Quaid-e-Azam with Liaquat Ali Khan, Allama Mashraqi. Barrister Mian Ahmed Shah and Sir Ziauddin Ahmed
The above historic picture was taken when Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan) visited Allama Mashriqi (founder of Khaksar Tehrik) at a Khaksar Camp in Karol Bagh (Delhi) on October 16, 1939.
Mr Jinnah in his study
'He labored at his briefs day and night. There was never a word of gossip about his private life. A figure like that invites criticism particularly in this lazy East where we find it easier to forgive a man for his faults rather than for his virtues'. A comment of a law colleague on Jinnah during his early days as a Barrister in Bombay.
Mrs Naidu picture card to Mr. Jinnah
Mrs Sarojini Naidu was Governor of Uttar Pradesh after Partition. She was a great admirer of Mr Jinnah and once remarked: "He is a future Viceroy if this policy of Indianization continues". She was not far from the truth.
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: A Great Protagonist of Islamic System of Government
by Prof. Sher Muhammad Garewal
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
- 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).
- 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.
- From Jinnah to Zia (Lahore, Vanguard Books, 1979), p. vii.
- Ibid., p. 29.
- Saad R. Khairi, Jinnah Reinterpreted: The Journey from Nationalism to Muslim Statehood (Karachi, Oxford University Press, 1995) pp. Vi-xx.
- Ibid., p. 459.
- Muhammad Munir, op. cit., pp. Vii, 29-30, Saad R. Khairi, op. cit, pp. Xviii-xix.
- Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah; Speeches as Governor-General 1947-48. (Karachi, Pakistan Publication, n-d) pp. 7-9.
- 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)
- 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.
- Speeches as Governor-General, op cit.. p. 8.
- Ibid., pp. 8-9.
- Al-Quran, II, 256.
- Al-Quran, XXII-40.
- Abu-Daud, the Book of Jihad cited by Abdul Ala Maududi, in his books, Islamic Law and Constitution (Lahore, Islamic Publications, 1960), p. 300.
- Zafar Ali (Trs), Omar the Great by Maulana Shibli Nomani, Vol. II. (Lahore, Muhammad Ashraf, 1976) p. 165.
- 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.
- Speeches as Governor-General 1947-48, op cit, P. 108.
- Ibid., p. 61.
- Ibid., Vol. II, ed. 1973, p. 1926.
- Ibid.
- Cited by Hector Bolitho, Jinnah: Creator of Pakistan. (London, Co-Wyman, Reprint, 1960), p. 9.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Riaz Ahmad, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Formative Years 1892-1920 (Islamabad, National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1986) p. 62.
- 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.
- 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.
- Quaid-i-Azam as Governor General, op. cit., p. 126.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Vol. I. (Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1968), p. 597.
- Ibid., p. 226.
- Vol. 4. ed. 1968, pp. 112-20.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Jamiluddin Ahmed, Vol 3, I &II.
- 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.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op. cit., pp. 122-133.
- Ibid., p. 248.
- 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.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, op. cit., P. 171.
- Ibid., p. 253.
- Ibid., pp. 458-59.
- M.S. Toosy, My Reminiscences of Quaid-i-Azam (Islamabad, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, 1976) p. 48.
- Ibid., p. 53.
- Waheed-uz-Zaman, op. cit. p. iii.
- Ibid.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op.cit., p. 490.
- Waheeduzzamman, op. cit., p. III.
- Jamiluddin, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 494.
- Ibid., pp. 526-27.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 527.
- Waheed-uz-Zaman, op. cit., p. iii.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 209.
- Dawn, December 4, 1945.
- Waheed-uz-Zaman, op. cit.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Speeches as Governor-General, op. cit., p. 22.
- Ibid., p. 29-31.
- Speeches and Statements as Governor-General, (edition, 1989), p. 125.
- Ibid., p. 127.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 56
- Ibid., p. 58
- Ibid., p. 65
- Rahbar-Daccan, August 19, 1941: Ahamd Saeed, Guftar-i-Quaid-i-Azam, (Islamabad, Historical and Cultural Research, 1976), pp. 261-62.
- Speeches as Governor-General, op. cit., p. 58
- 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.
- Abul Ala Maududi, (Lahore, Islamic Publications, 1969), p. 129: Khurshid Ahmed (Trs.): Islamic Law & Constitution (Lahore, Islamic Publications, ed 1960) pp. 147-49.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. II, op.cit. p. 242.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, Vol. I, op. cit. p. 265.
- Ibid., Vol. II, p. 175.
- Muhammad Munir, op.cit., p. 29, S.R. Khairi, op. cit., pp. 463-78.
- Jamiluddin Ahmad, op. cit., pp. 171, 174.
- Speeches s Governor General, op. cit., pp. 29, 33.
- Ibid., p. 30.
- Waheeduzzaman, op. cit., p. iii.
- 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 (
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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
- Zafar Ali Khan, Chamanistan, (Lahore, 1969), pp. 143-144.
- Mahe-Nour, December 1948.
- Makateeb-e-Ashraf Ali Thanvi.
- Al-Ifazatul Yumiyya, Vol. I. p. 163.
- Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz, Hindu Keya Hai, (Lahore, n.d.), p. 13.
- Rais Ahmed Pervaiz, Seerat-e-Mohammad Al, (Lahore, 1950), p. 117.
- Shamsul Hasan, Plain Mr. Jinnah, (Karachi, 1976), pp. 76-77.
- Al-Ifazutul Yumiyya, Vol. VI, p. 63.
- Ahmed Saeed, Ashraf Ali Thanvi Aur Tehurike Azadi, (Lahore, 1984).
- Mohammad Shafi, Majalis-e-Hakeemul Ummat (Karachi, 1974), p. 187.
- NAP. File No. 1906, p. 294.
- Asre-Jadeed, Calcutta, 26 December, 1938, p. 1.
- As Siyani (Lahore, monthly), February 1992, pp. 28-29.
Jinnah: The Man - The Young Jinnah
by Hector Bolitho
Jinnah Creator of Pakistan is the best biography of Jinnah yet written by a Westerner. Hector Bolitho is an English journalist. In this selection he considers some of the significant influences on the young Jinnah. Most of the Jinnah’s observers have noted that he was strict and methodical in his habits and attitudes. Both in small matters, such as his monocle, and in large matters, such as his belief in constitutional procedure, Jinnah remained consistent from his early teens to the end of his life. The picture Bolitho gives of the able young student and advocate, aware of his abilities and of the obstacles before him, is an important clue to Jinnah’s later activities.
In the heart of the bustling new city is old Karachi, the town of mellow houses that Jinnah knew as a boy. Some of the streets are so narrow, and the houses so low, that the camels ambling past can look in the first-floor windows. In one of these narrow streets, Newnham Road, is the house – since restored and ornamented with balconies – where Mohammad Ali Jinnah was born. The date is uncertain: in the register of his first school, in Karachi, the day is recorded as October 20, 1875; but Jinnah always said that he had been born on Christmas Day – in 1876. If the 1876 date is correct, he was seven days old when Queen Victoria was proclaimed the Kaiser-i-Hind, on the Plain of Delhi. He was born in the year that the Imperial India was created, and he lived to negotiate, with Queen Victoria’s great-grandson, for its partition and deliverance from British rule.
In one of the tenement houses in old Karachi there lives Fatima Bai, a hand some old woman, aged eighty six; one of the few persons who can remember Mohammad Ali Jinnah when he was a boy. She was a bride of sixteen, married to one of the Jinnah’s cousins, when she arrived in the family home in Karachi. The year was 1884. Jinnah was then seven years old.
Fatima Bai lives with her son, Mohammad Ali Ganji , in rooms at the top of a flight of bare stone stairs. I went there one evening and she received me in her own room, in which there were her bed, an immense rocking-chair, and a wardrobe where among the bundles of clothes, the few existing documents – the family archives – were kept. Mohammad Ali Ganji spread the papers on the bed, beside his mother, and then gave me the bones of the early story.
Although Jinnah’s immediate ancestors were Muslims – followers of the Khoja sect of the Aga Khan – they came, like so many Muslim families in India, of old Hindu stock. Mohammad Ali Ganji said that the family migrated to the Kathiawar Peninsula from the Multan area, north of the Sind desert, long ago. From Katiawar, they moved to Karachi, where they settled and prospered in a modest way.
When Jinnah was six years old, he was sent to school in Karachi. When he was ten, he went on a ship to Bombay, where he attended the Gokul das Tej Primary School, for one year. He was eleven when he returned to Karachi, to the Sind Madrasah High School; and he was fifteen when he went to the Christian Missionary Society High School also in Karachi.
Mohammed Ali Ganji said, “In the same year that he was at the Mission School, he was married by his parents as was the custom of the country, to Amai Bai, a Khoja girl from Kathiawar. In 1892 he went to England to study law and, while he was there, his young wife died. Soon afterwards, his mother died, and his father became very poor…”
Fatima Bai raised her hand and interrupted her son: she said, “He was a good boy; a clever boy. We lived, eight of us, in two rooms on the first floor of the house in Newnham Road. At night, when the children were sleeping, he would stand a sheet of cardboard against the oil lamp, to shield the eyes of the children from the light. Then he would read, and read. One night I went to him and said, ‘You will make yourself ill from so much study,’ and he answered, ‘Bai, you know I cannot achieve anything in life unless I work hard.’ “
As Fatima Bai finished her story, an old man appeared at the door; a smiling old Muslim with tousled, snow-white hair. His name was Nanji Jafar. He came in, sat in the rocking-chair and said that, as far as he knew, he was in his eighties. Though he had been at school with Jinnah, all he could recall was, “I played marbles with him in the street…” When I asked, “Can you remember anything he said to you?” he looked from beneath his thick brows and repeated, “I played marbles in the street with him.”
I asked him to close his eyes and to see, once more, the coloured glass marbles in the dust. Nanji Jafar closed his eyes and deeper into his memory: then he told his only anecdote of Jinnah’s boyhood. One morning, when Nanji Jafar was playing in the street, Jinnah, then aged about fourteen, came up to him and said, “Don’t play marbles in the dust; it spoils your clothes and dirties your hands. We must stand up and play cricket.”
The boys in Newnham Road were obedient: they gave up playing marbles and allowed Jinnah to lead them from the dusty street to a bright field where he brought his bat and stumps for them to use. When he sailed for England at the age of sixteen, he gave Nanji Jafar his bat and said, “You will go on teaching the boys to play cricket while I am away.”
All Jinnah’s story is in the boyhood dictum – “Stand up from the dust so that your clothes are unspoiled and your hands clean for the tasks that fall to them….
At the time when Jinnah finished his schooling, there was an Englishman, Frederick Leigh Croft, working as an exchange broker in Bombay and Karachi. He was heir to a baronetcy – a thirty-two-year-old bachelor, described by a kinswomen who remembers him as “something of a dandy, with a freshly picked carnation in his buttonhole each morning, a recluse and wit, uncomfortable in the presence of children, whom he did not like.” But he liked Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and was impressed by his talents. Frederick Leigh Croft ultimately persuaded Jinnah Poonja to send his son to London, to learn the practice of law.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not yet sixteen when he sailed across the Arabian Sea, towards the western world….which was to imbue him with an Englishness of manner and behaviour that endured to his death.
Mrs. Naidu wrote of Jinnah some years later, “It seems a pity that so fine an intelligence should have denied itself the hall-mark of a University education.” Jinnah appearantly withstood the temptations of literature, and art, and even of history. His mind seldom doted on the past, and it would seem that his habits in London were narrowed down – that his way was from lectures in Lincoln’s Inn, to debates in the House of Commons, without any pausing in the National Gallery on the way. He was to do two things brilliantly in his life: he was to become a great advocate, and he was to create a nation. From the beginning, he did not dissipate his energies with hobbies, nor his strength in dalliance. His chief passions were in his mind.
In an address to the Karachi Bar Association in 1947, Jinnah recalled, “I joined Lincoln’s Inn because there on the main entrance, the name of the Prophet was included in the list of great law-givers of the world.” He spoke of the Muhammad as “a great statesman, and a great sovereign.” His appreciation of the Prophet was realistic: perhaps his political conscience, as a Muslim, had already begun to stir while he was in England.
Jinnah told Dr. Ashraf that, during the last two years in London, his time was “utilized for future independent studies for the political career” he already “had in mind.” Jinnah also said, “Fortune smiled on me, and I happened to meet several important English Liberals with whose help I came to understand the doctrine of Liberalism. The Liberalism of Lord Morley was then in full sway. I grasped that Liberalism, which became part of my life and thrilled me very much.”
This awakening in politics coincided with significant personal changes. Up to April 1894, Mohammad Ali Jinnah used his boyhood name, Jinnahbhai – bhai being a suffix used in Gujrati language which was his mother tongue. On April 14, 1894, he adopted the English fashion in names and became Mr. Jinnah, the form he used for the rest of his life. He had also abandoned his “funny long yellow coat” and adopted English clothes; and – perhaps encouraged by the sight of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the House – he had bought his first monocle.
It must have been an important moment in the development of his courage, and his personality, when he went to an optician’s shop in London and bought the first of many monocles, which he wore during the next fifty year – even at the end, when he was being carried into his capital on a stretcher; a dying warrior, holding the circle of glass between his almost transparent fingers.
***********************
Jinnah had said that “the Liberalism of Lord Morley” thrilled him very much. The thrill much have been intensified on June 21, 1892, when he read of the Royal Assent to the Amendment to the Indian Councils Act, empowering the Viceroy to increase the numbers in the Legislative and Provincial Councils – an amendment that gave the people of India, for the first time, “a potential voice” in the government of their country.
The beginning of Jinnah’s partiality for Liberalism was well-timed. At the end of May 1892, Mr. Gladstone spoke “with a vigour and animation most remarkable in a man of eighty-two.” He was rewarded in the following August, when the Liberals came into power after six years of Tory rule under Lord Salisbury.
The early 1890’s offered refreshing opportunities for any young novice in politics, newly arrived from India, anxious to learn, and naturally in love with agitation and reform. In 1893, when Jinnah must have recovered from his loneliness and “settled down,” he was able to listen to some of the lively debates over Mr. Gladstone’s Irish Home Rule Bill: he was able also to study English reactions to affairs in India, and Egypt; to watch the growing power of Labour, and to develop his sympathy with the political emancipation of women – a reform that became a fixed part of his political creed when he returned to India.
There was another stiring innovation, nearer his own heart. Jinnah arrived in London in time to watch – perhaps to help – the election of the first Indian, Dadabhai Naoroji, to the British Parliament, as a member for the Central Finsbury.
Dadabhai Naoroji was a Parsee, aged sixty-seven at the time of his return: for many years he had been a businessman in London. Photographs of him, in later life, reveal some of the reasons why he came to be known as the “Grand Old Man of India.” His humorous old eyes, long white beard, and relaxed hands, proclaim the teacher, about whom young Indians gathered to learn – rather than the furious agitator in love with change for its own sake.
When Dadabhai Naoroji announced his intentions to stand as Liberal candidate for Central Finsbury, Lord Salisbury committed the clumsy foly, in a speech at Edinburgh, of saying, “I doubt if we have yet got to the point of view where a British constituency would elect a black man.” The Scottish electors shouted “Shame!....” Victoria, attended by Indian servants and engrossed in her study of Hindustani, was much displeased.
The unhappy insult – addeldy unfortunate because Dadabhai Naoroji had a paler skin that Lord Salisbury – soon made the Parsee Liberal into a hero. The chapters in his biography, describing the controversy awakened by the election in Finsbury, make an exciting story. Women’s Suffrage was one of his aims, and he was therefore overwhelmed by women helpers. Among the letters sent o him was one from Florence Nightingale: “I rejoice beyond measure,” she wrote “that you are now the only Liberal candidate for Central Finsbury.”
Dadabhai Naoroji was elected, with a majority of three, and the quick-tongued Cockneys who have voted for him turned his difficult name into “Mr. Narrow Majority.”
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was caught up in the excitement of the Finsbury election, and he prospered under the influence of Dadabhai Naoroji, whom he was to serve, as secretary, fourteen years later. It is reasonable to suppose that Jinnah learned much from Naoroji’s speeches; that he absorbed some ideas from the Grand Old Man….
Mohammad Ali Jinnah returned to India in the autumn of 1896. He was then a qualified barrister, aged almost twenty, and devoted to the Liberalism he had absorbed from Gladstone, Morley, and Dadabhai Naoroji. English had become his chief language, and it remained so, for he never mastered Urdu even he was leading the Muslim into freedom, he had to define the terms of their emancipation in an alien tongue. His clothes also remained English, until the last years of his life, when he adopted the sherwani and Shalwar of the Muslim gentlemen. And his manner of address was English: he had already assumed the habit, which he never gave up, of shaking his finger at his listener and saying, “My dear fellow, you do not understand.”
Mohammed Ali Jinnah sailed for Bombay in 1897, but he was to endure three more years of penury, and disappointment, before he began to climb. Mr. M.H. Saiyid, who was Jinnah’s secretary in later years, has written of this lean time. “The first three years were of great hardship and although he attended the office regularly every day, he wandered without a single brief. The long and crowded foot-paths of Bombay may, if they could only speak, bear testimony to a young pedestrian pacing them every morning from his new abode….a humble locality in the city, to this office in the Fort,….and every evening back again to his apartments after a weary, toilsome days spent in anxious expectation.”
As the turn of the century, Jinnah’s fortune changed, through the kindness of the acting Advocate-General of Bombey, John Molesworth MacPherson, who invited the young lawyer to work in his chambers. Mrs. Naidu wrote of this as “a courteous concession – the first of its kind ever extended to an Indian,” which Jinnah remembered as “a beacon of hope in the dark distress of his early struggles.”
***********************
The second advocate resumed his story: he said: “You must realize that Jinnah was a great pleader, although not equally gifted as a lawyer. He had to be briefed with care, but; once he had grasped the facts of a case, there was no one to touch him in legal argument. He was that God made him, not what he made himself, God made him a great pleader. He had a sixth sense: he could see around corners. That is where his talents lay. When you examine what he said, you realize that he was a very clear thinker, though he lacked the polish that a university education would have given him. But he drove his points home – points chosen with exquisite selection – slow delivery, word by word. It was all pure, cold logic.”
The first advocate then told another story. “One of the younger men practicing at that time - younger than Jinnah – was M.A. Somjee, who became a High Court Judge. They were appearing, as opposed counsel in a case which was suddenly called for on hearing. Mr. Somjee was another court at the time and the solicitor instructing him asked Jinnah to agree to a short adjournment. Jinnah refused. The solicitor then appealed to the judge, who saw no objection, provided Jinnah would agree. But Jinnah would not agree: he stood up and said: ‘My learned friend should have anticipated this and he should have asked me personally for an adjournment.”
“Jinnah’s arrogance would have destroyed a man of less will and talent. Some of us used to resent his insolent manner – his overbearing ways – and what seemed to be lack of kindness. But no one could deny his power of argument. When he stood up in Court, slowly looking towards the judge, placing his monocle in his eye – with the sense of timing you would expect from an actor – he became omnipotent. Yes, that is the word, omnipotent.”
“May be,” said the third advocate, “but, always, with Jinnah one comes back to his honesty. Once when a client was referred to him, the solicitor mentioned that the man had limited money with which to fight the suit. Nevertheless, Jinnah took it up. He lost – but he still had faith in the case and he said that it should be taken the Appeal Court. The solicitor again mentioned that his client had no money. Jinnah pressed him to defray certain of the appeal expenses out of his own pocket and promised to fight the case without any fee for himself. The time, he won; but when the solicitor offered him a fee, Jinnah refused – arguing that he had accepted the case on the condition that there was no fee.”
I’ll tell you another story along that line,” said the second advocate. There was a client who was so pleased with Jinnah’s services in a case, that he sent him an additional fee. Jinnah returned it, with a note, ‘This is the amount you paid me-. This was the fee. Here is the balance-.’ “
When the three lawyers were asked, “Did you merely admire Jinnah or did any of you become fond of him?” one of them answered, “Yes, I was genuinely fond of him, because of his sense of justice. And because, with all the differences and bitterness of political life. I believe he was a man without malice: hard, maybe, but without malice.
*********************
Two of the advocates who spoke Jinnah were Hindus: One was a Parsee. Some time later, a veteran Muslim barrister gave his different, perhaps more penetrating, impression of Jinnah’s work at the Bar. “One must realize,” he said, “that when he began to practice, he was the solitary Muslim barrister of the time: there may have been one or two others, but they did not amount to a row of pins. This was in a profession made up mostly of Hindus and Parsee. Perhaps they were over-critical of a Muslim – who came from business stock-setting up such a standard of industry. There was no pleasure in Jinnah’s life; there were no interests beyond his work. He laboured at his briefs, day and night. I can see him now; slim as a reed, always frowning, always in a hurry. There was never a whisper of gossip about his private habits. He was a hard-working, celibate, and not very gracious young man. Much too serious to attract friend. A figure like that invites criticism, especially in the lazy East, where we find it easier to forgive a man for his faults than for his virtues.”
*********************
During these years of Jinnah’s early success as a lawyer, he met Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, the first sophisticated, intelligent woman to observe his talents, to see beyond the arrogance of the young advocate. She wrote of him:
Never was there a nature whose outer qualities provided so complete an antithesis of its inner worth. Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohamed Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is the deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance. Somewhat formal and fastidious, a little aloof and imperious of manner, the calm hauteur of his accustomed reserve but masks – for those who know him – a naïve and eager humanity, an intuition quick and tender as a woman’s a humour gay and winning as a child’s. Preeminently rational and practical, discreet and dispassionate in his estimate and acceptance of life, the obvious sanity and serenity of his worldly wisdom effectually disguises a shy and splendid idealism which is the very essence of the man.
Mrs. Naidu’s warm regard for Jinnah was shared by many other young women who saw, as pride, what his lawyer friends called arrogance. Among them was an old Parsee lady, still living on Malabar Hill, who remembers Jinnah at the age of twenty-eight. She has said of him, “Oh, yes, he had charm. And he was so good looking. Mind you, I am sure he was aware of his charm: he knew his own strength. But when he came into a room, he would bother to pay a compliment – to say, ‘what a beautiful sari!’ Women will forgive pride, or even arrogance, in a man like that.”
Source: From Hector Bolitho, Jinnah Creator of Pakistan (London, 1954), pp. 3-5, 7-11, 14-5, 18-19, 21-22
Ruttie Jinnah's last letter to Jinnah
S. S. Rajputana,
Marseilles 5 Oct 1928
Darling – thank you for all you have done. If ever in my bearing your once tuned senses found any irritability or unkindness – be assured that in my heart there was place only for a great tenderness and a greater pain – a pain my love without hurt. When one has been as near to the reality of Life (which after all is Death) as I have been dearest, one only remembers the beautiful and tender moments and all the rest becomes a half veiled mist of unrealities. Try and remember me beloved as the flower you plucked and not the flower you tread upon.
I have suffered much sweetheart because I have loved much. The measure of my agony has been in accord to the measure of my love.
Darling I love you – I love you – and had I loved you just a little less I might have remained with you – only after one has created a very beautiful blossom one does not drag it through the mire. The higher you set your ideal the lower it falls.
I have loved you my darling as it is given to few men to be loved. I only beseech you that the tragedy which commenced in love should also end with it.
Darling Goodnight and Goodbye
Ruttie
I had written to you at Paris with the intention of posting the letter here – but I felt that I would rather write to you afresh from the fullness of my heart. R.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Gandhi and Jinnah - a study in contrasts
An extract from the book that riled India's Bharatiya Janata Party and led to the expulsion of its author Jaswant Singh, one of the foun...
-
Reply to the Civic Address presented by the Quetta Municipality on I5th June, 1948. I thank you for your address of welcome and for the ki...
-
Speech on the Inauguration of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on 14th August, 1947 Your Excellency, I thank His Majesty the King on behalf... -
. . Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah & Pakistan Movement (Right Click & Download) For more videos please visit our YouTube Ch...