Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


Jinnah’s new Pakistan is possible

Updated Aug 14, 2013 02:03pm


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

Quaid-i-Azam addressing the Muslims of British India on the partition plan.
Quaid-i-Azam addressing the Muslims of British India on the partition plan.

The discourse on Pakistan’s political ideal has taken a new turn. Those calling for the establishment of Jinnah’s Pakistan are being challenged with a demand for creating a ‘new Pakistan.’ Essentially, this is a new form of the tussle between secular democrats and advocates of a theocratic dispensation that is as old as the state itself.

The secularists’ demand for Jinnah’s Pakistan stems from their repudiation of the state’s drift towards a religious one. They argue that the increasing role of religion in politics, law-making, judicial policies, educational curricula and discrimination against minority religious communities, and now campaigns to exterminate smaller Muslim sects, are in total violation of the Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan. According to them he wanted the state to be a democratic polity.

The main features of this state were as follows: religion was a matter of citizens’ personal belief, it had nothing to do with the business of the state; all people living within the state’s boundaries were equal members of a new nation formed on the basis of common citizenship; they were to live under a constitution framed by their own representatives (that is, a man-made code); the form of government was to be a people’s democracy; the foremost duty of the state was going to be protection of the lives and property of all citizens and promotion of their welfare; and in the area of external policy Pakistan was to abide by the principle of goodwill for all and malice towards none. The Quaid’s declaration that Pakistan would not be a theocracy was unequivocal and free from any ambiguities.

These outlines of Pakistan’s political structure and its orientation were derived in the main from Jinnah’s foundation-laying address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 when he was speaking about a state whose birth way only three days away and not in the context of his campaign for Pakistan. Other points had been taken from the Quaid’s policy speeches during the Muslim League movement, statements made on the eve of independence and his messages to international audiences afterward.

Jinnah’s successors in power paid scant attention to his political testament. The reasons could be diverse. Some of them might not have shared their leader’s ideal of a secular democracy – and this could have been one of the reasons for the attempt to suppress/censor his August 11 address. They might have considered it unsafe to stir the hornet’s nest by provoking the religious lobby. Or the factional conflicts within the ruling party that emerged while the Quaid was still alive became so intense after his death that the ideals of Pakistan were cast aside. The failure of the leadership to start building Pakistan along the lines suggested by Jinnah created’ space for the religious lobby to lay siege to the state.

This lobby was spearheaded by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, who had broken away from the pro-Congress Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and had backed the demand for Pakistan, and some prominent leaders of the Barelvi school of thought. They argued that as the demand for Pakistan was made on the basis of the religious identity of the Muslims of India – or more correctly the Muslims who were in majority in some provinces of India — Pakistan had to be an Islamic state. They also quoted in support of their demand passages from the statements of the Muslim League leaders, including the Quaid-i-Azam, to the effect that Pakistan’s polity would be Islamic in substance and character. A surprise entry into this lobby was the founder of Jamaat Islami who had paid little respect to the Islamic protestations of the League leaders and had resolutely opposed the demand for Pakistan on the ground that it could not be an Islamic state.

The ruling elite chose to yield to the challengers without a fight and came out with the Objectives Resolution as a bulwark to protect their power base that had become vulnerable for lack of democratic sanction. The resolution made the religious lobby stronger and the colonial-model state weaker by a wider margin. The signal of the state’s surrender to the advocates of theocracy led to the emergence of modern looking middle class theorists who helped the religious lobby by digging up passages from Jinnah’s speeches in which he had referred to an Islamic polity as the ideal of Pakistan, or democracy’s being present in the blood of Muslims. They claimed that Jinnah had made these statements both before and after independence and that his August 11 address had been superseded by his speeches at a Karachi reception and his talk before a lawyers gathering. One of these middle class scholars of history went so far trying to prove that Jinnah’s August 11 speech did not represent Pakistan’s ideal as to suggest that the old and sick speaker had become senile.

All these analysts who laboured to show that Jinnah used more words in favour of an Islamic system than for a modern democracy chose to ignore two important facts. First, that the Quaid-i-Azam rejected theocracy directly and explicitly, and we do not find a similar rejection of elective democracy in any of his speeches and writings. Secondly, the Indian Muslims’ thinking during the colonial period admitted of no conflict between Islam and democracy. A common theme was that democracy was Islam’s gift to humankind. A number of Muslim political leaders of the 20th century, who were also firm believers in Islam – Abul Kalam Azad, Obaidullah Sindhi, Hasrat Mohani, Hakim Ajmal Khan et al – believed in a pluralist democracy that could only be secular. Iqbal also supported the idea of a sovereign parliament which was qualified to perform ijma, the community’s right to interpret Islamic law when Quran, Hadith and Qias were silent on a point. (Later on a strong group, including Jamal Abdul Nasir and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, argued that socialism was in accord with Islam.)

Pakistan’s rulers during the first decade of independence did not confront the theocratic challengers with the arguments ready at hand. Not only that, they hounded the secular democrats, defenders of civil liberties, trade unionists, and progressive writers/journalists as if they were a pestilence. And when they joined the military pacts designed to fight the socialist bloc they not only handed over the space for debate to conservative and half-baked clerics, they also condemned the people to social and intellectual regression. The process has not ended.

The conservative religious lobby dismissed Jinnah’s creed of democracy, secularism and equal status for members of religious minorities but they did not abandon him. A classic example is furnished by Jamaat Islami. Its leaders claimed to have been converted to the concept of Pakistan once the Objectives Resolution was adopted as, according to them, the state had become Islamic. Attempts were made to erase references against the Pakistan demand from the party’s revered texts. At one stage one of the Jamaat’s front-rank leaders claimed that his party had contributed to the formulation of the Pakistan demand. A few years ago the party tried to project Jinnah as favourably disposed towards the Muslim Brotherhood on the basis of a letter he had written to Hasan-al-Banna, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Quaid had a habit of writing a courteous response to all letters of sympathy addressed to him.

It was not until Gen. Zia’s arrival as the country’s absolute ruler that the theocratic elements decided that elimination of Jinnah and his politics for the political discourse was necessary for their capture of the state. While decisively changing the constitution in favour of a religious polity, Gen. Zia tried to promote Iqbal as the country’s father figure in place of Jinnah on the assumption that Iqbal’s efforts to promote Islamic law could be used to further his dictatorial regime’s designs to impose on the people its version of Islam. This was nothing more than crude exploitation of Iqbal’s name.

Over the past few years, the modest-looking movement for establishment of Jinnah’s Pakistan has been countered with a drive to debunk the two-nation theory and condemn Jinnah for misleading the Indian Muslims with the call for the partition of India, for being responsible for the partition bloodbaths, and for everything wrong that has happened to the people of Pakistan.

A typical example of Jinnah-bashing is a book written and published by a Lahore lawyer who condemns Jinnah and Agha Khan as ‘Rafzi’ (pejorative term for Shias) agents of British imperialism, and holds Jinnah responsible not only for the killing of Muslim men and rape of women in 1947 but also for establishing a state that can end neither energy shortage or the curse of unemployment. Jinnah’s worst crime in the eyes of the author is that he handed over India to the Hindus and thus deprived the Pakistani Muslims’ of their right and the possibility to convert India’s entire Hindu population to Islam. He even suggests that had Pakistan not been created the Muslims might have already become a majority community in the subcontinent.

One would not have taken notice of this compound of megalomania and infantile disorder but for the fact that the book has obviously found readers – its sixth edition is on sale now – and that it fits in with the scheme of militant organisations, foreign–controlled as well as indigenous ones. It is possible that the militant organisations that are out to convert the Pakistani Muslims to their versions of extremist faith consider Jinnah’s ideal of Pakistan an obstacle to their jihadist ambitions.

Now, there is nothing new about discovering flaws in the two-nation theory or in Jinnah’s leadership or exposing the Muslim League’s or Pakistani rulers’ lack of political capital. The British role in pampering the Muslim League as a counterweight to the Congress Party has been examined by quite a few critics. There are people who maintain that partition did not solve the problems that had been created by the various communities’ collective memory of their history and communalisation of politics. A section of secular democrats maintains that there are many matters on which blind imitation of Jinnah’s actions will amount to living in a past that may not be relevant any longer.

If a reassessment of Jinnah’s place in history were based on fact and reason and the objective was a sincere effort to enable the people of Pakistan to resolve their present crises and plan for a better future, one would have welcomed this trend as a proof of the people’s growing maturity, of their capacity to deal with grave matters without concession to emotions. Much of the criticism does not qualify for this distinction. This is not to suggest that Jinnah could never be wrong. But his actions should be judged in the context of his times. The Indians accuse Gandhi and Nehru of serious blunders. That has not stopped them from looking forward. The issue before the people is how to meet the challenge of the present. Many nations were born in worse circumstances than Pakistan and have stood the trial of times.

The position now is that there is considerable agreement on building a new Pakistan. The point of contention is that the professional clerics, especially the ‘born yesterday’ ‘jihadists, wish to exclude Jinnah’s ideals and principles from the polity, that is, they reject the man-made constitution in preference for Sharia, which is also man-made, they reject parliament’s right to make laws, they deny the principle of federation, they oppose women’s rights and condemn non-Muslim Pakistanis to a second class status. Their objective in assailing Jinnah is to turn Pakistan into a medieval state where reason must give way to bigotry.

Those who wish to save or reconstruct Jinnah’s Pakistan will do well to avoid following the Quaid’s actions that were determined by time and circumstance. Pakistan has already moved beyond Jinnah’s concept in certain areas – today’s federation is vastly different from what it was in the Quaid’s life, the Prime Minister is no longer subject to the President’s whim, and the planning of external relations is not as simple as in 1948. Since, in order to progress Pakistan must continue to be defined by a firm commitment to constitutionalism and the model of a welfare state, sovereignty of the people, and equal rights for women and members of minority communities it is necessary to retain Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan, subject, of course, to changes in details demanded by contemporary realities. That would be Jinnah’s New Pakistan. However all those interested in building this Pakistan must realise that they will not be successful without going beyond the August 11 speech and that state-building cannot be done by think tanks alone. The answer lies in promoting democratic politics through dynamic political parties.

The writer is former editor of Pakistan Times and senior political analyst

Comments (53) Closed

ahmed Aug 14, 2013 02:25pm

It is very unfortunate that pakistan is hijacked by many religious mafias who try to impose their own brand of Islam.Pakistani people at large are liberal.see the results of recent election which had completely wiped the jamate islami and other islamist parties.pakistan needs to do what the bangladesh is doing i.e state cleansing.

Ravi from PUNE Aug 14, 2013 02:44pm

Jinnah Vision of making Pakistan are success?? Pakistani should think about these themselves.

Pakistan was made on the basis of Pakistani people will make more progress from their Hum-saya region.

So is it true?? if true then then Jinnah's vision was correct.

Rashid (Kerala, India) Aug 14, 2013 02:49pm

Please, please for God's sake stop saying that Pakistan was created for the "Muslims of Indian subcontinent." Pakistan is only created for those Muslims of Indian subcontinent who wanted a separate country........Not all Muslims of India were in agreement with this......So, for God sake, stop spreading this misinformation.............

ak18 Aug 14, 2013 02:50pm

"Pakistan should be based on pure foundations of social justice and Islamic.... Islamic socialism....Not other isms!" Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

persecution of religious or ethnic minorities is unislamic... an islamic state is responsible for protecting the life, wealth and welfare of all its citizens without prejudice....

Secularism has been exposed in the west many times as vehement force of anti-religious political thought... where muslims and non muslims are forced to abandon their religious practices (eg. burka ban in france... and BA stewardess sacked for wearing a crucifix) in short secularism itself has developed in to a cult like entity that must be followed without question....

Juda ho agar deen se siyasat.... to reh jaati hai changezi

Cosmic Lion Aug 14, 2013 03:12pm

Now that minority community has been decimated, Pakistan acheived what it planned during partition an Islamic country.

JinnahBeDaMan Aug 14, 2013 03:25pm

Can someone please provide the name of the book this lawyer has written?

Indian Panther Aug 14, 2013 03:49pm

No, unless they change from an Islamic country to what it was before.

Gerry D'Cunha Aug 14, 2013 03:50pm

@Rashid (Kerala, India): you are 100% correct - spreading misinformation has become a motto of this nation wheather its religion or country - here i would like to add, jamiat-e-islam used to call 'quaid-e-azam' as 'kafir-e-azam' and now they deny and boost of being a true pakistani - hypocrites

Random Aug 14, 2013 04:09pm

@Gerry D'Cunha: please provide reference for your 'kafir e azam' allegation. thank you.

Vish Aug 14, 2013 04:11pm

Seriously does it matter now what Jinnah wanted. This is not even the Pakistan that Jinnah created, so how are his desires even relevant now. The majority of Pakistanis decided to leave in 1971, including the guys who fought for Pakistan in 1971. What path present day Pakistan takes will be decided by the people of Pakistan. Rather then Jinnah, one must look towards the true creators of present day Pakistan viz. Yahya Khan & the army, Bhutto and maybe even Indira Gandhi.

khanm Aug 14, 2013 04:17pm

Fail to understand why Qaid e Azam would make Pakistan a secular state

MAMA Aug 14, 2013 04:32pm

Failed mission

n s parameswaran Aug 14, 2013 04:48pm

The old proverb "as you sow so shall you reap" fits aptly. You sowed the seeds of hatred by partitioning India on the basis of religion. Now the harvest has come and you are harvesting it. Jinnah has to roundly accept the blame - no amount of obfuscation and rationalization will change the situation. Having created a state based on religious identity you cannot then turn around and say the now that we have got it, it will be now secular etc. It does'nt work that way.

The chickens have come home to roost and you have to bear it. The tragedy is that We in India are also forced to bear the consequences.

Maverick Aug 14, 2013 04:57pm
  1. Constitutionalism, rule of law and equality of citizens irrespective of their religion and creed that Quaid advocated is not in conflict with the principles of Islam or even contemporary Islamist discourse.

  2. Jinnah was clearly against theocracy because Islam does not recognize ordained priesthood. Therefore, all Islamist thinkers including Moududi are unequivocally against theocracy ( See his book, Islami Riasat). However, rejection of theocracy is in no way endorsement of secularism. Theocracy-secularism binary is not even relevant in the context of history of Muslim civilization. It springs from the western context. Therefore, we have to be careful in application of the terms borrowed from a an entirely different historic and cultural context.

  3. Even in August 11 speech Quaid never said religion has nothing to do with the business of the state. What he said is simple: Belonging to a religion has nothing to do with the business of state. It clearly means being Muslim, Hindu or Christian has no relationship with the business of state. It does not mean Islam has no business in the affairs of state. There is a huge difference between the two. Why we fail to comprehend this clear distinction ?

Waseem Aug 14, 2013 05:10pm

@Rashid (Kerala, India): I understand and respect your sensitivity to the issue. But results of elections just before partition belie your claim.

Raj Pal Aug 14, 2013 05:49pm

There is a saying that sums up the answer to IA Rehman's article: 'you can break eggs to make an ommlette, but you can't unscramble an ommlette to make eggs'.

Seedoo Aug 14, 2013 05:52pm

@ak18: Just keep living in the world of fantasy left for you by Iqbal, the poet. The west is where everyone wants to flock. How many people in the west are vying to leave their countries and start their lives in muslim countries.

Religion is a tool for manipulation, and one sect dominating over the other. There has never been a true Islamic state. People should stop dreaming.

Javed Aug 14, 2013 06:07pm

@Rashid (Kerala, India):

Actually, to be honest, the Pakistan movement as envisioned by Allama Iqbal wanted a Seperate (albeit predominantly Muslim nation) for the peoples inhabiting the north west region of the British colony and did not include Indian muslims. To say that country was made for ''indian'' muslims is incorrect and a distortion of history. Jinnah never expected the 5-6 million indian muslim refugees to come over to Pakistan hence the reason there was no contingency plan for such a transfer.

True Indian Aug 14, 2013 06:29pm

@Rashid (Kerala, India):

Very true Rashid. I can very much honestly say Hindu and Muslims in India live safe. There are fundamental Islamists as well as Hindu right wing people here and there. It is there in every country. Even and US and UK has fundamentalist Christians. We can't help it. But I can very well say at least in India we will live safe with our Muslim brothers and also I can proudly say Muslims in India live safer than any other country (for example Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan though I can't say the same for minorities).

Let India and Pakistan look forward for Aman Ki Asha and work togerther for better future for our kids

Rajesh Aug 14, 2013 06:30pm

Jinnah's 2-nation theory resulted in the loss of life millions of people on both sides of the border though communal violence.

Agha Ata Aug 14, 2013 06:33pm

Prodigal sons' regret? Still not sure.

Rashid Sultan Aug 14, 2013 07:37pm

Any thoughts on a merger and a federal system with all Indian states? It would bring peace and direct government spending in areas essential for human development such as health care, education, open trade and improved standards all around.

Gerry D'Cunha Aug 14, 2013 08:20pm

@Random: watch ARY news channel (806) '11th hour with wasim badhami' (repeated every 15 mins) a senior journalist accused JI of using kafir-e-azam' allegation

Tariq Aug 14, 2013 08:33pm

Why O why can't the people just get on with building a "moderate humane and progressive State" now that it has come into being since 1947 and we should be thankful to all those souls that have paid the price in it's creation and it's security to date! Ones religious belief should be between him/her and their Maker and no one should have the right to impose their beliefs' on others but we should be all law abiding citizen where everyone is doing their bit in creating a civilised society.

Javed Aug 14, 2013 09:01pm

Successful leaders ensure that they have junior leaders who share the vision and can takeover in future and continue to enhance the vision. The history tells us that founders of Pakistan were not very successful in supporting the right junior leaders OR the vision itself was flawed.

junaid Aug 14, 2013 09:23pm

@Random: read " From Jinnah to Zia" by Mohammad Munir. also, the summary of Mussalman our Maujooda siyasi Kashmakash, the Process of Islamic revolution, and The Message of Jamat-e-Islami:A Contribution Towards Islamic Constitution-Making.

Khan Aug 14, 2013 09:24pm

His Pakistan is gone longtime ago. And so the predition of Abul Kalam Azad, Bacha Khan and Moududi was right. That is, he has erected a sand wall which is going to fall with in 25 years.

Ali S Aug 15, 2013 12:45am

Can we please stop wasting time trying to figure out exactly what is "Jinnah's Pakistan"? The problems of his time were very different to those today and we must address them accordingly in order to prosper - I'm sure that Jinnah would've wanted a prosperous Pakistan.

And let's face it, Jinnah himself was a shrewd and very ambitious politician - a Westernized, very wealthy upper-crust lawyer who riled up the nation's Muslims for a separate state and instated a national language that the overwhelming majority of Pakistan's population were not familiar with. Sorry for sounding rude, but I doubt Jinnah worried too much about his contribution to Pakistan apart from getting his rightful credit for the creation of a new land for Muslims.

syed Aug 15, 2013 04:47am

India was divided on two nation ideology that Hindu and Muslims are two different nations and wanted to live separately. If the religion is taken out then the very reason of Pakistan's creation is gone. In practice it does not exists any more as instead of Islam Pakistanis now are divided and align themselves on the basis of languages. The leaders and people of remaining Pakistan should be more careful to play politics in whatever is left of actual Pakistan.

K.A.Muhammad. Aug 15, 2013 05:35am

Reading Qura'an in its right perspective, I am convinced that Islam is a Religion "By the Principles, of the Principles and for the Principles". Though change is the Principle of Nature, yet the nature do not change its Principles.

Whereas, Democracy is By the People, Of the People and For the People. Thus, people with religious bent of mind do have a say in democracy or a democratic state which in ultimate analysis leads to tug of war for power.

The pertinent question that needs to be answered at this stage is "Which of the existing Twelve (12) Sects is Truly Islamic in its real sense?

Before partition of India we were just Muslims, to day we are divided in Sects, Ethnic groups and Political Parties with Pakistan Muslim League leading in Numbers.

Under such circumstances let alone think, one cannot even imagine that Jinnah's Pakistan is Possible.

Jamal Khan Aug 15, 2013 05:52am

@Ravi from PUNE: Jinah's vision was buried with him by short sighted politicians.

Agha Ata Aug 15, 2013 06:16am

These things happen once in history. where would you bring an East Pakistan to create a Jinnah's Pakistan?

BIMAL CHANDRA JHA Aug 15, 2013 06:26am

Sir, The distinguished writer deserves appreciation for critically analyzing the present day Pakistan. Time is changing fast all over the globe and I am sure no body would like to live in a medieval period even the hardcore Islamists. The basic desire of human beings is to live in peace and this is possible only when hunger is satisfied. A theocratic state can not do this. Only secular democratic forces can achieve the desired goal. Yours faithfully; BIMAL CHANDRA JHA

Insaan Aug 15, 2013 06:44am

@ak18: My dear friend while quoting Iqbal, deen deluded people like you intentionally ignore liberal and secular muslim scholars of ninteenth century " hamko maalum hai jannat ki haqikat lekin - Dil ko khush rakhne ke liye ghalib yey khaial achha hai" (Ghalib) or '.Laai hayat aae kaza le chali chaley - Apni khushi na aae na apni khushi chale" (Zok).

 Iqbal may be wrong like many others obsessed with religiosity. Have you ever introspected as to why there is too much of violence and blood bath in muslim countries where deen is predominant and rest of the world is peaceful and progressing. Look at Pakistan, look at Afghaistan, Iraq,Syria,Egypt,Lybia,Lebenon,Sudan,Ethiopia,Nigeria,Chad where muslims are killing muslims over deen and its interpretations. In contrast to this chaos due to deen, you start from your eastern neighbour India and go up  Vietnam in the east or to China and Japan in the northeast people leading peacefull lives. All countries of Europe.North and South America and non muslim Africa are too living peacefully enjoying bounties of nature.

We being part of the animal world on this earth are supposed to enjoy bounties of nature by living peacefully. All the virtues advocated by religions such as compassion, mutual help, charity, cooperation etc are genetically developed in humans for the survival of human race and non religious societies also practice these.

BRR Aug 15, 2013 07:12am

All this New Pakistan project seems dangerous - the previous version of Pakistan was scary enough. Let us not have any new versions - perhaps a humane Pakistan would be a better one than a newly fashioned Islamic socialist-some-nonsensical Pakistan. Why cannot simplicity be a virtue to be followed - just be tolerant and respectful of others. Aug 15, 2013 08:23am

Its not difficult to understand...We all must respect religious sentiments of others. An analogy...if one respects his/her mother, it should not be hurting to others. Likewise religion must be treatred. All knows that all religion goes to one ultimate goal however, the interpretations of the religion has spoiled many nations across world. Pakistan leadership sensing the prevailing environment must do on that front. For development, religion should not be a deter. I am sure with that it would be on progress path soonest. Being an Indian and most of Indians, would like Pakistan to be a stable, developing & peaceful state with no interference of religious fanatics, with no offence to any religion. Development of human index, economy, education to all particularly females, healthcare, infrastructure development, more employement opportunties to youth, ensuring law & order for common man irrespectiving of his religion, using the fabric of nature to develop newer ways for employement.... when such bigger issues are at hand...pls ask yourself does Pakistan has its respources really for some other purpose.

Ravi Ingale from University of Pune Aug 15, 2013 09:36am

One more question to all Pakistani citizens that where are the 20% Hindus in 1947 reduced to 0.24% in 2013?? if they have ans then Pakistan had really wanted to make.

Shafiq Aug 15, 2013 10:27am

@Random: Read scripts of public addresses by Maududi that he made until late 1940's. If you can come to Lahore go to Punjab Public library, they have archives of old news papers. If you try to read new publications you will see that Jamaat has altered Maududi's speech later to "mis inform"!

malik Aug 15, 2013 10:57am

I think the secular (if any) forces have already lost this battle. The right has won. Don't worry about the bloodbath. It is only to purge the country of infidels.

Tkhan Aug 15, 2013 11:58am

@Random: Short of calling Quid-e-Azam Kafir-e-Azam, here is what Maulana Maududi wrote about Mohammed Ali Jinnah.


Fundamentalist Aug 15, 2013 12:56pm

Pakistan's inception was only possible due to 2 reasons: 1) Islam 2) Fear of majority population i.e. Hindus after colonial exodus The first was the only binding force between a Bengali and Pushtun whose social, cultural, linguistic, traditional origins were at 180 degrees. Therefore if you remove 'Pakistan ka matlab kya LA ILLAHA ILLALLAH. than few would have volunteered to lay down their lives for a muslim state. Iqbal's belief in the Islamic state was absolute and he was the driving force behind Jinnah's re-entry into politics in 1930s after his initial disillusionment. The second reason was easier to comprehend because of the multiple horrific incidents that harmed muslims during 1937 reign of Congress, which ended with the Day of Deliverance on December 22, 1939.
Regarding theocratic designs on Pakistan, this is a popular fabrication but the reality is that the clergy wants to enforce those Shariah provisions which were first laid down in Objectives Resolution. Apart from that, administrative duties may be performed by the most eligible and qualified person. However, it is easier to demean Mullahs therefore we will still hear words like theocratic hijacking of state etc.

Hash Aug 15, 2013 01:01pm

A great write. Hats off! The writer has clearly stated facts. An attempt to educate the confused majority here in Pakistan so this valiant effort was a must. Indeed is sad how liberal and cohesive we wanted to be, a free-liberal-muslim state and the whole idea was hijacked and molded into people's petty interests. Such a travesty, and yet we still stand proud to be Pakistanis. The Jinnah's Pakistan that we had got, has been lost. For the only hope left is the revival of the very theory. May God Bless Pakistan

ak18 Aug 15, 2013 02:15pm

@Rashid Sultan: Yeah... That sounds great... so long as the federation is called Pakistan... I'm all for it...

Jinnah's view Aug 15, 2013 02:45pm

Jinnah's view.

Jinnah taught under Muslim rule Muslims would be happy than under Hindu rule. He doubted the Hindus protecting Muslim interests and hence created Pakistan for Muslims, but it was not practice for Indian Muslims to migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh hence they stayed back in India. Its up to the Indian Muslims to say how much happy are they in India in hindsight.

Rashid (Kerala, India) Aug 15, 2013 02:50pm


Allama Iqbal wanted a Seperate (albeit predominantly Muslim nation) for the peoples inhabiting the north west region of the British colony and did not include Indian muslims. To say that country was made for ''indian'' muslims is incorrect and a distortion of history. Jinnah never expected the 5-6 million indian muslim refugees to come over to Pakistan hence the reason there was no contingency plan for such a transfer.

Bro, could you be more specific on what contains North West Region of the British Colony,,,,,,,,,I absolutely DISAGREE with what you are saying......the history says it all..

Baber Khan Aug 15, 2013 02:56pm

@Gerry D'Cunha: It were "Ahraris", and not Jama'at-e-Islami, who declared the Qaid as "Kafir-e-Azam" because of his secular life style: "sipping rum before going to bed and enjoying bacon at breakfast...." (Ardeshir Cowasjee)

Baber Khan Aug 15, 2013 02:58pm

@Tkhan: And how true and correct he was!!!

gopal Aug 15, 2013 07:09pm

@syed: Please read CAN PAKISTAN SURVIVE? by Tariq Ali

Mullaomar Aug 15, 2013 08:22pm

Yes we should merge into India me..if we improve ourself..we can live a better life..i want to be called Indian...all hindus are our origin and brother ...

samar Aug 15, 2013 08:46pm

@Ravi Ingale from University of Pune: Any idea how many hindus migrated to india from pakistan in 1947-1948 and how many muslims migrated from india to pakistan ?

Ayesha Khan Aug 16, 2013 02:25am

We as Pakistani's are very confused, ungrateful and directionless people our thoughts and observations are politically motivated. We have forgotten the sacrifices of our forefathers, and we do not treasure the wisdom that was once passed to us by our great and true leaders. Quad-e-Azam presented Pakistan on a golden platter, therefore we do not realize its worth. We are a handicap nation who cannot speak properly without using the self created terminologies through the time. This secularism, theocracy, and God knows what else. And it is a sure indication of our perplexed intellects.

Pakistan came into existence structured on a beautiful ideology that was based on our religion. It was the need of the hour, and the Quaid struggled hard for it, but regretfully we are most ungracious that we have lost the true sense of criterion and it is so easy for anyone to turn our visions where ever they wish to. Unity, Faith, and Dicipline only remain as catchphrases.

KP Aug 16, 2013 02:36am

The whole idea of two nation theory was part of British plans to weaken the freedom struggle by divide and rule policy. The Muslim leaders saw a point in this idea (some were motivated by self interests) and carried forward with a hope to create a sacred nation where Islam would be the inspiration and binding glue. Ironically religion acted as a dividing factor when it should have been the base for uniting people. Since ages people of different faith in India were living together until partition happened. Pakistan society and intellectuals would have to be moderate and forward looking to survive and prosper.

the blue dot Aug 16, 2013 02:36pm

Insaan rightfully says that Have you ever introspected as to why there is too much of violence and blood bath in Muslim countries where deen is predominant and rest of the world is peaceful and progressing. Look at Pakistan, look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad where Muslims are killing Muslims over deen and its interpretations. In contrast to this chaos due to deen, you start from your eastern neighbour India and go up Vietnam in the east or to China and Japan in the northeast people leading peaceful lives. All countries of Europe. North and South America and non Muslim Africa are too living peacefully enjoying bounties of nature." The reason Muslims are not at peace is right from the birth of Islam Muslims have been fighting among themselves and killing each other. I wonder hoe Islam can be called a religion of peace? Ali S has rightly described Jinnah. Jinnah created Pakistan because he wanted it, not the Muslims of India. He had a lust for power and authority. His secular credentials are also doubtful otherwise he would not have created a nation on basis of theocracy. As Javed pointed out, Jinnah did not have a vision a vision to create a second line of command who can further his ideology. Please don't think of merger with India as wished by Rashid Sultan. We don't want chaos, killings and militancy. Allow us to live peacefully. Now that minority community has been decimated, Pakistan achieved what it planned during partition an Islamic country. I fully concur with the statement. NOW PAKISTAN IS A SUNNY ISLAMIC NON-SECULAR COUNTRY.