As indicated in Part I of this article, Jinnah, who used the Islamic- vision based two-nation theory for creation of Pakistan and had an Islamic agenda throughout his political leadership, however, in May 1947, deviated from his two-nation theory or Islamic agenda when talking to Mountbatten, the British Viceroy who oversaw India’s independence. Also, just to possibly impress the religiously diverse audience ormay be to expect to be appreciated by secular-minded Westerns or probably to be on the good side of the ruling British, Jinnah dissimulatively deviated again from the two-nation theory or Islamic vision during his address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, which is three days before the founding of Pakistan, in which he said 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 or 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. … 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…. I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world.” This address seems to exemplify tall-tale telling by Jinnah. As a leverage, Pakistani secularists point to the Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech (whichsounds pluralistic and secularly inclined)and argue that Pakistan was going to be a secular state (like India); and as such, Pakistan could have been called Democratic Republic of Pakistan (not Islamic Republic of Pakistan). And to address any doubt about Jinnah’s intention, they further argue that on August 11, 1947, the creation of Pakistan had already been guaranteed by the British and so, at that time, Jinnah seemed to have spoken his mind freely. However, this speech was obviously in a contravention to the earlier two-nation-theory or Islamic vision that he had adopted and followed throughout his political struggle. Also, unlike Nehru who had embraced secularism, Jinnah never used the word, secular,in this speech. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission Regardless of the two-nation theory and contrary to the viewpoint of India-partition opposers (past and present), I think, however, Pakistan was needed to be created so that Muslims of India could have a majority in a country which they could call their own and freely enjoy their mostly Persian-Turkic lingual and cultural heritage. Also, I think (and strongly believe) that there was possibly a better way for Jinnah to achieve the same aim of creating Pakistan than using the incredible, nonsensical, divisive(and often laughable) two-nation theory that would quickly fall apart in this modernity. A better way for Jinnah would have been what I call a risk-of-reprisal theory (or fear-of-reprisal theory). It means that after the end of the British rule, Muslims of India would have a major fear due to a risk of reprisal from the majority Hindus because of the historical facts that for so many centuries and so many times in the past,Muslims from Arabia or Middle East and Central Asia hadinvaded and captured India, killed over 80 million Hindus and other non-Muslim Indians, looted their wealth and gold/jewels, occupied their properties, enslaved and violated Hindu/non-Muslim women, destroyed their precious places of worships and then established kingdoms and ruled the majority Hindus or other non-Muslim Indians often unkindly or unjustly. The risk-of-reprisal theory would have made more sense and been more acceptable to the rulers of the British India as this theory may have hit home for the British too. It is because the British also had committed brutal, barbaric, bloody acts in India. Arguably, the risk-of-reprisal theory would have required the Muslim League leaders of admitting the past persecutions or grave guilts (or serious sins) of their ancestors, which, on the contrary and often unremorsefully, have been touted historicallywith pride and supremacism by most Muslim leaders and Islamic scholars as stern strategic and/or tough tactics usedby Muslim conquers/kings who had invaded and ruled India for over a millennium. If he had thought of this theory as a means or basis, Jinnah who often alluded to Islamic conquests in his certain speeches would have never allowed himself to even appear to admit the ancestral atrocities as he instead adopted, propagated, and used the Islamic- vision based two-nation theorythroughout his political leadershipfor creation of Pakistan with an Islamic agenda. Even after the founding of Pakistan on August 14, 1947, Jinnah stuck to his Islamic agenda that seemed to have attracted a great deal of enthusiastic support from the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, and/or other overzealous Muslims in the cabinet and/or assembly who also wanted to revert to the original Islamic vision for Pakistan. It is important to note that it was Liaquat Ali Khan who introduced the Objective Resolution that was based on Islamic principles, which was passed, setting a stage later constitutionally for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan whose state religion is Islam and whose state head can be Muslim only. As he seemingly still carried a flame for his religion (i.e., Islam) in his heart. Jinnah proceeded forward with and continued to use hisIslamic agenda for the newly created Pakistan. To prove that he had an Islamic agenda for Pakistan, below are five examples, in which he mentioned Islam, Islamic Sharia, the Quran, and Islamic State, which are totally in contravention to his own August 11, 1947 speech, and which undoubtedly indicate that he was not a secular person. And as such, to him, Pakistan was an Islamic country that would have a constitution based upon the laws of Islamic Sharia. 1—Jinnah said the following during a broadcast talk to the people of the United States on Pakistan recorded 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 principle 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. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play 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.” The above statement by Jinnah indicates that he undoubtedly had an Islamic agenda and that he was either willfully ignorant of the real Islam and/orthe early Islamic history, or he was being dissimulative, duplicitous, or deceptive to the American people possibly to appear modern or Westernized so as to be acceptable or respected in America while probably assuming that Americans were Islamically-uninformed. To be continued to Part III The writer is based in California, US