Daily Times

Like almost every year, 60th Republic Day inspired TV debates about what kind of country the Quaid wanted Pakistan to be. Did he envision a secular state or a theocracy? Was Pakistan created on religious grounds or on the basis sociocultural identity of Muslims? The questions about the foundations and the rationale of Pakistan still abound while the country struggles to leave past the legacy of violent religious and xenophobic extremism by employing a range of measures under the National Action Plan. But time and again the origins that were seemingly lost in translation come in conflict with the 21st century vision for a Pakistan as modern democracy.

Politicians and religious elite endlessly repeat the line, “Pakistan was created in the name of Islam”. It is difficult to trace the original authorship of this idea, but it became quite popular when Maulana Maudoodi decided to halt his opposition to Quaid-e-Azam and Pakistan after the latter became an unmistakable reality. This line soon became an inalienable part of Pakistan’s textbooks. Had it not been for prolific writers like K.K. Aziz, Dr. Mubarak Ali, and comparatively younger generation of Khaled Ahmed, Ayesha Jalal and many others, this line would have gone uncontested with the Orwellian narration of history taught in schools. But the damage, it seems, has been done. There are at least three generations of talking heads and opinion makers in all fields especially politics and media, who repeat such rhetoric without inquiry and application of mind. The most recent example is Mr. Ali Muhammad Khan, a Member of the National Assembly from Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf.

While ranting on a TV show Mr. Khan asked the secularists to leave the country if they didn’t mend their ways because Pakistan in his view was made in the name of Islam. Pakistan’s foundation is La ilaahaillallah and kalma-e-shahdat, he went on to say. His comments invoked an outrage among the educated, progressive consumers of media. Many on social media harshly criticised Mr. Khan for his undemocratic and exclusionary views about a section of Pakistani citizens. Irony is unmistakable here. As upholders of freedom of expression, the liberals could do better than trying to shun Mr. Khan’s right to speak his mind.

The enemy here is not a lawmaker from PTI. The problem is the misleading texts and distortions of history stuffed in the minds of people from very young age with impunity. Mr. Khan might not even imagine questioning the textbook histories. One can recall being censured in school for reading K.K. Aziz’s book back in 1986-7, whose books remained banned in Pakistan during Ziaul Haq’s time. People who were in schools in 1980s would be in their 40s now. Since the successive governments in 1990s and afterwards did not do anything to improve the way history was taught in schools, historical knowledge and ability to critically look at history of those younger than 40s has become even worse.

In the past, our textbooks and the mass media did not present the alternative view of the historical events that shaped the idea of Pakistan. There was no book or even an article written by the Father of Nation Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah that could present his vision clearly to the posterity. The only evidence available for reading the mind of the founding father are his speeches and letters written to different people from time to time. Utmost effort was put in preventing the emergence of a holistic picture of the views and ideas that were discussed during the course of Pakistan’s creation. Selective excerpts from Mr. Jinnah’s speeches were quoted in textbooks and on media while ignoring the larger questions that comprised political debates during the Pakistan movement.

For example, the slogan ‘Pakistan ka matlab kya La ilaaha illallah’ found unhindered voluble and written space. It was never mentioned that the Quaid had discouraged this slogan publicly. Lawyer and author Yasser Latif Hamdani in his book quotes Jinnah ruling out this slogan while censuring a Leaguer at the last session of the All India Muslim League immediately after the partition. “Neither I nor the Muslim League Working Committee ever passed a resolution — Pakistan kamatlab kya — you may have used it to catch a few votes”, the Quaid is quoted to have said.

Looking at the volumes of Jinnah Papers (compiled by Z.H. Zaidi) one finds reference after reference of how Jinnah always defined the Muslim nationhood in terms of language, culture, history, social role models and personages. It is difficult to give a final verdict on whether he was a secular going by his personal life style, sartorial choices and drinking preferences. It is equally incorrect to brand him an Islamist based on his amendment of dress code to Sherwani and his peculiar fez called Jinnah Cap, or a picture showing him part of a Salaat congregation, or even quotes attributed to him while meeting random religious groups to garner their support for the idea of Pakistan, in which he might have used the word Islamic ideals, shariah law etc.

To correctly understand his sporadic references to Islamic law, one needs to explore what he understood as Islamic law. Did he mean a state where all citizens are equal irrespective of caste & religion, their basic freedoms ensured by the state? The answers to these questions appear to be in the affirmative looking at his entire politics from 1916 to 1948. Till the late 1930s, he was trying his best to unite Indian Muslims and Hindus while emphasizing the safeguards for Muslims. And not just for Muslims.His performance as a parliamentarian shows his commitment to the rights of other minorities including Dalits, Sikhs and Christians.

During the period between 1920s and 1940s, Jinnah was unequivocally struggling for the recognition of Muslim nationhood as well as the rights of Muslims in political and administrative governance structure of undivided India. During the times of Hindu-Muslim riots because of provocations such as cow slaughter and music in front of mosques, the Quaid was proposing a communal pact on the composition of elective bodies, as the remedy of Hindu-Muslim problem. His solutions of communal tensions did not entail creating a Muslim ghetto with orthodox puritan code, instead her was advocating for more jobs and more political rights for Muslims under constitutional guarantees.

Justice Muhammad Munir in his book From Jinnah to Zia quotes an interview that the Quaid gave in 1946 to Mr. Doon Campbell, the Correspondent of Reuters in New Delhi. Jinnah said: “The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, cast or creed”.

After all his struggle to secure a better future for the Muslims of India, the Quaid agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan that was a last ditch effort to secure an united Indian federation. That idea never materialized largely due to the opposition of Nehru and Congress. Ultimately, the Quaid had to opt for a ‘moth-eaten Pakistan’. Even in that, he did not envision Maudoodi’s Islamic state. Jinnah’s Muslim state – or an Islamic state as insisted by right wing historians – was not Abdul Wahab’s Islamic state or Baghdadi’s Islamic state. It was an unambiguously modern, democratic state that Mr. Ali Muhammad Khan better comes to terms with.

Pakistan Zindabad.

The writer is a staff member and can be emailed at marvisirmed@gmail.com, accessed on Twitter @marvisirmed