Perhaps no country has distanced itself from the vision of its founding fathers to the extent Pakistan has. Tributes are showered on Jinnah regularly, his birth and death anniversaries are celebrated nationally, he is held at the apex of national honour, and yet he does not matter much in Pakistan

AS for the role of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the partition of India, the historians have contested each other for long. While some refer to the primacy of the historical forces — though interpreted differently — in determining the fate of the subcontinent and attributing to Jinnah the role of a mere facilitator, the others hold himself to be the primary historical force, suggesting Pakistan to be a ‘one-man achievement’, as Leonard Mosley argued.

It would not be wrong to say that if one does not subscribe to either of the extreme positions, and avoids interpreting the role of the deep-seated socio-political factors and that of the individuals, rather mechanically, one may conveniently comprehend the correlation between the two.

The historically evolved subjective conditions do not operate above the objective impetuses, fashioned around a particular set of people. Nor do the individuals, no matter how powerful they appear, undermine or control the processes set in motion over a long period of time.

However, the role of an individual becomes over-sized at times when he is uniquely positioned to respond to events taking place at an unusually fast pace; when, in the words of Lenin, an age starts moving at the pace of an steam engine from that of a bullock-cart.

The same happened in the case of Jinnah, who, in the eventful decade before Partition, corresponded to the fast-changing situation. What further magnified Jinnah’s role was the fact that the platform of Muslim separatism which he represented had no one else to match his stature or even qualify to be his shadow. This was nicely epitomized by Beverely Nichols when he said: “If Gandhi goes, there is always Nehru, or Rajgopalachari, or Patel or a dozen others. But if Jinnah goes, who is there?”

So if the creation of Pakistan has come to be identified so closely with Jinnah, it has this background which, compared to other contemporary situations, makes it unique too. Hence, Stanley Wolpert’s oft-quoted statement: “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Jinnah did all three.”

In the context of the above, it is an intriguing paradox that Jinnah, who mattered so much in the creation of the country, has influenced so little in shaping it into what it has become today. Perhaps no country would have distanced itself from the vision of its founding fathers to the extent Pakistan has.

Jinnah certainly was not an ideologue who would have left treatises on politics or economy, but he did have views and a vision about the country he had so arduously brought into being. It was this vision that was deprived of realization after his death. Tributes are showered at him regularly, his dates of birth and death are celebrated nationally, he is held at the apex of national honour, and yet he does not matter much in Pakistan. That his ideas on politics and society could be invoked in guiding the country’s policies have seldom been considered seriously.

After fifty-six years of independence, where does the nation stand today? Without being cynical, one finds to one’s dismay that the basic notion of nationhood missing in the country. Instead of going into the background of various cleavages in Pakistani society, one may confine oneself to the more apparent and presently the more relevant political and ideological divisions, and then to see that, apprehending these, what the Founder of the Nation had propounded to be the viable course in building a modern and egalitarian nationhood.

Today, the country, which was achieved through political and constitutional means, seems to be groping once again for the means which might help civilianize its fourth military rule. For a large part of her history the country was deprived of a constitution. A consensual and workable (though not free of weaknesses) constitution could be made only after half of the country was amputated, demonstrating what an uphill task it had been for the country’s leadership to evolve a consensus.

And when the constitution was made, and at such a tragic cost, it was subjected in subsequent years to suspension or abeyance by ambitious military rulers, in cohesion with a pliable judiciary. Where would have Jinnah stood in such a scheme of things, for he was someone who had, even when he was taking on the colonial power and defying its will through his political stands, persuaded the military to abide by discipline, and not to break ranks with the government it was under oath to be loyal to.

As for the role of the military, Jinnah had the clearest of minds. Thus, while addressing Pakistan Army officers and men in Quetta on June 14, 1948, he actually read out the text of the oath which made it binding on the military men to affirm their allegiance to the constitution and the government.

He asked his audience to study the constitution and “understand its true constitutional and legal implications when you say that you will be faithful to the constitution of the Dominion”. This is what Jinnah was saying of the armed forces’ obligation to the constitution. Thirty years later, General Ziaul Haq proclaimed: “What is constitution? A document of twelve pages! I can tear it into pieces and throw it away.”

Insofar as the ideological division in the country is concerned, one can say for sure that the menace of religious extremism and intolerance pose the biggest threat to Pakistani society today. Over the years, hundreds of religious groups and militant organizations have emerged, preferring their own versions of Islam and Jihad. Unfortunately, the militants associated with these groups are less conversant with the wider teachings of Islam and are moved and motivated by the spirit to export Islam to other regions through armed means. They are all operating with the zeal to ensure the domination of Islam over the world.

However, it must also be accepted that their aspirations alone have not put them on the path they are following, but they have been pushed and pampered by external forces as well as the country’s own institutions of highest authority. The extremist groups have not only distorted the image of Islam in the world, but have also sought to divide the Pakistani society along sectarian lines because in almost all cases these groups regard their own sectarian versions as the actual Islam, and are not tolerant of other versions.

As a result of this, these groups have not only been engaged across the borders, in Afghanistan and Indian-held Kashmir, but have been operating against each other as well within the country. According to one study, in the last two decades about 2,000 people have lost their lives in internecine sectarian feuds and terrorist actions. The people attracted to these outfits are mostly youth belonging to the poor class who are attracted by the name of religion by these organizations in the background of the state’s failure in fulfilling its responsibilities to help sustain its poor. The most unfortunate aspect of the extremist religious phenomenon is that it has been cultivated under the patronage of the state’s own security apparatus.

The extremists hold a parochial worldview, making them paranoid of the ‘other’. Being incapable of challenging others through dialogue or intellectual means, they hold to guns and have gradually come to hold society at large hostage. They are least bothered about what compromises the state-formation necessitates and what constitutional values constitute a democratic society. In other words, they are unable to comprehend the nature of the modern nation-state which is a political entity operating above, but not against, divergent religio-cultural identities.

The ignorance of the extremist class about the ideas of state and nationhood runs counter to Jinnah’s way of thinking who held a clear position on how nations come into being and what tends to deconstruct them. In fact, Jinnah was the most notable of all Muslim leaders of his time who had understood well the dynamics of the relationship between democracy and nationalism.

Not only this, he had also applied this understanding, in a very creative manner, to the political conditions prevailing in India. By creatively interpreting the modern concepts of state-craft — nationalism and democracy, for instance — in the Indian context, Jinnah was able to realize that in a country where culturally defined political groups have the potential to become the majority or minority political groups rather permanently, there always is a need to upgrade the minority group or safeguard its interests so that the national fabric is not torn apart.

In India, the Muslims were likely to become a permanent minority in case representative institutions were introduced without safeguards for them. Therefore, Jinnah rose to take up their case. But in doing so he was pursuing a political, and not a religious, course. Jinnah did not approve of the use of religion for political purposes — a fact affirmed by his declining to participate in the Khilafat Movement, described by him as “a false religious frenzy”.

So, if while declining to be tempted to resort to religious emotions Jinnah led the platform of Muslim separatism, it was because using religion for political purposes is one thing while upholding or supporting the political rights of a religious group is another. Jinnah pursued the latter. He sought to resolve the communal problem in India in the Indian context, but after all his efforts were frustrated, he was left with no option, but to ask for the establishment of a separate Muslim homeland. This means that Muslim separatism was not a given or a priority thing as far as Jinnah was concerned.

After the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah was mindful that the same mistake of letting the nation divide into a majority and a minority on religious lines should not be repeated. So he sought to integrate all religious communities within the framework of one Pakistan nation.

A lot has been written about his speech of August 11, 1947, but unfortunately very few have tried to understand the underlying political philosophy in it. This speech was not conducted on the spur of the moment, nor was it merely an attempt to win over the confidence of the minorities, but, read in its totality, the speech is an excellent exposition of Jinnah’s political thought.

Therein, Jinnah laid down his proposed strategy for nation-building in the newly born country, and his manifesto in this regard. And while doing this, he first narrated what, to him, was the cause behind the partition of India which got divided since it failed to resolve the angularities of the majority and the minority community: “Indeed, if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain its freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long, long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls, in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even [if] it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time.”

After discussing the role of the angularities of the majority and the minority in India, he referred to an opposite case of the Great Britain, where the state had been successful in resolving the divide between the Roman Catholics and Protestants by bringing an end to the discrimination between them and making them equal citizens. Jinnah said: “Today you might say with justice that the Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, and equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation.”

Having described the equality of citizens as the fundamental principle and a cornerstone of nationhood, Jinnah proposed his ideal for Pakistan: “Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in the 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 an individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

These statements of Jinnah sufficiently show that he wanted to see the state in Pakistan to be neutral with respect to different religious affiliations of its citizens. This could be realized if religion was accepted as personal faith of the individual. But, unfortunately, Jinnah’s political philosophy could not be appreciated by those who came to the helm of affairs in Pakistan, with the result that the state increasingly indulged in matters which eroded its neutrality.

Almost all authoritarian and military regimes relied on religion and religious symbols for legitimizing themselves. The religious card was played by political leadership as well in an uninhibited manner. For a large part of the country’s history, separate electorates remained on the statute book. The constitution of 1973 was the first constitution which considered it important to declare Islam as the state religion. Not only this, but it also laid down that only a Muslim could become the president and the prime minister of the country.

One may find this condition to be against the concept of neutrality of the state and the idea of the equality of citizens which, quite interestingly, is also upheld in the same constitution as a fundamental right. This was also not necessary, as with its 97 per cent or more population being Muslim, there was hardly any possibility of any non-Muslim ever obtaining these offices. The worst action of the state elite and institutions was to get into the business of creating extremist religious organizations for pursuing foreign policy and the so-called national security agendas.

With religious intolerance and extremism looming large in the country, Jinnah seems to have become irrelevant today. But he is most relevant if Pakistan wishes to emerge from its present ashes of rage and hatred.

SYED HASAN ASKARI
AGE: 21
STATUS: Studying for a BBA degree

HASSAN ASKARI was candid in his comments on Jinnah. He felt no sentimental bond with the Quaid for the simple reason that text books block the way to knowing Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a human being. His deification has made it impossible for a whole lot of youngsters to even come close to wishing to be like him, he said.

“He was a fine leader and we all know that. But what do we know about him as a person? Nothing! If you question Jinnah’s political strategies for the sake of debate and discourse, there is a fine chance of you becoming an unacceptable entity. You are instantly demonized and banished as an academic.

“We are only told, and repeatedly so, that he was charismatic and people followed him like they would a messiah. Jinnah has been kept firmly under a heap of boring theory, which, frankly, guys my age are not interested in knowing. As a case of text-book study, I really can’t be interested. Jinnah happened too long ago and the people designing school curricula should come up with interesting methods of keeping our interest alive in Jinnah.

“The information that is there has been put together too monotonously to give me a rush of sentiments for him. He was a great leader, there is nobody like him, and we are making sure of that by keeping his personality sacrosanct,” concluded Askari.

 

HUSSAIN ALI SHAH
AGE: 20
STATUS: Studying for a BBA degree

HUSSAIN SHAH was busy preparing for his exams when the Magazine got in touch with him, and, as such, was in a hurry. “I would like to follow him, but it is very difficult to do that. We have put him so high above us where it is not possible to reach him. Besides, we have got the country now, and we have got independence. Personally speaking, I can’t create another country, so following Jinnah is next to impossible.

“You know, guys my age really don’t think about Jinnah. We have not been trained at school to have independent thinking, and asking question is certainly not encouraged. How can we be expected to sit down and do a doctoral degree on Jinnah?

Whatever I know of him is through what I have studied in my free time. And, yes, how could I forget the movie Jinnah? I had no knowledge of his personal life. It was only after I had watched Jinnah that I came to know of the other aspects of his life.

“He was great, there is no denying that, but I don’t want to know of him as part of my course study only. We should try to enliven his personality, not turn him into a man who was always preaching. We become too sentimental about people, turning them into icons. How can we follow icons? And why should we follow anyone? I am sure Jinnah didn’t want us to follow him like a herd of mindless souls.”

 

ABBAS ALI SHAH
AGE: 24
STATUS: Studying for an LLM degree

ABBAS SHAH wants to join politics once he is through with his studies. While he did have some opinion on Jinnah, his instant comment betrayed his intention to be a Pakistani politician, as he started off admiring Quaid’s stylish clothes and oratory skills, and his political sagacity.

“His oratory skills were incomparable and have a profound effect on me. My admiration for Jinnah does not come from what I studied at school. It comes from my own personal interest in his personality. He was one of the few people whose verbal skills matched his style of dressing. It is nice to have a politician who looks good while he talks, and can sway audience with his impeccable elocution. I wish our school had included his audio speeches in its Pakistan Studies curriculum.

“He is the one who made us realize that the Indian Muslims had a separate political identity. He put this country on the map, which became the largest Muslim state, at that time, of 60 million people. There are many people I know who say that Pakistan failed to satisfy the interests of Muslims who demanded a separate homeland. My most common defence is that it is better to contemplate in a free and independent country than to question our very existence.

“My perception of Jinnah is that of a liberal Muslim leader. There is a deliberate attempt made by some intellectuals to distort his views. But I am sure Jinnah’s Pakistan was meant to be secular, not a religiously institutionalized state run by the oligarchy,” said Abbas Shah.

 

SUMAIRA SARFRAZ
AGE: Not to be quoted
STATUS: Masters in Linguistics and Communication Skills, and associated as an Assistant Professor at a renowned Lahore-based university

SUMAIRA SARFRAZ finds Jinnah’s dynamism as his best attribute, and admires the way in which he used political rhetoric to achieve what many dismissed as something impolitic. “How many politicians are there today who use the social base of communal consciousness to get equality? All we see now is the use of sectarianism to get their respective constituencies’ mandate. Jinnah had a wider horizon, and wasn’t confined to the narrow-mindedness of identifying the Hindu-Muslim differences only. He cleverly turned them into a minority-majority issue to get us Pakistan.

“I find it irritating when some intellectuals try to impose their own interpretation of Jinnah’s political ideas on others. Whatever I have read on him makes me see him as a person who never wanted to be labelled. He got Pakistan using Islam as rhetoric, but never wanted the far right to govern the country.

“I don’t necessarily take time out to think about him. I am more interested in him as a historical figure who is constantly being weighed against Gandhi and Nehru. I have read a few books on him, and wish our schools did not try to mummify him. He was a man pursuing humanly possible objectives, and had no desire to be known as the Mahatma.” — Shehar Bano Khan