Jinnah and Kashmir

The Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress. According to Mr. Justice Yusuf Saraf, author of “Kashmiris Fight for Freedom” the Quaid-e-Azam and his wife seemed to have had visited Kashmir for the first time before 1929. Though this visit was private in nature, yet as a great Muslim leader he felt concerned at the appalling conditions of the Kashmiris at that time too.

The second visit of the Quaid-e-Azam was in 1936 during which he hinted to his first visit, saying that he had visited Kashmir ten years earlier too. In 1936 the Quaid-e-Azam addressed a meeting held in connection with Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of the Holy Prophet (SAW) at the Mujahid Manzil, Srinagar. The Muslim Conference (at that point of time was led by Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Sheikh Abdullah) in welcome address to Jinnah appreciated his role as lover of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Jinnah reciprocated the sentiments and said that the Muslims were in majority in Kashmir but it was their duty to ensure that the minority community that is, the Hindus of Kashmir would get justice and fair play at the hands of the majority community of Kashmir.

Mr.Jinnah, who was once proclaimed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, had been disillusioned by that time and in his speech regretted that some of the leaders of the majority community in British India had not been able to give such an assurance to the Muslim minority. That showed that the Quaid-e-Azam was not satisfied with the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity in British India.

The Muslim Conference, which represented the Muslims of the State 1936, was converted into National Conference in 1939 as its leaders had come under the influence of Nehru. Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, who had joined hand with Sheikh Abdullah in 1939 to found National Conference, realized his mistake within three years. He returned to the Muslim Conference, which had been revived by 14 other leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. Soon many others joined the revived Muslim Conference and once again it became a force to reckon with.

The main and the last visit of the Quaid-e-Azam to the State of Jammu and Kashmir took place in 1944. During this visit he attended a reception by the National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah had thought that with the help of Dogra administration and the active and crafty Hindus he would suppress the pro-Muslim League elements in the State and assure Mr. Jinnah that the Kashmiris, Hindus as well as Muslims, were believers in One Nation Theory of the Congress. A Hindu nationalist Jialal Kilam presented the address of welcome to the Quaid-e-Azam. The Quaid-e-Azam thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress.

Quiz: Jinnah - The Founder of Pakistan

Do you think you know much about Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah,

The Father of Pakistan Nation ?? Take this quiz to find out.

.
.

The Quaid on the Role of Women in Society

Quaid-e-Azam with lady workers in Bombay

Muslim women of the Indian subcontinent observed strict purdah or seclusion well into the twentieth century. They spent their lives confined to the four wall of their homes. Reformers had advocated their education and a better treatment, but no one had asked for emancipation Nazir Ahmed had persuasively argued in his novel in favour of educating Muslim Women, but within their homes. Altaf Hussain Hali had used the powerful vehicle of his poetry to criticize the treatment meted out to women. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the most important Muslim reformer of the 19th century, had argued the Muslim women’s education must wait till the Muslim men had been given modern education.

It was not till the launching of the movement of Anjuman-e-Khuddam-e Ka ‘abah in 1913, that Muslim women began to get involved in any kind of public activity, although it seems to have been restricted to raising funds. It was the Khilafat movement and the imprisonment of the Ali brothers in 1917, which brought their mother, Bi Amman, out. She addressed large gatherings from behind purdah, which she continued to observe. However, Bi Amman and her daughter-in-law Amjadi Begum’s contribution, significant though it was, did not bring out Muslim women in any substantial numbers.

It was the Quaid-i-Azam who broke away from the accepted and traditional view of the role of Muslim women in society, and brought about a radical transformation in it. The Quaid was responding to a change that was sweeping the world, and had gained momentum in the post-First World War period. The Suffragette momentum in the post-First World War period. The Suffragette movement and the women’s struggle for emancipation, was an important element of the social and political changes taking place in the west. In the Indian sub-continent its expression could be seen in the sudden outburst of women’s magazine that began to published from different parts of India, in the decade before the outbreak of Great War.

The Quaid and the Making of Pakistan

How critical was Quaid-i-Azam’s role in the making of Pakistan? Surprisingly though, it was most succinctly and brilliantly summed up in rather unsuspecting quarters – in H.V. Hodson (d. 2000)’s The Great Divide (1969), perhaps the most authoritative British account of the imperial retreat from the subcontinent. He says:

Of all the personalities in the last act of the great drama of India’s rebirth to independence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah is at once the most enigmatic and the most important. One can imagine any of the other principal actors…. Replaced by a substitute in the same role – a different representative of this or that interest or community, even a different Viceroy – without thereby implying any radical change in the denouncement. But it is barely conceivable that events would have taken the same course, that the last struggle would have been a struggle of three, not two, well-balanced adversaries, and that a new nation State of Pakistan would have been created, but for the personality and leadership of one man, Mr. Jinnah. The irresistible demand for Indian independence, and the British will to relinquish power in India soon after the end of the Second World War, were the result of influences that had been at work long before the present story of a single decade begins; the protagonists on this side or that of the imperial relationship were tools of historical forces which they did not create and could not control… Whereas the irresistible demand for Pakistan, and the solidarity of the Indian Muslims behind the demand, were creations of that decade alone, ad supremely the creations of one man.

Of relevance here is how Alfred Broachard evaluated the role of Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) in the making of the modern Turkey:

Without Napoleon, without de Gaulle, there would still be a France.
Without Washington, there would certainly be the United States.
Without Lenin, it is certain that there would be the Soviet Union; but
without Ataturk, it is certain that there would have been no Turkey.

Turkey had, of course, had a territorial, political, cultural and ethnic existence in history for over five centuries before Ataturk transformed it into modern Turkey in 1923. In contract, Pakistan fell even below the category of middle nineteenth-century “Italy” which the Austrian Chancellor, Matternich (1809-48), had most disparagingly characterized as a mere a “geographical expression”. Pakistan was not even such an expression barely fifteen years before its emergence. There was a “nation” called Turkey for several centuries, but there was none called Pakistan before 1947. Hence if Ataturk’s presence in the early 1920s was critical to have making of modern Turkey, how much more critical should have been Jinnah’s presence in the 1940s in the emergence of Pakistan, especially since she was bereft of any historical prototype hand parentage? Hence Leonard Mosley and a host of other contemporary observers and historians (including Penderal Moon, Ian Stephens, John Terraine, Margaret Bourke-White, Frank Moraes, and D.F. Karaka) rate Jinnah as being the critical variable in its emergence to a point that they characterize Pakistan as a “one-man achievement”.

Quaid-e-Azam and Democracy

• Democracy is in the blood of Muslamans who look upon complete equality of man. I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Muslamans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty. (Speech at Kingsway Hall, London. 14.12.1946) 

• There are no people in the world who are more democratic even in their religion than the Muslamans. (All India Muslim League Session, Lucknow, 1916)

• It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver the Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon Him). Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of the truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that our decisions in the affairs of the state shall be guided by discussions and consultations. (Sibi, 14.02.1948)

Quaid-e-Azam's speech before the Constituent Assembly in the context of Two Nation Theory

The Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah during his first address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947 said:

“We are all citizens and equal citizens of one state….Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in 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.”1

Those who do not have full grasp of the Two-Nation Theory are often misled by the phrase used by the Quaid when he said, “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims.” They wrongly infer from these words that the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan was that of a secular state in which religion would have no role to play. In this way they mistakenly by wish to hoodwink the people that with the creation of Pakistan the Quaid had given up his affiliation with the Ideology of Islam which he so vehemently asserted before the creation of Pakistan. This mistaken view has already witnessed dangerous interpretations. Therefore, it is not surprising when people of much high caliber as Mr. Justice Mohammad Munir, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, in his book from Jinnah to Zia while referring to the said speech of the Quaid has observed:

“The pattern of Government which the Quaid-i-Azam had in mind was a secular democratic government.”2

The pre-political phase of the Two-Nation Theory should not be confused with its post-political era. Evidentially, before the creation of an Islamic State, the Muslims and the non-Muslims are two different and distinct nations. The Muslims, in every respect, are a nation, irrespective and independent of geographical boundaries and racial or linguistic bonds. Their religion governs them in every walk of life. In their socio-economic solidarity they have not to be dependent on the state legislation. State legislation is just transcendence of the comprehensive and complete code of life laid down by the Holy Quran and the Holy Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allah ho alaihe wa sallam).

Islam provides intellectual foundation for the institutional organization of mankind; whereas territorial nationalism based on geographic, linguistic and racial affinities lead to spiritual paralysis and material superiorities of colour, language, territory, tribe and heritage. Territorial nationalism makes impossible the universal brotherhood of mankind. The motto of Muslim Nationhood in the expression of the Unity of God (Taied-e-Ilahi) in thought and action in accordance with the Will of God. Despite everything else the word country (watan) as a term of Geography is not contrary to Islam. Love of Motherland is a natural sentiment. But when the word country is used as a concept of Political Science, it comes into conflict with Islam, for Islam is itself a comprehensive principle of institutional organization.

Our National Purpose

"What we must look for is, first, religious and moral principles; secondly gentlemanly conduct; thirdly intellectual ability.” Thomas Arnold


The national resilience of the Pakistani people is to be judged by the degree of their consciousness and commitment to guard their values, traditions and honour called the ‘national purpose’, or the raison d’être, as the French call it. National purpose is sacrosanct and sublime. Quaid-i-Azam first of all preferred to affirm his own faith, belief and commitment to the cause of Pakistan.


On October 22, 1939, while addressing All-India Muslim Council, he said:
.
.

“I have seen enough in my life, experienced the pleasures of wealth, fame and life of repose and comfort. Now I have one single ambition, to see Muslims gaining freedom and rise to the pinnacle of glory. It is my very ultimate wish that when I die, my conscience and my Allah may testify that, Jinnah never betrayed Islam and that he relentlessly struggled for the freedom of Muslims, to forge institutional discipline among them and strengthen their resolve. I do not wish to get acclamation or reward from you. I only nourish the desire that, my heart, my faith and my conscience, all bear testimony till my death that Jinnah, ‘you contributed your share for the resistance against Islam and my Allah proclaim that “Jinnah you were a born Muslim, lived as such and died, quite steadfastly, holding the banner of Islam against the evil forces.”

Socio-Economic Objectives as Visualised by Quaid-e-Azam

By Mahmud Ali

 Prior to launching of the Pakistan Movement in the South Asian Subcontinent, the economic conditions of the Muslims, in general, were precarious. For this both the British and the Hindu Bania had joined hands after the fall of Mughal Rule in India. Muslim League objective, therefore, was aimed at economic emancipation of the Muslims, both from the British Imperial exploitation as well as from the Hindu money lenders.

The idea behind a separate Muslim state was that, in such a state it would be possible for the incoming people’s government, to adopt and implement an economic system, based on the principles of Islamic Shariat, which prevent concentration of wealth into few hands, and thus ensure equitable distribution of the resources to the generality of the people, thereby paving the way for affluence and eradication of poverty and exploitation of man by man.

Unfortunately the continuation of the impact of the Pakistan Movement came to a dead stop after the sad demise of the father of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had assimilated the idea into himself and projected it to the extent of founding a Muslim state which would provide the ground for the ultimate realization of the noble objective.

But the question remains, why it had been so? The answer is not far to seek: The elements of exploitation including the outgoing imperial blood-suckers, became super-active finding the field bereft with the power of resistance. The power of dynamic leadership was gone, and the masses, bereft of it, became totally powerless.

Here, we are reminded of the past, through centuries, as to how the elements of exploitation spread their world-wide tentacles of exploitation, blood-sucking of the people all over the globe, including the land which comprises PAKISTAN.

Quaid's Concept Of Pakistan

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the greatest leaders of the modern age, who not only led his people to independence but founded a separate homeland for them, where they could mould their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Quran and traditions of Islam and cultivate their culture and civilization. This was a far greater achievement of the Quaid than any other national liberation leader. Other leaders struggled for independence within states already in existence. This he achieved almost single-handedly and constitutionally, and in the teeth of stiff opposition.

Prof. Stanly Wolpert has rightly said about the Quaid that “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three”.

Pakistan’s emergence was not just the emergence of a new state, but it was created on the basis of Islamic ideology. If Pakistan had not been created, the Muslims would have been under the militant Hindu majority in united India and lost in the Hindu majority.1

The only objective of the Pakistan movement was not to separate some provinces to save them from Hindu domination. Had it been so the Muslims of the minority provinces would never have taken the active part they did in the freedom movement. The Muslims of the minority provinces knew that if Pakistan was created they would stand to gain nothing. Indeed might lose everything. Infact, the Muslims of South Asia believed that they were not fighting for a territory only, but for the preservation of their culture and civilization, language and literature and Islamic way of life.

The Quaid-i-Azam at first devotedly worked for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity and spent most of energies and efforts towards its attainment. His efforts were appreciated and Mr. Jinnah was acknowledged by the Hindus themselves. But the conditions soon led the Muslims of the subcontinent to change their outlook and adopt a different course.

The awareness of a separate Muslim nationhood in the subcontinent can be traced back to a millennium when it was noticed for the first time by Alberuni, who visited India in the 9th century and wrote in his famous work Kitab-al-Hind as under:

For the reader must always bear in mind that the Hindus entirely differ from us in every respect, many a subject appearing intricate and obscure which would be perfectly clear if there were more connection between us. The barriers which separate Muslims and Hindus rest on different causes. First, they differ from us in everything which other nations have in common. And here we first mention the language, although the difference of language also exists between other nations.2

He further said:

Many Hindu customs differ from those of our country and of our time to such a degree as to appear to us simply monstrous. One might almost think they had intentionally changed them into the opposite, for our customs do not resemble theirs, but are the very reverse; and if ever a custom of theirs resembles one of ours, it has certainly just the opposite meaning.3

Quaid-e-Azam and the Sikhs

Quaid-e-Azam with Master Tara Singh & Khizar Hayat Tiwana

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was undoubtedly a fascinating, striking and remarkable personality. Possessed of excellent qualities of pen and mind, he played a significant role in changing the course of history and destinies of men in South Asia. A born leader of men, an experienced politician, a dynamic parliamentarian and a far-sighted statesman, he valiantly fought against the British imperialism and Hindu chauvinism in India and single-handedly won the battle of Pakistan.

More strikingly, the Quaid was not only a great defender of the cause of Pakistan, he equally struggled to safeguard the interest of all minority communities in India, irrespective of race, religion and colour. A moderate leader, he stood for a just and honourable treatment of them. Belonging himself to a minority nation, the Indian Muslims, he well understood the minority peoples. At the same time, he fully realized the dominating behaviour and mentality of majority people, the Hindus. A far-sighted politician, he did comprehend the future designs of Hindu majority raj in India. Anyway, the Quaid always remained anxious about the future of minorities in undivided India. “To live and let live” was the basic principle of his political philosophy. To support the cause of any community was an article of faith with him. He often sympathized the grievances of scheduled castes and frequently advocated the cause of Sikhs.