Daily Times

Neither Allama Mohammad Iqbal nor Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah overtly used the term ‘secularism’ in their deliberations for the demand of a separate state for Indian Muslims. Nevertheless, they ensured in unequivocal terms that the proposed state for Indian Muslims would not be a theocratic state. The simplest definition of theocracy can be: a system of government in which the country is ruled by priests. According to lexical definition, theocracy is “a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission” or “a form of government in which God or a deity is recognised as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.” In the light of above-cited definitions, one can safely reach the conclusion that if Iqbal and Jinnah were not proponents of secularism then they were against any direct or indirect role of clergy in governmental or state affairs.

I had an opportunity to attend a lecture of Javed Iqbal, son of Allama Iqbal on “Iqbal’s Concept of Islamic State.” In his lecture, Javed maintained that Iqbal’s idea of Islamic state springs from the state of Madina founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the aftermath of a social contract — Charter of Madina — mutually signed by Muslims, Jews, Christians and Pagans of Hijaz. In consequence of that charter, the signatories were declared as a unified nation (Umat-e-Wahida) without any religious discrimination. So, the first Islamic state founded by the Holy Prophet was not meant to establish a monolithic religious-polity but a pluralist society (multi-religious and multi-ethnic) in which all religious and ethnic identities were granted equal civil and political rights. Hence, one can conclude that Allama Iqbal’s concept of state was pluralist, non-religious and non-ethnic.

If we consult some primary sources on Iqbal, like his lecture entitled “The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam”, we will find him as a great admirer of Mustafa Kamal who abolished the Ottoman Caliphate and established the modern secular Republic of Turkey. Iqbal not only endorsed Kamal’s act of abolishing quasi religious state — Caliphate — but also fearlessly depicted Ataturk’s endeavours as an effective use of “the Islamic traditions of Ijtihad.” Furthering Ataturk’s argument against the amalgamation of religion and state, Iqbal maintained that Muslims should learn the lesson from bitter experience of the primitive Christianity that was founded on the principle of the fusion of religion and state. In consequence, “when the state became Christian, the state and Church confronted each other as distinct powers with interminable boundary disputes between them.” In the light of disastrous experience of the primitive Christianity, Iqbal advised Indian Muslims that in order to avoid same fatal conflict in Muslim polity they should separate the institutions of religion and politics.

Endorsing Kamal’s argument, Iqbal not only suggested distancing clergy from state affairs but he advocated supremacy of state over the clergy by appreciating Ataturk’s act to licentiate ulema. Quoting Ataturk’s precedent of granting license to the ulema to perform their religious duties, Iqbal expressed his deep desire to follow suit in Muslim India if he “had the power to do so.”

Like Iqbal, Jinnah also expressed his disapproval of any endeavours aimed at unifying state and religion. On several occasions, he refused to buy the idea of amalgamating religion with politics. In this regard, one can quote Jinnah’s strong opposition to the movement for restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate vanguarded by Mahatma Gandhi and Ali brothers. Like Iqbal, Jinnah also preferred to remain disassociated with the Khilafat Movement and admired Kamal’s act of founding a secular and modern Republic of Turkey by obliterating the Ottoman Caliphate. Hector Bolitho, one of the biographers of Jinnah, has mentioned that Jinnah became a great admirer of Kamal after reading his biography, Gray Wolf. According to Bolitho, Jinnah remained captive for two days of Ataturk’s saga. After finishing the book Jinnah handed it over to his teenage daughter and advised her to read it. Jinnah was so overwhelmed by the story of Kamal that the Gray Wolf remained a hot topic for many days in their home, which tempted young Dina to tease her father by nicknaming him Gray Wolf.

A majority of Jinnah’s biographers portrayed him as a liberal and secular Muslim leader of the Indian subcontinent. Undoubtedly, Jinnah remained a liberal and maintained his secular credentials throughout his political career except for the 1945-1946-election campaign. During this short period, the All India Muslim League (AIML) used religion as an instrument for political mobilisation but not as a principle policy stand.

In 1929, when Harbillas Sharda moved the Child Marriage bill in the Central Assembly of India for banning child marriages of Hindu girls, Jinnah joined Sharda and asked for same legal protection for Muslim girls also. When conservative Muslim ulema heard about Jinnah’s move they bitterly opposed it on religious grounds, but Jinnah remained firm and responded: “If my constituency is backward as to disapprove of a measure like this, they should elect another representative.” Further emphasising his point in the house, he maintained that we should not be influenced by the public opinion charged with religious frenzy because religion has no role in these matters.

During the Khilafat Movement days, Jinnah remained indifferent to the Khilafatists’ cause of restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate. He also remained critic of Gandhi’s religion-based politics, because the latter promised Hindus to establish Ram Raj in aftermath of the independence of India from the yoke of British raj. The fundamental difference between Gandhi and Jinnah was that the former was the proponent of blending politics with religion while the latter was an advocate of separation of political and religious institutions. Jinnah very bravely faced Mahatma -Maulana arrogance during the Khilafat Movement. In the Nagpur session of the Indian National Congress when Jinnah refused to tag the titles of Maulana and Mahatma with the names of Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Mohandas Karmchand Gandhi respectively because he was not in favour of exploiting religious titles for political gains. On that issue, Jinnah, bravely, faced arrogance of the orthodox Hindus and Muslims to the extent that Maulana Shoukat Ali rushed to manhandle Jinnah but he was intercepted by the participants.

Jinnah maintained liberal and secular identity of the AIML till 1937. But during the post-1937 era, the AIML under the leadership ofJinnah took an about turn and began exploiting Islam as an instrument for political mobilisation of masses just to win the 1945-46 elections. Jinnah and his party’s deviation from the principle of “not exploiting religion for political gains” worked well and paid them in the form of unprecedented victory in 1945-46 elections. But the post-partition events suggest that the AIML’s deviation from the principle stand of ‘separation of religion and politics’ had terribly de-shaped the contours of the future state of Pakistan. The religiously charged slogans coined and shouted during the 1945-46-election campaign not only survived and penetrated in post-partition Pakistani polity but also became catalyst to frustrate Jinnah’s dream of creating a liberal and secular state of Pakistan.

In 1947, Jinnah tried to mend the historical mistakes made by the AIML under his leadership and to pull back Pakistani polity on the right path of secularism. His address of August 11, 1947 to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was a drastic attempt to achieve that goal. n his historic address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Jinnah tried to reshape Pakistani polity according to his liberal and progressive ideas. Addressing members of the first Constituent Assembly and the people of Pakistan at large, he figured out Pakistan as a state that would be responsible to provide full protection of life, property and religious beliefs to its subjects. The citizens of the newly formed state would have equal rights, privileges and obligations without any discrimination of caste, colour or creed. Considering religion as a purely personal matter of the people, he promised that the state would not interfere in faith related matters of citizens; rather, it would facilitate them to freely go to their “temples, mosques or any other place of worship.” In the end, he predicted that in the state of his dreams “Hindu would cease to be Hindu and Muslim would cease to be Muslim not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of individual, but in the political sense as citizens of state.” Fortifying his argument, Jinnah quoted a precedent from the history of England where Protestants and Catholics preferred their political identity — citizenship of Great Britain — over their religious identities. Consequently, in the course of time “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.”

If we objectively view the outlines of the state of Pakistan, drawn by Jinnah in his address in the light of the simple definition of secularism, we would safely conclude that Jinnah’s dreamland was nothing but a secular Pakistan. It is because a secular state considers religion and politics two separate identities and does not interfere in religious affairs of its