How the Idea That Killed Gandhi Has Slowly Taken Over

Source: newspapers.com

India and the world are celebrating the 150th birthday of Mahatma Gandhi. I call him the Mahatma because I believe he was a great soul, an extraordinary man. The current Indian government would also refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi or a more affectionate “bapuji” or dear father. But do they really think he was a great soul? Or even a great leader whose ideals should be followed?

The words from the Indian Prime Minister in his New York op-ed are very encouraging. He reminds why the world, and especially India, needs Gandhi more than ever. But the revival of the Hindutva ideology under his leadership since the disastrous leadership crisis in the Congress Party, the soul of the Indian democracy has never been the same.

As somebody who is currently a citizen of Pakistan, who was born in Pakistan, not only do I understand Indian nationalism, even the fears and desires behind the Hindutva ideology, but also the pain of the partition of India. Perhaps the most underrated and ignored political concept in India is the deprivation of Indian nationalism to the millions of people living under what is Pakistan and Bangladesh today. So I write this more as an Indian than as a Pakistani.

The greatest triumph of the Congress Party was to establish India as a Secular Republic, which immediately established its moral superiority over Pakistan, which was precisely established for the purpose of the Muslim majority. This was not something that Gandhi or the Congress did for their health, but it was a hand forced on them by the British colonists leaving in a hurry, who prevented India from recognizing its nationalist potential. These colonists thought that they were treating communities fairly while ignoring what kind of a humanitarian disaster they were creating.

These are the quoted words of Nathuram Godse after he killed Gandhi to quote a piece from the Hindustan Times.

“I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus,” Godse told the court.

He added: “I bear no ill will towards anyone individually, but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.”.

The RSS that nurtured Godse, which by the way is not the “Nazi Party” the Pakistani leader Imran Khan and his political party PTI assert, has become the dominant force in Indian politics today. Its members in Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have firmly gripped the helm of its leadership and they are mobilizing the Hindu community to vote as one bloc across North and Central India. While this still does not affect the Secular character of India, it has started threatening it.

The same RSS member Narendra Modi has written a piece preaching Gandhi’s values to the world. However, slowly, they are closing the breathing space for the minority populations. The retaliatory politics that gave rise to the Two-Nation theory also gave rise to its Hindutva ideology. And both of them run counter to the kind of pluralist, secular, liberal India that was envisioned by its fathers.

Fortunately, for both these ideologies, which might have always found an opening in the manifesto of the BJP, fed off each other thanks to a belligerent and increasingly Islamist Pakistan. Despite the almost fatal blow to the Two-Nation theory after the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, the animosity of the Two-Nation theory remained as the bone of contention of Kashmir which had triggered wars even before the conflict had ever come to Bengal. Even today, you would find Islamist fanatics in Pakistan quoting obscure traditions about a “Ghazwa-e-Hind.”

Over the years of the Secular Indian government’s regressive concessions to theocrats in India and Pakistan’s constant intrusions in India, somewhere the dent was made in the wall of the classical secular pluralism which had become synonymous with the Indian Republic. Which despite its problems of poverty, inefficiency, and corruption was still one of the most exemplary nations in terms of its harmonious reason-to-be. Slowly, the belief in the principles of Gandhi’s India started to dwindle.

And despite a lack of major communal riots, there is silent persecution underway that is closing the space to the minority communities claim an equal right to India, let alone flourish. There are rampant mob-lynching by almost legally sanctioned gau rakshaks who are getting off the hook after beating people to death.

Perhaps this is why discourse such as controversial BJP MP Pragya Raj calling Godse a patriot became possible in an election season. It is why statements, as quoted in this news report, has become possible in India without consequences.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I still have faith in the modern Republic of India because I know it has fathers in men like Bhimrao Ambedkar. I still have faith in the robust Secular Indian democracy because it got its textbook right with a fair system of justice and politics. I still have faith in the BJP as a secular popular party, despite the growing malignancy of the RSS and Hindutva agenda slowly weakening Indian pluralism.

But let’s just say it’s a faith that would be too precarious for even an idealist and an optimist like Gandhi himself.

I am sorry for choosing to write something that centers more on Gandhi’s death on the occasion of his 150th birthday, but I feel as if his India is being slowly killed at this moment in history too.

Calling for Sharia in the Capital

Source: tanzeem.org/Twitter: @syousuf71

To most people in Pakistan, there would be nothing out of the place about demanding Sharia in a country which was made in the name of faith. While a lot of people don’t even agree with the statement that Pakistan was established on the basis of faith but on the basis of the protection of the rights of a community, the distinction does not even matter considering the established narrative in Pakistan.

Throughout the Muslim majority world, you would find Islamist groups blackmailing the local population for enforcing Sharia, the Islamic law that eliminates a likelihood of establishing a fair secular social order and is widely known for persecuting women and minority groups. Granted, you might call for Sharia while also asking for the abolition of any secular order in a country alleged to be created in the name of religion but not in a democracy. Because those calls are by very definition

For the entire past week and even on the day when I write this post, the citizens can see signs from the self-proclaimed revolutionary Islamist group Tanzeem-i-Islami or Islamic Organization with inflammatory messages condemning secularism and democracy and calling for the Caliphate and enforcing theocratic Sharia.

Source: Original

There are following posts in Urdu language, which hope to incite an already tired and frustrated population to rise up against the democratic order, which barely exists in a country with a ruling bureaucratic oligarchy. Messages would barely translate to:

“Secularism will only lead to slavery and humiliation while only the Sharia can deliver.”

“Denying the ideological (theocratic) state is tantamount to ideological apostasy.”

Here it is important to remind that apostasy or “irtidad” is an offense in traditional Islam that apostates, or those converting out of Islam, should be put to death. Many Western liberal Muslims will deny such a rule even exists but it is the majority consensus in the Sunni or orthodox sect of the religion and you often hear antithetical critics quote it during debates. Now, equating the denial of the theocratic basis of the creation of Pakistan to a charged word like apostasy is clearly a threat.

There are many more messages like this which you can find throughout the length of some of the most modern sectors in Islamabad. The Tanzeem,  founded by the late Dr. Israr Ahmed and led by Hafiz Aakif Saeed, calls it the “Strengthening Pakistan Campaign” and cites Jinnah’s irrational quotes about the religious law as the basis for their faith in a theocratic version of the Ideology of Pakistan. And clearly, they are no fans of democracy as their very message displayed as the cover image for this blog reads that the idea of the rule of people is counter to the monotheistic beliefs of the sole right of worship of Allah or God.

If you go through their statements, they essentially present the Ideology of Pakistan as an article of faith, as if disagreeing with it, as the likes of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad did, would qualify you for apostasy. This is the promotion of an extremely dangerous idea in a nation which has already been blinded beyond control in terms of their approval of violence for blasphemy.

In a democracy, extremist entities such as anti-democratic theocrats and Islamists can exist and possibly practice their politics. Another instance is the Neo-Nazis in the Western democracies. However, when their ideas are so clearly undemocratic that they lead toward the harm of the people and the democratic system of law that threatens the very fundamental rights and liberties that offer them the chance to thrive, it is going beyond that acceptable line.

But never do you ever see such extremist groups becoming active electorally and come even close to representing the people in the legislature to affect the law and the constitution, unless that nation wants to give an opening for it to become Nazi Germany or Islamic Revolutionary Iran.

Some progressive and conservative liberals actually advocate actively pushing back these groups because they are a threat to democracy and fundamental rights in whatever capacity they exist. However, it is important to respect the principle on sheer emotion. Nevertheless, it is time to think about seriously banning such an organization when they start threatening democracy by taking their hate speech to the mainstream and by threatening to take electoral seats away from democrats just because they enjoy the sympathy of theocrats in the public.

Tanzeem-e-Islami is doing its job. I don’t wish them all the best but I do respect that they are taking their message across peacefully, even though a very violent and brutal message. However. what I am astounded at is the Government of Pakistan, the ever-present bane of our existence. A Government that openly asks for people to report social media posts for blasphemy, but would take zero action against an organization that is openly talking about enforcing theocracy and eliminating democratic freedoms, the very freedom it is exercising to take away their freedoms paradoxically.

In such a scenario, you can’t help but think that indeed Pakistan was formed for establishing a theocracy and is ruled by people who want such a policy to be enforced, even including the elected democrats.

What Pakistan Day Says to the Minority Groups

Source: aaj.tv

While it is, and it is easy to write from the position of privilege from a very safe distance, I found myself horrified this Pakistan Day. Often equated as the Republic Day because some of the constitutions were deliberately passed this day to coincide with what it is actually celebrated for. The Lahore Resolution in 1940. The event which laid foundation of the division of India on communal lines. But worse than that, it laid the foundation of Pakistan becoming virtually a theocratic state. Something which happened and which people blame on the “untimely” demise of the founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

This day became a celebration of the toxic idea that Pakistan was a country acquired for the protection of the rights of a certain community which happened to be a minority in the United British India at the time. While many of their concerns were valid in the context of a Hindu majority, many, especially in Punjab, questioned the sanity of such a demand until Muslim League won the reluctant state over in the 1946 elections.

However, the idea remains that if you happen to be coming from a different background, then this country is neither meant for you, nor is it going to be a comfortable place for you anyway. So I am not sure if it is something to be too proud of. There are apologist nationalists and history revisionists who would really want you to believe otherwise, but the history of Pakistan tells a different story altogether.

And it feels even more embarrassing when you see them believing in the idea of Pakistan, an idea which actually took away their rights and freedom. And that makes it all the more difficult because somehow as a citizen you feel the pressure that you have been responsible for it.

So I am not sure if I can be so proud about the day until l can look some of my other fellow countrymen and women in the eye.

Well, you can be. But if you really ignore those and forget about the discrimination that has long become a norm.

How much insensitive do you need to be?

Jinnah, Secular Pakistan & False Heroes

Source: Express Tribune

Source: Express Tribune

Often September 11 is a day when you could find people having a debate about secularism in Pakistan here and there. It is also the 9/11 anniversary, but let’s keep the conversation to secularism.

The death anniversary of founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah is considered a moment for this debate, primarily due to a speech he delivered on August 11, 1947.

However, the proponents of Islamic Republic who claim he was not secular do have a point. Ah, Islamic Republic, what an oxymoron.

The day every single secular bone in Mr. Jinnah was dead when he decided to join the cause of the Muslim League.

Call it the bigotry of Hindu leaders or the failure of Indian National Congress to suck up to the unreasonable demands of separate electorate, but that act should sum it up for anyone, if not the disastrous partition of 1947.

Needless deaths. Needless riots. Needless stupidity which has now become synonymous to the Indian people.

The supposedly secular Jinnah, who reportedly got furious over someone calling him the King of Pakistan, was perfectly alright with the dangerous slogan “Pakistan ka matlab kya, La ilaha il Allah” or “What is the meaning of Pakistan? No god but Allah.”

But a lot of people even claim that such slogan was a later invention, and there is no wonder not many would believe them.

And what of the forsaken millions of oppressed Muslim left to suffer at the hands of “Hindu imperialists”, who certainly would be seeing this as an opportunity for revenge for over five centuries of Muslim rule?

At another instance, you find him saying that the state of Pakistan would be an Islamic State modeled after the City State of Medina established by Prophet Muhammad himself. He has also referred to Islam as democracy. I know a lot of people would defend this statement, but this calls for a serious reality check.

In other words, Jinnah was one of the liberal Muslims who deemed the sort of state as the Medina to be a perfectly safe constitution for the non-Muslim community. The sort of liberal Muslims who are under the delusion that Islam provides safety to the non-Muslim communities through its message of universal peace.

Now Pakistani secularists, most of them with the center-left PPP and ANP have a dilemma. How to pitch secularism to an Islamic fundamentalist crowd, raised on admiring the merits of the Caliphate.

Perhaps in the world of cults and personality worshipers, what is missing in Pakistan for the failure of the secular movement is the lack of real heroes. Secular circles are usually seen hailing Jinnah and Bhutto as their leaders and heroes, while they should be the ones in the forefront to criticize them.

Source: ppp.org.pk

Source: ppp.org.pk

Why not openly endorse Jawaharlal Nehru as a secular leader rather than Jinnah, and why not discard an Islamic Socialist like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who signed the Second Amendment?

I know a lot of folks recognize atheist freedom fighter Bhagat Singh as a hero. I am all for choosing Benazir Bhutto as a relatively better secular and surely a liberal leader and I am glad that we have leaders such as Sherry Rehman and Bushra Gohar among us.

Though what is needed is a consensus on secularism. The left should not and must not have a monopoly over this issue. A secular right is badly needed in the sub continent.

But stick with the August 11, 1947 speech by all means to haunt Islamists. I actually respect the man’s acknowledgement of keeping religion separate from the state. However, his actions are hardly coherent with his words.

In any case, rest assured that Jinnah was no secular hero. Primarily, because of his politics under Muslim League as Muslims are not a nation or an ethnic group. It is a religious group and obtaining a state for it would mean giving up the secular cause and taking up a religious one.

As a matter of fact, the Indian Jamaat-e-Islami of the time would have offered some relative sanity if you were a Jinnah follower.

If only we would have the courage to admit that with such an artificially created religious demographic, Pakistan was wired to be an Islamic state from the very beginning. Little else would be expected from a political party thriving on the politics of discrimination and separate electorates.

While my opinion has changed about Muhammad Ali Jinnah over time, my view pertaining to secularism and logical political choices remains the same.

You don’t have to follow someone’s example to do the right thing. Jinnah was a politician, and therefore, his contradictions only make sense.

Just use your brain as secularism is the most reasonable, uncontroversial, universally acceptable and common sense social contract.

In the words of an acquaintance, former civil servant K. M. Cheema, the case for secularism must stand by itself.

The Destruction of Ziarat Residency and Rational Criticism

Source: AP/Express Tribune

Source: AP/Express Tribune

It takes the simplest of incidents to illustrate the most obnoxious behaviors and opinions. There could not have been a better one than the destruction of the Ziarat Residency at the hands of the Baluchistan Liberation Army.

I have used the words of rational criticism in the title, because this post would mainly address the otherwise rational critics who think that the loss of Ziarat residency is some kind of a heroic act, or perhaps one that must not be condemned because some people are not condemning worse incidents, such as loss of human lives, since people in our country are always so concerned about who is condemning and not condemning something.

A lot of interesting comments about the destruction of Ziarat Residency have been appearing. The likes of, people are worried about that building and not worried about the deaths of the Balochs. People are worried about a colonial building in which Mr. Jinnah was held under “house arrest”. Why the hell are you upset about a destroyed building. There is no mention of the other terrorist attack killing college going girls in Quetta.

First of all, it is unfortunate that political ideology prevents people from seeing things the way they are. This is why I am sickened by jingoistic ideologues on both sides of the fence as far as the matter of the Ziarat Residency attack is concerned, that is, the Pakistani nationalists and anti-Pakistan nationalists.

To me, this is not a matter of patriotism at all, unlike most Pakistanis. But I must observe that the stance of anti-Pakistan nationalists defending the destruction of the Ziarat Residency is ridiculous when compared to that of their counterparts.

The prime logical fallacy in their arguments is that they think that one wrong act should be ignored just because other greater evils are taking place or, in other words, the appeal to worse problems. This deserves a round of applause.

I personally see the Ziarat Residency as a historical colonial building that stood there way before Mr. Jinnah ever set foot in it and before his belongings were ever placed there. And its destruction is an irreparable and irreversible loss.

The point is that Ziarat Residency is just a building, and that too, a historical one. So what if it is colonial? And so what if Mr. Jinnah stayed here during his last days?

The general secretary, that is the mouthpiece, of the Baluchistan based Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party, Akram Shah made a statement that the Ziarat Residency is nothing more than a colonial structure and a symbol of slavery.

You know what, I agree with him. But the impression that Mr. Shah is trying to create over here is that the loss of Ziarat Residency does not matter.

Now isn’t that charming? I have a huge list of symbols of slavery all over India and the world to be burned down for that matter. Because such structures are so evil that the world would be a better place without them.

My problem with his statement is not that he rejects the connection of the building with the Pakistani national heritage and Jinnah, unlike most Pakistanis, but that he thinks that the loss of a colonial structure does not matter at all. Instead of apologizing the failure of his coalition government’s failure to save this historical landmark, he is offering excuses for the attack.

So the historical heritage of the building makes it important, whether or not it had anything to do with Mr. Jinnah or anyone else. And even if it was about Jinnah, so what? Have the citizens of Mumbai destroyed Jinnah’s residence, Jinnah House, at Malabar Hill? No. Can’t figure it out? Because they are apparently not stupid.

Historical structures, whether secular or religious, are important because these are not only important landmarks and sources of wonder and inspiration for generations, but also a record of human civilization. Therefore, to me, the destruction of the Bamyan Buddha statues is as painful an incident as the looting of the Baghdad National Museum, or the damage to the heritage structures in Aleppo, Syria, or the rioting inside the Egyptian Antiquities Museum in Cairo or even the destruction of the Ziarat Residency.

And destruction of such structures in troubled states where people are dying only adds insult to injury. It would not offer any solace to the mourning.

I detest people justifying these stupid acts in the name of politics, religion and freedom.

Ziarat Residency Before Destruction  Source: Express Tribune

Ziarat Residency Before Destruction
Source: Express Tribune

The Baluchistan Liberation Army destroying this building is certainly a sign of defiance of the state. It’s probably good for them as a statement, but it really proves their stupidity to me, now that they are targeting historic landmarks of Baluchistan instead of focusing attacks on the Pakistani military. So this is what it has come down to? For a neutral observer, this rather unnecessary act of terrorism damages the image of their campaign.

Indeed, I am guilty over here of claiming to have a more superior opinion to my critics in this post, but not a moral or a righteous one please, just objective and common sense. I am prepared to be declared an immoral man for holding this opinion. Because it is the people I am criticizing who bring morality into it, not me.

I am least concerned with the jingoistic political morality surrounding this incident, which is just another case of criminal arson. The loss of a historical structure is the loss of the entire humanity, not a loss of any particular people or state.

The argument over here is not left versus right, Pakistani colonial rule versus liberation fighters and state nationalists versus ethnic nationalists. The argument over here is common sense versus nonsense.

For those considering  the destruction of Ziarat Residency a heroic act, this post is not an apology for ambiguous ideals such as Pakistani nationalism and patriotism. It is just to explain why you are stupid.

The Ramadan Independence Day Post 2012

Source: The Citizens Archive of Pakistan/DAWN

There is something special about the independence day of 2012. It falls in the Holy Month of Ramadan.

Actually, it is one of the rare occasions that the anniversary of independence falls on the same day both in Gregorian and Islamic calendars.

Patriotic and religious people in Pakistan will tell you that Pakistan gained its independence from the British Raj on the 27th of Ramadan, 1366 Hijri, which was on August 14, 1947. A Holy Night in the Islamic tradition. The night when the Koran was first revealed to Prophet Muhammad.

65 years ago, a massive communal migration took place across the borders of the then East Pakistan, West Pakistan and the modern Indian Republic. Everybody knows about probably the greatest migration in human history.

It was spectacular to some, hard to believe. A matter of faith and hope for others. Not a choice for the rest.

To me it was insane, brutal and tragic. With due respect to the immigrants and the cause of migration. They are certainly the bravest souls of the Indian independence movement. Not Jinnah or Nehru or Azad or Gandhi.

After 65 years, Ramadan coincides with the independence day again, almost the same date, the 26th maybe, and it seems that the communal migration has still not come to a halt.

Only days ago, there was news of Hindu families visiting India saying that they were unwilling to return to Pakistan as they feared for their lives. Furthermore, there has been pretty consistent migration of Sindhi Hindus from Pakistan to India, who have been a regular victim of abduction, abuse and forced conversion to Islam, particularly their women.

This seems to be a dream come true for the Muslim religious purist. After all, this country was made for Muslims.

The other day I overheard a child in a public transport van that I was sharing with a family. She was surprised on learning that Hindus and Christians lived in Pakistan too, just an innocent little child. The word Pakistani was synonymous to Muslim to her. Her mother had to explain to her how and why non-Muslims were Pakistani too.

I don’t blame her. That’s the way most fervent religious parents bring up their children in Pakistan.

I grew up hearing this slogan, like millions of other Pakistanis.

Pakistan ka matlab kya. La Ilaha Il-Allah.

What’s the meaning of Pakistan? No God except Allah.

Teach a child this and don’t expect them to consider any non-Muslim a Pakistani anymore.

My word, recalling this slogan just sent shivers down my spine. It always horrified me, if my memory serves me well.

I am shocked it never occurred to the able leaders of All-India Muslim League.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Quaid-e-Azam, was supposedly a secular politician. But apparently even he did not bother setting the record straight with that kind of slogans.

But his actions spoke much louder than his words or whatever principles he supposedly followed.

Some are worrying about the Hindu migration. Outraging. Complaining what the state is doing to protect them. I’d rather like to see them safe anyway they possibly can be.

But why worry?

So if Muslims were migrating to Pakistan from India in 1947 and Hindus were migrating from Pakistan to India, why be surprised that they are still at it in 2012?

Why even bother with the white band in the flag?

This was what we wanted and we are achieving the goal.

Slowly, but surely.

Source: Wikipedia

To a Hindu-free Pakistan.

The Real Pakistan.

The Pakistan of Allah.

The Pakistan of Ramadan.

The Pakistan of Layla-tul-Qadr.

The Pure Pakistan.

Happy Independence Day.

And

Allah-o-Akbar.

Courtesy/Artist: Sabir Nazar © 2012

The Late Quaid Day Post: The Wrong Focus

Probably Amused by the Stupidity of his Nation

December 25, 2010

I wanted to use the occasion of Quaid Day for trumpeting my secret agenda of Secularism but I was a little disappointed by noticing something else.

This Quaid Day, I wanted to look around for something useful about the Quaid-e-Azam. But all I could find was “Islamic or Secular”.

Does it really matter whether Mr. Jinnah, the Quaid-e-Azam, was secular or not?

What if he was and what if he wasn’t?

One thing that I have learned from the man is that you should not giving up using your brain.

Trash the Islamic or Secular debate and just start working on this tip, and everything will be fine.

If he was not Secular, well you can be. You can think for your own, can’t you?

I’d like to focus on other qualities and values that he held. Let’s try to build Pakistan on those lines.

Regardless of what he said at any other place or any other point in history, this is what he said during his all-important address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947.

“We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.”

“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, caste or creed –that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

When I look at the 1973 constitution, unfortunately, that is not the case. And even apart from that Secularism or “Minorities” Debate, does not that also imply that all citizens should have equal access to the basic necessities, justice and rights?

Even that is not happening.

How come we missed that?

 

Since the Nation is so orgasmic about the Islamic v Secular Debate, Secularism is not an anti-Islam doctrine, and since Pakistan is a country of 97% Muslim population, any insecurity pertaining to that is baseless. I know many people who support Secularism are anti-religion, but that is their own problem. There is a Secular constitution in India and the United States which is not anti-religion. If you have been thinking that Secularism is anti-religion, you have been listening to too many atheists. Not that anything is wrong with that.

Furthermore, Pakistan was created for “the protection of the rights of the Indian Muslim community” in theory,  and that right is not violated by declaring that every citizen of the country should have equal rights, isn’t it?

“The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed (may peace be upon him). We are members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, 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.”

He said that after Pakistan was created, on February 19, 1948.

It’s not a question of the protection of the rights of Indian Muslim community anymore. Now, it is a question of the protection of the rights of every single Pakistani, regardless of what religion or ethnicity they belong to. All the Muslim criticism of the Hindu caste system will not be justified if we have stratification in out society too. His comments made during a February 1948 broadcast.

“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 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.”

 

Was he not clear? He was. The problem is, Pakistanis are not.

It’s all about getting your textbook right.

This is where the Debate is sealed for me.

He endorsed Mustafa Kamal, the Ataturk. Really? That Anti-Muslim Secular Dictator? He clearly must be nuts. Well, he had his reasons. These words on March 4, 1948.

“The exploits of your leaders in many a historic field of battle; the progress of your Revolution; the rise and career of the great Ataturk, his revitalization of your nation by his great statesmanship, courage and foresight all these stirring events are well-known to the people of Pakistan.”

And remember, Mr. Jinnah opposed the Khilafat Movement?

Mullahs hated him anyway.

But what the hell, get the focus right.

This is what he said about building the nation.

The great man also said, this. June 15, 1948 in Quetta.

“We are now all Pakistanis–not Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on–and as Pakistanis we must feet behave and act, and we should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else.”

Not much comments on this one, it is self-explanatory, but only shames us on how ethnically polarized Pakistani politics have become.

Even dump Secularism, if it is so evil, can we just act on this saying? That is, Unite as a Nation.

We hardly act on anything the Quaid-e-Azam said & debate whether he was secular or not. Pakistanis need to grow up as a nation

And finally, in the words of fellow Fabian Socialist, and another great visionary and Statesman of the Indian Subcontinent, Jawaharlal Nehru, the ultimate tribute to the Quaid-e-Azam.

Jinnah is one of the most extraordinary men in history.

Both the men had almost similar approach to politics. India was lucky to have such an architect.

Pakistan was lucky to have Jinnah as the architect too, he just could not finish the building.

 

I don’t want to imply that he was a superman, far from it. But at least we can learn from him.

You even learn from your enemy they say.

Unity, Faith, Discipline.