental piece is perplexed that Sikhs had so much hatred for muslims. It seems no one taught this moron sikh history. Sikhs took the brunt of attack from muslim rulers and made tremendous sacrifice to save the hindu community. The author of course would not be aware that Sikhism is an offshoot of hinduism. Such things are not taught in the ``land of the pure``.
I can go on and on but i think i made a point, which is: education in Pakistan sucks and sucks big time and it shows in highest places. It is not enough to clean up the madrassas. One needs to clean up the minds of many pseudointellectuals who write Op-Ed pieces in Paki newspapers.
Sridhar
There are jehadis and there are those with jehadi minds. My bet is the latter are much more numerous than the former. The guy who wrote the following article looks like one with a jehadi mind:
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=331652
A jehadi mind speaks of indoctrination and set of values forced upon someone from chiildhood. So they hold on to these values despite evidence to the contrary.
Read the following from that article:
1. ``The machinations of Pandit Nehru, Lord Mountbatten, and the role of the latter’s wife, Edwina Mountbatten, in the one-sided Partition of India are a matter of record and do not merit repetition. Suffice to say that every effort was made to ensure that Jinnah’s Pakistan was as truncated as possible so that Nehru’s prediction that ‘it will not last six months’ would come true``
My comments:
The above para suggests that in someway Mountbattens plotted with Nehru to deprive Pak of its fair share. This is what is being taught in Pak schools and colleges and is far from the truth. The only message to Mountbatten on his assuming office in India from Whitehall was: to set the stage for India`s independence ASAP. Even he did not know what went on in Cyrille Radcliffe`s mind. You can blame the British (Radcliffe to be specific) for being unfair but you cannot blame them for being cheats. This nexus between the Mountbattens and Nehru (throwing in a romantic angle between Mrs M and Nehru) is a creation of Paki Jehadi mind.
2. ``The Khalistan movement for an independent homeland for the Sikhs existed before Partition. They too raised their demand before the British government but London was not inclined to further divide India. Thus when Punjab was partitioned, the Sikhs were forced to choose between the two countries.
It is somewhat perplexing why the Sikhs showed such hatred for the Muslims during, and in the wake of, Partition – especially, because they normally got along better with Muslims. But perhaps it was owed to the fact that while the Muslims got a country for themselves they could not. In addition, the Muslims also got a share of the province of Punjab, forcing the Sikhs to choose between the two portions and they (the Sikhs) held the Muslims responsible for the division of their land. This also led to hatred. The sentiment did not last too long, but while it did, it took its toll.``
My comments:
I am amazed that such morons even get to write an OP-Ed piece. Did Khalistan movement exist before 1947? You bet it did not. There is no evidence that Sikhs wanted a seperate homeland as they were well integrated with the hindu majority community and freely intermarried.
The author of this excremental piece is perplexed that Sikhs had so much hatred for muslims. It seems no one taught this moron sikh history. Sikhs took the brunt of attack from muslim rulers and made tremendous sacrifice to save the hindu community. The author of course would not be aware that Sikhism is an offshoot of hinduism. Such things are not taught in the ``land of the pure``.
I can go on and on but i think i made a point, which is: education in Pakistan sucks and sucks big time and it shows in highest places. It is not enough to clean up the madrassas. One needs to clean up the minds of many pseudointellectuals who write Op-Ed pieces in Paki newspapers.
Sridhar
#149 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 12:56:36 pm
Echoboom ...
``This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not.``
So in essence you are saying that an `Islamic` state is a secular state? ... Because any thing that is not a theocracy is secular... and where law of the land will be based on a selectve interpretation of one religion it would be characterized as a theocracy...
So which one is it? Is an `Islamic` state `secular` or is it a `theocracy`?
``This version generally seeks to equate an “Islamic state” with theocracy, which it is not.``
So in essence you are saying that an `Islamic` state is a secular state? ... Because any thing that is not a theocracy is secular... and where law of the land will be based on a selectve interpretation of one religion it would be characterized as a theocracy...
So which one is it? Is an `Islamic` state `secular` or is it a `theocracy`?
#150 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 12:56:36 pm
rsidhar,
Thankyou for bringing up interesting points... I will not describe your knowledge as superfluous about anything.... You certainly have an above average knowledge of everything Pakistani, except that sometimes it is felt that you are trying to belittle us though I admit that you are amongst the most cordial people I have come across on Chowk despite my provocations.
Perhaps... but I am not sure what the legacy of a person whose entire life was spent in environs of parliament and constitutional debate can be. For the points I gave in my previous post... I believe that Jinnah left a legacy which was both constitutional and democratic. You have a point that for the father of the nation to choose the position of the Head of the state instead of the Head of Government was perhaps vesting too much authority in GG or the president... however 1) his position was constitutional and his name was nominated by the successor party i.e. Muslim League`s working commitee.. according to Suhrawardy at least Jinnah had decided to retire from Politics in 1947 and live out his days in Bombay (another reminder of how he didn`t envisage the carnage) but was convinced otherwise by Liaqat Ali Khan... Democracy can be of many forms, and in essence the Government of India Act made the Viceroy/Governor General the executive head for the obvious reasons. So thats like saying that since President of the US has more powers, the constitution of US is not democratic. 2) What powers did Jinnah use that were extraordinary or out of the scope of the Government of India act. (Please read my post 136 once again). Jinnah really didn`t exercise those `absolute powers` that you talk about. I have already pointed out why not in 136... One reference is made to the dismissal of the Khan Sahib coalition ministry in NWFP... which happened in the early days of Pakistan on the recommendation of the Governor of NWFP... it was constitutional and within the powers of the GG.
``1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair
2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA
3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state
4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah
5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935
(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. ) ``
In America Washington and Lincoln were strongmen and atleast Lincoln went much farther than Jinnah in bending the constitution of the US to invest more executive authority in the Presidential office. FDR ruled very personally and broke even the convention of two time election. He too bent the constitution to extract more executive authority. Kemal Ataturk as the founder of Turkey handpicked and dismissed the Prime Minister and even the opposition. He was actually called a dictator time and again. All of these leaders used their powers much more so than Jinnah either as founders of their nations or under exceptional circumstances such as war or the great depression ... Closer to our region... Nehru`s rule was highly personalized as well... similarly Nehru`s invasions of Kashmir, Junagadh, Hyderabad, and finally Goa are not viewed favorably... and those were international issues, eliciting world wide criticism, and atleast on the last one a sharp rebuke from President Kennedy. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty seems to have firm hold on the Congress Party and right up to the 1990s over India as well... yet one would not question their democratic credentials because hardly anyone can argue their political legitimacy. Gandhiji, though not even a member of the Congress, but as its spiritual leader handpicked and replaced Congress Presidents... by passing the Congress`s intra-party election. Nehru and Gandhi could do it because they had the confidence of the people at large... so popular leaders are never dictatorial in the sense of being unelected etc. They are the embodiment of the will of the people... and sometimes their guide as well.
-YLH
#151 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 12:56:36 pm
rsidhar,
Thankyou for bringing up interesting points... I will not describe your knowledge as superfluous about anything.... You certainly have an above average knowledge of everything Pakistani, except that sometimes it is felt that you are trying to belittle us though I admit that you are amongst the most cordial people I have come across on Chowk despite my provocations.
Perhaps... but I am not sure what the legacy of a person whose entire life was spent in environs of parliament and constitutional debate can be. For the points I gave in my previous post... I believe that Jinnah left a legacy which was both constitutional and democratic. You have a point that for the father of the nation to choose the position of the Head of the state instead of the Head of Government was perhaps vesting too much authority in GG or the president... however 1) his position was constitutional and his name was nominated by the successor party i.e. Muslim League`s working commitee.. according to Suhrawardy at least Jinnah had decided to retire from Politics in 1947 and live out his days in Bombay (another reminder of how he didn`t envisage the carnage) but was convinced otherwise by Liaqat Ali Khan... Democracy can be of many forms, and in essence the Government of India Act made the Viceroy/Governor General the executive head for the obvious reasons. So thats like saying that since President of the US has more powers, the constitution of US is not democratic. 2) What powers did Jinnah use that were extraordinary or out of the scope of the Government of India act. (Please read my post 136 once again). Jinnah really didn`t exercise those `absolute powers` that you talk about. I have already pointed out why not in 136... One reference is made to the dismissal of the Khan Sahib coalition ministry in NWFP... which happened in the early days of Pakistan on the recommendation of the Governor of NWFP... it was constitutional and within the powers of the GG.
``1) So Jinnah did not chair the cabinet meetings as claimed by Romair
2) He did not impose his constitution on the PCA
3) He did not make Pakistan a one party state
4) The ministers reported to the Prime Minister and not to Jinnah
5) None of Jinnah`s actions were in violation of Government of India Act 1935
(For reference please read B>Alan Mcgrath`s book `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` in which he rubbishes this argument. Also read Ayesha Jalal`s `The state of Martial rule` in which she hits back against this view that Jinnah`s assumption of GGship was wrong. Read K B Sayeed`s `Pakistan the formative Phase`, I also refer to `Jinnah Papers` Volume VI `Pakistan Battling against all odds` especially the letters by Mandal, Chundrigar, Rab Nishtar, Francis Mudie and others. ) ``
In America Washington and Lincoln were strongmen and atleast Lincoln went much farther than Jinnah in bending the constitution of the US to invest more executive authority in the Presidential office. FDR ruled very personally and broke even the convention of two time election. He too bent the constitution to extract more executive authority. Kemal Ataturk as the founder of Turkey handpicked and dismissed the Prime Minister and even the opposition. He was actually called a dictator time and again. All of these leaders used their powers much more so than Jinnah either as founders of their nations or under exceptional circumstances such as war or the great depression ... Closer to our region... Nehru`s rule was highly personalized as well... similarly Nehru`s invasions of Kashmir, Junagadh, Hyderabad, and finally Goa are not viewed favorably... and those were international issues, eliciting world wide criticism, and atleast on the last one a sharp rebuke from President Kennedy. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty seems to have firm hold on the Congress Party and right up to the 1990s over India as well... yet one would not question their democratic credentials because hardly anyone can argue their political legitimacy. Gandhiji, though not even a member of the Congress, but as its spiritual leader handpicked and replaced Congress Presidents... by passing the Congress`s intra-party election. Nehru and Gandhi could do it because they had the confidence of the people at large... so popular leaders are never dictatorial in the sense of being unelected etc. They are the embodiment of the will of the people... and sometimes their guide as well.
-YLH
#152 Posted by MantoLives on April 10, 2004 3:35:25 pm
http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/09/op.htm#3
What happened to Quaid`s dream?
By M.H. Askari
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s daughter, Ms Dina Wadia, on her first visit to Pakistan since her father`s death, recorded a somewhat intriguing observation in the visitors book at his mausoleum: ``This has been very sad and wonderful for me. May his dream for Pakistan come true.``
What her son, the successful Indian industrialist, Nusli Wadia, had to say made her observation sound even more poignant. He wrote in the visitors` book: ``My dream to come here has been fulfilled; I will come back to see his dream come true.``
Both used the future tense in the context of the Quaid`s dream. Their observations had a touch of scepticism, almost as if the Quaid`s dream of Pakistan had yet to materialize. Of course, both also expressed the hope that there will be a day when the Quaid`s dream would actually come true.
Could it be that like the American scholar and academician, Professor Robert Laporte, writing on the occasion of Pakistan`s 50th anniversary, they too felt that Pakistan after five decades ``is still in the making, still striving to find a stable and effective form of government``?
Most western observers are deeply impressed by India`s ancient civilization and by the mystique of the Hindu religion, but they tend to look upon Pakistan as something of an upstart state, with an identity not easy to define.
In any case, it is also only realistic to assume that an extremely short visit amid all the excitement of the resumption of cricketing ties between India and Pakistan could hardly be an occasion for a visitor to properly comprehend Pakistan`s identity and ethos.
The sad fact that Ms Dina Wadia had little personal exposure to her father`s hopes and aspirations and may not have been able to form a realistic perception of his vision can also not be altogether ruled out.
However, there is also the fact that Pakistan over the past 56 years has moved farther and farther away from the Quaid-i-Azam`s dreams. With the feudals dominating the affairs of Pakistan and an elite class arrogating to itself the right to be the rulers, what Mr Jinnah said at the Delhi session of the All-India Muslim League in April 1943 seems to have been forgotten, even though this contained one of his earliest enunciations of the raison d`etre of Pakistan.
The Quaid in his presidential address had said: ``Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious that it is difficult to reason with them; the exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood.
They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others to fatten themselves. Do you realize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If that is the idea of Pakistan I would not have it...``
In the course of a talk to Muslim League workers in Calcutta in March 1946, he again expressed the same sentiments, and said: ``I am an old man and God has given me enough to live comfortably at this age. Why should I run about and take so much trouble... Not for the capitalists surely... In 1936 (during the Bengal famine) I saw the abject poverty of the people.... In Pakistan, we will do all in our power to see that everybody can get a decent living...``
Unfortunately, when Pakistan came into being it had no economic programme, mainly because in the years preceding it the Quaid was too busy fighting a political battle and obviously had no time to draw up a blueprint for the future economic system of Pakistan. The situation has become only progressively worse since then.
There has also been a similar apathy towards the need to provide Pakistan with a democratic system. To this day, the prerogative to rule over the destiny of the people continues to be exercised by an exclusive elite class, comprising mainly of the landlords and capitalists whom the Quaid, years before Pakistan came into existence, had totally rejected. Landlords and capitalists are well entrenched at the helm and the situation does not seem likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Even though the intelligentsia, particularly those among them who are influenced by western ideas, tend to be critical of the ``narrow religious base`` on which Pakistan was founded, there is amongst them a consensus that the Quaid himself had a broad, deeply secular, and liberal outlook.
He expected that Pakistan would not develop into a parochial, chauvinistic state. He even hoped that with the achievement of Pakistan, Muslims would cease to be Muslims and Hindus would cease to be Hindus, not in the matter of their religious faith but in their role as citizens of the same state, and that ``religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state.`` However, in Pakistan society has evolved in exactly the reverse direction.
It is not altogether improbable that even during the short time that she spent in Pakistan, Ms Dina Wadia might have noticed the conspicuous place that religion has come to occupy in the day-to-day life of the people and its dominating part in the running of the people`s life and the affairs of the state.
Mr Jinnah`s ``pluralistic view of Pakistani society`` virtually no more features in the people`s thinking. General Ziaul Haq provided a constitutional basis for this change. In the words of Professor Anita M. Weiss of the Oregon State University, ``the pluralistic perspective was definitely discarded in 1979 when President Mohammad Ziaul Haq`s administration left no question that some interpretations of Islam were to wield unprecedented influence in the state.``
Ms Dina Wadia could not but have noticed the innumerable banners and profuse wall-chalkings as evidence of this phenomenon even when she made her brief journey from the airport to the Quaid`s mausoleum and that perhaps may have prompted the thought in her mind which was expressed in her observations at the Quaid`s tomb.
She may also have noticed the media debate over the inclusion or deletion of some verses of the Holy Quran in or from school textbooks even for subjects like biology.
Tribal traditions too have been a strong influence in the conduct of the daily life of the people. For quite a large section of the people living under the tribal system, even abominable and criminal traditions such as karo kari have come to be sanctified.
The only redeeming factor is that quite a substantial section of the younger people in many parts of Pakistan is beginning to question all this. It has been pointed out that the question of declaration of one`s religious beliefs, for instance, should have nothing to do with the issuance of national identity cards.
What is extremely deplorable and totally contrary to the Quaid`s thoughts on the ethos of Pakistan are the painfully sharp ethnic and cultural differences that which one encounters almost at every step.
It has been said that ethnic crises and regional divisions have perpetually threatened the unity and security of Pakistan. The breaking away of East Pakistan in 1971 may have been an extreme phenomenon but there are deep feelings of deprivation and of being exploited in provinces such as Sindh and Balochistan.
The North-West Frontier has always had an ``uneasy relationship`` with the centre. In parts of the Frontier, Islamist parties have managed to virtually sideline the law of the land. The Baloch have fought regular wars with the security forces of the centre.
If Ms Wadia felt like a stranger in Pakistan as she found it, in contrast to what may have been her impressions of how her father visualized the state of Pakistan, her prayer that her father`s dream may ultimately come true may have been a genuine and spontaneous reaction.
What she saw, even if she did not stay here long enough to see a great deal, could not have been anything like the Muslim homeland of her father`s dreams. Even if she grew up in a broken home, she could not have been a stranger to her father`s liberal, secular, progressive and broadminded view of life and society.
#153 Posted by echoboom on April 10, 2004 5:20:41 pm
M/O:151
READ AGAIN for the nth & last time:
Islami Law or Sharia incorporates DEEN and DUNYAA, spiritual and secular. There is no need to USE labels like SECULAR [this label reflects a certain westernised mindset and gives an impression that suddenly something better is there. NOTHING better has yet been invented , and never will, for muslims and non-muslims alike! other than the SHARIA] .
Your enquiry is like that about a person who is a father but he is also someones son and someones brother etc etc..all rolled into one. Inseparable. If you keep on hankering to declare that he could be only one you have a fallacious logic. The subject is boolean not linear. It is not ``scientific`` it is ``philosophical``. Sorry to tell you but you do not have a trained mind for it.
Why do you not clean-up the neighborhood streets for a change. Work with Maulana Sattar Edhi and get your hands dirty and thus get the cobwebs of your mind cleaned. Ditto for Fk. Now THAT is something very western which the amreeka-palats disdain and sneer at when in Paki-land. That is an Islami aspect which muslims abandoned and the west adopted. We regressed because we took all that was evil from the people we conquered and were conquered by. In Pakistan`s case it is the worst aspects of Casteism and other practices AND the class-system of the Baboons ( which incidentally was/is worse than the hindu practices). This class system has resulted in the residential colonies where STATUS is advertised. Before that it was 100% mixed rich/pauper neighborhoods as the walled-city would testify.
There are already shariat courts even in non-muslim ( or ``Secular`` countries). Wherever there is more than one muslim there will be the need of a shariat court. In India it is the Muslim Personal Law within the Indian constituition ( because of numbers & historicity). It is headed by a hindu judge, which is fine because he is well conversant with the law & various fiqhhs. Even in the Hindu states under the Rajahs there was the office of Quazi ( even during years of the Baboons). Mirza Ghalib was tried by Mufti SadruuDin Azurdaa (Mufti--the one who has the right to issue fatwaas). His title was Sadrul-Sudoor, Chief Justice.
If this could not be done away with during Baboon-years what gives you the impression that some folks would be allowed the will-o-the-wisp existense now ( am muslim now/ am not now--am muslim now/am not now). The whole idea is to REGISTER and not waffle with as-It-suits-me denizenships.
READ AGAIN for the nth & last time:
Islami Law or Sharia incorporates DEEN and DUNYAA, spiritual and secular. There is no need to USE labels like SECULAR [this label reflects a certain westernised mindset and gives an impression that suddenly something better is there. NOTHING better has yet been invented , and never will, for muslims and non-muslims alike! other than the SHARIA] .
Your enquiry is like that about a person who is a father but he is also someones son and someones brother etc etc..all rolled into one. Inseparable. If you keep on hankering to declare that he could be only one you have a fallacious logic. The subject is boolean not linear. It is not ``scientific`` it is ``philosophical``. Sorry to tell you but you do not have a trained mind for it.
Why do you not clean-up the neighborhood streets for a change. Work with Maulana Sattar Edhi and get your hands dirty and thus get the cobwebs of your mind cleaned. Ditto for Fk. Now THAT is something very western which the amreeka-palats disdain and sneer at when in Paki-land. That is an Islami aspect which muslims abandoned and the west adopted. We regressed because we took all that was evil from the people we conquered and were conquered by. In Pakistan`s case it is the worst aspects of Casteism and other practices AND the class-system of the Baboons ( which incidentally was/is worse than the hindu practices). This class system has resulted in the residential colonies where STATUS is advertised. Before that it was 100% mixed rich/pauper neighborhoods as the walled-city would testify.
There are already shariat courts even in non-muslim ( or ``Secular`` countries). Wherever there is more than one muslim there will be the need of a shariat court. In India it is the Muslim Personal Law within the Indian constituition ( because of numbers & historicity). It is headed by a hindu judge, which is fine because he is well conversant with the law & various fiqhhs. Even in the Hindu states under the Rajahs there was the office of Quazi ( even during years of the Baboons). Mirza Ghalib was tried by Mufti SadruuDin Azurdaa (Mufti--the one who has the right to issue fatwaas). His title was Sadrul-Sudoor, Chief Justice.
If this could not be done away with during Baboon-years what gives you the impression that some folks would be allowed the will-o-the-wisp existense now ( am muslim now/ am not now--am muslim now/am not now). The whole idea is to REGISTER and not waffle with as-It-suits-me denizenships.
#154 Posted by MantoLives on April 11, 2004 6:12:33 am
So you are saying that `secular` countries have shariat courts... but that doesn`t affect their secularism ... again you`ve lost me here... are you saying an Islamic state is a theocracy or is an Islamic state secular?
#155 Posted by jay on April 11, 2004 6:12:33 am
Jinnahs dream,
It is pathetic to see the YLHs talking about jinnahs dream. It should always be limited to say that no one else shared or cared for this dream. In fact it was really a dream of jinnah which was never communicated to any one. No one is going to believe that a man who symbolised TNT and created a country in the name of islam really wanted a secular country where hindus and muslims could live together. In that case why a country for the muslims.
What YLH is trying to do is simply to push $hit uphill and the outcome is there for all to see.
It is pathetic to see the YLHs talking about jinnahs dream. It should always be limited to say that no one else shared or cared for this dream. In fact it was really a dream of jinnah which was never communicated to any one. No one is going to believe that a man who symbolised TNT and created a country in the name of islam really wanted a secular country where hindus and muslims could live together. In that case why a country for the muslims.
What YLH is trying to do is simply to push $hit uphill and the outcome is there for all to see.
#156 Posted by ferozk on April 11, 2004 7:54:27 am
re: rsridhar # 146
You have raised a key point.
Jinnah did set a bad precedent when he assumed the majority of sovereign authority if not sovereign power within his person after 1947. Pakistan`s legacy was the British parliamentary system and in such a system, the prime is the head of the government and the governor-general is the head of the state. At the time of partition, there was no politican in Pakistan who could stand up to Jinnah in terms of competence and persona need to lead Pakistan and even his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, felt politically inferior to Jinnah.
Why Jinnah assumed and gave such an over arching role to the ceremonial position of governor-general is open to speculation. One reason might be that even though Pakistan in 1947 did have a constituent assembly, it did not have any sense of political institutionalism. Therefore, Jinnah might have felt a need to arrogate more powers to the office of governor-general to create the political institutions of Pakistan along the lines of the British parliamentary tradition of politics based on constitutionalism and rule of law. Mantolives can correct me on this, since his depth of knowledge on these issues is much more detailed than mine. The Government of India Act 1935, which was being used as Pakistan`s interim constitution, did give the governor-general the right to dismiss the parliament. Jinnah might not have opted for the position of the head of the government, that is of a prime minister, because he might not have wished his policies to be held hostage to a governor-general, with whom he might have developed political difference and chose the office of the governor-general to ensure that he held the ultimate power over the evolution of Pakistan`s political infrastructure.
This is pure speculation on my behalf, based on my understanding of the early years of Pakistan`s political development and you are more than welcome to disagree with me.
The bad precedent of Jinnah lies in the fact that after his death, all those who followed him sought to incorporate all of the political power within one office and as a result of this, Pakistan`s political development has been a struggle between the offices of the president (which replaced the office of the governor-general in 1956, when Pakistan became a republic) and the prime minister to monopolize the political power in the nation.
For example, from 1947 to 1948 the office of the governor-general was supereme and from 1948 to 1958, the office of prime minister assumed more powers, but was resisted by the office of governor-general. This tussle led to the coup d` etat of 1958 and from 1958 to 1970, Pakistan existed under a presidental form of government. After the end of the military rule in 1971, from 1973 to 1977 the power lay with the prime minister and after the coup d` etat of 1977, the power shited back to the presidency. When Zia-ul-Haq died in 1988, it reverted back to the prime minister`s office from 1988 to 1999, when coup d`etat of 1999 occured. Since 1999, the political power in Pakistan lies with the presidency. In all of this, it has never been shared equally between the prime minister and the president, but has been a victim of monopolization.
Ciao
You have raised a key point.
Jinnah did set a bad precedent when he assumed the majority of sovereign authority if not sovereign power within his person after 1947. Pakistan`s legacy was the British parliamentary system and in such a system, the prime is the head of the government and the governor-general is the head of the state. At the time of partition, there was no politican in Pakistan who could stand up to Jinnah in terms of competence and persona need to lead Pakistan and even his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, felt politically inferior to Jinnah.
Why Jinnah assumed and gave such an over arching role to the ceremonial position of governor-general is open to speculation. One reason might be that even though Pakistan in 1947 did have a constituent assembly, it did not have any sense of political institutionalism. Therefore, Jinnah might have felt a need to arrogate more powers to the office of governor-general to create the political institutions of Pakistan along the lines of the British parliamentary tradition of politics based on constitutionalism and rule of law. Mantolives can correct me on this, since his depth of knowledge on these issues is much more detailed than mine. The Government of India Act 1935, which was being used as Pakistan`s interim constitution, did give the governor-general the right to dismiss the parliament. Jinnah might not have opted for the position of the head of the government, that is of a prime minister, because he might not have wished his policies to be held hostage to a governor-general, with whom he might have developed political difference and chose the office of the governor-general to ensure that he held the ultimate power over the evolution of Pakistan`s political infrastructure.
This is pure speculation on my behalf, based on my understanding of the early years of Pakistan`s political development and you are more than welcome to disagree with me.
The bad precedent of Jinnah lies in the fact that after his death, all those who followed him sought to incorporate all of the political power within one office and as a result of this, Pakistan`s political development has been a struggle between the offices of the president (which replaced the office of the governor-general in 1956, when Pakistan became a republic) and the prime minister to monopolize the political power in the nation.
For example, from 1947 to 1948 the office of the governor-general was supereme and from 1948 to 1958, the office of prime minister assumed more powers, but was resisted by the office of governor-general. This tussle led to the coup d` etat of 1958 and from 1958 to 1970, Pakistan existed under a presidental form of government. After the end of the military rule in 1971, from 1973 to 1977 the power lay with the prime minister and after the coup d` etat of 1977, the power shited back to the presidency. When Zia-ul-Haq died in 1988, it reverted back to the prime minister`s office from 1988 to 1999, when coup d`etat of 1999 occured. Since 1999, the political power in Pakistan lies with the presidency. In all of this, it has never been shared equally between the prime minister and the president, but has been a victim of monopolization.
Ciao
#157 Posted by ferozk on April 11, 2004 9:01:47 am
re: Echoboom
You have changed your tune again. Now you wish me to perform social service; and your entire post was devoted to that act as a sign of my patriotism. You keep changing your arguments. :)
Sir, you have no arguments and all the arguments, you have made ended up conterdicting your basic hypothesis, which was to prove my igorance as a western educated westernized slave of limited mental capabilities. All your name calling and personal taunts have failed to prove your points, as you kept changing your line of arguments. First you argued that Jinnah was an Islamist and when I disproved that, you chose to argue that Pakistan should adopt the political model of the historic Islam of the past. When I disproved that such an option would not be suitable for Pakistan, you are appealing to my sense of civic duty, as a penance for getting rid of, or mitigating, my westernized background.
For your information, I support many charitable organizations, but I do not wear my charity work on my sleeve as some sign of social validation and I do it not for acknowledgement, but in gratitude of what I have been blessed with and which, must be shared with others less blessed than myself. Sir, with all due respect, you have chosen to personally attack me and personalize this debate by calling me ``jahail``, but I have still replied to your posts with respect and dignity despite the provocations you have hurled at me.
However, I must tell you that you do not know me as person and such, are not capable of judging me just as I have no wish to judge you. I must simply tell you that I do not need a validation or your approval to justify my life; past, present and future and in future, you can insult me all you wish and like, but it will only prove your limitations, as a person, and not mine.
Still, I thank you for a very interesting series of interacts, which have clarified many things for me and I have learned much, for which I thank you.
Ciao
You have changed your tune again. Now you wish me to perform social service; and your entire post was devoted to that act as a sign of my patriotism. You keep changing your arguments. :)
Sir, you have no arguments and all the arguments, you have made ended up conterdicting your basic hypothesis, which was to prove my igorance as a western educated westernized slave of limited mental capabilities. All your name calling and personal taunts have failed to prove your points, as you kept changing your line of arguments. First you argued that Jinnah was an Islamist and when I disproved that, you chose to argue that Pakistan should adopt the political model of the historic Islam of the past. When I disproved that such an option would not be suitable for Pakistan, you are appealing to my sense of civic duty, as a penance for getting rid of, or mitigating, my westernized background.
For your information, I support many charitable organizations, but I do not wear my charity work on my sleeve as some sign of social validation and I do it not for acknowledgement, but in gratitude of what I have been blessed with and which, must be shared with others less blessed than myself. Sir, with all due respect, you have chosen to personally attack me and personalize this debate by calling me ``jahail``, but I have still replied to your posts with respect and dignity despite the provocations you have hurled at me.
However, I must tell you that you do not know me as person and such, are not capable of judging me just as I have no wish to judge you. I must simply tell you that I do not need a validation or your approval to justify my life; past, present and future and in future, you can insult me all you wish and like, but it will only prove your limitations, as a person, and not mine.
Still, I thank you for a very interesting series of interacts, which have clarified many things for me and I have learned much, for which I thank you.
Ciao
#158 Posted by MantoLives on April 11, 2004 9:17:23 am
Ferozk,
You are accurate in your understanding of the Government of India Act.
For the reasons I have enumerated before... Jinnah hardly used his powers that were vested in him by the constitution let alone abused it. I wish he had been dictatorial like Kemal Ataturk in imposing his will on the people... but he didn`t.
#159 Posted by MantoLives on April 11, 2004 9:17:23 am
Jay,
My dear dear friend.... I didn`t write the book Secular and Nationalist Jinnah ... an Indian did... she is a PhD... and her book was published by Jawaharlal Nehru University Press
There is no end to your ignorance. Thank God I sleep at night knowing that I am not a liar like you. That dream was communicated repeatedly throughout Jinnah`s career and especially after the creation of Pakistan... The Two Nation Theory predated Jinnah... and Jinnah is the Only politician to be called the best Ambassador of Hindu muslim unity in the entire subcontinent... only in the minds of people like you does Jinnah become the sole embodiment of the two nation theory.
Warning the Mullahs (who had been allied with the Congress previously.. irony) he thundered:
`Make No Mistake about it. Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission.`
He repeated this statement on a number of occasions.
The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed. --Jinnah to Doon Campbell 21st May 1947
Again he said:
Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan `if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?` (Quaid e Azam`s interview 25th October 1947: with Reuters` Duncan Hooper note)
On 11th August he said:
If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or 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 where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman 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 and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. 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 fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality
The question that why a country for muslims is a stupid one... and is asked by either people like you or the Islamists like echoboom... the issue of the creation of a state for a minority, whether buddhist, muslim, christian or hindu has nothing to do with the issue of the secularism. Secularism : Separation of Church and State ... is a totally different concept.
That question has been answered by many scholars on the issue, including a number of Indian authors ...
-YLH
My dear dear friend.... I didn`t write the book Secular and Nationalist Jinnah ... an Indian did... she is a PhD... and her book was published by Jawaharlal Nehru University Press
There is no end to your ignorance. Thank God I sleep at night knowing that I am not a liar like you. That dream was communicated repeatedly throughout Jinnah`s career and especially after the creation of Pakistan... The Two Nation Theory predated Jinnah... and Jinnah is the Only politician to be called the best Ambassador of Hindu muslim unity in the entire subcontinent... only in the minds of people like you does Jinnah become the sole embodiment of the two nation theory.
Warning the Mullahs (who had been allied with the Congress previously.. irony) he thundered:
`Make No Mistake about it. Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission.`
He repeated this statement on a number of occasions.
The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed. --Jinnah to Doon Campbell 21st May 1947
Again he said:
Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent Assembley, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan `if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?` (Quaid e Azam`s interview 25th October 1947: with Reuters` Duncan Hooper note)
On 11th August he said:
If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or 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 where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman 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 and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. 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 fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality
The question that why a country for muslims is a stupid one... and is asked by either people like you or the Islamists like echoboom... the issue of the creation of a state for a minority, whether buddhist, muslim, christian or hindu has nothing to do with the issue of the secularism. Secularism : Separation of Church and State ... is a totally different concept.
That question has been answered by many scholars on the issue, including a number of Indian authors ...
-YLH
#160 Posted by echoboom on April 11, 2004 2:03:20 pm
Assuming that the following is addressed to me. Reproduced for everyones convenience in its entirety:
#155 by Mantolives on April 11, 2004 6:12am PT
So you are saying that `secular` countries have shariat courts... but that doesn`t affect their secularism ... again you`ve lost me here... are you saying an Islamic state is a theocracy or is an Islamic state secular?
My Reply:
Jay has already said it impeccably, yet not so pedantically, thus:
#154 by jay on April 11, 2004 6:12am PT
What YLH is trying to do is simply to push $hit uphill and the outcome is there for all to see.
#155 by Mantolives on April 11, 2004 6:12am PT
So you are saying that `secular` countries have shariat courts... but that doesn`t affect their secularism ... again you`ve lost me here... are you saying an Islamic state is a theocracy or is an Islamic state secular?
My Reply:
Jay has already said it impeccably, yet not so pedantically, thus:
#154 by jay on April 11, 2004 6:12am PT
What YLH is trying to do is simply to push $hit uphill and the outcome is there for all to see.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: Frankly I don't understand... Living Gandhi and King
- sadna: Mantolives Your calling something a... Living Gandhi and King
- harish_hyd: #197 by majumdar But maybe... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Majumdar, There was Jamiat e... Living Gandhi and King
- jayp: Beena, This is the usual... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- masanamuthu: majumdar: My head is spinning... Living Gandhi and King
- nkg: Re: # 188 Majumder... " Why... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Sadna What kind of... Living Gandhi and King
