Q & A session: Quaid-e-Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah
Press Conference, Delhi
(July 14th, 1947)
Q. Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?
A. You are asking me an absurd question. I do not know what a theocratic state means.
Q. Correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
A. Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a ducks’ back. When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago
Whenever you ask a person who is a supporter of secularism and liberalism and wants to see and make Pakistan a secular state, you should ask him if the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted to make Pakistan a secular state. And what was his view in this regard? So you will get the answer that Quaid-e-Azam's vision was clear and he was about a secular state. But when you further ask if Quaid-e-Azam was a visionary personality, the answer will be no. Quaid-e-Azam had no ideology and he used to give his statements according to the occasion, but still, the supporters of secularism will be seen saying this. That Quaid-e-Azam's visionary was very clear about the secular state.
My question to them is that on the one hand, you say that Quaid-e-Azam has no vision and on the other hand you say that Quaid-e-Azam's ideology about the secular state was clear.
Isn't this a contradiction ??
Quaid's Pakistan was not a secular state but an Islamic state. But Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a narrow-minded Muslim. Those who do not like Islam and are afraid of its limitations (like you) misunderstand Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah because they have a problem with the implementation of Islam.
Quaid-e-Azam was not a supporter of the secular state. If Quaid-e-Azam had not been an ideologue, Pakistan would not exist today. Those who are unaware of the importance of Pakistan will know the views of Quaid-e-Azam.
Kamal Ataturk sealed the Turkish constitution by stating that if any ruler infiltrates religion into state affairs, it is the responsibility of the armed forces to overthrow it in defense of secularism. We remember him as a secular man. But when Pakistani liberals repeatedly refer to Jinnah's August 11 speech and prove him secular, I smile. Because instead of Jinnah proving his secularism in constitutional matters by legislating like Ataturk, his statement is on record: "Who am I to give a constitution. The constitution was given by Islam 1300 years ago." If you want to call these statements utterances in the style of Imran Khan, say so, but I consider Jinnah a pragmatist with no evidence of ideological consistency. Where needed, the Machiavellian style of politics was used. The proponent of an ideological religious state can never be secular. Because the first step in secularism is the separation of religion from the state. I am tired of hearing from my liberal friends that Jinnah's Pakistan was secular. My post is short. If you can't convince, read Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed on the partition. Pakistan's top academics and lifelong research has proved that Jinnah had nothing to do with Pakistan's secularism. This criticism is not on Jinnah but the lack of study of our liberal friends. If you still remember August 11, you will also hear that according to many secular historians, that speech was made out of fear of the massacre of minorities in Pakistan after partition. Jinnah was not a religious person at all in his personal life. She did not perform any Hajj or Umrah nor did she know how to read Arabic, but her political struggle had nothing to do with it and she was not devoid of religion at all. For this one can read his most authoritative biographer Stanley Wolpert. So if you too have been the victim of this misunderstanding from time to time, then the bad news for you is that ideologically in which you are alive today, this is Jinnah's Pakistan.
0 Comments