Quaid: A Study in Statesmanship

By Prof Sharif al Mujahid

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's claim to statesmanship lay in his two attributes: (i) his rational approach towards politics, and (ii) his keeping himself in close touch with the objective ground realities, however awkward, however complex, however shifting or confusing. Little surprising, he often made the right choice at the right moment.

 

Prescience, idealism, intellectual vigour, faith and resolution these qualities Jinnah had in an abundant measure. Qualities that having crystallized with the years had transformed him what he finally turned out to be in the last decade of his eventful life.

 

His sense of realism would never fail him, with this decisions stemming from a genuine pragmatic approach. An approach, which would always take the world as it was in its changing historic realities, only to have it improved to the extent that the existing possibilities permitted, with a view to upholding the ideals of freedom and the common good. Yet underlying all of Jinnah's politics were a specific set of moral values, reflecting the intellectual traditions and sociological norms among the historical realities of Indian Islam.

 

Jinnah, like Konred Adenauer of West Germany, was averse to following "a purely positively utilitarian policy of expediency". This is because he was not prepared to sacrifice moral principles and spiritual necessities for temporary political gains. Nor would he allow his realism to deflect him into a policy of opportunism. For his realism had a sound ethical base, his being a policy of conviction and of conscience all the time.

 

Nevertheless, his overwhelming sense of pragmatism shied him away, from the futile task of abstract theorizing and enabled him to concentrate all his energies on the practical mastery of the tangible, day-to-day, political problems and tasks.

 

Chance, and particularly the chance of genius, says Voltaire, "is an incalculable, factor in the story of the past". "Chance because it decides which people will survive", because it determines, what names will survive the ravages of time and tide. And that he should be able to rise to any occasion is perhaps the most significant mark of greatness in a statesman. Jinnah could do something more: he could crystallise a lifetime's faith into a single bold action. And such actions over a 30-year provide the key to his political career and success.

 

Barely twelve years after his debut into politics for instance, Jinnah brought the divided Hindu and Muslims on one platform, a "miracle" that had never happened again.

 

He also got this Hindu-Muslim unity consecrated in the famous (Congress-League) Lucknow Pact of 1916. For all that it meant, it was not the handwork of a mere politician. It was an act of faith: faith in Hindu-Muslim unity as the condition of Indian freedom. And it called for utmost tact, persuasive powers, and statesmanship of the highest order to breathe a spirit of compromise, of give-and-take, into the two warring parties, so mortally suspicious of each other.

 

Some ten years later, he devised an extremely viable formula for a Hindu-Muslim settlement. This was in the Delhi Muslim Proposals (1927). Despite Muslim reservations about joint electorates, he offered to waive the Muslim right to separate electorates, if certain basic Muslim demands were met. These demands were: Proportional representation for Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal, the separation of Sindh from Bombay Presidency the extension of reforms to the NWFP and Balochistan and one-third Muslim representation at the center. Within the united Indian framework, the Delhi Proposal ensured the setting up of five stable Muslim Provinces to match the six Hindu ones. Hence Maulana Abul Kalaam Azad hailing them as opening. "The door for the first time to the recognition of the real rights of Muslims in India". While negating the long-standing Hindu reservations on separate electorates, the Proposals guaranteed Muslims "a proper share in the future of India".

 

Initially, the Congress welcomed and accepted the Proposals, Later, however, it gave in to the Hindu Mahasabhaite pressure, and opposed the Muslim demands except for the one relating to the NWFP, and for a conditional acceptance of Sindh's separation.

 

This mean that Jinnah's spirit of accommodation was sadly supporting on the other side. He requested that "the Muslims should be made to feel that they are secured and safeguarded against any act of oppression of the majority" fell on deaf cars. So did his plea "to rise to that statesmanship which Sir Tej Bahadur describes". But for the rejection of his impassioned pleas, the subsequent history of India would have been different. Mere politicians, out to score tactical gains let slip through their fingers the chance of a lifetime. At this juncture, the only other political leader who could match Jinnah's breadth of vision and statesmanship was Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru.

 

In 1937 came another chance for a Hindu-Muslim rapprochement. From 1935 onwards, Jinnah had established an entente with the Congress at the center. In February 1935, he tried to negotiate an alternative to the Communal Award (1932) with Babu Rajendra Prasad, the Congress President. A viable formula was finally worked out, but the pressure built up by the Congress Nationalist Party under Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, especially in Bengal and the Punjab, scuttled their efforts.

 

In the pre-1937 election period, despite Pandit Nehru's provocative denial of Muslim entity and identity in India's body politics on September 18, 1936, Jinnah had managed to keep him cool, offering the Congress an olive branch repeatedly. "Ours is not a hostile movement", he assured on August 20, 1936. He urged his Peshawar audience on October 19, "to unite to hammer out an advance nationalist bloc" from amongst themselves "to send to the Provincial Assembly". He exhorted Hindus and Muslims alike, at a public meeting at Nagpur's Chitnawis Park on January 1, 1937, to produce by a process of hammering fine steel and weed out those obstructing their march to freedom".

 

He declared on January 20, 1937 that "the urgent question facing every nationalist in India is how to create unity out of diversity and not of fight each other'.

 

With this end in view, he promoted the establishment of "something like a concordat" with the Congress during the 1937 elections, especially in the U.P. and Bombay. After the elections, he instructed the League Leaders to shun joining the interim ministries in these provinces. He instructed A.M.K. Dehalvi, Muslim League Assembly Party leader in Bombay, to reject out of hand Governor Brabourn's offer to head the interim ministry. Husseinally Rahimtulla and the Raja of Salempur were expelled for joining the Cooper and Chatter ministries in Bombay and the U.P. respectively.

 

Yet, when the Congress finally took office in July 1937, it by passed the Muslim League and Jinnah. It opted for Unitarianism a la the Nehru Report as against Muslim federalism, offered "absorption" instead of "partnership", and called for the dissolution of Muslim League parties in the legislatures for being considered for a share in power. The Congress justified the formation of exclusive one-party governments on the basis of the collective responsibility principle, but when it came to provinces such as the NWFP and Assam where it did not command an absolute majority, it flouted this principle and went in coalition ministries.

 

The failure of the Congress to exploit its spectacular electoral gains in 1937 for extending the areas of cooperation with the League is inexplicable unless explained in terms of it becoming "heady" with its unexpected victory and of a terrible lack of political prescience and foresight. For a plural society and for a multi-national country like India, Switzerland rather than England was the model coalition, rather than one-party government, the rule.

 

History shows that neglected opportunities do not, as a rule, return. However, Congress was presented the opportunity of reaching a peaceful settlement of the communal question in 1928, during 1930 (at the time of the Round Table Conference), during 1935-37 (Jinnah-Prasad Formula and the formation of provincial governments), and, finally, in 1946. But each time it failed, rather miserably. Of all these, the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) presented the Congress leaders at this crossroad of history the chance of a lifetime, the chance perhaps of centuries. But none of them could rise to the occasion, because none of them had that "incredible clarity of vision", that "statecraft", and that "practical Bismarckian sense of the best possible" which, was Jinnah's alone, to quote the Aga Khan.

 

Bismarck, it is said, "was always emphatic that he could not make events". And if Jinnah had been asked about this situation at this juncture, he would have most probably said in the Bismarckian vein" "Politics are not a science based on logic; they are the capacity of always choosing at each instant, in constantly changing situations, the least harmful, the most useful". Again, like Bismarck, Jinnah, though perhaps taken by surprise by the Congress" reservations on the Cabinet Mission Plan, would turn the blunders of his enemies to his own advantage, to emerge victorious in the end.

 

But this anticipates. For the moment, it would suffice to note that Jinnah's crucial decision to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan demonstrated, perhaps more than anything else, this genius in statesmanship - a measure of statesmanship perhaps unmatched by the political giants involved in writing the last chapter of the British Raj in India. Hence the Aga Khans' verdict:

 

"In the one decision to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan, combining as it did sagacity, shrewdness, and unequalled political flair, he justified.... My claim that he was the most remarkable of all the great statesmen that I have known. In puts him on a level with Bismarck."

 

Remember, the Aga Khan was himself a statesman of a rare caliber, having occupied the president ship of the League of Nations.

 

Political genius, it is often said, lies in compromise. But this is only true within limits. An empirical approach is a distinguishing characteristic of a statesman, but that statesman alone is great who does not lose his purposive political creed in the exercise of power vested in him. The Muslim nation had, of course, authorized Jinnah to negotiate was operative only within the framework of the nation's cherished aspirations and supreme objective. The genius for compromise could never be carried beyond a recognizable point. The genius for compromise could never be carried beyond a recognizable point, the limit to compromise being set by the words of high purpose, such as Justice, Honour and Equity. In accepting the Mission Plan, Jinnah had compromised to the extent of suffering central control over the Muslim areas in respect of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. But in attempting to erode the grouping provision on the one hand and envisaging and strenuously striving for a strong Centre on the other, the Congress had brazenly trespassed the limits to compromise. The Mission Plan, as formulated by its authors, ensured for Muslim Justice, Honour and Equity in the future Indian dispensation - though not in full, but in a substantial measure. The Plan, as the Congress had interpreted and proposed for implementation, had sought to cut across these high, non-compromisable principles. Jinnah had, therefore, to revoke his earlier acceptance of the Plan.

 

"The Future", says A.J.P. Taylor, a British historian, "is a land of which there are no maps; and historians err when they describe even the most purposeful statesman as though he were marching down a broad highroad with his objective already in sight. More flexible historians admit that a statesman has an alternative course before him; yet even they depict him as one choosing his route at crossroad. Certainly the development of history has its own logical laws. But these laws resemble rather those by which floodwater flows into hitherto unseen channels and forces itself finally to an unpredictable sea."

 

And if the Mission Plan had forced Indian politics through hitherto unseen channels on to an unpredictable sea, Jinnah, like Bismarck in such situations "proved himself master of the storm, a daring pilot in extremities. Like Bismarck again, even in the extremely difficult situation spawned by the British adverse verdict on the Pakistan demand, he never, even for a moment, let the initiative slip through his dexterous fingers.

 

Part of the wisdom of statecraft, to barrow a phrase from Richard Goodwin, is "to leave as many options open as possible and decide as little as possible... Since almost all-important judgments are speculative, you must avoid risking too much on the conviction that you are right. "The other half of the wisdom of statecraft is to "accept the chronic lubricity and obscurity of events without yielding, in Lincoln's words, firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right. Such acceptance rules out the contingency of keeping too many options open for too long, lest such keeping should paralyse the lobe of decision and end up in losing the game altogether. Thus, within the parameters of this framework, Jinnah's crucial decisions, first to accept the Mission Plan and later, when confronted with impossible congress conditions, to reject it, represent the two-halves of the wisdom of statecraft.

 

Jinnah's statecraft as well fulfils a test proffered by Bismarck himself: "Man cannot create the current of events. He can only float with it and steer." And the genius of Jinnah lay in his adroitly and successfully steering the adverse current of events during 1946 to bring the battered Muslim ship, safe and sound ashore within a year.

 

To sum up, then, Jinnah had a keep appreciation of the truth that politics is the art of the possible, that ends must conjoin and be conducive to means, that the best must be made of what is beyond one's power to change. Not only did he adroitly exploit to the full opportunities provided by his opponents. More importantly, like Mazzini, he also believed in creating opportunities through his own efforts. He had an iron will, and an unwilling faith in himself and his mission. To make these attributes the more impregnable and consequential, he was also resolute, fearless, courageous, calculating, and even somewhat reckless at time.

 

Yet he was farsighted, and, not withstanding the fierce invectives he had hurled oft and anon in the face of the "hated" congress, he always preferred the path of moderation and conciliation. Cautious for most part, he never took a step he could not retrace. The enabled him to stretch the hand of conciliation and compromise whenever such an opportunity presented itself. And it is a measure of the elasticity of his temper that the could change his political theosophy dewing his mid. Sixties, after over thirty years in public life, that he could accept the Mission Plan after pronouncing the "Pakistan-or- Perish" dictum, that he could call for "burying the hatchet" once the goal was achieved, that he could even preach friendship and collaboration with those to whom he was but lately so vehemently opposed. And, as in the case of Bismarck, his greatest, and perhaps most admirable, quality was to be content with limited success.

 

All told, it were these qualities that enabled him to surpass "possibly everyone else in India, in practical political intelligence" that earned him probably one of the highest tributes from a statesman whose stature and calibre were themselves universally recognized. In his Memoirs, the Aga Khan remarks:

 

Of all the statesmen that I have known in my life - Clamenceau, Lloyd George, Churchill, Curzon, Mussolini, Mahatma Gandhi - Jinnah is the most remarkable.

 

None of these men in my view outshone him in strength of character and in that almost uncanny combination of prescience and resolution, which is statecraft.

 

(The writer was founder-Director, Quaid-e-Azam Academy (1976-89), and authored "Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation (1981)", the only work to qualify for the president's Award for Best Books on Quaid-e-Azam)

BBC - Historic Figures: Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Jinnah was an Indian politician who successfully campaigned for an independent Pakistan and became its first leader. He is known there as 'Quaid-e-Azam' or 'Great Leader'.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah was born on 25 December 1876 in Karachi, now in Pakistan, but then part of British-controlled India. His father was a prosperous Muslim merchant.

Jinnah studied at Bombay University and at Lincoln's Inn in London. He then ran a successful legal practice in Bombay. He was already a member of the Indian National Congress, which was working for autonomy from British rule, when he joined the Muslim League in 1913. The league had formed a few years earlier to represent the interests of Indian Muslims in a predominantly Hindu country, and by 1916 he was elected its president.

In 1920, the Indian National Congress launched a movement of non-cooperation to boycott all aspects of British rule. Jinnah opposed this policy and resigned from the congress. There were by now profound differences between the congress and the Muslim League.

After provincial elections in 1937, the congress refused to form coalition administrations with the Muslim League in mixed areas. Relations between Hindus and Muslims began to deteriorate. In 1940, at a Muslim League session in Lahore, the first official demand was made for the partition of India and the creation of a Muslim state of Pakistan. Jinnah had always believed that Hindu-Muslim unity was possible, but reluctantly came to the view that partition was necessary to safeguard the rights of Indian Muslims.

His insistence on this issue through negotiations with the British government resulted in the partition of India and the formation of the state of Pakistan on 14 August 1947. This occurred against a backdrop of widespread violence between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, and a vast movement of populations between the new states of Pakistan and India in which hundreds of thousands died.

Jinnah became the first governor general of Pakistan, but died of tuberculosis on 11 September 1948.


Source: BBC

Jinnah's Vision of Pakistan

By Sharif al Mujahid

For some years now, Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's vision of Pakistan has been a source of controversy and conflict. Much of this has however tried to cut Jinnah to fit a predetermined image. A close look at Jinnah's long and chequered public life, encompassing some forty-four years (1904-48), helps determine the core values he was committed to throughout his political career.



This paper examines how Jinnah’s politics evolved through main phases, which, though distinct, yet merged into the next, without sudden shifts. It analyses how his liberalism underwent an apparent paradigmatic shift from 1937 onwards, and led to him advocating the charismatic goal of Pakistan, and to elucidate it primarily in Islamic terms. Finally, the Islamic strain in his post independence pronouncements and his 11 August 1947 address is discussed, and an attempt made to reconcile it with his other pronouncements.




Jinnah as Liberal

In the first phase of his public life (1904-20) three main influences shaped Jinnah's personality and politics:

• Nineteenth century British liberalism, first absorbed during his four-years' (1892-96) stay in England as a student of law,

• The cosmopolitan atmosphere and mercantile background of metropolitan Bombay where he had established himself as an extremely successful barrister since the turn of the century, and

• His close professional and personal contact with the Parsis, who, though only a tiny community provided an example of how initiative, enterprise and hard work could overcome numerical inferiority, racial prejudice and communal barriers.

These formative influences seem to have prompted Jinnah to join the Indian National Congress. Fashioned after liberal principles and cast in their mould, the Congress was at that time pledged to take India on the road to self-government through constitutional means. Soon enough, he rose high in its echelons, high enough to be its 'spokesman' for its representation to the Secretary of State on the reform of the India Council in May 1914. Jinnah believed in moderation, gradualism, ordered progress, evolutionary politics, democratic norms, and above all, in constitutionalism. When the Congress sought to abandon these liberal principles in 1920 and opted for revolution and extra constitutional methods, he walked out of the Congress for good.



The constitutionalist in Jinnah led to him having a similar experience with the Home Rule League (HRL). He had collaborated with it since it was founded by Annie Besant, and joined it in a show of solidarity when Besant was interned in 1917. In October 1920 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, upon being elected HRL President on Jinnah's proposals, went about changing its constitution and its aims and objects and renaming it Swarajya Sabha rather unilaterally. Gandhi ruled out Jinnah's objections that the constitution could not be changed unless supported by a three-fourths majority, and without proper notice. Jinnah, along with nineteen other members resigned, charging that the "changes in the constitution were made by adopting a procedure contrary to the rules and regulations of the (HR) League."



Throughout this period, in fact since 1897, Jinnah was active in Anjuman-I-Islam, Muslim Bombay's foremost religio-political body. In 1906 Jinnah opposed the demand for separate electorates, but before long his opposition thawed when he realized that the demand had "the mandate of the community". In 1910 he was elected to the Imperial Council on a reserved Muslim seat. From then on, he came in close contact with Nadwah, Aligarh and the All India Muslim League (AIML), and he was chosen by the AIML to sponsor a bill on Waqf alal Aulad, a problem of deep concern to Muslims since the time of Syed Ahmad Khan. Though not yet a formal member of the League, Jinnah was yet able to get the League committed to the twin ideals of self-government and Hindu-Muslim unity during the next three years, thus bringing the AIML on par with the Congress in terms of its objectives.



He joined the AIML formally in October 1913 and became its President in 1916. He utilized his pivotal position to get the Congress and the League act in concert, and work out common solutions to problems confronting the country. One result of his efforts was the Congress-League, Lucknow Pact of 1916, which settled the controversial electorate issue, at least for the time being, and paved the way towards a entente cordiale between Hindus and Muslims. Another result was the holding of Congress and League annual sessions at the same time and at the same place for seven years (1915-21).



It can be seen that there were three dominant strands in the first phase (1904-1920) of Jinnah's political career. These were a firm belief in a united Indian nationhood, with Hindus and Muslim sharing in the future Indian dispensation; a sense that Indian freedom could come through Hindu-Muslim unity, and a need for unity in Muslim ranks through strengthening the Muslim League. These strands continued in the second phase (1920-37) as well; but with the years their position came to be reversed in his scale of priorities, as the Congress's ultimate objectives underwent a radical change under the influence of Hindu extremists. Jinnah's efforts for Muslim unity became increasingly pronounced with the years, becoming a passion with him towards the closing of the second phase.



For Jinnah, while national freedom for both Hindus and Muslims continued to be the supreme goal, the means adopted to achieve it underwent a dramatic change. If it could not be achieved through Hindu Muslim unity, it must be done through Hindu-Muslim separation; if it could not be secured through a composite Hindu-Muslim nationalism, it must be done through separate Hindu and Muslim nationalisms; if not through a united India, it must be through partition. In either case, the ultimate objective was to ensure political power for Muslims.




Jinnah’s Transformation

The period after 1937 marked a paradigmatic shift. Jinnah became identified in the Muslim mind with the concept of the charismatic community, the concept which answered their psychic need for endowing and sanctifying their sense of community with a sense of power. Increasingly he became the embodiment of a Muslim national consensus, which explains why and how he had become their Quaid-i-Azam, even before the launching of the Pakistan demand in March 1940.



This shift was squarely reflected in his thinking, his posture, his platform, and in his political discourse. And of course his appearance -- for his public rallies Jinnah replaced his finely creased English Saville Row suits with achkan, tight pyjamas and, to boot, a karakuli cap. He still believed in democracy, but now felt parliamentary democracy of the Westminster type was unsuitable for India because of the existence of a permanent majority and a permanent minority, which he defined in specific terms:

Minorities means a combination of things. It may be that a minority has a different religion from the other citizens of a country. Their language may be different, their race may be different, their culture may be different, and the combination of all these various elements - religion, culture, race, language, arts, music and so forth makes the minority a separate entity in the State, and that separate entity as an entity wants safeguards.

Extending this elucidation, he occasionally called Muslims 'a nation', stressing their distinct religion, culture, language and civilization, and calling on them to "live or die as a nation". He even called the League flag 'the flag of Islam', arguing that "you cannot separate the Muslim League from Islam.



Jinnah also traveled across the other end of the political and ideological spectrum in other ways. Previously he had disdained mass politics, now he opted for mass politics. Previously he had objected to Gandhi's injection of religion into politics, now he was not averse to couch his appeals in Islamic terms and galvanising the Muslim masses by appealing to them in a cultural matrix they were familiar with. Previously he had called himself an Indian first and last, now he opted for an Islamic identity. Previously he had strived long and hard for a national consensus; now all his efforts were directed towards a Muslim consensus. Jinnah, the erstwhile "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity" became the fiercest advocate of Hindu-Muslim separation.



Jinnah had a political basis for this paradigmatic shift, through which Muslims and Islam came to occupy the centre of his discourse. For one thing, how else could Muslims, scattered as they were unevenly throughout the subcontinent, sharing with their non-Muslim neighbours local customs, ethos, languages, and problems and subjected to local conditions (whether political, social or economic) become a 'nation' except through their affiliation with Islam? For another, since Pakistan was to be established in the Muslim majority provinces, why else should the Muslims in the minority provinces struggle for Pakistan, except for their deep concern for the fate and future of Islam in India? Above all, what linked them irretrievably with their fellow Muslims in the majority areas except this concern?



In an address to Gaya Muslim League Conference in January 1938, Jinnah begun mapping out his new world view. He said:

When we say ‘This flag is the flag of Islam’ they think we are introducing religion into politics - a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics, In fact, it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as an all embracing word. We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity.

Jinnah then used this to argue the case for Pakistan at two levels. First, he invoked the universally recognized principle of self-determination. But it was invoked not on the familiar territorial basis, but for the Muslim nation alone. As he stipulated in his marathon talks with Gandhi in September 1944, the constituency for the plebiscite to decide upon the Pakistan demand would comprise only the Muslims, and not the entire population of the areas concerned. Second, he spelled out his reasons for reaching out towards the 'Pakistan' goal in his Lahore (1940) address in more or less ideological terms, arguing that "Islam and Hinduism... are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are... different and distinct social orders", that "the Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature", "to two different civilizations", that they "derive their inspiration from different sources of history"... (with) different epics, different heroes and different episodes." "We wish our people", he declared, "to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people."



Jinnah developed this into a definition of Muslim nationhood that was most cogent, the most closely argued, and the most firmly based in international law since the time of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. "We are a nation," he wrote to Gandhi on 17 September 1944, "with our distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitude and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life."



He returned to this more extensively in his Id message in September 1945, saying:

"Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet has enjoined on us that every Musalman should possess a copy of the Quran and be his own priest. Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually."

Jinnah’s Realisation

After independence, as head of the state he had founded, Jinnah talked in the same strain. He talked of securing "liberty, fraternity and equality as enjoined upon us by Islam" (25 August 1947); of "Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood" (21 February 1948); of raising Pakistan on "sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasized equality and brotherhood of man" (26 March 1948); of laying "the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles" (14 August 1948); and "the onward march of renaissance of Islamic culture and ideals" (18 August 1947). He called upon the mammoth Lahore audience to build up "Pakistan as a bulwark of Islam", to "live up to your traditions and add to it another chapter of glory", adding, "If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quran, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours" (30 October 1947).



As for the specific institutions of the new state, he exhorted the armed forces to uphold "the high traditions of Islam and our National Banner" (8 November 1947); and commended the State Bank research organization to evolve "banking practices compatible with Islamic ideals of social and economic life" and to "work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice" (1 July 1948).



For Jinnah, "the creation of a State of our own was a means to an end and not the end in itself. The idea was that we should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play" (11 October 1947). He told Edwards College students that "this mighty land has now been brought under a rule, which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent State" (18 April 1948). He even described Pakistan as "the premier Islamic State" (February 1948).



Jinnah's broadcast to the people of the United States (February 1948) is in a similar vein:

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 principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairly 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.

In this broadcast, Jinnah, the constitutionalist that he was, refused to forestall the shape of the constitution, in order not to fetter the Pakistan Constituent Assembly from taking decisions it deemed fit. While he laid a good deal of stress on Islamic ideals and principles, he ruled out theocracy, saying "Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds."



Technically speaking, theocracy means a government "by ordained priests, who wield authority as being specially appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position." Unlike Catholicism, there is no established church in Islam; (in fact, it decries such a church). Moreover, since Islam admits of no priestcraft, since it discountenances a sacerdotal class as the bearer of an infallible authority, and since it concedes the right of ijtihad to "men of common sense", the concept of theocracy is absolutely foreign to Islam. Hence, during the debate on the Objectives Resolution (March 1947), Mian Iftikharuddin refuted the Congress members fears about the sovereignty clause, saying that "the wording of the Preamble does not in any way make the Objectives Resolution any the more theocratic, any the more religious than the Resolution or statement of fundamental principles of some of the modern countries of the world" (10 March 1949). Thus neither Iqbal, nor Jinnah, nor any of the independence leaders (including Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani) stood for a theocratic state.



Of all Jinnah's pronouncements it is his 11 August address that has received the greatest attention since the birth of Pakistan, and spawned a good deal of controversy. Although made somewhat off-the-cuff -- he said that "I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me" -- it is considered a policy statement. He said:

... If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, ... is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. ...we must learn a lesson from this [our past experience]. 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 or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state ... we are starting in the days when there is no discrimination between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste, or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.... 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.

Not surprisingly, it has elicited varied comments from scholars and contemporary journalists. One scholar has put it down to "loose thinking and imprecise wording" and a departure from Jinnah's erstwhile position. Another calls it "a remarkable reversal" and asks "was he [Jinnah] pleading for a united India - on the eve of Pakistan?"
In dissecting this statement, there is, however, little that could lend itself to disputation. There is no problems with the dictum that every one, no matter what community he belongs to, would be entitled to full fledged citizenship, with equal rights, privileges and obligations, that there would no discrimination between one community and another, and that all of them would be citizens and equal citizens of one state. These principles Jinnah had reiterated time and again during the struggle period, though not in the same words.



It is, however, not usually recognized that political equality in general terms (because absolutism was the rule at the time of the advent of Islam) and equality before law in more specific terms are attributes Islam had recognized long before the world discovered them as secular values. They were exemplified in the Misaq-i-Madinah, the pact between the Prophet (PBUH) and Aus and Khazraj, and in his letter to Abul Hairs, Christian priest and the accredited representative of the Christians of Najran, and in the conduct of the Khulfa-i-Rashidun. This covenant, comprising 47 clauses, lays down, inter alia, that the Quraishite Muslim, the Medinites and the Jews of Banu Auf from one community apart from other people, that the Jews shall have their religion and the Muslims their own, that they shall help each other against one who fights with the people of the covenant. Now, how could these disparate tribes characterised by differing religious affiliations from one political community unless their entitlement to equal rights, privileges and obligations are conceded in the first place. A community postulates such entitlement, and it may be conjectured that Jinnah believed that Islam concedes equal citizenship to one and all, without reference to creed, colour or race.

Finally one crucial question. If it is still contended that Jinnah had envisaged a 'secular' state, does one pronouncement prevail over a plethora of pronouncements made before and after the establishment of Pakistan. Does one morsel make a dinner? Does one swallow make a summer? A close study all of Jinnah's pronouncements during 1934-48, and most of his pronouncement during the pre-1934 period, shows that the word, 'secular' (signifying an ideology) does not find a mention in any of them. Even when confronted with the question, he evaded it -- as the following extracts from his 17 July 1947 press conference indicates:

Question: "Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?"

Mr. M.A. Jinnah: "You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means."

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and Non-Muslims would not be full citizens.



Mr. M.A. Jinnah: "Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck's back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."

It is well to recall the ideological environment of the period in which the pronouncements we are trying to dissect, analyse and interpret today were made. It was already a bipolar world, smitten by the gathering cold war. The great ideological divide had warped simple and long familiar words such as freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, state, sovereignty, justice, and tyranny with ideological overtones. Hence these concepts had to be qualified to mean what they actually stand for. Hence when Jinnah talks of the concept of a democratic type embodying the essential principles of Islam, he was giving notice that he did not mean the standard Western type or the Soviet brand of people's democracy, but a sort of 'Islamic democracy' which, while retaining the institutional appurtenances of a democratic structure, is congruent with Muslims' ethos, aspirations and code of morality. And, as Mian Iftikharuddin argued, "no one need object to the word 'Islamic.' If we can use the words, 'Roman Law' or the 'British Parliamentary system' and so many other terms without shame or stint, then why not 'Islamic'?"




Conclusion

Jinnah was the most Westernised political leader in all the annals of Indian Islam; no other Muslim political leader could match him in terms of modernity and a modern outlook. He was completely at home with the milieu in cosmopolitan Bombay and metropolitan London. He also married a Parsi girl, so unconventional for a Muslim leader at that time, though after getting her converted to Islam. During his chequered career, Jinnah came in contact with an exceedingly large number of non-Muslim leading personalities and a host of British officials, more than any other Muslim leader and had interacted with them for some four decades -- before he underwent a paradigmatic shift. Jinnah was also a man who minced no words, stood no humbug, and called a spade a spade. He held political rhetoric in high disdain; he preferred political wilderness to playing to the gallery. Such a man could not possibly have gone in for an Islamic orientated discourse unless he felt that the Islamic values he was commending were at home with the values underlying modernity, that Islam was in consonance with progress and modernity. During the debate on Islam and secularism, this is a point that has lain ignored.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: A Man for All Seasons

By Asim Khan

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (left) with Lord Mountbatten (right)

To achieve your own dreams it takes a lifetime but to achieve the dream of millions, it’s a feat only a few can perform in the history of mankind. And Jinnah was one of them. And to achieve that one has to rise above the fear and display courage. The ability and skills which he manifested in the process of creation of Pakistan and the fight he carried in all quarters, with reason and logic to bring the dream of a lifetime for millions of souls was unsurpassable. We will always remain in debt to this man and those millions of sacrifices.

There has been a lot written about him; there is a lot that has been said of him. From Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre to Stanley Walport- all agreed on one thing: this man, this Jinnah, this leader and founder of Pakistan had resolve of a man unbreakable even by the might of the mightiest, the British Empire, the connivance and huge presence of Hindu pressure and by all who thought that to create Pakistan was something beyond comprehension and reason. But he stood his ground against all who promised, tempted, and applied pressure from all directions and yet they could not move him, not even an inch. He was to give all, right to their end of days the question how he single handedly carried this responsibility and what were those elements that made him unique in all sense; as a leader, as a tactician, as one of the finest implementer of law, as a symbol of governance and system which we all forgot, the very citizens and leaders of Pakistan after his death.

In all his numerous speeches given in whatever little time he had, it paved way for all to see and to learn and to practice how Pakistan should develop its economic policies, foreign policies, protect rights of its minorities, based on justice and fairness, a society modeled on the principles of Islam, where all will be able to contribute to its success and progression. And we all forgot within months of his departure.

It is still time for Pakistan and Pakistanis to wake up from its slumber and to invoke the spirit of its founder to bring back this country to its feet. All the challenges we see around us, all the opposition we face amongst ourselves and from outside can be dealt with if we could only understand the persona of Jinnah and his life and understand the mechanics in creation of a country that became second largest Muslim country in 20th century. A presence, a home for all where fairness and justice will exist. But alas, this was not to happen as we forgot our very own sacrifices, our very own people and our very own founder Jinnah.

Instead of following him and his vision; we followed our instincts based on greed and promotion of values against all what he created and practiced; against all what the vision of Iqbal and his philosophy stood for; against all what Chaudhry Rahmat Ali envisioned. We forgot Jinnah and all those very people that stood by him against opposition the world had never seen. These people exist in all of us. Never a day that goes past, when we do not come across the saying and quotations from any of these, but we have turned all this into a big ceremony. We have turned Jinnah into just a mere symbol. A place where he rests now needs no salutes, no visitor’s book, no swarming crowd to take pictures. It is his words; it is his life that needs to be lived in all of us. We have betrayed him in last 61 years. It is still time to appreciate and to revive that spirit in Pakistan and in all of us, and to forget these differences that we have created. We must become more understanding and tolerant of each other and work together. It is this challenge that is the need of the time and our responsibility.

Remember a young boy, seventeen years of age, arriving at Southampton. Remember a person who learnt the ways of life in those dreary months of winter. Remember that person who once walked near river Thames, immersed in his own thoughts questioning himself what change means and how it will be brought. Even Jinnah had no idea at that time but he learnt to reason well in a language that was once remote and alien, he learnt that understanding Law will take him far but he never imagined that one day he will fight for something and in a way no one had done it before. One day he will fight for the hopes of millions, for cause greater than anything he had imagined, or any of us in years to come. Imagine how it feels to be part of that change and history and the destiny, to make a separate homeland for all of us, to carry those aspirations in years to come through thick and thin. Little did he know that he will one day stand with Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Mountbatten and the whole British Empire- all the opposing forces. But he fought well with all his mind and his words and actions to turn this dream into reality- a reality which no one could ever understand and accept to this day. It is upon us now as individuals and as a society and as leaders of this nation to understand the cause and all what it took.

It is this man Mohammed Ali Jinnah who became in the process our Quaid-e-Azam, our leader and founder of Pakistan. It is this man we owe our responsibility to as free citizens of Pakistan. It is this man Jinnah, his words and his vision we owe our alliances to. It is this man we owe our debt resulting from his endeavor to turn this dream of a separate homeland for millions of Muslims. It is this man, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Quaid-e-Azam, a man for all seasons we owe our lives to and to Pakistan.

Interview of Muhammad Ali Jinnah with Doon Campbell, Reuters' Correspondent, New Delhi, 21st May 1947

Doon Campbell: What sort of relationship do you envisage between Pakistan and Hindustan?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Friendly and reciprocal in the mutual interest of both. That is why I have been urging: let us separate in a friendly way and remain friends thereafter.

Doon Campbell: How would you divide the armed forces? Do you envisage a defence pact or any other kind of military alliance between Pakistan and Hindustan?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: All the armed forces must be divided completely, but I do envisage an alliance, pact or treaty between Pakistan and Hindustan again in the mutual interest of both and against any aggressive outsider.

Doon Campbell: Do you favour a federation of Pakistan states even if there is to be partition of Punjab and Bengal?


Muhammad Ali Jinnah: The new clamour for partition that is stated is by the vocal section of the caste Hindus in Bengal and the Sikhs in particular in the Punjab will have disastrous results if those two provinces are partitioned and the Sikhs in the Punjab will be the greatest sufferers; and Muslims under contemplated Western Punjab will no doubt be hit, but it certainly will deal the greatest blow to those, particularly the Sikhs, for whose benefit the new stunt has been started. Similarly in Western Bengal, caste Hindus will suffer the most and so will the caste Hindus in Eastern Punjab.

This idea of partition is not only thoughtless and reckless, but if unfortunately His Majesty’s Government favour it, in my opinion it will be a grave error and will prove dangerous immediately and far more so in the future. Immediately it will lead to bitterness and unfriendly attitude between Eastern Bengal and Western Bengal and same will the case with torn Punjab, between Western Punjab and Eastern Punjab.

Partition of Punjab and Bengal, if effected, will no doubt weaken Pakistan to a certain extent. Weak Pakistan and a strong Hindustan will be a temptation the strong Hindustan to try to dictate. I have always said that Pakistan must be sufficiently strong as a balance vis-à-vis Hindustan. I am therefore, deadly against the partition of Bengal and the Punjab and we shall fight every inch against it.

Doon Campbell: Will you demand a corridor through Hindustan connecting the Eastern and Western Pakistan States?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Yes.

Doon Campbell: Do you envisage the formation of a Pan-Islamic state stretching from the Far and Middle East to the Far East after the establishment of Pakistan?


Muhammad Ali Jinnah: The theory of Pan-Islamism has long ago exploded, but we shall certainly establish friendly relations and cooperate for mutual good and world peace and we shall always stretch our hand of friendship to the near and Middle East and Far East after the establishment of Pakistan.

Doon Campbell: On what basis will the central administration of Pakistan be set up? What will be the attitude of this Government to the Indian States?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time.

As regards our attitude towards Indian States I may make it clear once more that the policy of the Muslim League has been and is not to interfere with the Indian States with regard to their internal affairs. But while we expect as rapid a progress as possible in the various states towards the establishment of full responsible government, it is primarily the concern of the ruler and his people.

As regards the position of the states in the light of the announcement made by His Majesty’s Government embodied in the White Paper of the 20th of February, I wish to make it clear that the states are at liberty to form a confederation as one solid group or confederate into more than one groups, or stand as individual states. It is a matter entirely for them to decide. And it is clear, as I can understand, that paramountcy is going to terminate and, therefore, they are completely independent and free. It is for them to adjust such a matter as there may be by virtue of their treaties and agreements with the paramount power. They must consider as completely independent and free states, free from any paramountcy, as to what is best in their interest and it will be open to them to decide whether they should join the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent Assembly – Constituent Assemblies must be and will be two sovereign Constituent Assemblies of Pakistan and Hindustan.


Doon Campbell: In general terms what will be the foreign policy of Pakistan? Will it apply for membership of the United Nations?


Muhammad Ali Jinnah: The foreign policy of Pakistan can only be for peace and friendly relations with all other nations and we shall certainly play our part in the membership of the United Nations.

Doon Campbell: On which major power is Pakistan most likely to lean?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: The one that will be in our best interests. It will not be a case of leaning to any power, but we shall certainly establish friendship and alliances which will be for the benefit of all those who may enter into such an alliance.

Doon Campbell: What sort of relationship do you envisage between Pakistan and Britain?


Muhammad Ali Jinnah: The question can only be decided by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and as I understand the situation, a relationship between Pakistan and British can be established which will be really beneficial for both. Pakistan cannot live in isolation, nor can any other nation do so today. We shall have choose our friends and I trust, wisely.

Doon Campbell: What are your views in regard to the protection of minorities in Pakistan territories?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: There is only one answer: The minorities must be protected and safeguarded. The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect.

They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life. - API




Q & A text sourced from photocopy of original: Dawn, 22nd May 1947 (with thanks to Mr. Inamullah Khawaja). See also copy in Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, p.845, which was obtained from an original typewritten document containing corrections in Jinnah’s own handwriting as well as his signature. Thanks to Jinnah Archives dot com

Jinnah in Retrospect

by Dr. Javaid Iqbal

The following excerpts are taken from the Legacy of Quaid-i-Azam by Javid Iqbal, the son of the poet-philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal, who was a friend and close associate of Jinnah, Javid Iqbal has published two other books in English, The Ideology of Pakistan (Lahore, 1959) and Stray Reflections (Lahore, 1961). The latter is an edition of some of his father’s notebooks.

Javid Iqbal was a member of Pakistan delegation to the United Nations from 1960-62, and at present he practices law in Lahore and teachers at the Law College. An inscription on the flyleaf of The Legacy of Quaid-i-Azam says that the book is an attempt to restate “the principle and ideals which Quaid-i-Azam left behind for Pakistanis. The need for reverting to the purity of the foundational principles usually arises when a people pass through a period of ideological decay and such principles are misinterpreted, twisted or distorted.” As this comment indicates, the interpretation of Jinnah’s attitude is still a matter of lively interest in contemporary Pakistan.

The desire of the Muslims to order their lives in accordance with Islam had gradually led to the growth of Muslim nationalism, which, under the inspiring leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, bifurcated the Indian nationalist movement and eventually resulted in the secession of Islam from India.

Quaid-i-Azam was the architect of Pakistan and consequently on its establishment became its first Governor-General. As the Governor-General of a newly born States, he had to tackle numerous problems, the most urgent being the settlement of the refugees and the restoration of a sense of a security and confidence among the non-Muslim minorities. He worked very hard and toured the country extensively calling upon the people to have faith, unity and discipline for they were going through fire and the sunshine had yet to come. He assured them that Pakistan had come to stay and that there was no power on earth which could undo it. But unfortunately he could not continue to retain the position of directing head of the young State for long. Thirteen months after the establishment of Pakistan, he passed away, leaving behind a legacy to Pakistanis in the form of principles and ideals.

In what sense did Quaid-i-Azam desire Pakistan to be an Islamic democracy? How much importance did he attach to the fundamental rights of the citizens? Did he want the Judiciary to be subservient to the Executive or independent of it? Did he expect Pakistan to have one man’s rule or one party government? Was he in favour of the system of indirect election or direct election?

Quaid-i-Azam was a lawyer by profession and had been brought up under the discipline of Rule of Law. He believed in Rule of Law rather than the rule of individuals. Consequently democracy was a matter of conviction with him. Although he had shown no preference for either the parliamentary or the presidential form of democracy, his mind was absolutely clear on such basic issues as: the government should be constituted by the directly elected representatives of the people the fundamental rights of the citizens should be guaranteed, and the judiciary should be independent of the executive.

With the frame of mind, Quaid-i-Azam had approached Islam and discovered to his satisfaction that Islamic democracy was founded on the very same principles which he had upheld throughout his life. He was indeed not an academic expert in Islam and therefore did not care to find out as to how and why the “ideal” in Islam had been destroyed by the historical “real”. His main concern was a re-statement of the principles of Islamic democracy and not of Islam in history.

Quaid-i-Azam was aware that through Islam the Prophet had accomplished a religio-political revolution in Arabia. The tribes were united and the Arab emerged as a single community. (Umma). The Prophet was the leader (Imam) of the revolution, and in his person were combined a legislator, an administrator, a judge, and a military commander. He was the Prophet, he led the congregational prayers and was the supreme authority in matters connected with religion and law. Nevertheless in the affairs of the State he consulted the Companions (who formed an informal Senate) according to the Quranic injunctions: “And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves”: and: “Therefore, forgive and ask for pardon for them and consult them in the affairs.” (42; verse 38 and 3; verse 159.) The Prophet is reported to have said: “Difference of opinion in my community is (the manifestation of Divine) Mercy”; and that “My community would never agree on an error.”

Paying tribute to the Prophet, in his address to the Bar Association, Karachi on 25th January, 1948, Quaid-i-Azam said:

Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundation of democracy…The prophet was a great teacher. He was a great law giver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. No doubt, there are many people who do not quite appreciate when we talk of Islam. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like. It is based on the highest principles of honour, integrity, fair-play and justice for all. One God and the equality of man is one of the fundamental principles of Islam. In Islam there is no difference between man and man. The qualities of equality, liberty and fraternity are the fundamental principles of Islam.

Explaining the principles of Islamic democracy in his speech at Sibi Durbar on 14th February, 1948, he said:

It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that “our decisions in the affairs of the State shall be guided by discussions and consultations.”

It is unanimously held by the Muslim jurists that the elections, nomination, designation or appointment of the Khalifah by a single eminent member or a restricted number of eminent members or the community was legally validated or confirmed only when the entire community had sworn allegiance to him, and it was only then that he was considered to have held his office by the approval of God. In the early practice of Islam, undoubtedly such validation or confirmation was secured in the form of acquiescence; but in those days the eminent members who elected nominated or designated the Khalifah were the Companions of the Prophet in whom the community repose confidence and trust. However, after the abolition of the Caliphate, the principle of Islamic democracy derived from this Consensus by the contemporary Muslim thinkers was that the government should be constituted by the directly elected representatives of the people. Accordingly it was maintained by Iqbal that the formation of legislative assemblies in Muslim countries were a return to the original purity of Islam and Quaid-i-Azam was not only familiar with the view-point but upheld the same in his recorded broadcast on Pakistan to the people of the United States of America (February, 1948). He said;

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 democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, thay are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 year 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.

Earlier on 25th January, 1948, while addressing the Karachi Bar Association, he had said:

What reason is there for anyone to fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity and on the basis of fair-play and justice for everybody….Let us make it (the future Constitution of Pakistan). We shall make it and we will show it to the world.

Quaid-i-Azam genuinely believed that democracy was the blood of Mussalmans because they believed in fraternity, equality and liberty. (Address: Muslim League Branch in Great Britain, London 14th December 1946.) In his broadcast talk to the people of Australia recorded on 19th February, 1948, he proclaimed:

The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace be on 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 very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we welcome in closest association with us all those who, of whatever creed, are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan.

In a Press Conference held in New Delhi on 4th July, 1947, Quaid-i-Azam answered certain questions which were put to him regarding the nature of the State of Pakistan:

Q: Will Pakistan be secular or theocratic state?

Mr. M.A.J: You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.

(A correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslim could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens).

Mr. M.A.J.: Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on duck’s back (laughter). When you talk democracy, I am afraid, you have not studied Islam. We learnt democracy thirteen centuries ago.

It is generally accepted that the Fundamental Rights of the citizens were guaranteed in written form, for the first time, under the Constitution of the United States of America. But like the contemporary Muslim thinkers, Quaid-i-Azam believed that the fundamental inalienable and residual rights of Man were guaranteed in written form, under the Quran, long before the United States Constitution was conceived, long before the American constituent was discovered; nay, even long before the modern Western civilization was born.

The Quranic Rights guaranteed to Man were the basic principles of Islamic democracy. They could not be obscured or eradicated by any mortal power because they constituted the Spoken Word of God.

The following basic rights of Man can be directly traced from the Quran and the Sunna (Practice of the Prophet).

Equality of All Citizens Before Law as well as
Equality of Status and Opportunity

O Manknid; Be careful of your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and spread from these two many men and women. (4; verse 1.) Lo! Pharaoh exalted himself in the earth and divided its people into castes. A group among them he oppressed, killing their sons and sparing their women. Lo! He was of those who work corruption. (28; verse 4).

There is no compulsion in the matter of religion. (2; verse 256).

And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers? (10; verse 99.)

Had Allah willed, idolaters had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them. (6; verse 108.)

And argue not with the People of the Book unless it be in a way that is fair, save with such of them as do wrong; and say; We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender. (29; verse 46).

If God had not raised a group (Muslims) to ward off the others from aggression, churches, synagogues, oratories and mosques where God is worshipped most, would have been destroyed. (22; verse 40.)

The Right to Life

And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save for justice. (17; verse 33).

The Right to Prosperity

And eat not up your property among yourselves in vanity, nor seek by it to gain the hearing of the judges that ye may knowingly devour a portion of the property of others wrongfully. (2; verse 188).

No One is to Suffer for the Wrongs of Another

Each soul earneth on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load. (6; verse 165.)

Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another’s load. (17; verse 15.)

That no laden one shall bear the burden of another (53; verse 38.)

Freedom of Person

Inferred from the Sunna by Imam Khattabi and Imam Abu Yusuf. A tradition is reported by Abu Daud to the effect that some persons were arrested on suspicion in Madina in the times of the Prophet. Subsequently, while the Prophet was delivering the Friday sermon (Khutba), a Companion enquired of him as to why and on what grounds had these persons been arrested. The Prophet maintained silence while the question was repeated twice, thus giving an opportunity to the prosecutor, who was present there, to explain the position. When the question was put for the third time and it again failed to elicit a reply from the prosecutor, the Prophet ordered that those persons should be released. On the basis of this tradition, Imam Khattabi argues in his M’alim-al-Sunnan that Islam recognizes only two kinds of detention: (a) Under the orders of the Court, and (b) For the purposes of investigation.

There is no other ground on which a person could be deprived of his freedom. Imam Abu Yusuf maintains in his Kitab-al-Kharaj, on the authority of the same Tradition, that no one can be imprisoned on false or unproved charges. Caliph Umar is reported to have said: “In Islam no one can be imprisoned without due course of Justice.” (Imam Malik’s Muwatta.)

Freedom of Opinion

Allah loveth not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who hath been wronged. (4; verse 148.)

Those of the children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and the Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress.

They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily evil was that they used to do (5; verse 78-79).

And when they forgot that whereof they has been reminded. We rescued those who forbade wrong, and visited those who did wrong with dreadful punishment because they were evil-livers (7; verse 165.)

Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right and forbid wrong. (3; verse 110).

Freedom of Movement

It is He who has made the earth manageable for you, so travel ye through its tracts and enjoy of the sustenance which He furnishes; but unto Him is the Resurrection. (67; verse 15.)

Freedom of Association

And let there be formed of you a community inviting to good, urging what is reputable and restraining from what is disreputable. (3; verse 104).

The Right to Privacy

O ye who believe! Enter not house other than your own without first announcing your presence and invoking peace upon the folk thereof. That is better for you, that ye may be heedful.

And if ye find no one therein, still enter not until permission hath been given. And if it be said unto you: Go away again, then go away, for it is purer for you. Allah knoweth what ye do. (24; verse 27-28).

Any spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of your love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye abhor that so abhor the other! (49; verse 12.)

The Rights to Secure Basic Necessities of Life

And let not those who hoard up that which God has bestowed upon them of His bounty think that it is better for them. Nay, it is worst for them. That which they hoard will be their halter on the Day of Resurrection (3; verse 180).

And in the wealth of the haves there is due share of the have-nots. (51; verse 19.)

The Right to Reputation

Neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. But is the name of lewdness after faith.

O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! Some suspicion is a crime. (49; verse11-12).

And those who malign believing men and believing women undeservedly, they bear the guilt of slander and manifest sin. (33; verse 58).

The Right to a Hearing

Inferred from the Sunna. The Prophet sent Ali to Yeman and grave him the following direction: “You are not to take decision unless you have heard the second party in the same way as you have heart the first.”

The Right to Decision in Accordance with Proper Judicial Procedure

O ye who believe! If an evil-liver bring you news, verify it, lest you smite some folk in ignorance and afterward repent of what ye did. (49; verse 6).

O man, follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. (17; verse 36).

Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye restore deposits to their owners, and, if ye judge between mankind, that ye judge justly. (4; verse 58).

Quaid-i-Azam was aware of these Quranic Rights although he attached more importance to the rights of equality and liberty, and the freedom of religion. In respect of the right of equality, he was obviously aware of the Quranic verse: “O Mankind; Be careful of your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and spread from these two many men and women.” (4; verse 1.) Regarding the freedom of religion, he was acquainted with such Quranic verses as:

“There is no compulsion in the matter of religion”; and: “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” (2; verse 156. 10; verse 99.) About tolerance and protection of the non-Muslims religious communities, he was familiar with the Quranic injunction; “If God had not raised a group (Muslims) to ward off the others from aggression, churches, synagogues, oratories and mosques where God is worshipped most, would have been destroyed.” (222; verse 40.) Therefore, he knew that the God of Islam enjoined not only tolerance of all the religions other than Islam but the Muslims were obliged to defend the places of worship of the non-Muslims under their protection.

According to the Quaid-i-Azam, the demand and struggle for Pakistan had ensured mainly because there was a danger of denied of these fundamental human rights in the Indian sub-continent. In his speech at Chittagong on 26th March, 1948, he stated clearly.

You are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of Mussalmans when you say that Pakistan should be based on sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasize equality and brotherhood of man. Similarly you are voicing my thoughts in asking and in aspiring for equal opportunities for all. These targets of progress are not controversial in Pakistan, we struggled for it, we achieved it so that physically as wel as spiritually we are free to conduct our affairs according to our traditions and genius. Brotherhood, equality and fraternity of man – these are all the basic points of our religion, culture and civilisation. And we fought for Pakistan because there was a danger of denial of these human rights in this sub-continent.

In a speech at the University Stadium, Lahore on 30th October, 1947, he said:

The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the minorities regardless of castle and creed…. And I require of you now is that everyone of us to whom this message reaches must vow to himself and be prepared to sacrifice his all, if necessary, in building up Pakistan as a bulwark of Islam and as one of the greatest nations whose ideal is peace within peace without.

Earlier on 11th August, 1947, in his Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, he had proclaimed:

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 or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State….We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.

….Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the 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.

Although in his Presidential Address. Quaid-i-Azam had illustrated two fundamental principles of Islamic democracy, namely, equality and freedom of personal faith, a campaign was started against him by his enemies to the effect that he was a nationalist and that he would make Pakistan a secular state. He was very distressed as it appears from the following interview reported in the Press on 25th January, 1948:

M.A. Jinnah said that “he could not understand a section of the people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and made propaganda that the Constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat….” The Governor-General of Pakistan said that he would like to tell those who are misled – “Some are misled by propaganda” – that not only the Muslims but also the non-Muslims having nothing to fear.

Quaid-i-Azam obviously stood for a strong, independent and irreproachable judiciary because human rights could not be protected and enforced without such a judiciary. In this respect also he followed one of the basis principles of Islamic democracy, namely, the traditional independence of the Qaza (judiciary). The Qaza had existed as an independent institution in Islamic polity since the times of the Prophet. In the later centuries, the Qazis (Judges) came to be regarded as the “Successors of the Prophet” because they interpreted and enforced the Law of God. Once a Qazi was appointed, he became entirely independent from the executive, so much so that even the Head of the State could be summoned and tried in his Court. Everyone came under the Rule of God’s Law, including the Head of the State. And in case the Executive Head issued an ordinance was declared null and void by the Qazi. Undoubtedly many Qazis suffered for their integrity and independence at the hands of autocratic and tyrannical rulers, but the principle of supremacy of God’s Law was upheld at all costs.

Throughout his life, Quaid-i-Azam believed that the law courts alone should decide the question of a citizen’s rights. He always found against any move the object of which was to make the judiciary subservient to the executive, or to grant arbitrary powers regarding the liberty of a citizen to the executive.

On 19th September, 1948, attacking the Press Act, 1910, he said:

Sir, this Act has the defeat of all measures which do not come under the purview of judicial supervision, because it is a measure which has got to be administered by the Executive…The Act has been administered in a most arbitrary manner, and you cannot prevent it, you cannot avoid it, because you must remember that we are all human beings and when such arbitrary powers are given to Heads of Departments and Executive Officers, it must be remembered that they are human, they have got likes and dislikes and they have their prejudices.

Opposing the Rowlatt Bill in the Legislative Council on 6th February, 1919, he demanded:

I am a firm believer – I do not care how many Rowlatt Committees will decide and recommend – I am a firm believer that no man’s liberty should be taken away for a single minute without a proper judicial inquiry.

In the same speech he further observed:

It is obvious that his measures is of a most serious character. It is dangerous. It imperils the liberty of a citizens and, my Lord, standing here as I do, I say that no man who love fair-play, who loves justice and who believes in the freedom and liberty of the people can possibly give his consent to a measure of his character.

On 23rd March, 1925, opposing the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Supplementary Bill, he declared:

What is your ground? Your ground is a petty ground that a few lives are in danger of being shot at…a few lives of officials are endangered; they may be shot at or shot down. Now I ask a simple question, Sir, of myself and my answer is that If I were an official and if I felt that my life was in danger and I was going to be shot down, even like a dog, I should never be a party to a measure which will endanger the life and liberty of the innocent population as this measure undoubtedly does…. But rather I would stand to be shot down by the wicked gang, than give power to the Executive and the Police which can be abused and has been abused in the past.

Again on 28th January, 1925, speaking in the Central Legislative, he said:

My liberty should not be taken away without a judicial trial in a proper court where I have all the rights to defend myself. Under this Ordinance, if I were a citizen of Calcutta, I should have to transfer my allegiance to Mr. Tegart, the Commissioner, because he is the only man who can give me protection and not His Majesty’s High Court or His Majesty’s Courts.

It was with this mental background that in the course of clarifying various aspects of Pakistan, he explained in an interview to the representative of Associated Press of America on 8th November, 1945.

The theory of Pakistan guarantees that federated units of the National Government would have all the autonomy that you will find in the Constitution of the United States of America, Canada and Australia. But certain vital powers will remain vested in the Central Government such as the monetary system, national defence and other federal responsibilities. Each federal state or province would have its own legislative, executive and judicial systems, each of the three branches of Government being constitutionally separate.

Quaid-i-Azam was indeed a firm believer in a strong Centre. But he was, at the time, aware of the lesson of Islamic history that the Centre which gained its strength through the force of a strong man was doomed to collapse and perish on the removal of the strong man. Therefore, he firmly believed that the source of the strength of the Centre should be the will of the people. Accordingly he was opposed to one man’s rule or one party government in Pakistan, as it is clear from the reports of his interview to the representative of Associated Press of America dated 8th November, 1945: “Mr. Jinnah said that he did not expect that Pakistan would have one party government and that he would oppose one party rule. ‘An opposition party or parties are good correctives for any party which is in power, ‘he said.”

According to Quaid-i-Azam, the will of the people could be ascertained only through the system of direct election. In other words, it was only through direct election that right and proper men could be taken as the representatives of the people.

In 1931, Lord Peel had maintained that the “natives” of India was illiterate and they were incapable of electing proper representatives for the Central Legislature. He regarded the system of direct election as unsuitable and dangerous for India, and instead, recommended the adoption of the system of indirect election for the election of the representatives of the Lower House. Lord Lothian, approving the scheme, argued that the election of the representatives of the Lower House by indirect election did not mean that they would not be the representative of the people. Lord Reading, however, suggested that the matter should be referred to a Commission. But Quaid-i-Azam vehemently opposed the adoption of indirect system of election. The following discussion ensued on 2nd January, 1931, in the subcommittee which was considering this question:

Mr. Jinnah: I have all along understood the point which Lord Lothian has just put before us. I quite appreciate that the election of the representatives to the Lower House by indirect election does not mean that they will not be the representatives of the people or the nation. We have had that system in India. As a matter of fact, we had that system for our provincial bodies in the old days, and so we have tried it and had experience of it; and it is not my opinion only, but the general opinion that it has been found wanting.

Lord Lothian: What was the size of the electorate, may I ask?

Mr. Jinnah: We had electoral colleges.

Lord Lothian: Yes, but what was the number of the electorate?

Mr. Jinnah: I could not give you that.

Lord Lothian: But that is the point, surely?

Mr. Jinnah: It did not give us satisfaction; we did not get the right men as our representatives. It was found wanting, and therefore, we had to change that system, even with regard to our local legislatures… The representatives must be elected, in our judgment, by direct election. As it is, the franchise is very high and the number of electors very limited, and therefore, Sir, I am not satisfied that any useful purpose would be served by adopting the suggestion of Lord Reading to refer the matter to a Commission, and I agree entirely with Lord Peel that this is a question of principle, or at any rate a question which much be determined by this sub-Committee and by Plenary Conference; I agree with him there. But while I agree with Lord Peel on that point, I totally disagree with him as to his other conclusions. After listening very carefully to his forcible arguments, I am not satisfied at all that he has made out a case that there will be any such danger as he apprehends in a system of direct election. I think that is more the fear of a conservative mind, which naturally dreads democracy.

Yes, indeed, Quaid-i-Azam definitely differed from such conservative minds which dreaded democracy. It was precisely for this reason that he upheld the principles of Islamic democracy.

It has already been pointed out that according to Quaid-i-Azam, the basic principles of Islamic democracy are equality of man, freedom of private faith, and justice and fair-play to every one without distinction and discrimination. God had command the Muslims to be just and equitable. He says in the quran: “O you who believe: be maintainer of justice, bearers of witness for God’s sake, though it may be against your own selves, or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, God is most competent (to deal) with them both; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely God is aware of what you do.” (4; verse 135).

Islamic state can obviously not be a theocracy because there is no priesthood in Islam. Muslims are forbidden to renounce the world and Islam lays down principles as to how they should conduct themselves in their worldly life. Therefore, in the words of Quaid-i-Azam, Islam is not only a set of spiritual doctrines but a code which regulates the life and conduct of a Muslim even in politics and economics and the like.

There exists a unanimity among the Muslim jurists of the past regarding the distinction between a secular state and an Islamic State. According to this Consensus, the secular state is founded on principles derived through human reasoning, and therefore, it promotes the material advancement and welfare of its citizens only in this world. On the other hand, the Islamic state is based on principles derived through Revealed Law, and therefore, it promotes the material advancement and welfare of its citizens not only in this world, but also prepares its Muslim citizens for the Hereafter through promoting their spiritual advancement and welfare. In other words, the Islamic state embraces the qualities of an ideal secular state, but in addition to it, endeavours to promote the spiritual advancement and welfare of its Muslim citizens. It was precisely in this sense that Quaid-i-Azam desired Pakistan to be an Islamic democracy – a democracy embracing the qualities of an ideal secular democratic state and at the same time endeavouring to promote the spiritual advancement and welfare of its Muslim citizens.

What were Quaid-i-Azam’s views regarding the development of commerce and industry? Was he a supporter of the Western economic theory and practice or did he advocate the adoption of socialization based on the Islamic concepts of equality and social justice?

Quaid-i-Azam was the first to proclaim that Pakistan would be based on the foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasized equality and brotherhood of man. (Chittagong speech, 26th March, 1948.) Therefore, he had aspired to do away with the obvious manifestations of gross inequality through making Pakistan a Welfare state. He was indeed aware that Islam regarded private ownership as a sacred trust. However, he was also conscious that according to Islam the social rank of an individual was not determined by the amount of wealth he owned, but by the kind of life he lived. Islam recognized the worth of the individual, but at the same time, it disciplined him to give away his all to the service of God and man. It was precisely for this reason that he had rejected the Western economic theory and practice. In his speech at the opening ceremony of the State Bank of Pakistan on 1st July, 1948, he declared:

The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is now facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man, and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantage of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concepts of equality of man and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.

According to him, Pakistan must develop industrial potential side by side with its agriculture and give its economy an industrial bias. In respect of commerce and trade, he preached that the traders of Pakistan must maintain the Islamic standards of honesty and integrity while dealing with others. In his address to the Karachi Chamber of Commerce, on 27th April, 1948, he said:

Commerce and trade are the very life-blood of the nation. I can no more visualize a Pakistan without traders than I can one without cultivators or civil servants…

Commerce….is more international than culture and it behoves you to behave in such a way that the power and prestige of Pakistan gain added strength from every act of yours.

In the same speech, he declared:

I would like to call your particular attention to the keen desire of the Government of Pakistan to associate individual initiative and private enterprise at every stage of industrialization. The number of industries Government have reserved for management by themselves consists of Arms and Munitions of War, generation of Hydro Power and manufacture of Railway Wagons, Telephones, Telegraph and Wireless apparatus. All other industrial activity is left open to private enterprise which would be given every facility a Government can give for the establishment and development of industry. Government will seek to create conditions in which industry and trade may develop and prosper by undertaking surveys of Pakistan’s considerable sources of minerals, schemes for the development of country’s water and power sources, plans for the improvements of transport services and the establishment of the ports and an Industrial Finance Corporation. Just as Pakistan is agriculturally the most advanced country in the continent of Asia…I am confident that if it makes the fullest and the best use of its considerable agricultural wealth in the building up of her industries, it will, with the traditions of craftsmanship for which her people are so well known as with their ability to adjust themselves to new techniques, soon make its mark in the industrial field.

He always insisted on the industrialists to provide for residential accommodation and other amenities for the workers when planning their factories. On the occasion of laying the foundation-stone of the buildings of textile mill on 26th September, 1947, he said:

By industrializing our State, we shall decrease our dependence on the outside world for necessities of life, we will give more employment to our people and will also increase the resources of the State…I hope in planning your factory, you have provided for proper residential accommodation and other amenities for the workers, for no industry can thrive without contented labour.

But in spite of the above statements, Quaid-i-Azam was for the socialization of certain industries and public utilities. Clarifying various aspects of Pakistan in an interview to the representative of Associated Press of America on 8th November, 1945, he had said:

You are asking me to interpret what the Government will do. But personally I believe that in these modern days essential key industries ought to be controlled and managed by the State. That applies also to certain public utilities. But what is a key industry and what is a utility service are matters for the law-makers to say, not for me.

In short, the principle laid down by Quaid-i-Azam was that Pakistan must achieve a balance between private enterprise and State control industries and public utilities, but he left it to the National Assembly to decide as to which industries and public utilities ought to be controlled and managed by the State and which by private enterprise.

According to him, what were the requisites of national consolidation? Was he for or against the emancipation of Muslim women?

Islam has acted as a nation-building force in the Indian sub-continent, and its was on the basis of “Two nation” theory that Quaid-i-Azam had demanded, struggled for and achieved Pakistan as the homeland of the Muslims. The basis of nationalism in Pakistan, therefore, could only be Islam – particularly when the Muslims of Pakistan descended from different racial stock, spoke different languages and were geographically non-contiguous. Hence, in order to secure national consolidation, Quaid-i-Azam felt that the barriers of regionalism, provincialism, sectarianism and tribalism must be demolished. At a public meeting in Dacca, held on 21st March, 1948, be warned:

As long as you do not know off this poison (provincialism) in our body politic, you will never be able to wield yourself, mould yourself, galvanise yourself into a real true nation. What we want is not to talk about Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Pathan and so on. They are of course units. But I ask you: have you forgotten the lesson that was taught to us thirteen hundred years ago? If I may point you, you are all outsiders here. Who were the original inhabitants of Bengal – not those who are now living. So what is the use of saying “we are Bengalis, or Sindhis, or Pathans, or Punjabis.” No, we are Muslims. Islam has taught us this, and I think you will agree with me that whatever else you may be and whatever you are, you are a Muslim. You belong to a Nation now; you have now carved out a territory, vast territory, it is all yours; it does not belong to a Punjabi, or a Sindhi, or a Pathan, or a Bengali; it is yours; you have got your Central Government where several units are represented. Therefore, if you want to build up yourself into a Nation, for God’s sake give up this provincialism. Provincialism has been one of the curses and so in sectionalism Shia, Sunni etc.

Quaid-i-Azam obviously desired that the Pakistanis should demolish the barriers which hindered their development as a single nation. It was with this object in view that he wanted Pakistan to have Urdu as its State language. At the same public meeting in Dacca he declared:

Ultimately it is for you, the people of this province, to decide what shall be the language of your province. But let me make it clear to you that the State language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan. Without one State language no nation can remain tied up solidly together and function.

He was aware that there were countries in the world which had two State language; but all such countries were geographically contiguous. Therefore, is spite of two State languages, they remained tied up solidly and functioned. Pakistan, however, was geographically non-contiguous, and in addition to it, was an ideological State. It had to have, according to him, only one State language. On 24th March, 1948, at the Dacca University Convocation, he again proclaimed: “There can be only one State language, if the component parts of this State are to march forward in unison, and the language, in my opinion, can only be Urdu.”

It was also necessary for national consolidation that the Muslim women should work side by side with men. In a speech at the Jinnah Islamia College for Girls, Lahore. On 22nd November 1942, he said: “If Muslim women support their men, as they did in the days of the Prophet of Islam, we should soon realize our goal.”

He preached to the Muslims to emancipate their women. Addressing the Muslim University Muslim League meeting at Aligarh on 10th March, 1944, he said:

Another very important matter which I wish to impress on you is that no nation can rise to the heights of glory unless your women are side by side with you. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. I do not mean that we should imitate the evils of Western life. But let us try to raise the status of our women according to our own Islamic ideas and standards. There is no saction anywhere for the deplorable conditions in which our women have to live. You should take your women along with you as comrades in every sphere of live avoiding the corrupt practices of Western society. You cannot expect a woman who is herself ignorant to bring up your children properly. The woman has the power to bring up children on right lines. Let us not throw away this asset.

What changes did he want to see in the system of education?

Quaid-i-Azam was aware that under the political subjugation and servitude of the British, the character of the Muslims as a nation had been completely destroyed. They had lost respect for piety, for character, for knowledge or even for wealth, and were taught to respect nothing but power. A people with slavish mentality naturally respect power because they dread it. But a free nation can only achieve greatness if it possesses the strength of character.

Hence Quaid-i-Azam desired that the educational policy of Pakistan should be brought on the lines suited to the genius of the nation, consonant with its history and culture, and having regard to the modern needs and requirements, and vast developments that had taken place over the world. He told the students at Dacca University Convocation on 24th March, 1948 that there was no shame in doing manual work and labour for the building up of Pakistan.

In a message of All-Pakistan Educational Conference held at Karachi on 27th November, 1947, he worte [sic]:

Education does not merely mean academic education, and even that appears to be of a very poor type. What we have to do is to mobilze our people and build up the character of our future generations. There is immediate and urgent need for training our people in the scientific and technical education in order to build up our future economic life, and we should see that our people undertake scientific commerce, trade and particularly, well-planned industries. But we do not forget that we have to compete with the world which is moving very fast in this direction. Also I must emphasize that greater attention should be paid to technical and vocational education. In short, we have to build up the character of our future [sic] generations which means highest sense of honour, integrity, selfless service to the nation, and sense of responsibility, and we have to see that they are fully qualified and equipped to play their part in the various branches of economic life in a manner which will do honour to Pakistan.

What ideals did he set before the services?

Civil

The British had organised the administrative and Police services in accordance with the colonial services’ principle, i.e., the officers should regard themselves [sic] as belonging to the ruling class and therefore they should remain detached and aloof from the common people, with the result that they developed a sense of social superiority bordering on arrogance. They constituted a bureaucracy that ruled and was feared and respected.

Quaid-i-Azam wanted to change this mentality. Accordingly he set three ideals before the officers: First, that they should regard themselves as servants of the people and believe in “service” as their ideal; second, that they should be just and impartial in dealing with the people; and third, that they should not accept political pressure under any circumstances because it eventually led to corruption, bribery, favouritism and nepotism.

Addressing the Gazetted Offices at Chittagong on 25th March, 1948, he declared:

Those days have gone when the country was ruled by the bureaucracy. It is the people’s Government, responsible to the people…. Now that freezing atmosphere must go; that impression of arrogance must go; that impression that you are rulers must go and you must do your best with all courtesy and kindness to try to understand the people.

In the same speech he said:

Wipe off the past reputation; you are not rulers. You do not belong to the ruling class; you belong to the servants. Make the people feel that you are their servants and friends maintain the highest standard of honour, integrity, justice and fair-play.

He again emphasized in the saem speech:

You must do your duty as servants; you are not concerned with this political or that political party; that is not your business…You are civil servants, Whichever get the majority will form the Government and your duty is to serve that Government for the time being as servants not as politicians. How will you do that? The Government in power for the time being must also realize and understand their responsibilities that you are not to be used for this party or that. I know we are saddled with old legacy, old mentality, old psychology and it haunts our foot-steps, but it is up to you now to act as true servant of the people.

He told the Civil Officers at Government House, Peshawar on 14th April ,1948.

You may even be put to trouble not because you are doing anything wrong but because you are doing right. Sacrifices have to be made and I appeal to you, if need be, to come forward and make the sacrifice and face the position of being put on the blacklist or being otherwise worried or troubled.

….It is you who can give us the opportunity to create a powerful machinery which will give you a complete sense of security.

Military

Quaid-i-Azam also addressed the Military Officers frequently and set before them the ideals of faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty. Addressing the Officers and Men of the 5th Heavy Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir on 21st February, 1948, he said:

Nature’s inexorable law is “the survival [sic] of the fittest” and we have to prove ourselves fit for our newly won freedom. You have fought many a battle on the far flung battlefield of the globe to rid the world of the Fascist menace and make it safe for democracy. Now you have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of mankind in your own native soil. You will have to be alert, very alert, for the time for relaxation is not yet there. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.

According to him, the Defence Forces’ responsibilities included the study of the Constitution and obedience to the commands and orders which had the sanction of the Executive Head. In his address to the Officers of the Staff College, Quetta on 14th June, 1948, he pointed out:

One thing more, I am persuaded to say this because during my talks with one or two very high-ranking officers I discovered that they did not know the Implication of the Oath taken by the troops of Pakistan. Of course, an oath is only a matter of form; what is more important is the true spirit and the heart. But it is important form and I would like to take the opportunity of refreshing your memory by reading the prescribed oath to you: “I solemnly affirm, in the presence of Almighty God, that I owe allegiance to the Constitution and the Dominion of Pakistan (mark the words Constitution and the Government of the Dominion of Pakistan) and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully serve in the Dominion of Pakistan forces and go within the terms of my enrolment wherever I may be ordered by air, land or sea and that I will observe and obey all commands of my officer set over me….”

As I have said just now the spirit is what really matters. I should like you to study the Constitution which is in force in Pakistan at present and understand its true constitutional and legal implication when you say that you will be faithful to the Constitution of the Dominion. I want you to remember and if you have time enough you should study the Government of India Act, as adopted for use in Pakistan, which is our present Constitution, that the executive authority flows from the Head of the Government of Pakistan, who is the Governor-General and therefore, any command or orders that may come to you cannot come without the sanction of the Executive Head. This is the legal position.

**************************

The legacy of Quaid-i-Azam is undoubtedly precious. But is depends upon the legatees to make the best use of this treasure of principles and ideals.