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.

Jinnah and Islam

by Abdul Qayyum

 

One of the criticisms sometimes made of Jinnah (by Louis Fisher, for example) is that Jinnah was not a religious man. In this selection, Abdul Qayyum demonstrates how the problem of Jinnah’s alleged lack of interest in religion is handled in Pakistan. We are given a brief discussion of the characteristic of the Islamic reform movement led by Sayed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) and Muhammad Iqbal (1873-1938), which helped to create some degree of consensus among “modernized” Muslims as to the significance of Islamic values for twentieth-century problems. Qayyum sees Jinnah as representatives of those who followed the reforms of Sayed Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Iqbal.

 

In 1875, Sayed Ahmad founded the Muhammadan Educational Conference, and remained the moving spirit behind it until his death. Even at the age of seventy-eight he would enthusiastically sit for six hours a day at the annual session of the Conference at Shahjahanpur, guiding its deliberations as secretary. The conference held its annual session in different parts of the country and aroused enthusiasm among the Muslim masses for western education and social reforms.

 

Sayed Ahmad’s efforts showed promise of success when, nearly six months after his retirement from service, Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India, performed the opening ceremony of the Muslim Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, on 8th January 1877. The M.A.O. College, which later grew into the famous Muslim University of Aligarh, imparted, through English as the medium of instruction, knowledge of western arts and sciences, together with instructions on Islamic thought and philosophy.

 

Sayed Ahmad filled the big void created in the life of the Muslim community by the disappearance of the Muslim rule. But he did more. His long life, spanning almost a century, bridged the gulf between the Medieval and the Modern Islam in India. Himself, a relic of the palmy days of the Great Mughals, he ushered in a new era. He gave the Indian Muslims a new prose, a new approach to their individual and national problems, and built up an organization which could carry on his work. Before this there was all disintegration and decay. He rallied together the Indian Muslims, and became the first prophet of their new nationhood.

 

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

 

Born at Sialkot, Dr. Sir Mohammad Iqbal (1873 – 1938) received his early education under Shams-ul-Ulema Mir Hasan, whose memory has been enshrined by the poet in beautiful verse. For higher education, Iqbal moved to Lahore in 1895, and after taking his M.A. Degree, joined the local Government College as Lecturer. In Lahore, he came under the influence of Sir Thomas Arnold, who had left Aligarh and had joined Government College, Lahore, as Professor of Philosophy. On Sir Thomas advice, Iqbal proceeded to Europe for higher studies in 1905.

 

For the next three years, Iqbal’s thought developed in the libraries of Cambridge, London and Munich. He studied philosophy at Cambridge, took his doctorate degree on the Development of Persian Metaphysics from Munich, and was called to the Bar in London. He studied the old masters of the East and the West, discussed philosophy and metaphysics with the renowned Dr. McTaggart, and conversed on literature and Islamics with Professors Nicholson and Browne.

 

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

 

It was Iqbal who was destined to play the historical role in the reconstruction of Islamic thought; he brought to bear upon Islamic institutions, which he respected no less than any Muslim of this time, a searching analysis of their fundamentals; he reinterpreted Islam as a dynamic rather than a static religion, and liberal rather than a reactionary force. In fact, in Iqbal’s view, Islam would cease to be Islam if its fundamentals were not living enough to allow a continuous process of fresh experiments and new adjustments to changes in society. It was the dynamic view of Islam that best fitted Iqbal for a happy synthesis of the East and the West in him.

 

The vision of a “new world” for the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent was projected by Iqbal when he acclaimed that the future of Muslims, with their distinct cultural and spiritual urges, lay in separate homeland. Presiding over the 1930 session of the Muslim League at Allahabad, he declared that he would “like to see the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan, amalgamated into a single State….”

 

Iqbal was the first to see the vision of Pakistan. The role he played in promoting that intellectual revolution among the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, which heralded the emergence of Muslims as a separate political force, conscious of their national destiny, decidedly constituted his most valuable contribution of the Muslim cause.

 

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said about him: “To me Iqbal was friend, guide and philosopher, and during the darkest moments throughout which the Muslim League had to go, stood like a rock and never flinched for one single moment….Iqbal was the bugler of Muslim thought and culture. He was the singer of the finest poetry represents the true aspirations of the Muslims. It will remain an inspiration for us and for generations after us.”

 

Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) personified the liberal spirit of Islam released by Sayed Ahmad Khan and Amir Ali, as well as the dynamic philosophy of Iqbal with its emphasis on relentless action. His able leadership of their struggle for freedom, culminating in the creation of Pakistan as an independent State, brought unprecedented hope and vitality to the Muslims of the sub-continent, producing in its wake a whole cultural renaissance and youthful idealism.

 

Jinnah’s pre-occupation with political issues left him little time to devote himself to writing; but his speeches and sayings have been compiled by his admirers into a series of volumes, and they are all permeated with a liberal outlook.

 

Like Iqbal, Jinnah believed in Islam as a dynamic religion. “The discipline of the Ramzan fast and prayers will culminate today in an immortal meekness of the heart before God, “he said in a broadcast speech on Eid day, “but it shall not be the meekness of a week heart, and they who would think so are doing wrong both to God and to the Prophet, for it is the outstanding paradox of all religions that the humble shall be the strong, and it is of particular significance in the case of Islam; for Islam, as you all know, really means action. This discipline of Ramzan was designed by our Prophet to give us the necessary strength for action….”

 

Religion for Jinnah implied not duty to God, but to Mankind. “Man has indeed been called God’s caliph in the Quran, and if that description of man is to be of any significance, it imposes upon us a duty to follow Quran, to behave towards others as God behaves towards his mankind, in the widest sense of word, his duty is to love and to forebear. And this, believe me, is not a negative duty but a positive one. If we have any faith and love for tolerance towards God’s children, to whatever community they belong, we much act upon that faith in the daily round of our simple duties and unobtrusive pieties. It is a great ideal and it will demand effort and sacrifice. Not seldom will your minds be assailed by doubts. There will be conflicts not only material, which you perhaps will be able to resolve with courage, but spiritual also. We shall have to face them; and if today, when our hearts are humble we do not imbibe that higher courage to do so, we never shall.”

 

Whenever Jinnah got an opportunity to speak on religion, he advocated a rational approach. “In the pursuit of truth and the cultivation of beliefs,” he said, “we should be guided by our rational interpretation of the Quran, and if our devotion to truth is single-minded, we shall, in our own measure, achieve our goal. In the translation of this truth into practice, however, we shall be content with so much, as so much only, as we can achieve without encroaching on the rights of others, while at the same time nor ceasing our efforts always to achieve more. “In another context, he remarked: “The test of greatness is not the culture of stone and pillar and pomp but the culture of humanity, the culture of equality….and only a man who is dead to all the finer instincts of humility and civilization can call a religion based on determination and exploitation a heritage.”

 

Jinnah was outspoken in his condemnation of reactionary elements which generated retrograde tendencies in religion. Dealing with the contribution of the Pakistan movement to our national life, he said: “We have to a great extent to free our people from the most undesirable reactionary elements. We have in no small degree removed the unwholesome influence and fear of a certain section that used to pass off as Maulana and Maulvis. We have made efforts to make our women with us in our struggle….

 

He championed the cause of womanhood, advocating for women an equal share with men in social and national life. “In the great task of building the nation and maintaining its solidarity, women have a most valuable part to play. They are the prime architects of the character of the youth who constitute the backbone of the State. I know that in the long struggle for the achievement of Pakistan, Muslim women have stood solidly behind their men. In the bigger struggle for the building up of Pakistan that now lies ahead let it not be said that the women of Pakistan had lagged behind or failed in their duty.”

 

The liberalism of Jinnah freed the minds of the Indo-Pakistan Muslims, turning their intellectual activities towards tackling traditional Islamic ideas and ideals in terms of modern standards and requirements. Thus the final phase of the intellectual movement among the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent that was ushered in by Iqbal, began to be re-enforced by Muslim thinkers under the inspiring leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. With the growing strength of Pakistan that phase is gathering momentum and spreading in every widening concentric circles, permeated with the spirit of both the Seer and the Leader.

 

Source:  From Abdul Qayym, "Jinnah and Islam", in The Cultural Heritage of Pakistan, eds. S.M. Ikram and P. Spear (Karachi, 1955), pp. 186, 188, 192-193, 201-204. Copyright © 1955 by the Department of films and Publications, Government of Pakistan. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press for the Department of Films and Publications, Government of Pakistan.

Quaid-e-Azam meeting the Viceroy Lord Wavell in 1946

Quaid-e-Azam arriving to inaugurate the State Bank of Pakistan: July 1, 1948

Quaid-e-Azam listening to Law Minister Joginder Nath Mandal

Quaid-e-Azam's rare uninhibited laughter

Quaid-e-Azam with the Khan of Kalat

Quaid-e-Azam with A K Fazlul Haq

A K Fazlul Haq popularly known as the lion of Bengal, Haq proposed the Pakistan Resolution on 23 March 1940

Quaid-e-Azam with the Editorial Staff of DAWN

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: A Great Protagonist of Islamic System of Government

by Prof. Sher Muhammad Garewal

 

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was one of the most striking fascinating and remarkable personalities of modern world history. Possessed of excellent qualities of pen, mind and heart, he played a very significant role in changing the course of history and destinies of men in South Asia, having immense impact on the world history which scholars and historians have not yet full realised. The American writer Stanley Wolpert’s most quoted remarks1 do not fully convey the real significance of the Quaid’s role in modern history. The fact is that the Quaid’s role was more significant than that has been described by Wolpert. He did not only create a nation state on the basis of Muslim separatism in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, he also struggled hard to build it on strong footings as is evident from his dynamic role as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. Despite his rapidly declining health he assiduously worked and endeavoured his best for introducing basic reforms and giving guide-lines in each sector of Pakistan’s polity and society.2

 

The Quaid, in fact, was very optimistic about the brilliant future of Pakistan. He did want to make Pakistan an exemplary Islamic welfare state. He did stand for introducing Islamic system of government in Pakistan. But it is matter of great regret that some Pakistani scholars and critics still maintain that the Quaid was least concerned with the Islamic system of government. Instead, he stood, in their opinion, for a secular system of government in Pakistan. For example late Justice Muhammad Munir, while writing his book on Pakistan toward the end of 1970’s asserted that “there can be no doubt that Jinnah was a secularist”3 and “The pattern of government which the Quaid had in mind was a secular democratic government.”4 Similarly, Rahat Saadul Kairi, while writing his book on Quaid-i-Azam in the mid ninties also claimed that Jinnah never wanted to make Pakistan an Islamic state.5 “His idea of Pakistan” says he “was of a modern, liberal, secular and democratic state.”6 This is fundamentally a wrong conception. This is rather an attempt to besmear and tarnish the Quaid’s fair image by distorting facts.

 

The assertions made by M. Munir and S.R. Khari are merely based on speculations and not on solid grounds. The Quaid’s speeches and statements given in support of these assertions have been generally misconstrued. Particular the Quaid’s well-known speech in the newly established Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 on which these critics mainly base their arguments,7 has been absolutely misinterpreted by them. The speech in question was a policy statement, emphasising some basic issues faced by the newly born state of Pakistan. The Quaid made the Constituent Assembly to realise its new position, status and responsibilities. Secondly, he laid emphasis on the eradiction of social evils such as bribery and corruption, jobbery and nepotism, hoarding and black-marketing then prevailing in the country. Thirdly, he put stress on forging equality, fraternity and unity among all sections of Pakistani society, by ending all racial and religious differences, without which Pakistan’s progress was not possible.8

 

A careful and deep study of this speech shows that the Quaid was not propounding any sort of secularism by advising particularly the religious sections of the people to bury their past in order to live together peacefully as good citizens of the newly-born state of Pakistan.

 

In fact, the situation in which the speech was made must be borne in mind. No doubt, Pakistan had been established. But the anti-Pakistan forces were fully at work to destroy it at the shage of its very inception. The communal feelings were tense, emotions ran high, resulting in horrible communal riots and massacres at a very large scale. The most parts of the subcontinent were in the grip of civil war. The Muslim villages, mohallas, towns and cities were burning: the people were passing through rivers of blood and fire. The Sikh, Hindu and British Neroes were rejoicing.9

 

In the midst of such grave and horrendous circumstances the Quaid’s speech was definitely a message of hope and peace. Its contents and tenor clearly indicate that it was mostly meant to cool down the exasperated communal feelings on both sides of the border, which was certainly statesman-like performance on the part of the Quaid.10 He was not discarding the two nation theory by saying that “the Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims.” These remarks did not mean that both the Hindus and the Muslims would lose their separate identities. Simply both were urged upon to work together for Pakistan as its equal citizens. If these remarks meant otherwise even then it makes no differences as the marks seem purely of a temporary nature and were never repeated by the Quaid in his subsequent speeches and statements. Likewise, the Quaid was not negating any ideological basis of Pakistan by saying: “If you (Hindus and Muslims etc.) will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed; 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.”11 Again, the Quaid was not deviating from any basic principle of Islamic ideology while assuring religious freedom to all Pakistanis, remarking: “You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan.”12

 

The fact is that speaking in such terms, the Quaid was not violating any tradition or norm or principle of Islam. He was actually acting according to the injunctions of the Holy Quran.

 

The Holy Quran is not in favour of using force in converting peoples to Islam. It categorically says, “There is no compulsion in Islam.”13 The Holy Quran has equal consideration for the places of worship of the peoples of different faiths. In the course of discourse, it clearly remarks: “For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of other, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned would assuredly have been pulled down. Verilly Allah helpeth one who helpth Him.”14 Granting freedom of worship to the peoples of different faiths in Pakistan, the Quaid, in fact, was serving the purpose of the Holy Quran.

 

Besides, the Quaid was following in letter and spirit the Hoy Prophet’s (Peace be upon him) commands such as “Beware! Whosoever is cruel and hard on such people (i.e. contractees) or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can endure, or realises any thing from them against their free will. I shall myself be a complainant against him on the day of judgement.”15

 

Further more, the Quaid was really following the principle and traditions set up through treaties by the Holy Prophet and the Pious Caliphs regarding the equal treatment with the non-Muslims. Some relevant lines particularly of the famous treaty made by Hazrat Umar (15 A.H.) with the non-Muslims of Jerusalem may be noted here:

 

The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in anyway. There shall be no compulsion on them in the matter of religion, or shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion.16

 

The non-Muslims really enjoyed equal rights and status with Muslims in the Islamic state. Their lives, properties and places of worship were considered as sacred as those of the Muslims.17 And the Quaid was fully aware of the spirit of all these and such other Islamic teachings, principles and traditions: he could not be expected to injure the feelings of the non-Muslims in his very inaugural speech. Of course, as a just and benevolent ruler and founder of a new nation, he spoke and spoke masterly using the idiom and expression of civilized founders of dynasties or nations or empires in history.

 

Like his inaugural speech in the Constituent Assembly, some of his interviews with foreign correspondents, broadcast talks to the world nations and official address in the formal meeting occasionally arranged by certain foreign embassies have also been misunderstood and mis-interpreted. No doubt, in such interviews, talks and addresses, the Quad had to speak but delicately, formally and diplomatically, even some time admiring some foreign system of government.

 

For example replying to the speech of the first ambassador of the Republic of France to Pakistan on April 9, 1948, the Quaid formally remarked, “In common with other nations, we in Pakistan have admired the high principles of democracy that form the basis of your great State.”18 But this and such other formal and diplomatic statements do not present him as a “secularist” or as a supporter of the establishment of any Western system of government in Pakistan. The Quaid preferred Islamic democracy to Western democracy, as is evident from his pronouncement. Addressing some naval officials at Malir on February 21, 1948, he observed:

 

You have fought many a battle on the far-flung battlefields 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 manhood in your own native soil.19

 

Anyhow, before going further, we must understand these questions. What is a secularist? What is secularism? What is western or modern democracy, after all?

 

In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, a secularist has been described as “an adherent of secularism”20 while about secularism the same dictionary records, “The doctorine that morality should be based solely on regard to well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in future state.”21 It means that a secularist is a person who does not believe in God and the world hereafter. Commonly such a person is called atheist.

 

The fact is that the Quaid was not a secularist. On the contrary, he was a staunch Muslim, a great believer in God, a true lover of the Holy Propher (peace be upon him), an enthusiastic supporter and exponent of Shariat laws as is evident from his whole historic background.

 

We know it well that he joined Lincoln’s Inn because there, on the main entrance, the name of the Prophet was included in the list of the great Law-givers of the world.”22 He spoke of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), as a great statesman and a great sovereign.23 “His appreciation of the Prophet” (peace be upon him) writer Hector Bolitho, “was realistic perhaps his political conscience, as a Muslim, had already begun to stir, while he was in England.”24 So much so that at a very early stage he had started his public career by attending the meetings of Anjum-i-Islam of Bombay which definitely stood for the promotion and protection of Muslim rights.25 And later on as a lawyer and legislator, he took great interest in safeguarding and promoting the Sharia laws. His role in piloting the well-known “Mussalman Wakf Validating Bill” on March 17, 1911, in the Imperial Legislative Council, and then constantly and single-handedly working for its ultimate enactment in March, 1913, was really one of the most glaring achievements in the very beginning of Quaid’s public career.26 Similarly in the subsequent years he continued to serve the cause of Islam.27 The Quaid, in fact believed in oneness of God, Prophet and Muslim millat. He repeatedly expressed it in the course of his speeches and statements. On one occasion he said: “We Mussalmans believe in one God, one Book – the Holy Quran – and one Prophet. So we must stand united as one Nation.”28 Likewise on another occasions he spoke thus, “It is the Great Book, Quran that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we get on and on there will be more and more oneness – One God, one Book, one Prophet, and one Nation.”29 The fact is that the Quaid was a great admirer of Islam, its tenets as well as its government system while on the contrary, he was a great critic particularly of the Western parliamentary system of government.

 

But what is the spirit and meaning of the Western democracy? Theoretically, the Western democracy has been generally considered as the government of the people by the people for the people. But in words of the Quaid western democracy did not exist anywhere in the world in the strict sense of the word.”30 On the contrary, it widespread use and application to every sort of government and institution has confused its initial spirit and meanings. No wonder if the western intellectualism has failed to properly define the term modern democracy. “Discussion about democracy”, records the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, are intellectually worthless because we do not know what we are talking about.”31 Hence democracy, the same source records” is harder to pin down.”32 Even the British parliamentarian of the calibre of Winston Churchill (1875 – 1965) bitterly criticised democracy. He remarks, “Democracy is the worst possible form of government except all others that have been tried.” 33

 

Whatever the case may be, the Quaid was a great critic of western democracy, even though he himself worked under this system in undivided India. He often criticised it in the course of his speeches in the Legislative Assembly debates.34 He bitterly spoke against it during the proceedings of the Round Table Conferences (1930-32).35 Besides, in his well known article on “The Constitutional Maladies in India” published in the Time and Tide (London) in January 1940 he strongly criticised the ills of the western democracy and rightly considered it as most unsuitable to united India.36 Speaking in a meeting of the Muslim University Union Aligarh, on March 10, 1941, he observed,“ I have asserted on numerous occasions that democratic parliamentary system of government they have in England and other western countries is entirely unsuited to India.”37 Because western democracy means majority rule and in undivided India it meant a Hindu rule as the Hindus were in a perpetual majority which was surely not in the interest of the Muslims who were in a perpetual minority. Speaking on the occasion of the historic session of All-India Muslim League held at Lahore in March, 1940, when the Lahore resolution was passed, the Quaid “exposed the barren and absolutist character of democracy which the Congress High Command wished to impose on the whole of India. This, in his opinion, would “only mean Hindu Raj” and “the complete destruction of what is most precious of Islam.”38

 

Not to speak of the Quaid, no sensible Muslim leader could favour the introduction or application of any western system of democracy in India. Otherwise, it would have been a complete negation of Muslim separatism on the basis of which a separate, independent and sovereign Muslim state was demanded.

 

The Quaid wanted to establish a free Muslim state in order “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 ideal and according to the genius of our people.”39 While addressing the Muslim University Union, Aligarh in March 1941, the Quaid stressed that Pakistan was the only solution of the Indian problem “if you want to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country.”40 The Quaid quite clear in his mind. “Let me live”, he said to Hindus in November 1942, “according to my history in the light of Islam, my tradition, culture and language, and do the same in your zones.”41

 

The Quaid indeed wanted to introduce Islamic system of democracy in Pakistan. Speaking in the meeting of the All-India Muslim League Working Committee held in Delhi in March 1943, the Quaid, while replying to a controversial point with regard to “the future system of government, maintained that “We want a Muslim homeland wherein the Muslims will be free to choose their own government and conduct their affairs according to their tradition and genius, driving inspirations from the fundamental principles of Islam, based on brotherhood, equality and fraternity of man.”42

 

The point under discussion can be further elaborated by referring to one Maulvi Muhammad Munawarruddin’s meeting with the Quaid in March 1943, years before independence Maulvi Sahib discussed with the Quaid the system of government to be introduced in Pakistan after its birth. After the meeting M.S. Toosy, a close associate of the Quaid inquired from Manuwaruddin about the discussion. “His conclusion”, says Toosy, “was that when Pakistan would be established, the Quaid-i-Azam would enforce the laws of Shariat and the Constitution would be framed according to the Islamic principles based on the Quran.”43

 

Explaining the creed of Pakistan to Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan early in 1943, the Quaid said that Pakistan would be based where we will be able to train and bring up Muslim intellectuals, educationsits, economists, scientists, doctors, engineers, technicians etc. who will work to bring about Islamic renaissance.”44 After necessary training, they would spread to other parts of the Islamic world “to serve their co-religionists and create awakening among them eventually resulting in the creation of a solid, cohesive bloc – a third bloc – which will be neither communistic nor capitalistic but truly socialistic based on the principles which characterized Caliph Umar’s regime.”45 In a message of to the NWFP Students Federation on April 4, 1943 he said: “You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the greatest message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”46

 

Again in April 1943, Abdul Waheed Khan, a member of the All-India Muslim League, addressed a letter to the Quaid and requested him to clarify the object of Pakistan in his presidential address at the session of the Muslim League which was due to be held in the next few days. In his own view this object was not only to free the Mussalmans of certain parts of India but to liberate Islam, its traditions, its systems of law and above all, its social and economic order. Islamic rule means the Kingdom and sovereignty of God, and not of Mussalmans over the non-Muslims.47 The Quaid in his speech on April 24, at Delhi said: “Please substitute love for Islam and your nation, in place of sectional interest.”48 He held out a firm assurances that the government of the proposed state of Pakistan would be democratic and people’s government” and its constitution will be framed by the Millat. He believed that “democracy is in our blood. It is in our marrows. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold.”49 As regards the social and economic order in an Islamic state, he was clear and forthright, “Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam…There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is the aim of Pakistan….If that is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it.”50 Touching upon the question of minorities he ruled out all “intentions of domination”. ”Minorities”, he said, “must be protected and safeguarded to the fullest extent….Our Prophet has given the clearest proof that non-Muslims have been treated not only justly and fairly but generously.”51

 

At the Karachi session of the Muslim League in December, 1943, Nawab Bahadur Yar Jang, whom the Quaid-i-Azam held in highest esteem, said: “There is no denying the fact that we want Pakistan for the establishment of the Quranic system of government. It will bring about a revolution in our life, a renaissance, a new Islamic purity and glory.”52 In his concluding remarks he said that Islam was the bedrock of the community. “It is the Great Book, the Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India”. He said, “I am sure that as we go on, there will be more and more oneness – one God, one Book, one Qibla, one Prophet and one nation.”53

 

The Holy Quran was the Quaid’s source of inspiration and his guidance. It sustained him in the darkest moments of his life. “Why should we worry or be dejected,” he once told Mian Bashir Ahmad, “When we have got this great Book to guide us”54. “Its teachings”, he added, “are not restricted to religious and moral issues, it is a comprehensive code of life. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code”, he said on later occasion, “it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the rights of all to those of each individuals; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come.”55

 

Addressing the students of Islamia College, Peshawar, he categorically announced: “The League stood for carving out stages in India where Muslims are in numerical majority to rule here under Islamic law.”56

 

On the eve of the inaugural session of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Islam at Calcutta in November, 1945, Maulana Ghulam Murshed, the Imam of Badshahi Mosque, Lahore, met Quaid-i-Azam and received a definite assurance from him that the injunctions of the Holy Quran alone would be the basis of law in the Muslim state.57 In a letter to the Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif in November 1945, the Quaid said, “it is needless to emphasise that the Constituent Assembly which would be predominantly Muslim in its composition, would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not inconsistent with the Shariat laws, and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the unIslamic laws.”58 In a meeting with Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in June 1947, the Quaid assured him that an Islamic constitution would be implemented in Pakistan.59

 

It may perhaps be said that all these assurances or pronouncements of the Quaid belong to a period before the emergence of Pakistan. It may, therefore, be argued that it was scarcely anything more than a familiar device, on the part of a politician who used Islamic vocabulary to bring the maximum number of Muslims in the fold of the Muslim League.60 This line of reasoning is supported by assertion that the Quaid dropped all references to Islam and Islamic state in his post Independence speeches. Sir Parkas, the first Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, tried to strengthen this view by reporting a conversation between himself and the Quaid-i-Azam soon independence. “I know”, he reportedly said to the Quaid, “that Partition has been effected on the basis of differing religions. Now that this has taken place, I see no reason why stress should be laid on Pakistan being Islamic State…At this he (Quaid-i-Azam) said that he had never used the word ‘Islamic’.61 This fanciful story stands clearly discredited in the face of numerous post-independence speeches of the Quad. Indeed, he was even more forthright on the subject of loyalty to Islam and its principles.62

 

The fact is that even after the creation of Pakistan, the Quaid became more vocal and persistent for adopting Islamic way of life and system of government in Pakistan. Outlining the purpose of the creation of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam said in a speech to the officers of the Defence Service on October 11, 1947 that the establishment of Pakistan was only 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 freeplay”.63 Addressing a public meeting in Lahore a few days later, he described the circumstances in which Pakistan came into existence. Consoling those who had been subjected to inhuman brutalities as a result “of a deeply laid and well-planned conspiracy” on the part of the enemies of Pakistan, he gave them the hope that this was but a temporary setback. He assured them that “if we take inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quran, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours.” He advised that everyone “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. Do not be afraid of death…Save the honour of Pakistan and Islam.”64

 

In January, 1948, at a reception on the occasion of the Holy Prophet’s birth anniversary, he declared 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”. He reminded his audience that “Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 year ago”.65 Paying his humble tributes to the Holy Prophet he said: “not only has he reverence of millions but also commands the respect of all the great men of the world… The Prophet was 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.66 “Islam is not a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim which regulated his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like….In Islam there is no difference between man and man. The qualities of equality, liberty and fraternity are the fundamental principles of Islam.”67

 

Speaking on a reform scheme at Sibi Darbar on February 4, 1948 remarked:

 

In proposing this scheme, I have had one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rule of conduct set for us by our great law-giver the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles.68

 

In a broadcast talk to the people of Australia, on February 19, the Quaid spoke of the Islamic characteristics of Pakistani society in these words:

 

The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). We are the members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, dignity and self-respect. Not only are most of us Muslims but we have our own history, customs and traditions and those ways of thought, outlook and instinct who go to make up a sense of nationality.”69

 

In a similar talk to the people of the United States of America in February 1948, he spoke of Islamic system of government to be adopted in Pakistan.

 

The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today they are as applicable in actual life s they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to every body. 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.70

 

Now we can certainly say that the Quaid was neither a secularist nor a socialist nor an admirer and up-holder of western or modern democratic system of government. Instead, he was a great Muslim. He believed in Islam and its democratic system of government.

 

But what is Islamic democracy or Islamic system of government, after all? Islamic democracy is actually a system of government in which sovereignty belongs to Allah the affairs are conducted by elected Caliph or a Head of the Islamic state according to Shariah with the help of an advisory Council (Majlis-i-Shura). The Public opinion is respected and honoured but Shariah prevails in each and every matter of Islamic state. It can be further elaborated in the words of the Quaid.

 

Fundamentally, in an Islamic state, all authority rests with Allah, the Almighty. The government business is conducted according to the entire Quranic principle and injunctions. Neither a head, nor a parliament, nor an individual, nor an institution can act absolutely in any matter. Only the Quranic injunction control our behaviour in society and politics. In other words the rule of Islamic democracy is indeed the rule of Shariat laws.71

 

The Quaid did believe in Islamic democracy, and not in theocracy which had no concern with Islamic democracy. While introducing Pakistan to the people of Australia he had categorically remarked, “But make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it."72

 

Theocracy indeed both as a concept or a system is purely a western product.73 Not to speak of Quaid’s views in this respect, even the scholar of the calibre of Maulana Maududi does criticize the concept of theocracy and denies its existence in Islamic system of government.74

 

Furthermore the Quaid launched the Pakistan movement simply and purely on the basis of Islamic ideology. But some of the critics also maintain that Quaid never used the term Pakistan ideology in his speeches and statements. On the contrary, the fact is that the Quaid was very much the exponent of Pakistan movement days, he maintained: “Our religion, our culture, and Islamic ideals are our driving force to achieve independence.”75 Addressing the All-India Muslim League session at Madras in 1941, the Quaid said: “The ideology of the League is based on fundamental principle that Muslim India is an independent nationality.”76 Similarly in a message to the Frontier Muslim Students Federation (June 15, 1945) the Quaid spoke thus: “Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim ideology which has to be preserved.”77

 

The fact is that whenever he happened to define and explain Pakistan’s aim and objective, he often used the terms “Muslim Ideology”, “Muslim League” which later came to be known as Pakistan ideology which is simply the result of evolutionary historical process in which things, words and terms may adopt different forms with different meanings, when in any historical process of events, episodes and revolutions mostly take their name after their actual occurrences in history. The terms of the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution came into use only after the revolutions, actually took place (respectively in 1798 and 1918), and not before that. So the term “Pakistan Ideology” is definitely the product of history and not the handiwork of any particular group or party as is maintained by the critics.”78

 

Nevertheless, the Quaid was a great exponent of Pakistan ideology which he equated to Islamic ideology. He fully understood Islam and its teachings, traditions and principles of toleration, social justices, democracy, equality, fraternity and polity. He believed in its utility and practicability in modern age. But he maintained that the Islamic principles could not be fully realised without a state. So during the Pakistan movement days he often spoke on such lines: “We want a Muslim homeland wherein the Muslims will be free to chose their own government and conduct their affairs according to their own tradition and genius, deriving inspiration from the fundamental principles of Islam based on brotherhood, equality and fraternity of man.”79

 

And that Muslim homeland – Pakistan – was achieved on the basis of Islamic ideology. The Quaid was happy and proud of that most brilliant achievement which he always saw in terms of Islam. In his speeches and statements, he often proudly pronounced Pakistan as the “biggest Islamic state,”80 He wanted to build it up as a “bulwark of Islam.”81

 

Now in the light of above discussions we can safely conclude that the Quaid really wanted to establish Islamic democratic system in Pakistan. His vision was very clear in this respect.82 Unfortunately, his untimely death in September, 1948 hardly a year after the establishment of Pakistan, did not allow him to achieve his cherished aims. Otherwise, he was definitely determined to make Pakistan purely an Islamic welfare state. His bonafides could not be suspected. He was a man of character and integrity. Throughout his life, what he said he meant it – a fact which could not be denied even by his greatest opponent, M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948), who had certainly the highest regard for Quaid’s single-mindedness, his great ability and integrity.”83

 

But it is matter of great regret, that critics like Justice Munir and S.R. Khairi could neither understand Quaid-i-Azam nor they could comprehend Islam, otherwise their approach to the subject under discussion would have been certainly positive one.

 

Notes and References

1. The remarks read, “Few individuals after the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Jinnah of Pakistan (New Delhi, Vikas Publications, 1985, p. vii). But strangely enough, Wolpert, speaking in the same breath, mars the value of these remarks by remarking the Quaid as an enigmatic personality like Gandhi (Ibid.), which is absolutely a wrong thesis. Weigh him by any standard of historical criticism, the Quaid will stand as a just, straightforward and far-sighted statesman and not a complicated and enigmatic politician as Wolpert maintains. “Jinnah was not as complex a character as it is made out” S.R.Khairi; p. xv (Full reference under Foot Note No. 5).
2. Sher Muhammad Garewal, “Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah” Urdu Encyclopedia of Islam. Vol. 19, pp. 461-92, Gul-e-Rana, “Quaid-i-Azam’s Role as Governor-General” unpublished M.A. thesis submitted to the University of the Punjab in 1979.
3. From Jinnah to Zia (Lahore, Vanguard Books, 1979), p. vii.
4. Ibid., p. 29.
5. Saad R. Khairi, Jinnah Reinterpreted: The Journey from Nationalism to Muslim Statehood (Karachi, Oxford University Press, 1995) pp. Vi-xx.
6. Ibid., p. 459.
7. Muhammad Munir, op. cit., pp. Vii, 29-30, Saad R. Khairi, op. cit, pp. Xviii-xix.
8. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah; Speeches as Governor-General 1947-48. (Karachi, Pakistan Publication, n-d) pp. 7-9.
9. See, Ch. Muhammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, (Lahore, Researc Societh of Pakistan, 1973): Leonard Mosley, The Last Days of the British Raj (Lahore, Urdu Digest Publications, 1973): Jamiluddin Rizvi, Pakistan Story (Lahore, 1973): Khushwant Singh, Train to Pakistan (London, 1954), Khawaja Iftikhar, Jab Amritsar Jal Raha Tha, (Lahore, 1981)
10. Fateh Naseeb Chaudhri, Quaid-i-Azam Ka Taswwar-i-Mumlukat-e-Pakistan (Lahore, Pakistan Study Centre, Punjab University, 1985) pp. 13-14; Also see Prof. Waheed uz-Zaman, “The Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan”, The Pakistan Times, August 14, 1979, p, iii: “The Quaid’s speech”, remarks Prof. Waheed-uz-Zaman also, needs…to be read in the context of the prevailing political situation which vitally affected not only the security but even the continued existence of the nascent state of Pakistan. Since a climate of total insecurity prevailed on both sides of the border and one of the greatest mass migrations in the history of mankind had had already started, such an assurance to the non-Muslims of Pakistan was urgently called for. It would, the Quaid hoped, not only stop the exodus of Hindus from Pakistan but would also have salutary effect on Indian leaders and persuade them to extend similar treatment to the Muslim minority in India.
11. Speeches as Governor-General, op cit.. p. 8.
12. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
13. Al-Quran, II, 256.
14. Al-Quran, XXII-40.
15. Abu-Daud, the Book of Jihad cited by Abdul Ala Maududi, in his books, Islamic Law and Constitution (Lahore, Islamic Publications, 1960), p. 300.
16. Zafar Ali (Trs), Omar the Great by Maulana Shibli Nomani, Vol. II. (Lahore, Muhammad Ashraf, 1976) p. 165.
17. Ibid., pp. 184-86; Abul Ala Maududi, The Islaic Law and Constitution (Lahore, Islamic Publications, 1960), pp. 292-321; The Encyclopedia of Islam. Vol. II Leiden, 1961) pp. 227-30.
18. Speeches as Governor-General 1947-48, op cit, P. 108.
19. Ibid., p. 61.
20. Ibid., Vol. II, ed. 1973, p. 1926.
21. Ibid.
22. Cited by Hector Bolitho, Jinnah: Creator of Pakistan. (London, Co-Wyman, Reprint, 1960), p. 9.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Riaz Ahmad, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Formative Years 1892-1920 (Islamabad, National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1986) p. 62.
26. Ibid., p. 89, The Works of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: The Formative Years 1892-1920 (Islamabad, Chair on Quaid-i-Azam, Quaid-i-Azam University 1996) pp. 297-302.
27. And during the Pakistan Movement days, he had developed a special interest in the historical literature of Islam. According to M.S. Toosy, he had in his library book on Islamic history, life of the Holy Prophet, and other great men of Islam, and translations of the Holy Quran. He had studied English translations of Al-Farooq (Life of Caliph Umar), which was written by Maulana Shibli Normani and translated by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan. He wanted to read the second part of this book dealing with administration and reforms of the Caliph Umar but its English translation was not available.
28. Quaid-i-Azam as Governor General, op. cit., p. 126.
29. Jamiluddin Ahmad, Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Vol. I. (Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1968), p. 597.
30. Ibid., p. 226.
31. Vol. 4. ed. 1968, pp. 112-20.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Jamiluddin Ahmed, Vol 3, I &II.
35. See, The Proceedings of the Round Table Conferences 1930-32. Riaz Ahmad, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Second Phase of his Freedom Struggle 1924-1934 (Islamabad, Chair on Quaid-i-Azam and Freedom Movement, Quaid-i-Azam University 1994) p. 124-50.
36. Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op. cit., pp. 122-133.
37. Ibid., p. 248.
38. Waheed-uz-Zaman, “The Quaid-i-Azam’s Vision of Pakistan. The Pakistan Times, August 14, 1979, p. III: Jamiluddin Ahmad, op. cit. p. 170.
39. Jamiluddin Ahmad, op. cit., P. 171.
40. Ibid., p. 253.
41. Ibid., pp. 458-59.
42. M.S. Toosy, My Reminiscences of Quaid-i-Azam (Islamabad, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, 1976) p. 48.
43. Ibid., p. 53.
44. Waheed-uz-Zaman, op. cit. p. iii.
45. Ibid.
46. Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op.cit., p. 490.
47. Waheeduzzamman, op. cit., p. III.
48. Jamiluddin, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 494.
49. Ibid., pp. 526-27.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., p. 527.
52. Waheed-uz-Zaman, op. cit., p. iii.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 209.
56. Dawn, December 4, 1945.
57. Waheed-uz-Zaman, op. cit.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Speeches as Governor-General, op. cit., p. 22.
64. Ibid., p. 29-31.
65. Speeches and Statements as Governor-General, (edition, 1989), p. 125.
66. Ibid., p. 127.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid., p. 56
69. Ibid., p. 58
70. Ibid., p. 65
71. Rahbar-Daccan, August 19, 1941: Ahamd Saeed, Guftar-i-Quaid-i-Azam, (Islamabad, Historical and Cultural Research, 1976), pp. 261-62.
72. Speeches as Governor-General, op. cit., p. 58
73. Khurshid Ahmad, Western Fundamentalism, Khurshid Ahmad has critically examined the concepts of theocracy and fundamentalism. To him these concepts are the product of the West. Such concepts have no place in Islam.
74. Abul Ala Maududi, (Lahore, Islamic Publications, 1969), p. 129: Khurshid Ahmed (Trs.): Islamic Law & Constitution (Lahore, Islamic Publications, ed 1960) pp. 147-49.
75. Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. II, op.cit. p. 242.
76. Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op. cit. p. 265.
77. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 175.
78. Muhammad Munir, op.cit., p. 29, S.R. Khairi, op. cit., pp. 463-78.
79. Jamiluddin Ahmad, op. cit., pp. 171, 174.
80. Speeches s Governor General, op. cit., pp. 29, 33.
81. Ibid., p. 30.
82. Waheeduzzaman, op. cit., p. iii.
83. See Jamiluddin, Quaid-i-Azam as seen by Contemporaries, (Lahore, Publishers United, 1966) p. 243.

Quaid-e-Azam & Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi

by Prof. Ahmed Saeed

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, though brought up in two different environment, yet both of them, greatly influenced the Muslim nation. The Quaid fought on the political front to safeguard the Muslims from the British and Bania hegemony. Maulan Thanvi dedicated his life to reform the Muslim society. It is interesting to note that both of them never met each other yet they had so much in common in their personal traits, political ideals and thinking.1

 

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi was born in 1863 in Thana Bhawan (U.P.). He was educated at Darul Uloom, Deoband. He did not participate in the Khilafat Movement. He also opposed the Non-Cooperation Movement. He even asked the Muslims not to join Indian National Congress. An erudite scholar, he wrote a number of books on Islam. He died on 20 July 1943.

 

Before discussing their identical political ideals let us have a look at some of their personality traits which they shared. When we go through the Malfuzat of Maulana Thanvi it becomes evident that he laid great stress on obligations towards humanity (). He asked his followers, time and again, to pay more attention to the rights of the people. Maulana Thanvi was of the view that a prompt reply to anyone’s letter was a part of good human behaviour. It is quite interesting to observe that both the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi remained awfully busy from dawn to dust yet they considered it their religious and moral obligation to send a prompt reply to the letters addressed to them.

 

During the Pakistan Movement the Quaid received hundreds of letter from all over the subcontinent written by various persons ranging from leaders like M.K. Gandhi, S.C. Bose, Rajendra Prasad,, Motilal Nehru, A.K. Fazlul Haq, Allama Raghib Ahsan, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal to ordinary students and political workers discussing important national issues of the movement and seeking his expert advice and guidance even in personal matters.

 

The Quaid, like Maulana Thanvi, considered it his moral obligation to send a prompt reply. Once while talking to Altaf Husain, Editor, Dawn, Delhi, he said, “When I receive a letter from anyone it becomes my moral obligation to open it and reply.”2

 

The Quaid has no spare time to write long replies so he was always brief and to the point. Like Maulana Thanvi, the Quaid was very prompt in replying the letters. He did not keep others waiting. Once Mrs. Ayesha Ahsan wrote to him from Patna on 28 May 1942. To this the Quaid replied on 4 June. The distance between Patna and Delhi must be kept in mind.

 

Similarly Maulana Thanvi used to check his dak daily after Zuhr prayers and would spend his time in replying the letters. He was of the opinion that a certain Hadees which contains the words included the meaning of promptly replying to letters.3 It was his practice to send a reply the same day. Usually he would not use a separate paper but would reply on the sides of the same letter thus saving his time as well as his papers. He received a large number of letters but he never put off the reply to the other day.

 

Once he said: “I try to pen down the reply the same day, whatever the number of letters might be. Yesterday I replied to fifty-one letters.”4

 

He wrote brief, simple and to the point. It is no exaggeration to tell that Maulana Thanvi replied to thousands of letters.

 

The political adversaries of the Quaid have maliciously dubbed him as cold, emotionless and what not. But strangely enough if one peeps into his life one finds the Quaid an entirely a different person. The Quaid possessed a great sense of humour and he displayed it wherever he may be; on the dining table, in the courts, in the imperial Legislative Assembly, in the company of the friends, students and colleagues. It was not confined to any place or with any person. Here are few examples. There was an ill-mannered judge who was notorious for his bitter remarks. Once during the hearing, he ironically remarked, “Mr Jinnah you should at least respect me for my grey hair.” Outcome the reply: “Allow me to say, My Lord, I have not been taught to respect grey hair if there is no wisdom beneath them.”

 

While speaking on the Indian budget in the Imperial Legislative Council the Quaid said: “This budge is merely an eyewash.” The English Finance Member replied: “An eyewash is good for sore eye”. The Quaid retorted: “But what about those who have no eyes at all.”

 

While on a visit to his “Muslim Arsenal”, the Aligarh Muslim University, the Quaid was told that a student Mohammad Nouman was a very fine artist of mimicry who could impersonate and talk or make a speech with all the mannerism of his subject. The Quaid was told that he could also impersonate him to such a degree that if he had spoken behind a screen without being seen, the audience would have taken him to the Quaid. The Quaid sent for the boy who took ten minutes to prepare himself. He tuned up, dressed in Sherwani, a Jinnah cap and a monocles. The voice, the words, the gesture, the look on his face everything, appeared like the Quaid-i-Azam. The Quaid was very much pleased with the performance. When it was finished the Quaid took off his own cap and monocle and presented it to the student saying, “Now this will make it absolutely authentic”.

 

At his Press Conference at Delhi in July, 1947 a correspondent asked him: “will Pakistan be a theocratic state?” The Quaid inquired “What is a theocratic state?” Another correspondent replied. “A state run by the Maulvis.” The Quaid reported: “What will you call a state run by the Pundits”, referring to Pundit Nehru who claimed to be the head of the Executive Council of the Governor-General.

 

One day M.K. Gandhi was busy in his Prarthana in his Shivgram Ashram when a snake entered the Ashram. M.K. Gandhi kept himself busy with his Prarthana. The snake took a round of the hut and quietly went away. The Hindu newspapers unduly publicized the event attributing it to Mr. Gandhi’s miracle. A correspondent came to Quaid and asked his comments over the incident. He very seriously heard the whole story and remarked “yes professional etiquette.”5

 

Once the Quaid was travelling from Mysore to Otacomand. On his way he decided to take tea at a certain railway station. When he came out of the saloon a large number of people gathered around him. When his secretary drew his attention to the pushing and shoving at the platform he smiled and said; “Don’t worry it is a storm in tea cup. It will end soon.”

 

Some of the above mentioned examples belie the callous claims of those who called the Quaid “cold and emotionless.”

 

Similarly Maulana Thanvi was known to be very strict. Actually, he had laid down certain rules according to which he conducted his daily life. He not only himself practiced these rules but expected others to follow. Because of his strict observance of such rules a general impression was created among the general public that he was cold, haughty and .

 

Maulana Mohammad Ali was a great expert at nicknaming persons. Once he wrote about MAO College Aligarh that “these days our principal is Archbold and our Secretary is Archweak” referring to Nawab Mohsinul Mulk. Likewise he had some quarrel with Mr. Shephered, the Editor of the Times of India. He, is an article, wrote that there are many sheep without any Shepherd but he is Shepherd without a sheep. Keeping in view the general impression about Maulana Thanvi, Mohammad Ali Jauhar once asked Maulana Daryabadi: “how is our .6 One can enjoy this brief sentence if one keeps in mind that Ashraf Ali was born at Thana Bhawan.

 

Strongly enough if we have a glance at Maulana Thanvi’s Malfuzat we come across hundred of example to prove that he was not what he has been portrayed. Like the Quaid, he was full of humour and wit. Maulana Abdul Jabbar once asked him whether Huqqa would be available in paradise. He promptly replies yes but you will have to go to hell to bring fire from there.

 

Once in a meeting Maulana Thanvi was told that in a certain locality and feud over a mosque was going on between the Hindus and the Muslims. When he was informed that a Muslim by the name of Jamaluddin was taking sides with the Hindus he abruptly said, “he is not Jamaluddin rather .”

 

His Khadim Niaz informed him about the birth of his son and asked him to suggest a name. Maulana Thanvi proposed the name Ayyaz for the boy. After two or three years he again requested Maulana Thanvi to suggest some name of his second son properly rhymed with Niaz & Ayyaz. He said only one is left and that is Payaz (onion).

 

Once Khawaja Azizul Hasan Majzoob came to Thana Bhawan for a brief stay. On his departure he wanted to present some nazrana to Maulana Thanvi. But as the upper pocket of his Achkan was somewhat tight he took some time to pull out the money. Maulana Thanvi who was closely watching this said: “Just pull off your Achkan and give it to me. I myself will take out the money from it.”

 

Another personality trait which they shared was their abhorrence of use of big titles and honorifics. It is reported that once among big crowd someone raised a slogan “King of Pakistan”, the Quaid at once asked that gentleman to refrain from raising such slogans. The Aligarh Muslim University decided to confer an honorary degree of Doctor of Law on the Quaid. When Dr. Ziauddin conveyed this decision to him, he wrote:

 

I have most reluctantly to say that I have lived as plain Mr. Jinnah and I hope to die as plain Mr. Jinnah. I am very much averse to any title and I will be more happy if there was no prefix to my name.”7

 

Like the Quaid, Maulana Thanvi was also averse to use big titles prefixed with his name. He also disliked such titles as Shaikhul Hadees, Shaikhul Tafseer and Imamul Hind. Once he said that although our teachers were the embodiment of but for them no such titles were used. At the most they were called Maulana otherwise Maulvi was the most common word to address them.”8

 

On another occasion he opined that just to gain cheap popularity many novel titles are being used such as Tutee-e-Hind, Sher-e-Punab and Bulbul-e-Hind. The Almighty has made them human beings but they feel proud in being called animals. It looks after sometimes they would like to be called a Khar-e-Hind, Feel-i-Punjab or Asp-e-Hind.9

 

Both of them were very careful about financial matters. They knew that the Indian leaders were often accused of misappropriation of funds. They were very careful regarding chanda collection. The Quaid used to receive himself a money-order of rupees two.

 

As mentioned earlier, the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi did not have any face to face meeting. But it is on record that they exchanged letters. On 15 September 1938 Maulana Thanvi said: “That during the League-Congress negotiation I wrote a letter to the President of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah, stressing upon him that the final settlement must include the religious rights of the Muslims. I also asked him to consult the Ulema about religious matters. He very politely assured me to follow my suggestion.”10

 

The Quaid was much pleased with Maulana Thanvi for his support to the AIML. In a letter to Maulana, the Quaid informed him that he had “noted down all the suggestions very carefully and assured him to consult him at the proper time.”

 

A letter of Maulana Thanvi is preserved with the National Archives of Pakistan11 which is testimony to the fact that Maulana Thanvi, had a great regard for the Quaid. Maulana Thanvi keeping in view Quaid’s other pre-occupations, very frankly asked him not to reply his letter. He prayed to Almighty to make Jinnah a source of strength for the Deen-e-Islam. He asked Quaid’s permission to convey to him any useful suggestion which might come to his mind and finally he wrote.

 

 

The words themselves speak of the love and affection which Maulana Thanvi had for the Quaid.

 

As mentioned earlier Maulana Thanvi disliked students’ and teachers’ involvement in politics. He was of the view that both the teachers and the students should only devote themselves to their studies. From his Malfuzat one gets the impression that there were very few political discussions in his Khanqah. Even newspapers entry was banned there. Strangely enough, his political ideas and his general view of the political situation in India so much resemble with that of the Quaid. Starting from the Khilafat Movement down to 1943 Maulana Thanvi had amazing political like-mindedness with the Quaid.

 

As is well-known the Quaid did not participate in the Khilafat Movement so did the Maulana Thanvi. Maulana Thanvi did not like Gandhi’s participation in the Khilafat Movement so he issued many Fatwa asking the Muslims to keep away from the Movement. For this he was abused, threatened with dire consequences but he never faltered. When the Non-Cooperation Movement was in full swing many people asked Maulana Thanvi about the government service. He advised the Muslims first to arrange some alternative job then forsake the government service. He was of the view that by resigning the government service the Muslims would plunge themselves more in financial troubles.

 

Amazingly the same suggestion was given by the Quaid as late as January 1943. When a Khaksar attacked the Quaid, Ehsan Ghani, a former I.G. (Prisons) whote to the Quaid offering his services by giving up his job. The Quaid appreciated his spirit but advised him to continue his job.

 

With the passage of time Maulana Thanvi came closer to the AIML. He sent many deputations to attend the AIML sessions. In 1938, a four-member delegation including Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanvi and Shabbir Ali, was sent to attend the Patna Session. The delegation met the Quaid and conveyed to him Maulana Thanvi’s message. In the open session Maulana Zafar Ahmad read out Maulana Thanvi’s seven page message to the League which was also published in daily Asr-e-Jadeed of Calcutta on 4 January, 1939.

 

It was Congress rule (1937-1939) which brought the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi closer mentally than ever before. The Congress after coming into power made Urdu language its main target. Both the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi condemned the Congress for its anti-Urdu move. Maulana Thanvi issued a fatwa declaring the protection of Urdu equivalent to that of the protection of Deen.

 

The Congress, through the Wardha Scheme tried to liquidate the Two Nation theory. The scheme aimed at the creation of a nation of believers of joint Nationalism. The Working Committee of the AIML met at Bombay on 2 July 1939 under the chairmanship of the Quaid to review the scheme. The Working Committee adopted a resolution totally rejecting the scheme. According to the League the ultimate object of the scheme was to gradually destroy the Muslim Culture.

 

Maulana Thanvi also strongly criticised the Wardha Scheme and termed it as “poisonous for Muslims” religious life. He condemned the basic philosophy of the scheme such as Ahimsa.

 

Both the Quaid and Maulana Thanvi vehemently condemned the Congress for forcing the Muslims to recite the Bande-Matram.12

 

The Quaid over and again tried to remove the misconception that Muslims were an independent nation having their separate religion, culture and way of life. This is very interesting to note that Maulana Thanvi fully endorsed Quaid’s view about the Muslim Nationhood.

 

Recently Maulana Vakil Ahmad Sherwani, in his journal As Sayana has reproduced some unpublished Mulfuztat of Maulana Thanvi. In one of the Malfuzat Maulana is reported to have said that “Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah has very rightly said that as the Hindus and Muslims are not one nation, so the question of rights of minority and majority does not arise. The Hindus and Muslims are two nations so both of them should be given equal rights. It is true that both the nations have been living side by side for centuries, which does not mean that they are one nation. The reason, which did not come to my mind earlier, is that Ahlesabt (the Pherohian) and the Qibti (Capt) the Bani Israel lived in the same country but the Almighty did not call them as one nation instead it said meaning truly that the Qibti were the, a different nation. So the Quran testifies that by residing in one country the Two Nations do no loose their identities and separateness.”13

 

About Pakistan once he remarked that

 

 

It is very important while most of the Ulama of Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind supported one nation theory of the Congress and opposed Quaid’s theory that Muslims are a nation according to any definition of term, it is very pertinent to see Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi advocating the cause of Muslims as a nation. Thus both the leaders agreed on the issue of Two-Nation Theory in the Indo-Pak subcontinent.

 

Notes and References

1. Zafar Ali Khan, Chamanistan, (Lahore, 1969), pp. 143-144.
2. Mahe-Nour, December 1948.
3. Makateeb-e-Ashraf Ali Thanvi.
4. Al-Ifazatul Yumiyya, Vol. I. p. 163.
5. Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz, Hindu Keya Hai, (Lahore, n.d.), p. 13.
6. Rais Ahmed Pervaiz, Seerat-e-Mohammad Al, (Lahore, 1950), p. 117.
7. Shamsul Hasan, Plain Mr. Jinnah, (Karachi, 1976), pp. 76-77.
8. Al-Ifazutul Yumiyya, Vol. VI, p. 63.
9. Ahmed Saeed, Ashraf Ali Thanvi Aur Tehurike Azadi, (Lahore, 1984).
10. Mohammad Shafi, Majalis-e-Hakeemul Ummat (Karachi, 1974), p. 187.
11. NAP. File No. 1906, p. 294.
12. Asre-Jadeed, Calcutta, 26 December, 1938, p. 1.
13. As Siyani (Lahore, monthly), February 1992, pp. 28-29.