Warning: no part of this article be copied or reproduced, plagiarism is a crime. All rights reserved:
Quaid-e-Azam was very worried about the fate of Muslims under the Indian role after British, he was confirmed that Hindus & Muslims cannot live together he decided to demand a separate land.
In an interview in American press in July 1942:asked by a journalist whether a Muslims are a Nation or not? Quaid-e-Azam replied: ” We are a nation with our own individual culture & civilization, language & literature, art & architecture, names & nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and norms, customer & calendar, history & traditions, aptitude & ambitions, in a nutshell, we have our own unique Outlook of life, by all cannons of international law we are a Nation”
Those who believe in Pakistan need no logic and no explanation regarding the ideology of Pakistan and its establishment.They still need to prepare themselves to explain it to those who do not believe in it. Sometimes, the questions are easy to satisfy others’ queries. Not always, as some elements are not meant to be productive as they pretend. They condition their inner satisfaction to ambiguities, chaos and disruption.I personally came to face such people in my close surroundings. Ironically, They quote a famous speech of Quaid-e-Azam.
1) You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place 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…Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah;
As to this statement, This was the ideal of open society given to us by Quaid-e-Azam. It is according to Islamic principal. Why do then people quote this part of his speech to prove that he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state? The words are clear that the state will not interfere in peoples’ faith. Each citizen will enjoy equal rights. It doesn’t say that state will run on non-religious principals. If democracy means that people should elect their representatives to form government then the idea of secular Pakistan rests in peace in a dustbin. If someone argues that state affairs are separate from government, then where will state officials come from, from heaven or from foreign countries? How are state and government affairs different from each other? State alone doesn’t exist. It is there because of people, territory, government and their freedom. If he meant the government should be secular then how would Muslim majority elect secular leaders to run the country on secular principles?
2) The demand and making of Pakistan was not rightful?
This question has lost its validity on 14 August, 1947. Those who recall the critics of Quaid-e-Azam only try to justify either their failure in Pakistan or their exit to foreign c.
3) Did Quaid-e-Azam want to make Pakistan a secular state or Islamic?
This is also not a valid question as Quaid-e-Azam did not create the theory himself. He adopted the Two-Nation Theory from Allama Iqbal and worked on it. One must read and understand Allama Iqbal to find the answer of this question. The people of Pakistan or politicians cannot change it.
Allama Iqbal in his presidential address in Allahabad in 1930 stated:
“Let me tell you frankly that, at the present moment, the Muslims of India are suffering from two evils. The first is the want of personalities. The second evil from which the Muslims of India are suffering is that the community is fast losing what is called the herd instinct”
In his presidential address 0n 23rd March, 1940, Quaid-e-Azam said,
“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, & literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life, & of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus & Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”
This is natural that when communities live together, they do inspire each other with their living style. Muslims in India were mostly a convert from the religion of their ancestors. They did embrace Islam but still being part of the same community, they couldn’t get rid of many rituals and traditions. They didn’t get a chance to study Islam and understand its teachings. They mostly relied upon their preachers, who were invited to resolve matrimonial affairs, such as marriage, divorce, aqeeqah, Bismillah, Ameen. Otherwise their job was to deliver sermon, azhan and teaching Quran in mosques or madarsa. So people other than that, remained the same as they were before. So it is not like Hindus and Muslims had the same culture and traditions. but Muslims were not aware of the true knowledge of their own religion. Had Muslims and Hindus would share similar culture, people of Hindustan would have been against the Iqbal and the Jinnah. In 10 AH Prophet Muhammad ( S.A.W) said; I feel cool breeze coming from Hind. In 11th century, Alberuni visited Hind with the army of Mehmud of Ghazni and experienced Muslim & Hindus difference of culture & behavior. In 1867, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan said, It was now impossible for Hindus and Muslims to progress as a single nation. in 1930 Dr. Allama Iqbal said, I therefore, demand the formation a consolidated Muslim State in the best of India and Islam.In 1940. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, The Hindus and the Muslims are two different nations & demanded a separate land. it suffices to prove that as a matter of the fact, Pakistan was the fact. it was destined to emerge as prophesied by Prophet (PBUH):
Therefore, Islamic Law is only the alternative that has the system which governs the political, social, economic and moral duties of all and sundry. It is what is meant by “God’s Law.”
Since, French revolution came only political laws were changed, when Bolshevik (Communism) and Mensheviks (fractioned version of Communism) revolution came only economical laws were changed, when Khomeini revolution came only religious laws were changed, when Xinhai revolution came only political laws were changed, when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) came all the socio-politico-economic laws were changed, in other words it was total revolution.
Personal: This article is dedicated to my respectable novelist friend who forced me to pen it.
About the columnist:
Malik Asif is a Law student from Pakistan & a current amateur political analyst and observer covering domestic and international news. Malik Asif can be reached on Twitter at: @Malikasif678