Daily Times

Muhammad Ali Jinnah is among the very few people who could be at the high echelons among the most charismatic leaders that the world has ever seen. Due to his political wisdom and perpetual struggle, the Muslims of the sub-continent were able to achieve a separate state i.e. Pakistan. However, the people of this country are completely oblivious to the vision of the founding father of Pakistan. There would have been more clarity regarding what kind of a state our Quaid envisioned, had he survived a few more years. But, for now, the masses are divided into contrasting concepts germane to Jinnah’s Pakistan. One notion presents that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state, rather a theocracy, in which religion would play a dominating factor and everything would be conducted under the law of Sharia. However, the other notion indicates that he viewed Pakistan as a secular and more inclusive state in which everybody would be considered equal regardless of religion or faith.

Myriad of personalities have given their viewpoints on this and the writer also feels encouraged to render his two cents on the subject. Although, despite the divide, it is not an uphill task to deduce Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan by looking at the content on him.

Now, let us rewind the clock to the multitude of occasions where Jinnah elucidated his vision of a modern democratic Pakistan rather than a theocracy run by clerics. For instance, in 1946, Jinnah while speaking with Mr. Doon Campbell, who was the Reuter’s correspondent in New Delhi, stated, “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, caste or creed.”

Jinnah was pellucid in expressing his abhorrence for a theocratic state, for example, on 19 February 1948, Jinnah remarked in a broadcast talk to the people of Australia that: “We follow the teachings of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) … but make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it.” Some days later, on 26 February 1948, Jinnah, in a broadcast while talking to the people of the US, immaculately cleared the fog by stating that, “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state – to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.”

Moreover, he, on a number of occasions, stressed on the equality of citizens in Pakistan regardless of religion, caste or faith such as, on 13 July 1947 in New Delhi, he stated that, “Minorities to whichever community they belong, will be safeguarded… They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed.” Besides, in his 11th August speech, Jinnah said, “We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.” Also, on his visit to Dhaka in 1948, he told Srish Chandra Chattopadhyaya, ”Tell your people not to be afraid and not to leave Pakistan, for Pakistan will be a democratic state where Hindus will have the same rights as Muslims.”

Some people have blurred and deluded concept of secular state that it is an anti-religion state. This is perhaps why Jinnah avoided the use of the word secular because this misconception was prevalent in the society then, and unfortunately, is still there

In addition to his speeches, one can also get an idea of Jinnah’s vision of a secular Pakistan through his actions. An all-weather companion of Jinnah, sir Zafrullah Khan, an Ahmadi, was at the forefront in the Pakistan movement with the Quaid, he also fortified Pakistan’s stance at the international front and was appointed the first foreign minister of Pakistan. Jinnah also appointed Jogendera Nath Mandal as the first law minister for Pakistan and was also elected as temporary chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. It was the progressive approach of Jinnah that he appointed Non-Muslims to head those ministries. Now one wonders if Jinnah wanted an Islamic state, he would have appointed a cleric for that job. After all, who could be an ideal for creating the constitution of an Islamic state other than the clergy? On the other hand, the relation between Jinnah and the clergy was not amicable. By envisioning a secular state, Jinnah faced fierce criticism from religious parties namely, Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Jamaat-e-Islami. Maulana Maududi and Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar were staunch opponents of Jinnah’s version of Pakistan and Maulana Mazhar even absurdly called Jinnah ‘Kafir-e-Azam’ (the great infidel) but Jinnah was taking none of it as his model of state was quite distinct from the one that these clerics propounded. It was Jinnah’s perpetual refusal to make Pakistan an Islamic state, which was the bone of contention.

And then there is the 11th August speech of our Quaid. A number of people have tried to make this speech controversial because they have failed to digest it and are fearful as to what would happen to their bizarre ‘business’ in Jinnah’s Pakistan, hence, are always skeptical of the vision given by Jinnah in that speech. Contrastingly, Quaid was unequivocal in his expression of the vision of Pakistan and spoke his heart out. In the opinion of the writer, the 11th August speech trumps all other speeches because of its contextual significance. Historians use contextual interpretation of a speech or analysis, in order to ascertain the intention and real objective of any leader. Jinnah’s 11th August speech before the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan has the utmost significance because of the forum and the audience he was speaking to i.e. the Constituent assembly which was given the task of drafting the Constitution of Pakistan. Additionally, this speech also has the greatest value because the creation of Pakistan was just three days later.

The above quoted acts and speeches of Jinnah are vivid in showing that he wanted a secular Pakistan. Some people have blurred and deluded concept of secular state that it is an anti-religion state. This is perhaps why Jinnah avoided the use of the word secular because this misconception was prevalent in the society then, and unfortunately, is still there. Professor Hoodbhoy properly elucidated secularism as ‘it is about creating a level playing field for citizens of every religious belief and practice.’ It should be flawlessly clear that Jinnah did not have a penchant for theocracy or for such a state in which the religious clerics, or as some call them ‘religious fanatics’, would call the shots and would have an influential role. Jinnah considered Islam as a progressive religion which embraces everybody with open arms regardless of their faith, which was in stark contrast to the concept of Islam that the clerics professed that Islam is the religion of Muslims alone. On this progressive concept, Jinnah wanted a modern secular state where application of the universal principles of tolerance and equality are in full-swing, where the Parliament legislates laws with discussion and debate, where no law prejudices the rights of people professing different religions and where every individual, whether Muslim or Non-Muslim, has equal rights and considered an equal citizen of the state regardless of religion, colour, caste, creed or ethnicity. In essence, he desired citizenship as the guiding tenet of Pakistan rather than religion.

Sadly, we have wasted our energy and scholarship in having this barren debate as to what Pakistan was expected to be, rather what we should do is to expose ourselves to his true vision of a secular Pakistan and utilizing that energy to make Jinnah’s Pakistan a reality. Moreover, by parting ways with Jinnah’s vision, we have damaged ourselves enormously and until we wake ourselves from deep slumber and stop turning our back to his vision, we will continue to face the brunt of it and this country would remain a far cry from the one he envisioned.

The writer is an old Ravian and currently studying law and policy