Secular Jinnah

Family of the Heart - DIALOGUE & DISCUSSIONS 

In the following is my response to Mr. Bashy Qureshy. I have added the first paragraph that he wrote for :
  • @Bashy Quraishy

    “After reading the pysodo-intellectual comments of different people on Mubarak Ali’s article; Jinnah of Pakistan, I was just wondering, what would all these thankless people be doing if Quaid-e-Azam and his few associates have not worked tirelessly to create an independent homeland for the Muslims of a British India. I can bet that many of these critics of Quaid, would be holding low paid jobs in socially deprived Muslim ghettos in many big Indian cities.”
    In your very first paragraph, you have divided the audience in to categories: (1) admirers of Jinnah [You and some other intellectuals like you] and (2) those holding low paid jobs in socially deprived Muslim ghettos in many big Indian cities (who are critical to Jinnah). Who is right and who is wrong is not only intellectuals (well-paid!) to decide because it is entirely possible that the poor have the reason.
    Since I doubt the sincerity of Jinnah in Secularism I certainly merit to be in the second group. The only problem is that I am a well paid retired research scientist In any case I prefer to be with sincere poor (2) than the ambitious intellectuals (1).
    Concerning the topic (Secular Jinnah) you reveal to me, my “ignorance of the struggle of Pakistan and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s political life and achievements”.
    In 1947, I was 13 years old School Boy. We Muslim youngsters used to participate in demonstrations and crying hoarse the slogans like “ban keY raheY gA Pakidtan” – “Pakistan Zinda Bad”. We even refused to sing bandeY mAtram in school. I can not ignore the movement because I have gone through. But I do accept I was still naïf at this age. I have lived the history of Pakistan.
    Your main objection is because I wrote:
    • Quaid-e-Azam’s real aim of creating Pakistan was not a secular democracy because he lacked courage and had another vision, namely an Islamic state.
    • Quaid-e-Azam’s hesitation is a sign of his doubtful sincerity in secularism.
    The other two I drop because they are not pertinent to “Secular Jinnah”.
    In proof of the sincere interest of Mr. Jinnah to establish a Sucalar State, you very clearly define:
    “Secularism on the other hand asserts the right to be free from governmental imposition of religion upon the people, meaning that State must be neutral on matters of belief.”
    This is also the definition that Mr. Jinnah had been following. I have already explained earlier that this definition leaves the religion free to interfere and guide the governing system of the state.
    The state is not free from the religion. This definition will always give you a religious state as Pakistan is presently. In your definition the” state (affair, system of government) is free from the religion is LACKING. Dr. Khalid Sohail has very well defined in a Slogan “Freedom FOR Religion – Freedom FROM Religion .
    The repetition of your half definition will never make it one.

    Here is a Dictionary definition
    “A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Most often it has no state religion or equivalent.

    Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.”
    If one complies with the complete definition of secularism, one will reach to the same conclusion concerning “Secular Jinnah” as I did!
    You have cited many quotation from Mr. Jinnah in his favour. It is simply like a religious scholar citing his Holy Book in favour of his belief.

    Earlier I have made a comment on this subject:
    [Dear AA,
    You write:
    [By the way, two eminent judges of Pakistan, Justice M.R. Kayani and Justice Muhammad Munir, … had termed the Objectives Resolution a “hoax” which “not only does not contain even a semblance of the embryo of an Islamic State but its provisions, particularly those relating to fundamental rights, are directly opposed to the principles of an Islamic State”]
    Any statement does not become TRUE because it comes from a higher authority. Any Religious State cant become Secular because the two are exclude each other. Any religious state will have a religious system of government. For that the state will have a religious constitution. The religion of the state will be clearly declared in the constitution itself. The “Objectives Resolution” is not a hoax but a simple reality for an Islamic State.
    It will be nice, if you could find the principles for an Islamic State according to the Holy Book].



Send questions or comments to Family of the Heart