Chickens coming home to roost!

  Borrowing from Malcolm X, the above phrase seems to best capture the self inflicted misery that seems to be the lot of us Pakistani’s. Along with the pretty dire economic conditions, rampant religious intolerance is now threatening the very fabric of our society.
Our society is now harvesting the bitter fruits of espousing a wrapped ideology, teaching distorted history, implementing an unbalanced educational curriculum, supporting right wing propaganda and enforcing blatantly discriminatory laws. Add to this our attitude and policies towards the medieval practices being bandied about in the garb of a sort of a “born again Islam” in shape of Taliban, and the cup of misery really spills over.

Step by step we have unnecessarily dragged religion into legislative process, with dire consequences for our society. Starting from mixing religion with parliamentary legislation, moving on to the parliament declaring a sect non Muslim and then later on codifying laws which converted a very practical statute to one used almost exclusively as a means of vengeance!
The objectives resolution opened the door for orthodox theocracy to be impose their views on the will of the people. This was exploited to set up oversight bodies which have now become a sort of “shariah compliant” barometers, with wide ranging powers to declare any law as being against shariah. The will of the people is now, technically, subservient to that of theocracy…
Z A Bhutto, by sponsoring legislation declaring Ahmedi’s as non Muslims, involved the state in matters of purely religious nature, giving religious authorities an uncalled for role in parliamentary proceedings. And all of this while ignoring the fact that the same religious authorities would have equally happily declared most of the sects, bar their own, as non Muslims, and also conveniently ignoring the fact that several Muslim sects hold views which were considerably more controversial than the ones professed or admitted to by the Ahmedi’s. This includes , in case of a significant sect, a different Kalima, the very basis of our proclamation of faith!
But the Zia era was the one which inflicted the most damage. The hudood ordinance which unfairly targeted women, the introduction / tightening of discriminatory laws severely restricting the rights of the minorities to profess and preach their faith, and then the widening of the scope of the blasphemy laws. Initially implemented to cater to his supporters among the core religious hard liners, these laws have created untold misery and contributed significantly to the brutalization of society.
Just to give an example of the havoc created by the widening of the blasphemy laws: from the late 1920’s , when the first penal code section 295a , dealing with hurting religious sentiments of any class, was legislated to mid 1980’s , less than 10 cases were registered under this section. Then sections 295b and 295c were added under Zia. From that time to present more than 4,000 cases have been registered, a vast majority of them with clearly mala fide intentions!!!
The even more tragic, and largely untold aspect of these laws is the violence which has been perpetuated against the accused, and on the members of judiciary who have acquitted them. This has included murders, both in judicial lockups and after acquittals, of the accused, and of a judge in his chambers. Continuous harassment has forced others to go into hiding or flee the country.
The distortions to history are also fuelling misplaced zeal .. take the very case of Ghazi Ilam Din Shaheed which lead later on to the introduction of section 295a of the then Indian Penal Code, adopted as Pakistan penal code , later on ..
The facts of the case are that Rajpal, who was murdered, was the publisher of the inflammatory pamphlet , not the author. Though he was undoubtedly guilty by association, he was prosecuted by the then Punjab government but was let off after a number of trials , reluctantly as noted by the Sikh judge of the Lahore high court, as there was no relevant section to punish him, at that time. Jinnah did not represent Ilm Din at the initial trial, where a not guilty plea was entered, but only joined the defense team later, at the appeal stage to the Lahore high court. Then on the failure of the appeal case a mercy petition was filed to the King …
The defense Jinnah put up at the appeal stage was centered around questioning the reliability of the witnesses and appealing for a lenient sentence based on young age of Ilm Din – quite a different chain of events then the ones being circulated now!
Another such aspect is the veneration of historical figures who took a hard line stance about religion. While we are told about the piety of Aurangzeb, the disastrous impact of his religious policies on the well being of the future of Mughal empire is seldom mentioned. Equally tragically, Akbar’s policy of religious tolerance is almost always painted in a negative shade – the fact that this was essential in order to consolidate Mughal rule is blatantly overlooked …
The Zia years also took a very heavy toll on our official educational curriculum … our history was re written with the emphasis being on proving that the only source of culture we ever had was that of puritan Islam .. the impact of the rich intermingling with other religions and cultures was omitted … while the battles were glorified, the role of Muslim Sufi’s in propagating Islam was minimized … as was their philosophy of universal love and respect for fellow human beings …
Jinnah was converted into an individual whose zeal for implementing Islamic Shariah would have put most of our present day maulana’s to shame! Only those parts of Iqbal’s poetry were retained which had religious overtones. The ones dealing with social equality and his contempt for traditional religious thought quietly discarded. Jamat e Islami’s, and a host of other religious parties’ opposition to creation of Pakistan was not be mentioned in polite conversations. Jamiat, the student wing of Jamat, ruled educational institutions – one result being a weeding out of non conformist teachers.
An even more grim change happened in the traditional madrassah’s. A much more virulent form of violence was indoctrinated in order to train holy warriors for the Afghan war – fuelled by money pouring in from abroad young children were taught the merits of dealing in final solutions for enemies of Islam. That war being over , moderates have now become the target of a number of these zealots who see anyone questioning their version of Islam as heretics …
Mostly belonging to extreme Sunni sects, these madrassah’s have also created hatred against other Muslim sects, particularly the Shia’s. It’s no coincidence that the targeted killing of Shia’s, and anti Shia pogroms started taking place during Zia’s regime. A large number of professionals, mostly doctors, were the victims of such targeted killings. On the other hand state orchestrated religious cleansings were rampant in the northern areas.
Unfortunately, our shortsighted Afghan policy is now the single biggest cause of religious fanaticism and intolerance in our country. While rejoicing in the pains of the US in Afghanistan, again mostly self inflicted by the Yankees, we overlook the rather frightening alternative – we as a nation tend to forget events pretty quickly, and much more so when its serves the self interest of our rulers, whether in high offices or in uniforms …
We seemed to have forgotten the “enlightened” version of Islam practiced by the erstwhile Taliban. The plight of women and the treatment of minorities seems to have escaped our collective memory. The denial of women of any sort of freedom of choice and the wide spread slaughter of Shia minority, specially Hazara’s was a policy of state in the emirate , as it was deemed to be then. The cultural agenda restricted to destroying world heritage. And then there were the throat slitting, and the other examples of “quick justice” during their hold over Swat and other parts of our north western frontier!
We are already suffering the effects of the teaser campaign being run by these extremists , in shape of executions of teachers and blowing off of schools. The Pakistan army has to realize very quickly that there are no good or bad, or ours and theirs Taliban. It’s an extremist creed which is not compatible with any form of a civilized , moderate and just society. Their way of life is not ours. Being largely responsible for having created this Frankenstein, we need to figure out a solution pretty soon. The only good Taliban is the one across the Durand line …
As the assassination of Salman Taseer has shown, again, extremism has infiltrated our security forces. This is not the first case of such nature. Police personnel colluded with Riaz Basra, one of the most ruthless extremist, in his escape from custody. Somehow the mechanism to weed out such individuals will have to be implemented … and quickly. Recruiting based on merit , and assessing suitability of the candidates profile, would be the first right steps. Police need to learn from the Army here …
Our media seems to be taken over by a right wing agenda of discrediting the whole system of democratic values. Not that our present set of rulers are not providing them enough fodder for propaganda – but to hear them harkening for the golden period of the real deal, a strong, just and , unfortunately, imaginary leader! The talk shows are full of individuals sprouting forth on various uplifting incidents of our golden Islamic history. Curiously most of these events seem to have happened only upto the period of the first two rightly guided caliphs!
One of the particularly amusing, or depressing, example is the ad on Geo by our ultimate warrior compere Hamid Meer, where he is asked by a particularly agitated villager that “when I am going to be an owner of my own piece of land?” Mr. Meer responds by just standing there in silent sympathy, apparently musing over another failure of the state. The right answer, unless the guy comes up with a load of money, is never! It’s not on the agenda of any religious party , never was and never will be …
All of the above have built up to a level of dangerously high frustration among the masses. Add to that the incessant propaganda that Pakistan is a rich country being milked off by rich , and obviously very corrupt, politicians and we have a massive powder keg on our hand!
The only truth in the above statement is that our mostly rich, and mostly very corrupt politicians are making our already bankrupt country even more bankrupt!!! There is a lot of economic pain ahead, and the masses better be informed quickly of our state or “mis-state” of affairs …
We as a nation have to act quick before a chain of events is unleashed which will only lead to a failed , vicious state. The mostly liberal secular parties like PPP, ANP and MQM , have to forget the past, bury the hatchet and stand united for upholding democratic, moderate and decent values. Their failure to do so will only ensure that the right leaning parties come to power, with the resultant , even more concession to the extremist regressive agenda.
Someone also needs to stand up and remind the people about the true message of Islam and the way the Prophet (PBUH) conducted his affairs. Even when in power he gracefully dealt with all people, including those who refused to accept him as a prophet , mainly the Jews. We need to keep such examples in mind before we go on a self proclaimed mission to guard his honor, which has been guaranteed by the Almighty in the holy Quran.
And to those who are celebrating a murder, of a man, both a father and a husband, whose politics I mostly never agreed to, but who did dare do the decent thing by reaching out to a helpless woman and citizen, I can only part quote John Donne’s , “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee” ..
Looking at the events of the near past, I pray. But I also fear.
I fear that the bell has already tolled for us, for we stood silently by …

Tampering with history

By Shahid Javed Burki
ECONOMISTS have a term for what I will discuss today. They call it ‘path dependence’; how what has happened in the past can influence the present and define the future. The influence of the past can be benign, positive or negative depending on what happened in the past.
In Pakistan’s case the impact is mostly negative. The country has had a troubled history and this has had an influence on the way it has developed over the past six decades. These are difficult times and it is appropriate to weigh some of the burdens history has placed on the Pakistani people and the Pakistani state.
What we need to explore with reference to history are the several aspects of the development of Pakistan. In order to break this dependence on the past we must first do two things: list the main problems the country faces at this time and then see how they have been impacted and infected by the past.
There are half a dozen issues on which we need to reflect in a historical context in order to shape the future.
One of the more important subjects is the role of religion in politics and how its various interpretations have influenced society. We need also to examine why there is an absence of civility in public discourse and in that context why we are so unwilling to treat with compassion and understanding the minorities in our midst.
We have become progressively less tolerant towards the people we consider different from us in some respect. The shabby treatment of minorities is an amazing development in a country that was founded on the basis of protecting the rights and privileges of a community — the Muslims of British India — which was afraid it would be poorly treated at the hands of the Hindu majority. But by minorities I mean more than those that follow a different religion from the majority. I also mean those groups that speak a language or follow practices or have different ethnicity from the majority.
We should also debate the role of politics in building a durable structure of the Pakistani state. In that context what is very important is to devise ways for ensuring the accountability of elected officials who occupy positions of power. We should analyse the impact on politics, economics and society of increasing income and wealth inequalities.
As I will suggest in a later article the chain of causality that led towards the cold-blooded murder of Governor Salman Taseer includes not only a clash of two points of view concerning the role of religion. It was also abetted by a clash between two classes — the very rich and the not-so-poor.
Let me turn to the way history has been perverted to advance a certain point of view regarding the first of these many issues: the role of religion. In an earlier article titled ‘History must not lie’ published in this space on Nov 9, 2010 I suggested that Pakistan was not created to advance Islam in South Asia; it was founded to protect the economic and social rights of a distinct community that felt threatened by the transfer of political power to the majority.
But that is not what we teach our children in public schools. Some of the country’s rulers have deliberately distorted history to suit their own purposes. General Ziaul Haq did the most damage in this respect by ordering the retelling of history in the textbooks taught in public schools. The government has a monopoly over the writing and production of textbooks. There is no outside peer review of what gets written. Whatever the government of the day believes in — and whatever the establishment of the day wants the people to believe — gets written.
Zia ordered the rewriting of history to assign a greater role to religion than was justified by facts. But as is vividly portrayed in Mohammad Hanif’s The Case of Exploding Mangoes — a fascinating fictional account of the Zia years — the military leader did not confine his attention to the writing of textbooks that told a historical lie. He used the unconstrained power he wielded to affect many other changes, including replacing the wording in the insignia worn on the uniforms of army personnel. The words ‘unity, faith and discipline’ were dropped in favour of a commitment to the waging of jihad.
It was President Zia’s assumption that by adopting these measures he would be able to change the mindset of the people who served in the armed forces. Did he succeed? How much have religious beliefs permeated the military? To what extent are the personnel in uniform likely to follow their religious views in carrying out their duties? These are important questions that can only be answered by carefully surveying the opinions of those who serve in the military and associated services. But that some parts of the security establishment have been penetrated was in chilling display in the assassination of Gov Taseer.
There are many reasons why the Pakistani people were prepared to accept this retelling of history. The most obvious one is the quality of education in the public school system, in which rote learning is the basis of imparting what can only be loosely described as knowledge. This unquestioning approach to life is also the reason for the lack of tolerance in public discourse.
It is extraordinary that the assassination of a liberal politician for expressing views that caused discomfort in some quarters was applauded not only by some religious scholars. It drew support from a section of the legal community. It was the same community that had bravely fought the establishment on the question of the independence of the judiciary. It is the same community that is agitating in the courts to hold the government and its agencies accountable for the plight of ‘missing persons’.
Now some of its members have no trouble in countenancing murder to silence an influential political voice. The legal community is expected to protect citizens against the use of arbitrary means to suppress dissent. Nothing can be more arbitrary than murder. By distorting our history we have distorted our worldview.
The writer is chairman of the Lahore-based Institute of Public Policy, a former finance minister of Pakistan and former vice president of the World Bank.

Warped in time

By Saroop Ijaz “IS this Jinnah’s Pakistan?” is by far the most frequently posited question in Pakistani public discourse. The question has now reached absurd dimensions in the aftermath of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s assassination, with both sides of the ideological divide vehemently claiming Mohammad Ali Jinnah to be their own.
For a nation as deeply divided by ethnicity and sectarianism and as limited by a narrowness of perspective as Pakistan is, building unity and consensus is perhaps the most significant challenge that needs to be overcome to address our existential crisis. The standard response to major societal crisis in Pakistan has been to invoke Jinnah’s legacy, and in recent times, with the unprecedented polarisation of our society, an effort has been made to intensify his tradition. The result has been the attribution of dedication, loyalty and timeless wisdom to Jinnah, whose personality ostensibly exemplifies the challenges of creating the ideal Pakistani society.
This response of invoking him does not seem to be working any longer. Maybe it has never worked. Max Weber distinguished three types of political power: charismatic authority, traditional authority and legal or rational authority. According to him, authority is power accepted as legitimate by those subjected to it. States progress from charismatic authority to traditional authority and finally reach the state of legal authority that is a characteristic of a modern liberal democracy.
Charismatic authority grows out of personal charm, the strength of an individual personality. According to Weber, “Men do not obey [the charismatic ruler] by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him.” While Jinnah was alive he evoked this sense of belief in many. The next stage is traditional authority, where legitimacy comes from tradition or custom, and the final stage is legal authority, in which individuals or institutions exert power by virtue of the legal offices they hold. Once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is lost. Weber identified “rationally created rules” as the central feature of this form of authority. Pakistan remains at the second stage of this linear progression, with Jinnah being used liberally as an argument to end all arguments.
In the United States the predominant debate regarding constitutional interpretation has for almost a century been between originalism — discerning the original intent of the framers — versus understanding the constitution as a living and evolving document. This debate is different from ours in that it is about a document and not the personal, out-of-context opinions of an individual, albeit a great individual; it takes place within the context of legal-rational authority. Yet there are parallels.
The primary criticism of orginalism has been that at some level it is not about discerning the intent of the now-dead authors of the constitution, but instead about pretending that their beliefs coincide with one’s own and then assuming that one’s own belief about their beliefs is grounds enough for disregarding or modifying the law.
“Is this Jinnah’s Pakistan?” also resonates closely with the oft-posed Catholic question, “what would Jesus do?” In Muslim theology, too, there is often speculation about what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would have done. Yet the hypothetical question pertaining to Jinnah is distinguishable from those regarding the two prophets since we do not accord him any transcendental qualities, or at least most of us don’t. Jinnah was a phenomenal statesman and an exceptional leader. He never claimed to have all the answers to every potential problem that may plague the nation till the end of time. He was too intelligent and perceptive to either believe or make such an incongruous claim.
It reminds me of a former governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that “if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.” The narrative constructed around Jinnah has now been reduced to the Latin phrase mutato nomine et de te fabula narrator (change only the name and this story is about you).
The problem with appealing to his authority on every issue is not that it is merely redundant. It is counterproductive. Once an argument regarding the secularism or religiosity of Jinnah’s vision is made, the opposing side feels compelled to present evidence from his opinions and anecdotes and at times to fabricate evidence. Debate is stifled as the parameters of the discourse are severely constrained, often leading to ridiculous, dishonest claims.
The condemnation of Taseer’s brutal assassination and the argument against the current blasphemy laws can be made perfectly well without an appeal to Jinnah’s authority. It is disturbing when a society has to search for and appeal to precedents to condemn vicious acts of violence. The argument against the current blasphemy laws can and should be made on the grounds of constitutional and humanitarian principles. Liberals who cite isolated historical precedents often fall into the trap of playing by the rules of the narrow-minded.
To claim that something was believed by someone at some point in time and to argue as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument is textbook fundamentalism. Additionally, they do not stand a chance of winning, as their enemy is infinitely more familiar with this turf. If the fight for liberalism in Pakistan is to be successful, it has to be fought on the basis of the principles of liberalism and not as apologists. Jinnah was a great man and all of us are indebted to him. But he has done his part; let him rest in peace now.
The author is a lawyer.

August 11: Jinnah’s Vision for Pakistan

Yasser Latif Hamdani
Today being 11th August Day has a great significance in Pakistan’s history.
60 years ago, Mr. Jinnah, Pakistan’s undisputed Quaid-e-Azam, Governor General and elected President of the Constituent Assembly elaborated his vision for the future of Pakistan.
Jinnah’s vision is unambiguous.

1. The state would be completely impartial to religion of the individual.
2. The state where every citizen would be equal and there would be no distinction between citizen on the basis of faith or caste or creed.

A lot of controverey has emerged about this speech. Any student of political science would tell you that is the classic exposition of a modern secular democratic state. However, the issue of whether this constitutes a “secular” state or an “Islamic” state is besides the point. A rose by any name is after all a rose.
Here is what Mr. Jinnah said on that fateful day. It is worth reading in the full:

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of every one of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling the exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than has been done. A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgment there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record its verdict in favour of it. And what is more it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem. Any idea of a United India could never have worked and in my judgment it would have led us to terrific disaster. May be that view is correct ; may be it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. 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 every one 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 no 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, Punjabies, Shias, Sunnis and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnvas, 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 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 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 places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed-that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some State in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one 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 Catholic and Protestants do not exists ; 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.

Many have alleged that this was the only time he expressed such a vision. Unfortunately, these people are not very well versed with the life and work of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, who was after all a staunch secular Indian nationalist for most of his life and had turned to the Pakistan idea only after exhausting all the options for a United India.
Here are some of his other statements regarding what kind of Pakistan he wanted:
25th October 1947. Interview with Reuters’ Duncan Hooper note: not to be confused with his interview with Reuters’ Doon Campbell which has been quoted in detail else where.

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?’

30th October 1947. To a Mass Rally at University Stadium Lahore.

The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.

Same Day. On Radio Pakistan.

Protection of Minorities is a sacred undertaking. (On Partition Massacres) Humanity cries out loud against this shameful conduct and deeds. The civilized world is looking upon these doings and happenings with horror and the fair name of the communities concerned stands blackened. Put an end to this ruthlessly and with an Iron hand.

9th January 1948. Tour of Riot affected areas of Karachi.

Muslims! Protect your Hindu Neighbours. Cooperate with the Government and the officials in protecting your Hindu Neighbours against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and cliques. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government and not by cliques or fifth columnists or Mobs.

25th January. Address to the Karachi Bar association on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi.

I would like to tell those who are misled by propaganda that not only the Muslims but Non Muslims have nothing to fear. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world.

3rd February 1948. Address to the Parsi Community of Sindh.

I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be UNMINDFUL of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible.

21st March 1948. Mass Rally at Dacca.

Let me take this opportunity of repeating what I have already said: We shall treat the minorities in Pakistan fairly and justly. We shall maintain peace, law and order and protect and safeguard every citizen of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, creed or community.

22nd March 1948. Meeting with Hindu Legislators.

We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis.

23rd March 1948. Meeting with the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’.

We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.

13 June 1948. Speaking to Quetta Parsis.

Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan.

Jinnah’s address to the people of the US in Feb 1948.

In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.

So what did Jinnah stand for?
He stood for justice and fair play for every one regardless of religion caste or creed. Let us make a solemn promise to ourselves on this 11th August Day (or the day I like to call Jinnah’s Pakistan Day) that we shall honor this vision of Pakistan as a pluralist, inclusive and progressive democratic state.

The End of Jinnah's Pakistan

• Governor Salmaan Taseer's murder raises questions about the future of Pakistan's Western-educated elites.

   

  By SADANAND DHUME

Every time you think things can't possibly get worse in Pakistan, along comes something to prove you wrong. On Tuesday, in possibly the country's most consequential political shock since the 2007 murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Salmaan Taseer, the 65-year-old governor of Punjab province, was gunned down in an upscale Islamabad market by one of his police bodyguards. The reason: the governor's plain-spoken defense of Asia Bibi, an illiterate Christian woman sentenced to death under Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws. According to press reports, Taseer's killer pumped nine bullets into him for daring to call the blasphemy provision a "black law."

View Full Image

Getty Images

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, far right, at the 1947 partition conference.

Needless to say, Taseer was right. Pakistan's blasphemy laws belong more in a chronicle of medieval horrors than in a modern society, let alone one that receives billions of dollars in Western largesse. Since the mid-1980s, blasphemy—including criticizing the prophet Mohammed—has carried a mandatory death sentence. Amnesty International calls the laws "vaguely formulated and arbitrarily enforced" and "typically employed to harass and persecute religious minorities." Over the past quarter century, at least 30 people have been lynched by mobs after being accused of blasphemy. Many others have been forced to flee the country. Though Christians make up less than 2% of Pakistan's population, they account for about half the country's blasphemy cases.
In a larger sense, however, the significance of Taseer's murder lies in what it says about the future of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Carved out of the Muslim-majority provinces of British India in 1947, the country has long struggled to reconcile two competing visions of its reason for being. Is Pakistan, as imagined by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah—a London-trained barrister with a fondness for pork sandwiches and two-toned spats—merely a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims? Or was it created to echo the far more ambitious formulation of Abul Ala Maududi, the radical Islamist ideologue born roughly a generation after Jinnah: for the enforcement of Islamic Shariah law upon every aspect of society and the state?
Taseer broadly belonged to Jinnah's Pakistan. He was educated as a chartered accountant in England, founded a successful telecom company, and published the country's leading liberal newspaper in English. (Though, as the son of a famous Urdu poet, Taseer was perhaps more culturally authentic than his nation's founder.) By contrast, Taseer's killer, a 26-year-old named Mumtaz Qadri, symbolizes Maududi's vision. In photographs, he's bearded and moustache-less, in the manner prescribed by fundamentalist Islam. That Mr. Qadri could defy South Asia's usually rigid codes of hierarchy by murdering someone far above his station jibes with the contempt radical Islamists often feel for traditional elites. According to press reports, Mr. Qadri showed no remorse for the murder.
The murder highlights anew the way in which Pakistan's English-speaking classes resemble a small island of urbanity surrounded by a rising tide of fundamentalist zeal. They have only themselves to blame for their predicament. From independence onward, successive governments—military and civilian alike—have ridden the tiger of fundamentalism out of political expediency, misplaced piety or geopolitical ambition. A statistic from Zahid Hussain's "Frontline Pakistan" is telling: When Pakistan gained independence in 1947 it housed 137 madrassas. That number has since swelled to about 13,000, between 10% and 15% of which are linked to sectarian militancy (Sunni versus Shia) or terrorism.
For many analysts, Pakistan's slide began during the prime ministership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the debonair, Scotch-swilling feudal from Sindh first elected in 1970. Believing that he could co-opt the then small fundamentalist lobby, Bhutto banned alcohol and gambling and shuttered night clubs. He replaced the traditional Sunday holiday with Friday and declared the tiny heterodox Ahmadiyya sect to be non-Muslim. Bhutto promoted the pious and ultimately treacherous Zia ul-Haq to head the army.
After Zia seized power in a coup in 1977, the Islamization of Pakistan took off in earnest. The general set up Shariah courts, began government collection of zakat (an Islamic alms tax), denuded libraries of books deemed un-Islamic, and mandated compulsory prayer for civil servants and marks in their personnel files for piety. In the 1980s, army officers were instructed to read "The Quranic Concept of War," a book by a zealous officer, Brigadier General S.K. Malik, which argues that "terror struck in the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself." Many of these officers subsequently rotated through the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence whose links to violent fundamentalist groups fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan and India in Kashmir are widely regarded as too deep to sever entirely.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S. has worked hard to stem the rising tide of fundamentalism in Pakistan. First it backed the military strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf. When he failed to deliver, policy makers in Washington held out hope that a democratically elected government, armed with greater legitimacy, would fight a better fight. But so far—despite co-operating with stepped-up U.S. drone strikes against militants in the country's remoter reaches—the regime of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has hardly succeeded in stemming the tide of fundamentalist anger in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Perhaps Governor Taseer's murder will lead the country's squabbling politicians and scheming generals to come together in a renewed bid to save Jinnah's country from Maududi's vision. Perhaps Pakistani society will be outraged enough to act against the thousands of madrassas that poison the country daily. But if the past is any guide to the future, it may not be a good idea to hold your breath. Jinnah, it can safely be assumed, is spinning in his grave.
Mr. Dhume is a columnist for WSJ.com and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.

This is Jinnah’s Pakistan

ayesha.siddiqa@tribune.com.pk

One hopes that after January 4, the ruling elite will realise that the majority of people are not peaceful onlookers, but a mob which will happily condemn people to death without understanding their logic. Salmaan Taseer was against a law which targeted the poor and the powerless. The fact is that it was a miniscule minority which came forward to mourn his death. The support of the killer’s action, on the other hand, is widespread.
I will exclude the PPP vote-bank from the above classification due to the fact that, while they have protested the killing, it is not certain how much of this is out of conviction for what Taseer was trying to achieve — a change in the notorious blasphemy law that punishes the powerless. The law is based on a problematic system of evidence and this seems to allow a mob to punish defenseless minorities.
Interestingly, the numbers of the silent supporters of the blasphemy law far exceed the vocal minority who support change in laws that supposedly have sanction of religion. While the PML-N and PML-Q comprise a majority of those that consider man-made laws such as Hudood and blasphemy as untouchable, there are many in the PPP itself who don’t think any differently. For example, the group of pirs are silent on the issue of how the government will deal with the law.
The silence of the pirs, especially Yousaf Raza Gilani, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Makhdoom Amin Fahim and others, is understandable considering that they don’t want to annoy their spiritual-cum-political constituency. Notwithstanding the claim that the silent majority follows the more peaceful Barelvi and Sufi Islam, the fact of the matter is that the majority of ulema and pirs do not really take alternative positions on such issues. The pirs definitely don’t have a new thinking, mainly because of their ignorance of religion. Interestingly, two out of three of the Federal Shariat Court judges that opposed changes in the Hudood laws were also appointed as judges by the PPP.
Salmaan Taseer’s murder could not have been avoided, considering that mainstream Islamic discourse in Pakistan is influenced by the Saudi brand. This also includes the Barelvi and Sufi school of thought. This could have changed through ijtihad and ijma. However, the ulema, mashaikh and pirs are all reluctant to review laws for the benefit of the common man. The fact that the educated elite were not conversant in religious discourse and, in fact, kept itself aloof from religion did not help either.
The elite group’s knowledge of religion and active involvement in setting the pace of religious discourse was necessary in a country which was formed in the name of religion. Irrespective of the secular claims about Jinnah’s August 11, 1948 speech, it was not possible to keep a state, which drew its legitimacy from religion, secular. Unfortunately, the elite took refuge in their secularism and left religious discourse at the behest of clergy.
Moreover, the elite continued to strike a Faustian bargain with the clerics every time it ran short of political legitimacy. Most seemingly secular leaders pretended to clothe their policies in religion to seek greater legitimacy. They acted in Jinnah’s footsteps, who had borrowed the concept of Muslim identity without thinking about the rest of the package.
Sixty-three years hence, it is immaterial to argue whether the country was made in the name of Islam or for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. The educated, liberal elite had no role in giving direction to religious discourse which was always determined by clerics. Educated people’s intervention made by, for example, Allama Iqbal, was totally missing after 1947.
The marriage of religion with politics also meant that the clerics stuck to the status quo and spent more time thinking of wrangling state power from non-religious leaders. It also seems that in the past couple of decades or a bit more, the clergy shifted its focus from winning elections to capturing the main state narrative. They are in a comfortable position since they were the only ones defining religion and religious norms.
Now, we must await more killings and bloodshed.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 9^th, 2011.

Jinnah’s Pakistan?

Ardeshir Cowasjee
 

THE following excerpts beg comments from all those who have been or are now occupying the power seats of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

From Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s presidential address at the All-India Muslim League session in Delhi in April 1943: “The minorities are entitled to get a definite assurance or to ask: `Where do we stand in the Pakistan that you visualise?` That is an issue of giving a definite and clear assurance to the minorities. We have done it. We have passed a resolution that the minorities must be protected and safeguarded to the fullest extent, and as I said before, any civilised government will do it and ought to do it. So far as we are concerned, our own history and our prophet have given the clearest proof that non-Muslims have been treated not only justly and fairly but generously.” (Rizwan Ahmed, ed., Sayings of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah , Karachi: Pakistan Movement Center, 1986, p. 30.)
While discussing Pakistan in an interview given to a representative of the Associated Press of America on November 8, 1946: “Hindu minorities in Pakistan can rest assured that their rights will be protected. No civilised government can be run successfully without giving minorities a complete sense of security and confidence. They must be made to feel that they have a hand in government and to this end must have adequate representation in it. Pakistan will give it.”
(Ahmed, Sayings , p. 65.)
In Jinnah`s interview given to a Reuters correspondent on May 21, 1947, he assured the minorities of Pakistan “that they will be protected and safeguarded. For they will be so many citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.” He had no doubt in his mind that they “will be treated justly and fairly and the collective conscience of parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them.”
(Sailesh Bandopadhaya, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Creation of Pakistan , New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1991, p. 326.)
From Jinnah`s address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947: “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 of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has got nothing to do with the business of the state…. 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.” ( Dawn , Independence Day Supplement, August 14, 1999.)
Jinnah`s interview with a Reuter`s correspondent on October 25, 1947: “Every citizen is expected to be loyal to the state and to owe allegiance to it. The arm of the law should be strong enough to deal with any person or section or body or people that is disloyal to the state. We do not, however, prescribe any schoolboy tests of their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan: if there is war would you shoot a Hindu?” (Ahmed, Sayings , p. 42.)
Jinnah`s broadcast to the people of Australia on February 19, 1948: “The great majority of us are … members of the Muslim brotherhood of Islam in which we are equal in right, dignity and self respect. Consequently we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we welcome in closest association with us all those who, of whatever creed, are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan.” (Ahmed, Sayings , p. 69.)

arfc@cyber.net.pk

Mawdudi, Jamat-e-Islami & Deobandis had Opposed Pakistan's Creation.

With Book Reference "Dawat O Irshad of Mawdudi - Mawdudi, Jamat-e-Islami, Democracy, Jinnah and Pakistan??? The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the writings of the Jama’at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:

Farooq Haider Mawdudi & Professor Shariful Mujahid in Frontline - 1

 

[ Download ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1layfX5gTc

“Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all. [Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25]

Farooq Haider Mawdudi & Professor Shariful Mujahid in Frontline - 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hulyK7-eB2c

Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: “Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path.” [Reference: The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37]

Farooq Haider Mawdudi & Professor Shariful Mujahid in Frontline - 3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTzZovlxFO4

Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi’s writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contrad...ictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: “Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work.” [Reference: Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman] (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23]

He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims ...were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941). However, Maulana Maududi’s stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed at that critical moment. [Reference: Ulema in Politics by Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi , p-368]

Several Leading Founding Fathers of Jamat-e-Islami i.e. Late. Maulana Manzoor Naimani, Masood Alam Nadvi, Mawlana Wahiduddin Khan [alive and over 80 in Azam Garh UP India] resigned from Jamat-e-Islami due to Mawdudi’s Wrong Interpretation o...f Islam [Ref: Meri Rafaqat Ki Sargazasht - Mawdudi Kay Sath Meray Shab o Roz by Late. Manzoor Naimani and Taabeer Ki Ghalti [a critique on Mawdudi's Islamic Politics and Methodology] by Mawlana Wahiduddin Khan. After partition several leading JI Leaders quit Jamat-e-Islami because Mawdudi/Jamat-e-Islami had decided to enter Politics [Parliamentary Politics/Democracy based on Secular Principle] those who Left after Machi Goth Congregation were Amin Ahsan Islahi, Irshad Ahmed Haqqani and Dr. Israr Ahmed.

Farooq Haider Mawdudi & Professor Shariful Mujahid in Frontline - 4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzH7sUM8_4k

In my opinion Pakistan can only be run peacefully if it is to be run et all then it must be run through an Strictly Secular Constitutional System otherwise be prepare for another Yugoslavia of 90s, Lebanon of 70s and 80s or latest Iraq. Those who claim that Jinnah wanted an Islamic State should know about Jinnah that he was an Ismaili [in his early life as per the record of Bombay High Court] and then converted to Shiaism [as per Sindh High Court Record more references are given at the end with excerpts from a books].

Just assume that Pakistan is going to be an Islamic State [in a literal and real sense] then what School of thought will govern the country [just imagine the mess Deobandis hates Barelvis, Shia and Wahaabis, Wahaabis hate Deobandis, Barelvis, Shias, Barelvis hates Deobandis, Wahaabis but they dont hate Shia as much above all if Jamat-e-Islami is allowed to run then all those mentioned above hate Jamat-e-Islami to extreme].

We are in a soup for big time. Assume that Jinnah wanted Theocratic Country then it would have been a Rafizi Pakistan. I am posting the entire history below read and you all decide tha should Pakistan be run on Secular Ideology or Islamic Ideology? I vote for Strictly and Pure Secular Pakistan.

LATE. MR JINNAH’S RELIGION:

On 24 September 1948, after the demise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatimah Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, submitted a jointly signed petition at the Karachi High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On 6 February, 1968 after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah'’ demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Fatimah Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on grounds that the deceased was a Shia. As per Mr. I. H. Ispahani who was a family friend of Jinnah, revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mehmoodabad. He however conceded that Jinnah was opposed in Bombay elections by a Shia Conference canditate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He himself arranged the Ghusl and Janaza {Funeral Bath and Funeral} for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia Ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni Namaz-e-Janaza was held later at Polo Ground, Karachi after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her dead body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Allama Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the gusl of the Quaid on the instructions of Miss Fatimah Jinah. He led his Namaz-e-Janaza in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such luminaries as Yousuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, an alim belonging to Deoband school of thought known for its anti-Shia belief, read his Janaza according the Sunni ritual at the ground where the mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatimah Jinnah, alam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered from her residence, Mohatta Palace. Despite all this Jinnah kept himself away from Shia politics. He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim.

[PAKISTAN: Behind the Ideological Mask (Facts About Great Men We Don’t Want to Know) by Khaled Ahmed, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. Aziz, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad].

Three months before the partition of the subcontinent, in an interview with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Jinnah firmly stated: "The new state will 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 religion, caste or creed." He repeated this on August 11, 1947, whilst addressing the members of his Constituent Assembly, making it doubly clear to them that religion is not the business of the state. He told them: "You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

On August 11, 1947, before the flag of Pakistan had even been unfurled, Jinnah told his people and their future legislators:

"You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Jinnah addressed his Constituent Assembly at Karachi. He told the future legislators :

". . . . . . . you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.

"Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play without any, as is put in political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and cooperation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world."

Indian Congresswoman and poet, Mrs Sarojini Naidu, after meeting Jinnah for the first time at the 1906 annual session of Congress held at Calcutta.

Now to what Mohammed Ali Jinnah had to say on the future constitution of Pakistan in his broadcast to the American people in February 1948: "The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.

"Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught the equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims - Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan. "

Jinnah's views against mixing religion with politics

"Jinnah left the Home Rule League and the Congress after Gandhi took them over because he (Jinnah) strongly disapproved of the introduction of religion into politics by Gandhi, and because he disapproved equally strongly of unconstitutional means to secure swaraj." H.M. Seervai -- Legend and Reality, p.169

"Jinnah had told him that he (Gandhi) had ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he (Gandhi) had done." Transfer of Power Documents, Vol.VI, p. 617

"Jinnah, however, warned Gandhiji not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers. Indeed, he was not the only person who foresaw danger in the Khilafat Movement." K.M. Munshi, Pilgrimage to Freedom -- p. 22

"Jinnah made it clear, however, that he had no intention of playing the role of an Islamic Khalifah. As Pakistan's Governor-General, he intended to see to it that all its citizens, irrespective of religious or cultural orientation, were, politically and before the law, similar and equal." The Pakistan in the Twentieth Century -- A Political History by Lawrence Ziring - pp. 66, 67

"Jinnah's insistence on balance and fairness to all, irrespective of religious persuasion or cultural identity, projected a secular approach that was now obscured in the Muslim League's struggle to achieve parity with the Congress." Ibid, p. 39

"Jinnah, the 'ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity', had worked hard to get the Congress and the League to co-operate and deplored the opportunistic alliance between the Mahatma and the Khilafat Muslims." The Sole Spokesman -- Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the Demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal -- pp. 8, 9

Quaid-e-Azam never referred to Pakistan as "Islamic Republic" but as the "State of Pakistan," "Sovereign State of Pakistan," "Dominion of Pakistan" or "Federal Republic of Pakistan".

Pakistan not to be a theocratic state

"Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state? You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means." Jinnah's press conference in New Delhi on July 14, 1947, Jinnah -- Speeches and Statements 1947-1949, Oxford University Press, p.15

"But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it..." Jinnah's address to the people of Australia on Feb. 19,1948 -- Ibid, p.118

"In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State--to be ruled by priests with a divine mission." Jinnah's address to the people of the United States of America in February 1948, Ibid, p.125

Equal status, and rights, and protection to minorities

"Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed". Jinnah's press conference in New Delhi on 14th July 1947, Ibid, p. 13

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed--that has nothing to do with the business of the State". Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly on Aug.11, 1947.

"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." Ibid.

"We have many non-Muslims- Hindus, Christians, and Parsis--but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." Jinnah's address to the people of the United States on February 1948, p.125

Almost all authors of the books on the Quaid-e-Azam, including Stanley Wolpert, Lawrence Ziring, Ayesha Jalal, H.M. Seervai and K.M. Munshi, substantiate and support the view that the Quaid was himself secular and always wanted Pakistan to be a secular state.

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent --Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami [1]-- were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty' s idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 1

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqzGHWP5Kj8

The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]

The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century.

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw64zU2Ajag&feature=related

It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]

The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was virtually a secular campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.

Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union: "What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political." [4]

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 3

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCx2uYlGVaQ&feature=related

The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.

The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema.

The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar – seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan" . The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam. [6]

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great leader or a great non-believer)

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 4

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB5TZ_u5aro&feature=related

During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it.

Dr. Zakir Naik says "Making Pakistan was a Blunder".

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvQhGcrwMjQ

After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as their leader and join the Congress Party.[8]

The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure).

In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:

"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]

Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path." [10]

Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: "Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work."[11]

He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12]

However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.

The Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]

In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[ 19]

Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]

Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact movement failed.

It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema- i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for Pakistan.

Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent. [22]

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]

The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25]

Notes:

1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others hastened to Pakistan to lend a helping hand. If they had not been able to save the Muslims from Pakistan they must now save Pakistan from the Muslims. Among them was Maulana Abul Aala Maududi, head of the Jamat-i-Islami, who had been bitterly opposed to Pakistan." Mohammad Ayub Khan, Friends not

Masters, P-202

2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66

3. Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, p79-80

4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938

5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28

6. Ibid. p-54

7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam' s marriage to a Parsi girl.

8. Munir Report, p-256

9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25

10. The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37

11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23

12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368

13. Ibid., p-368

14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam Trust, Lahore, p-614

15. Ibid. p-314

16. Hasan (rose) from Basrah, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Rome, Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries, What an ignoramus regarding the position of Muhammad! Take thyself to Muhammad, because he is the totality of Faith, And if thou does not reach him, all (thy knowledge) is Bu Lahaism.

17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India, at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that "it would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality, p-162

18. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, op. cit., p-328

19. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p-237

20. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics p-334

21. Justice Sayed Shameem Hussain Kadri - Creation of Pakistan - Army Book Club, Rawalpindi ,1983 -- p-414

22. Ayub Khan, op. cit., p-200

23. According to Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, the present state of affairs of the Moslem world. Dr. Iqbal said: "It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting the social horizon of its members." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p-159) Dr. Iqbal had apparently in mind the following verse from the Holy Quran: O Mankind ! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. (49:13)

24. Qureshi, op. cit., p-378

25. Afzal Iqbal, Islamization in Pakistan, p-26

26. Ayub Khan, op. cit.,p-202

27. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1963, p-173

28. Afzal Iqbal, op. cit., p-29

29. Qureshi, op. cit., p-383

30. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in History, p-215

31. Munir Report, p-205

32. Ibid. p-218

33. Ibid. p-219

34. Anita M. Weiss, Reassertion of Islam in Pakistan, p-2

35. Leonard Binder, Islam and Politics in Pakistan, University of California Press, 1961, p-29

36. Anita M. Weiss, p-21

37. Ibid. p-21

38. When Pakistan appeared on the map, they (Ulema) found no place for themselves in India and they all came to Pakistan and brought with them the curse of Takfir (calling one another infidel). Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p-38

39. Prof. Rafi-ullah Shehab - The Quaid-e-Azam and the Ulema - The Pakistan Times, Islamabad 25.12.1986.

40. Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post, Peshawar, 9.5.1991

41. Ibid.