MOHAMMAD Ali Jinnah visualised the state of Pakistan as “a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent”. by Irfan Husain

Irfan Husain

http://www.thepersecution.org/news/11/dawn1008.html

MOHAMMAD Ali Jinnah visualised the state of Pakistan as “a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent”. by Irfan Husain

Sadly, he did not specify precisely which sect of Muslims he had in mind. Although a Shia himself, he did not have a sectarian bone in his body.

Indeed, he was secular to the core, and this was the philosophy he bequeathed to the state he had created virtually single-handedly. This was a bequest we tore up even before he was laid to rest.

So as we witness the ongoing massacre of Hazara Shias in Balochistan, we need to take a hard look at the monsters Pakistan has spawned over the years. Management gurus teach us that before we can solve a problem, we must first analyse it to gain a full understanding of the underlying causes.

But given the deep state of denial we prefer to stay in, we shy away from making the logical connection between cause and effect. When elaborating on his ‘two-nation theory’, Mr Jinnah was of the view that Muslims could not live side by side with Hindus in a united India as we were a different nation in terms of values and cultural norms.

This notion led to the partition of India in 1947, and even though millions of Muslims did not — or could not — make their way to the new state, Pakistan was born in a cataclysm of blood and fire. Almost immediately, the hard-line vision of Islam, espoused by Maulana Maududi and his Jamaat-i-Islami, became the ideology of large numbers of right-wing intellectuals and clerics.

However, it wasn’t until Zia seized power in 1977 that this literal strand of Islam became the official ideology of the state.

Some of the hard-line Sunni groups like the Sipah-i-Sahaba came into being in Zia’s period, declaring Shias to be ‘wajib-ul qatal’, or deserving of death. Needless to say, these killers were permitted to thrive by Zia.

Step by step, the notion of separateness at the heart of Partition has fostered a feeling of ‘us against them’. Taken to its illogical extreme by hard-line ideologues and their brainwashed followers, this translates into the belief that those not following their particular school of Islamic thought become ‘wajib-ul qatal’.

Massacres and individual murders resulting from rabid intolerance bearing the spurious stamp of religious orthodoxy are too numerous to cite here. But the recent episodes of the cold-blooded slaughter of Hazara Shias in Balochistan should open the eyes of those wishing to negotiate with the terrorists responsible for these acts.

Another hard-line, anti-Shia group, the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, was quick to claim responsibility for these murders, and yet the state has done nothing to bring this organisation to book.

According to a Human Rights Watch press release, “In Balochistan, some Sunni extremist groups are widely viewed as allies of the Pakistani military, its intelligence agencies and the paramilitary Frontier Corps, which are responsible for security there.

Instead of perpetrating abuses in Balochistan against its political opponents, the military should be safeguarding the lives of members of vulnerable communities under attack from extremist groups”.

But it’s not just in Pakistan that Hazara Shias have been targeted: in Afghanistan, thousands have been killed by the Taliban.

Being a visible ethnic group, they are especially vulnerable to an increasingly vicious and violent Sunni majority. In a blog on this newspaper’s website, Murtaza Haider has cited a revealing doctoral thesis by Syed Ejaz Hussain. According to his research, 90 per cent of all those arrested for committing terrorist attacks in Pakistan between 1990 and 2009 were Sunni Deobandis.

And it’s not just Shias who are being targeted, or Christians, Hindus and Ahmedis: as we have seen time and again, suicide attacks against mosques and Sufi shrines have killed thousands of Sunnis as well. While there are a growing number of extremist groups, they are all united in their intolerance, and their contempt for democratic values and common decency.

Despite the evil these killers represent, there are growing voices in Pakistan demanding that the government negotiate with them. A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban was quoted recently as saying his group would talk to the government provided it broke off its relationship with the United States and imposed Sharia law in the country.

For a criminal gang to make such demands is preposterous; but for sane, educated Pakistanis to advocate talks with such people is even worse. Instead of insisting that we lock up these terrorists and try them, we are being asked to treat them as a political entity with valid demands.

If we are to ever defeat the hydra-headed monster we have created, our defence establishment will have to acknowledge its huge error in thinking that it could use these killers to further its agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. This has provided them with legitimacy, support and impunity. Unless the Pakistani state repudiates all links with extremism in all its forms, outfits like the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi will continue to murder at will within Pakistan, while the Lashkar-e-Taiba creates mayhem in our neighbourhood.

Quite apart from the collapse of the writ of the state caused by the depredations of these groups, and the innocent lives sacrificed at the altar of misplaced expediency, Pakistan has become a pariah in the international community. Increasingly, the use of terrorism as an instrument of policy is making us a scary country with a powerful death wish.

But while we struggle to cope with the rising tide of extremism, we need to step back and examine how and why we arrived at this abyss.

Clearly, it did not happen overnight. Looking back, we can see that the demand for separate electorates for Muslims in British India over 100 years ago was a major historical fork in the road. By conceding to this demand from a group of Muslim aristocrats as part of their divide-and-rule policy, the British tried to ensure that the two major religious communities would not unite against them.

However, we do not have the luxury of blaming our predicament on past imperial policies. The British are long gone, and the barbarians are poised to capture the state. We still have a choice, but if we don’t act quickly, we risk joining the ranks of failed states like Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Eye on persecution: Ahmadiyya mosque creed desecrated, community threatened by police

Eye on persecution: Ahmadiyya mosque creed desecrated, community threatened by police

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011

Eye on persecution: Ahmadiyya mosque creed desecrated, community threatened by police

The demand to erase the Kalima (Islamic creed) from the Ahmadiyya mosque was issued by the Islamist extremist clerics of the area and the local police personal answered the call to “avoid a law and order situation,”

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | US Desk

Source/Credit: AMC Persecution report

By Imran Jattala | October 13, 2011

An “unfriendly visit of a government official” was paid to the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on the outskirts of Vehari, a city in the Punjab, Pakistan.

The conditions for the members of the Ahmadiyya community have further deteriorated in the area where police personal are now in cahutes with the local Islamist extremists, Ahmadiyya Times has learned.

According to a report issued by the public affairs office of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Pakistan, the police personal took it upon themselves to deface an Ahmadiyya mosque in Chak 245/EB, a few weeks ago.

The demand to erase the Kalima (Islamic creed) from the Ahmadiyya mosque was issued by the Islamist extremist clerics of the area and the local police personal answered the call to “avoid a law and order situation,” it was claimed.

“These mullas are now planning the same for some other Ahmadiyya mosques in the district,” the Ahmadiyya community has learned.

According to the report, an ASI (Assistant Sub-Inspector) Police from the Special Branch visited Chak 363/EB recently.

The police official’s visit was a cause of intimidation and concern for the members of the Ahmadiyya community.

“He inquired as to when the Kalima and the verse were written in the mosque,” it was reported.

Ahmadis told the ASI that the contents were written long ago, when the mosque was first constructed.

The police officer warned Ahmadis that local clerics were holding meetings about the Kalima in their mosque and there is a fear of public uproar.

It is often the practice of the law enforcement agencies in the Punjab that instead of assuring protection and safety, the police official would warn the community to be ready for ‘anything’ as a result.

-- Eye on persecution: Ahmadiyya mosque desecrated, community threatened by police

-- By Imran Jattala

-- By Imran Jattala. Follow on Twitter: @IJattala

Pakistan: Intolerance in the curriculum

Pakistan: Intolerance in the curriculum

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011

Pakistan: Intolerance in the curriculum

Just a few days ago, 10 Ahmadi children, seven of them girls, were expelled from a school in the Hafizabad area, simply on the basis of their religious identity. The incident took place soon after preachers promoting anti-Ahmadism had visited the town and lashed out with familiar vitriol against a religious group that has been thrust out of the mainstream and then subjected to years of vicious discrimination.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Int'l Desk

Source/Credit: The News | Pakistan

By Kamila Hyat | October 13, 2011

There have been several shocking incidents over the past week or so that go only to highlight the kind of intolerance we are facing in our society and the manner in which this is spreading. Worst of all the spirit of hatred has also seeped into classrooms, and is being used to poison the minds of children.

This process will of course lead to the emergence, even before our watching eyes, of yet another generation persuaded that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of beliefs or other factors, or that minority groups are inherently inferior to the majority – deserving no place in mainstream society.

Just a few days ago, 10 Ahmadi children, seven of them girls, were expelled from a school in the Hafizabad area, simply on the basis of their religious identity. The incident took place soon after preachers promoting anti-Ahmadism had visited the town and lashed out with familiar vitriol against a religious group that has been thrust out of the mainstream and then subjected to years of vicious discrimination.

The feeble plea by the principal of the private school, that he did not wish to turn away the children from the school doors but had no choice in the face of threats made by villagers, just goes to show how weak we have become.

No one has answered the question of the distraught father of three of the girls driven away from school who asks how his daughters will now receive an education. Beyond the representatives of the Ahmadi community in Rabwah and some human rights groups, no one has spoken out in their support.

The issue has not been discussed by furious media anchors, even though the Constitution of our land lays down in unequivocal terms that every citizen has a right to education and cannot be denied this under any circumstances.

Such silence is perhaps the most dangerous element of all. The streets and other public places have been left to bigots, such as those who have been on the streets demanding the immediate release of Mumtaz Qadri, the man sentenced to death for the murder of Salmaan Taseer.

Precisely the same silence prevailed after yet another horrendous incident at a school a few weeks ago when an eighth-grade Christian girl was turned out of a POF-run school in the town of Havelian after making a minor spelling mistake in an Urdu paper.

Her teacher interpreted the mistake as an act of blasphemy, publicised the matter – which essentially revolved around one dot in a paragraph about a ‘naat’ – and as clerics staged protests the powerful POF management chose not only to expel the girl, but also to transfer her mother, a nurse at a hospital.

Such incidents have occurred elsewhere too. Ahmadi children have been punished in schools, their faith ridiculed and admission denied simply on the basis of their religious beliefs. Amidst all this, we talk of ‘the silent majority’. But do we really know what people believe and think?

It is true that many, indeed most, do not agree with the rabid views of the extremists. We would like to believe this is true. But popular thinking has been warped over the years by all kinds of factors that began essentially with the deliberate and evil distortions initiated in the early 1980s when our society first began its most serious transformation into an uglier, nastier place.

Discrimination is not based on religious beliefs alone. At an elite Lahore private school, a child from a different ethnic background was mocked and subjected to continuous ridicule for his appearance. It seems that the school management didn’t do very much to check this behaviour or persuade the majority of students who had resorted to uncivilised conduct towards the student to correct their ways.

Racism and bigotry of course need to be stopped using some degree of force within an environment in which the two have spread quite far and grown deep roots. African students based in colleges in Lahore and other cities will no doubt testify to the kind of treatment they face, solely on the basis of their skin colour.

One question that we all need to ask is why the government sits by as a silent spectator while all this happens. It needs to play a far more proactive role. We stand where we are today as a result of carefully thought out behaviours and policies put in place in the past. They succeeded in twisting minds and creating an atmosphere in which hatred, distrust and intolerence could blossom.

The need now is to begin an immediate reversal of this process. In the first place, the relevant authorities need to take notice of the instances of expulsion from schools on the basis of open and undisguised discrimination; this would put in place a good example of what should be done and where right separates from wrong, like oil from water.

There is no time to lose. It is quite obvious that things are growing worse and worse virtually by the day. Our only hope for the future lies in nurturing a generation that is able to think more openly and adopt an approach which is different to the destructive one that has become a normal part of our society today.

The provision that all citizens are equal needs to be turned into reality and not just a clause in a document that fewer and fewer people seem to be very bothered about.

How do we begin this? Schools are a good place to start. Government schools are perhaps the best, given the number of children attending them and the control the administration should have over them. Through curriculums and training for teachers, both children and those entrusted with the delicate task of educating them need to learn to think differently.

This is not an easy task of course. But it has been done elsewhere; Ireland, where Protestants and Catholics were deeply divided in the north for so many years, is one example where attempts towards greater harmony through schools have met with some success.

There are other examples in the world. We need to emulate them and move towards building a place where people are ready to speak out for what is right and refuse to allow extremist elements – who attempt to validate their intolerant ways by citing a distorted version of religion – to dictate how we live and what we do.

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor. Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com

Read original post here: Pakistan: Intolerance in the curriculum

An Ahmadi Muslim's Plea: Be My Voice

An Ahmadi Muslim's Plea: Be My Voice

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011

An Ahmadi Muslim's Plea: Be My Voice

Unlike the general blasphemy laws, however, the specific anti-Ahmadi Muslim laws of Pakistan have not found even this much of luck. They have been conveniently forced out of the discussion and few are aware of the existence and continuous abuse of these draconian laws.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | US Desk

Source/Credit: The Huffington Post

By Kashif N. Chaudhry | October 10, 2011

Religious freedom (or the lack thereof) in Pakistan cannot be emphasized enough. Due to the preposterous demeanor of Pakistan's self-righteous right-wing, many in the world today are aware of Pakistan's notorious blasphemy problem. Much frustration has been expressed on liberal Pakistani blogs and through international media outlets -- especially after the heartless murders of Governor Salmaan Taseer and Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti -- on the abuse of these laws. Even though nothing is expected to change anytime soon, at least the first vital step toward that goal is being taken: raising awareness.

Unlike the general blasphemy laws, however, the specific anti-Ahmadi Muslim laws of Pakistan have not found even this much of luck. They have been conveniently forced out of the discussion and few are aware of the existence and continuous abuse of these draconian laws. The silence of the liberal Pakistani blogosphere and the international media in this regard is baffling.

So who are the Ahmadi Muslims and what are these laws?

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), who claimed to be the long-awaited messiah. Ahmad single-handedly waged a struggle to bring about a renaissance of Islam. He declared that in this age the doctrine of violent jihad was against the teachings of Islam, a declaration met with edicts of heresy. Ahmad urged Muslims to emulate Prophet Muhammad's example. Accordingly, Ahmadi Muslims champion a complete separation of mosque and state, promote universal human rights and interfaith dialogue and practice nonviolence and non-retaliation amid brutal persecution in parts of the world. There are more than 600,000 Ahmadi Muslims living in Pakistan with tens of millions in 200 countries.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA -- the oldest Islamic-American organization -- has helped foster the Islamic ideals of peace and loyalty to nation through its Muslims for Peace and Muslims for Loyalty campaigns, respectively. It recently launched the nationwide Muslims for Life blood drive campaign to commemorate 9/11 and demonstrate Islam's emphasis on sanctity of life. The Community's charity organization, Humanity First, has been at the forefront of disaster relief both nationally and worldwide. Help, for instance, continues to be dispensed to the victims of Hurricane Katrina to date. Ahmadi Muslims have a central leadership, the Khalifa.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Muslim clerics perceived the rapid spread of the Community in its early days as a threat. Having failed to defeat them through reason and discourse, they took to sticks and stones -- literally.

After the formation of Pakistan, anti-Ahmadi Muslim groups organized to conspire and instigate massive nationwide riots. Friday sermons became an opportunity to spew venom against the Ahmadi Muslims. They were declared "apostates" and "worthy of being killed." Extremist right-wing influence ushered in violent street protests. The State succumbed to their pressure tactics and declared the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to be non-Muslim in 1974. In April of 1984, Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq issued Ordinance XX. Zia was a military dictator who had taken over the country after a coup d'état in 1977. To legitimize his autocracy, he assumed de facto leadership of Pakistan's extremist cause. Because the hatred and violence had failed to halt the progress of the Ahmadi Muslims, he decided to use force.

Under the new laws, Ahmadi Muslims were arrested for using Islamic terminology. For example, saying the Salaam (greeting of peace) meant imprisonment. Thousands of Ahmadi Muslims filled jails across the country. On one side of prison sat rapists and murderers and on the other sat those who invoked peace on a passerby. The right-wing went on to demand the death penalty. Zia conceded and introduced the death penalty for propagation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and distribution of Ahmadi Muslim literature.

These barbaric anti-Ahmadi Muslim laws exist to date. Hundreds of Ahmadi Muslims remain behind bars in Pakistan -- and hundreds have been killed.

These vicious laws are a threat to international religious freedom. They continue to embolden religious extremists in other countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia where similar demands to outlaw the peaceful Ahmadi Muslims have been put before the governments. In the case of the latter, these demands have been accepted in part, setting in a fresh wave of violence (caution: graphic). Because the hatred against the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan was promoted and not checked by the State, it continues to be exported as far out as the U.K.

Pakistani and International media make no mention of this dangerous state-sanctioned violation of religious freedom and basic human rights. Despite the fact that Pakistan's anti-Ahmadi Muslim laws are a blatant breach of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been no outcry from the United Nations either.

United States' foreign policy recognizes religious freedom worldwide as one of its goals. While the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims gained momentum under Zia, the United States -- a close ally -- was busy funding his government and supporting the Afghan revolution. The plight of the Ahmadi Muslims went unnoticed. Three decades later, it is very encouraging that the U.S. State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2010 on Pakistan takes serious exception to Pakistan's anti-Ahmadi Muslim laws. Much, however, needs to be done to effect a change on ground. I am hopeful that as a primary supporter of international religious freedom, the U.S. will continue to play a positive role to this end.

Meanwhile, please join me in doing the least we can do: take that first step toward change: raise awareness.

Follow Kashif N. Chaudhry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KashifMD

Read original post here: An Ahmadi Muslim's Plea: Be My Voice

http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/10/pakistan-state-supported-anti-ahmadiyya.html

http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/10/pakistan-state-supported-anti-ahmadiyya.html

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011

Pakistan: State-supported anti-Ahmadiyya agitation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Choudhry Abdul Majeed, the prime minister of AJ&K, recently visited a religious madrasa at Faizpur and made uncalled for remarks against the Ahmadiyya community, it was reported in the media.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Int'l Desk

Source/Credit: AMC Persecution report

Edited by Imran Jattala | October 12, 2011

AJ&K: Although a new government has taken over after the general elections, the sectarian and extremist elements have not only maintained their agitation against the Ahmadiyya community but also have raised its level to a threatening point.

The anti-Ahmadiyya agitations take place with the collusion of ruling politicians.

Choudhry Abdul Majeed, the prime minister of AJ&K, recently visited a religious madrasa at Faizpur and made inappropriate remarks against the Ahmadiyya community, the media reported.

"Qadianis’ activities will be watched in Azad Kashmir – Ch. Abdul Majeed," the headline read in the daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Rawalpindi, on September 9, 2011.

“Muslim children should never be taught by Qadiani teachers (in public schools)," said Mulla Atiq-ur-Rehman, a member of the legislative assembly (MLA), who runs the Islamic madrasa, it was reported on the same occasion..

"Qadianis can exist here only as a non Muslim minority. … They are not allowed to practice Islam. (etc),” Mulla Atiq-ur-Rehman further said according to the newspaper report.

The Director of Public Affairs in the Ahmadiyya head office at Rabwah, Mr. Saleem-ud Din, strongly condemed the incident and sent letters of complaint to the President of Pakistan and to the President of Azad Kashmir.

"For some time now there has been increase in organized anti-Ahmadiyya activities in Azad Kashmir," the complant letter stated.

"...these elements have been patronized by the government of Azad Kashmir," Mr. Mr. Saleem-ud Din said.

"Ch. Abdul Majeed the prime minister of AJ&K and Pir Atiq ur Rehman, member of the AJ&K Assembly and President of Jamiat Ulama Jammu and Kashmir are in the lead of such activities in public rallies," the complaint included.

Most Muslim clerics feel free in Pakistan to issue edicts declaring anyone Wajib-ul-Qatl (must be put to death).

There are no laws against such declarations and hate incitements and many Wajib-ul-Qatl edicts are often followed up by target killings.

While Ahmadis are the usual victims of this violent indiscretion, non-Ahmadis also are targeted.

Governor Salman Taseer was was one such victom in recent past.

-- Ahmadiyya Times

-- By Imran Jattala. Follow on twitter @IJattala

Talibanization of Pakistan: Dress modestly: Masked men enter girls’ school, thrash students

Talibanization of Pakistan: Dress modestly: Masked men enter girls’ school, thrash students

MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2011

Talibanization of Pakistan: Dress modestly: Masked men enter girls’ school, thrash students

Fear gripped the area following the attack and only 25 of the 400 students studying in the college were present on Saturday. The school employs 30 female teachers.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Int'l Desk

Source/Credit: The Express Tribune

By Azam Khan | October 9, 2011

RAWALPINDI: In a first for the garrison city, sixty masked men carrying iron rods barged into a girls’ school in Rawalpindi and thrashed students and female teachers on Friday.

The gang of miscreants also warned the inmates at the MC Model Girls High School in Satellite Town to “dress modestly and wear hijabs” or face the music, eyewitnesses said.

Fear gripped the area following the attack and only 25 of the 400 students studying in the college were present on Saturday. The school employs 30 female teachers.

Attendance in other educational institutions also remained low. After hearing about the attack, all schools in the city shut down, an official of the Rawalpindi District Administration (RDA) told The Express Tribune.

A student of the girls’ school managed to inform the administration of the nearby boys’ high school of the attack. “[However,] the armed gang was so powerful that we could not rescue our teachers and colleagues over there,” Noail Javed, a grade 10 student, said.

In-charge of MC High Schools in Rawalpindi issued a notification to the heads of all girls’ schools to take pre-emptive measures to avoid such incidents in future. According to the notification, a gang comprising 60 to 70 miscreants entered into the school from a gate that was “strangely open”.

All the MC school heads were assigned the responsibility of protecting the students by the notification. A school headmistress wishing not to be named said, “How is it possible for us to protect the students from such elements. The city administration should review its security plan.”

The notification also suggested that the heads should not inform the students about the situation, so that they are not alarmed into skipping school. “Police is investigating the matter,” the notification said. Following the notification, the heads of the schools also shared the numbers of relevant police stations with the teachers in case of any untoward situation in future.

Asjad Ali, a student of class 9 at the nearby boys’ high school, said that his younger brother Awais, a student of grade 5, was also among those who were brutally beaten by the miscreants with iron rods. “The police did not come,” he said.

A police official of the New Town Police Station, asking for anonymity, told The Express Tribune, “We were under strict instructions to do nothing.”

District Education Officer Qazi Zahoor and Rawalpindi Commissioner Zahid Saeed were not immediately available for comments.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 9th, 2011.

Pakistan Sold for $8 billion?

Pakistan Sold for $8 billion?

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011

Pakistan Sold for $8 billion?

Without knowing the source of the money some clerics do special prayers for them. Some of them are notorious for frequently doing ‘bankruptcies’, insolvencies as well as running special religious TV channels. Well money can buy you anything?

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | EU Desk

Source/Credit: The London Post | Opinion

By Dr Shahid Qureshi | October 4, 2011

One can safely say that current ruling Pakistani elite including political, civil, business and military have sold Pakistan as much as for roughly $8 billion worth of assets abroad. This rough estimate is based on the available figures of two leading figures in Pakistani politics Nawaz Sharif & Brothers Limited and Zardari & Co Limited who have properties and assets abroad mainly in the USA, UK, Europe and else where.

The others are Chaudhry brothers of PML-Q, ANP leader Asfandyar Wali, Rehman Malik and others also have assets abroad. British national and self exiled MQM-A leader Altaf Hussain is also part of political sharks in terms of assets abroad.

The foreign assets of other politicians like Imran Khan and religious parties are not yet reported. But one can not rule anything out. One thing is common among almost all Pakistani politicians and Generals is that all of them have their children or grand children living, studying abroad with foreign nationalities or married to foreign nationals. Hypercritically those who shout the loudest against the US have send their sons and daughters their too.

There is another class who has assets abroad and that is members of civil, military establishments and corrupt business elite. They are the protectors of the assets of these politicians. They teach them the tricks of ‘sophisticated bank robberies’, wiping out their bank loans, taking commissions from international firms and safely depositing them abroad. There is a tiny minority in Karachi, who is ready to serve any one and every one in terms of money laundering, playing with the currency exchange rates and provides help in the flight of capital out of Pakistan. They place their members on high positions in the disguise of ‘great community workers’ but in actual fact these people are responsible for funding terrorism and gang warfare in Karachi to all sides. They act as a bank for enemies of Pakistan. Their media channels follow the lines of the enemies of Pakistan in media and psychological warfare. They are the champions of flourishing of ‘black economy’ in Pakistan. That is why we find them in almost each and every financial scandal in the known memory of Pakistani corruption.

Most of the above got these properties and assets by robbing Pakistan and selling its sovereignty. The so called business community of Karachi is at the fore front in facilitating the flight of capital abroad and later investments in their projects. They are in the ‘gold circle’ of the current regime and so called elite.

They are the real gangsters and worst than target killers. After reading most of JIT (Joint Investigation Team) reports of target killers from Karachi one can safely say these are the poor people living in deprived areas killing around innocent people on the orders of shady elite living in posh areas with guards in big mansions. One can find this so called business community in all shady deals and working as bank for any one and every one especially the nasty neighbours.

In London they have readymade business plans for Pakistani crooks and cons with money. Some of them regularly attend religious gatherings and give large sums in charity to get credibility among the clerics. Without knowing the source of the money some clerics do special prayers for them. Some of them are notorious for frequently doing ‘bankruptcies’, insolvencies as well as running special religious TV channels. Well money can buy you anything? That is how they get their people placed on the influential positions with access to sensitive information.

This is the small minority of people has held Pakistan hostage to the foreigners just to protect their assets, properties, foreign nationalities and green cards. The freezing of assets of Arab leaders after the Arab spring in the past few months should be a wake up call and lesson for others? The lesson is your money is safer in your own country than a foreign plastic platinum card in your back pockets.

Bashing of Pakistan’s military both as an institution and its generals for both right and wrong reasons is quite fashionable. Pakistan’s military and nuclear assets are the main target of the enemies and so called friends. Pakistan’s army is a voluntary force; everybody can join the army and may be after the 30 years of service an officer become a general, others retires as they go along their careers.

“The personal wealth of Pakistani generals is estimated at £3.5m a head’, according to The Guardian’s report, “The plot to bring back Benazir” published on 21st July 2007.

The musical chair of politicians and military is harming the existence of Pakistan. The elite of Pakistan are institutionally corrupt and now become an organised ‘mafia’. Scandals of ‘steel mills’, sugar mills, cement; stock exchange has broken the records of previous corruptions. The culprits are from both opposition and ruling party.

Few years ago Zardari - Benazir Bhutto assets worth more than $ 2 billion according to Saifurahman and according to NAB figure are around $1.2bn [£ 830m]. Raja Bashir of The Pakistani National Accountability Bureau told The Guardian that, “Ms Bhutto has 26 bank accounts, 14 properties and total assets of one billion sterling pounds abroad. We are very glad that other countries are cooperating with us.”

On March 2, 2006, The Dawn newspaper reported that Benazir’s assets in Spain ‘unearthed’, The National Accountability Bureau claimed to have unearthed two more offshore companies and a villa in Spain owned by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. A spokesman of the bureau said that judicial authorities of Spain had frozen assets of two Sharjah-based companies, Petroline and Tempo Global Gains, as well as their six bank accounts.

The villa worth half million Euros, allegedly owned by Ms Bhutto and her three children, Bilawal Zardari, Bakhtawar Zardari and Aseefa Zardari in Playas Del Arenal, Marbella, had also been seized by the High Court of the Valencia province, the NAB claimed. The NAB official said the Petroline Company was owned by Ms Bhutto, former FIA director-general Rehman Malik and Hassan Ali Jafferi and was established in 2000.

Nawaz Sharif had no connection with the feudal elite. His family moved from Jati Umra near Amirtasr and by 1960 they owned a few modest size factories – iron foundry, ice making, and water pump factory.

Some how Mian Sharif managed to reach General Jill, as General Ghulam Jilani Governor of Punjab in General Zia’s regime He literally begged to give a break in politics to Nawaz Sharif. That is how he got into the military’s chicken farm and his factories started laying golden eggs. Nawaz Sharif was appointed as finance minister of Punjab in 1983.

In 1981 the family business group Ittefaq’s turnover was Rs. 337 million, but by 1987 it had soared to at least Rs. 2,500 million, that is according to the group’s own accounts. Within four years Ittefaq had become one of the wealthiest private industrial groups in Pakistan. ‘Hard work and grace of Allah’ explained Shabaz Sharif. One can imagine the miraculous growth in the assets of billions now. Investing in politics is not bad business at all in Pakistan.

According to Asia Week, Rehman Malik current Interior minister and key holder of Zardari’s safe produced 200-page report of MNS’s corruption. The secret document was leaked to the London-based Observer newspaper published details of alleged corruption involving the MNS and his family. According to the report, the Sharif family obtained loans from Pakistani state banks for business purposes and illegally converted the money into foreign exchange worth at least $66 million.

According to the report, the Sharif family acquired properties in London through two companies, Nescoll and Nielson Enterprises, registered in the British Virgin Islands and linked to a bank account in Lahore in the name of a fictitious person: Sulman Zia. The four flats in Avendale House in Park Lane are said to be worth at least £ 750,000, which worth millions of pounds keeping in view the current housing market in London. Not a bad deal!

What clinched the appointment for Nawaz Sharif as PM was a word to the presidency by the then ISI chief Lt. Gen Hamid Gull, that the army believed he was a better choice. General Hamid Gull now regrets his misjudgement. Subsequently the President also dismissed him. Nawaz Sharif’s problem was power: a pathological crass compounded by crass incompetence. Nawaz Sharif also seemed to be an ungrateful person. He did not feel any obligation towards president Ghulam Ishaq Khan, nor did he ever say ‘thank you’ to General Hamid Gull’.

The smart business minded ‘Abbaji’ late father of Nawaz Sharif invited General Asif Nawaz to his Lahore residence. After a fatherly ‘tête-à-tête’, Abbaji told the new army chief that he was like his son and requested him to take his two sons Nawaz and Shabaz under his wings: and also told the ‘children’ that they must follow and never disregard the General Sahib’s advice. And one last thing Abbaji said to the General Sahib, as he came to see him out off at the porch of his house, ‘my both children have a Mercedes each, and here is the key to yours; you are like a son to me.’

It didn’t work with General Asif Nawaz, he felt offended and therefore, instead of being able to buy the General, Nawaz Sharif had instead lost his respect too.

“I sent Ghaus Ali Shah to gave a lift home to General Musharaf and inform him that he has been deposed in absence said Nawaz Sharif while addressing a meeting in Manchester in July 2007. How intelligent was to promote engineering corp’s, Kashmiri, General Zia and decorate him with the badges purchased from Sadar Bazar Rawalpindi, MNS must be thinking in his spare time?

Majeed Nizami editor of the Nawa-e-waqat a closest ally of Nawaz Sharif had to remark that they used to regard Benazir Bhutto as a ‘security risk’, it seemed Nawaz Sharif was a greater security risk. He was indeed the worst thing that had happened to Pakistan since independence. Whether it was money, morals or security, the nation found it difficult to trust him. His recent speech at SAFMA attracted lot of controversies. MNS don’t believe in reading and learning?

It is interesting that when Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri freedom fighters were battling against the Indian army on the freezing heights of Kargil, Nawaz Sharif’s business proxies were selling sugar to India . India did not need to import any sugar and yet if Vajpayee had accepted to buy Pakistani sugar it was only to sweeten his relationship with Nawaz Sharif.

It is highly significant that when the Kargil crisis broke out both George Fernandez and K S Sudarshan, the former a socialist and India’s defence minister and the later leader of BJP militant wing RSS themselves exculpate Nawaz Sharif of any blame. If the Indians were trying to protect Nawaz Sharif, they must have had very good reasons to do so. It is this selfish and opportunist behaviour that made these leaders make decisions against the interests of Pakistani state? Take the example of US aid to Pakistan and kind of work these people agree to do in return.

More recently angry and sarcastic attitude of Nawaz Sharif against the military is deplorable, when thousands of soldiers have lost their lives while his sons and nephews are doing multi million dollar businesses abroad. Pakistani politicians including Nawaz Sharif can only have moral high ground on others once they prove themselves. That they look after Pakistan’s national interests more than their personal wealth hidden abroad. They don’t take decisions which harm the interests of Pakistan just because their assets could be frozen abroad.

The US aid to Pakistan has actually proven to be a ‘rip off and fraud’ by financial terrorists of Wall Steers. There is no doubt that US has caused more than $70 billion losses to Pakistan since 2001. On the other hand only aided/lend or both $22.87 billion from 1950 to 2010. Most part of that aid actually never arrived in Pakistan as it was paid to your defence and military complexes back in the USA. This rip off could only be possible if people mentioned above have prostituted themselves for personal interests.

Breakdown of US aid as reported:

Total US Aid: $22.87 billion in 60 years & losses to Pakistan: $60 billion

1950-1964 2.5bn economic and 500 m military aid

1965-1979 2.55 billion economic and 26 million military

1980-1990 5 billion military and economic aid

1991-2000 429 million economic and $5.2 million military

2001-2009 3.6 billion economic and 9 billion military

2009-2015 7.5 billion approved under Kerry Lugar Bill aid mostly non military ($1.5 billion per year)

Almost all the regimes of Pakistan have been prostituting with the enemies by deliberately harming the state of Pakistan and following IMF agenda e.g. gas and electric shortages to destroy the industrial infrastructure, Railways and Pakistan Steel. They have ignored the risks and challenges concerning the US lead military occupation of Afghanistan and drone attacks on Pakistan. Pakistan has suffered approximately $70 billion economic, human losses, structural damages to roads and bridges deployed more than 147,800 troops conducting combat operations in the tribal areas along the Afghan border. The Pakistan armed forces has lost more than 3,200 soldiers, with another 6,400 injured. They sustain an average of 10 casualties each day, and approximately 35,000 Pakistani civilians killed by suicide bombers and terrorism.

US policies around the world and especially in Pakistan created refugees and approximately 2 million internally displaced people (IDPs) in SWAT and FATA to further destabilize the country. Millions of people in Pakistan are waiting to be fully rehabilitated; 2.5 million Afghan refugees are a burden on the economy of Pakistan as well as causing social problems. They can’t go back to Afghanistan as US and NATO have occupied Afghanistan and fighting an unwinnable war.

One can assume that Pakistani nation suffered both human and financial losses only because this small minority of people have their few billion dollars worth assets in USA, UK, Dubai, Malaysia and Europe. If current regime and political stake holders in government really sincere with Pakistan, they should bring their money back to Pakistan. They can enjoy their wealth and it will be safe and unfrozen.

A bird (dollar) in the hand is much better than two (dollars) in the Bush(land).

New provinces will break Pakistan

New provinces will break Pakistan

The 1973 Constitution is the only consensus document binding the federation. It neither recognises nor foresees the further division of Pakistan into more provinces. The manifestos of the PPP and its ally, the Q League, make no reference to new provinces. Thus, the call for more provinces is nothing but reckless desperation of a morally bankrupt political leadership which sees defeat written large in the next election.

The Q League, which is in the process of rapid evaporation, is the most vociferous proponent of more provinces. Chaudhry Shujaat and Pervez Elahi have the most to lose come elections and are therefore eager incendiaries demanding a division of Punjab. In the week leading to Pakistan’s independence day, the PML-Q introduced a proposal in the Punjab Assembly for breaking Punjab and creating a Seraiki province.

The PPP, whose new poster boys were never seen in Benazir Bhutto’s lifetime, is equally passionate about new provinces, at least in Punjab. President Zardari’s trusted troubleshooter, Dr Babar Awan, claims that the Seraiki province cannot be suppressed any longer. As if this was a long-standing promise of the PPP. It is obvious that the PPP high command feels there is no national slogan which is capable of garnering votes in the next election, and it’s only option will be to pit the people of Punjab against each other.

For those who want a Balkanised Pakistan, a Seraiki province is not enough in Punjab. Mohammad Ali Durrani, General Musharraf’s information minister, is hoping to come out of the political wilderness by leading the battle for a Bahawalpur province. Durrani’s vision is to restore the former nawab of Bhawalpur’s scion to the lost glory of the British Raj. Another notable supporter of a Bahawalpur province is Izajul Haq, who leads his own one-man faction of PML (Ziaul Haq).

In what is developing into a rapid free for all, Dr Nazir Bhatti of the Pakistan Christian Congress is demanding the formation of a Christian province in southwest Punjab. On the other hand, a JUI MPA from Mianwali rejects the proposal for a Seraiki province and has demanded a Thal province where people of his constituency can be free, according to him, from the lords of Multan. The temperatures are slowly rising. In the last parliamentary session of the Punjab Assembly, the proponents of Seraiki vs Thal provinces traded insults and abuses and had to be physically restrained from attacking each other.

The danger of lighting a fire in Punjab is that it can engulf the entire country. The demand for a Hazara province to be carved out of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has now been renewed. Dozens were killed in rioting leading up to a mere change of name from NWFP to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Imagine the bloodletting which will welcome the partition of a province. And with every drop of blood wasted in the name of division of provinces, it is the federation of Pakistan which will suffer irreparable harm.

For MQM supporters, the demand for Karachi and Hyderabad as a separate province is literally the writing on the wall and the restoration of the city district governments is considered its foundation. However, Sindhi nationalists promise that their province will only be divided over their dead bodies. There is already no dearth of violence in Karachi and we cannot afford more bloodletting. Stoking the fires of division in far away Punjab merely to cut the Sharif’s down to size is likely to not only destroy PPP’s traditional vote bank in Sindh, but threaten Pakistan as we know it.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2011.

For more on this issue follow: newprovince

Comments (7)

Share this article

Print this page

Email a friend

RELATED STORIES

14 Aug 2011

Swat politicians demand Malakand province

16 Aug 2011

South Punjab: Wahab links new province to vote for PPP

16 Aug 2011

New provinces: Shujaat calls for public awareness on the issue

13 Aug 2011

New provinces: PPP, PML-Q submit resolutions

Share this article

Reader Comments (7)

ALL COMMENTSREADER'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Mustafa

an hour ago

Reply

Precisely why I am not in favour of the creation of new provinces. Every new province created will be for some ethnicity or some people, and they will be living in that province as though its their own kingdom, rather than a part of Pakistan. I wholeheartedly agree with you. As if the current sectarian and ethnic violence isn’t enough, these political parties are trying to spread it to Pakistan’s largest province.

Recommend2

faraz

an hour ago

Reply

Is there any example in history of a country which fragmented due to creation of more provinces. Division of provinces is essential to ensure better management and equitable distribution of resources.

Recommend4

Jamel

31 minutes ago

Reply

New provinces will break Pakistan

and

The 1973 Constitution is the only

consensus document binding the

federation.

What a croak and pure scaremongering. Pakistan existed before 1973. The reason Pakistan broke is the same that you are advocating now ie not to recognise the rightful demands of people of Pakistan.

This scaremongering is just to devoid Siraikis of their right over their resources so those resources can continue to be diverted for the benefit of Takht-e-Lahore rulers. Bahawalpur used to be a developed area in British era. Takht-e-Lahore has been worst than British in their treatment of Siraikis/Bahawalpur. Why did we get independence for; only to be made slaves of Takht-e-Lahore?

Recommend3

Aryabhat

24 minutes ago

Reply

Contrarary to Author’s viewpoint, actually more provinces will make Pakistan stronger. Allow me to explain why?

As of now one of the biggest grouse in Pakistan as a federation from Sindh, KP and Balochistan is dominance of Punjab.

Once Punjab is divided in the smaller 2 (or say 3) states, no new state would be SO dominant and perhaps true spirit of federation would be then enjoyed by all provinces. Hopefully that would set to rest the famous story (right or just perceived) Punjabi domination in almost everything!

Recommend2

DarkStar(Karachi)

21 minutes ago

Reply

The Brookings Institution recently claimed that Pakistan was not on the verge of a break-up or balkanization because of the size and strength of the Punjab province.

Somebody must have taken notice and is in the process of fulfilling this requirement of the enemies of Pakistan.

The Nawab of Bahawalpur was not stupid when he willingly accepted the assimilation of his state into the Punjab. He knew it was a necessity for strengthening the polity.

We don’t need another bunch of extra provincial parliaments, with even more ministers and their army of advisers and experts, all ‘washing their hands in the Ganges’.

This will lead to infighting, bickering, instability, xenophobia and an even greater weakening of the State.

I salute the writer for talking some sense on this subject.

Recommend

irfan khan

20 minutes ago

Reply

why is there a campaign against punjab in the media these days? why only punjab is being singled out for being destroyed? karachi has a gigantic population of over 20 million people,it deserves to be given the status of a separate province,why doesn’t the ppp start with this? the ppp should form a new province made up of karachi and hyderabad.

Recommend

TANOLI.

18 minutes ago

Reply

Christian province hahahahahah then qadiani will demand qadiani povince and hindu in mir

pur khas will say hindu province is india also like this singh province muslim province or

christian province ,jain province ,budhist province ,hindu Dalit province so on………

Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan

Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan

What Jinnah envisioned for Pakistan as a state remains a distant dream. We continue to grope in darkness for a constitutional state based on equal rights and separation of religion from the state. But we have walked slowly and steadily in the opposite direction.

Let us clear some of the fog about Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan first. I believe Jinnah’s speech before the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, is unambiguous about what kind of ideas of state and nation-building our great leader had in mind. In a nutshell, he wanted citizenship not religion as the founding principle of the new state. His frequently quoted parts of the speech, “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state” is neither understood in terms of the context nor for the selection of the expression.

Contextual interpretation is extremely important for any great speech or analysis, undertaken by historians and later-day commentators to explain the intent of great leaders. For the context, Pakistan was only three days away from achieving independence. Secondly, the forum was the Constituent Assembly of the new state, tasked with the responsibility of framing a new constitution.

Jinnah, like many other Muslim leaders of the subcontinent who strived for the creation of a new state comprising the Muslim majority areas, was a modernist. The three streams of philosophy that influenced movement for Pakistan, unfortunately, got pushed back with the second generation of Pakistani leaders — constitutional struggle for the protection of minority rights, modernism and a territorial state. Let us spell these ideas in some detail.

The cultural roots of minority Muslim nationalism go back many centuries. Over time, Muslims developed a deep sense of identity but within the Indian context. As the issues of representation in the elected assemblies and state institutions under colonial rule emerged important for all communities, the Muslim community began to raise demands for proportionate representation. The community thought it was their right to do so, which was, on occasion, granted through separate electorates. As the Muslims and other parts of the Indian nation struggled for independence, the constitutional protection of rights in the post-colonial, unified state emerged as the defining issue for the Muslims. They wanted it to be settled before the English left; it was the collective failure of the British, Congress and the Muslim League that galvanised the demand for Pakistan. What we have done with our own religious minorities after independence is another story — truly heartbreaking.

There is a social and political category all over the world called the modernists that we also find among the dreamers and founders of Pakistan. The modernists don’t reject the past, or the heritage in cultural and religious spheres. They essentially live in modern times and propose and implement solutions to the contemporary problems of the society on rational, pragmatic and practical grounds.

Pakistan, in my view, is a territorial state. Its acronym is drawn from the territorial domains it contains. It also means that all citizens of all faiths, sects and religious pursuits are equal citizens. These are the founding ideas of Pakistan, which the successive generations of Pakistanis have lost.

The counter-narratives about the creation of Pakistan and what kind of state and society we should have replaced our founding ideas. It was expedient for the ruling groups to play an emotional Islamic card in politics rather than build a modern, nation state based on equal citizenship. Doing so would have required democracy and constitutionalism that our ruling classes have accepted only as conveniences and not as ideology — the ideology of Jinnah.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2011.

For more on this issue follow: independenceday

Comments (58)

Share this article

Print this page

Email a friend

RELATED STORIES

14 Aug 2011

President offers message of hope on Independence Day

13 Aug 2011

Independence day: PML-N to light candles at mazaar

15 Aug 2011

South Asian politics: Friendship not supremacy in region, says PM

14 Aug 2011

The Independence Day’s usual suspects

14 Aug 2011

The green flag unfurled: a pictorial account

Share this article

Reader Comments (58)

ALL COMMENTSREADER'S RECOMMENDATIONS

SharifL

Aug 14, 2011 - 8:45PM

Reply

If Jinnah was the only leader to ask for a state with secular ideology where all Pakistanis have equal rights and if he is the only source we can keep on mentioning, there is something definitely something wrong with Pakistan. I have read his speech of August 1947 by so many writers and columnists so many times, i think unless we reinvent his ideas, Pakistan will remain drowned in dark caves for a long time.

Recommend6

Max

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:03PM

Reply

Yes! At the personal level Mr. Jinnah was a liberal minded secularist, though one finds contradictions in his personal life. He married a Zoroastrian but did not allow the same to his daughter. His concept of state was certainly secular, but if you ask for separation on the basis of religious identity but like to keep state independent of entanglement with the religion, it is difficult to do or visualize. He was a smart person, was visionary; he should have thought of all these unforeseen developments.

Let us put the past behind and look at the future. When I do it, I shiver in my shoes not for the reason t hat the future seems bleak but for the reason that the state and society in Pakistan are dancing on different tunes.

Happy Birthday Pakistan and to myself. Yes! We both were born the same day and both had tough and tiresome years in life, but life kept going.

Recommend13

hassan

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:03PM

Reply

Every now and then, someone keeps talking about the vision of Jinnah and now and then some scholar wistfully reminisces about the vision of the founding father.

I think it’s high time we stopped deluding ourself with this hogwash. We should realize that this founding father’s vision speech was a one-off statement meant purely for a global audience in the desire to be known as a statesman and as everyone knows, a one-off statement does not make a philosophy.

For those who have studied the career trajectory of Jinnah will agree that all along, he sold the idea of ‘Pakistan’ to the poor masses of undivided India as a Islamist paradise ‘of muslims, for muslims, and by muslims’.

That idea found resonance among people who felt, they needed to rule themselves, to continue the 1000 years of Muslim rulers. Partition was demanded on Two Nation Theory, a theory that said, Muslims needed a separate nation so they could get justice and prosperity which they can’t get under a Hindu rule.

He was the one who said there were irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims (‘they read from left to write while we read from right to left; they worship cows we eat them; their food and our food are different; our villains are their heros’) during Cabinet Mission and then he went on to call Direct Action Day. Everyone knows the consequence to that call.

So, religion was the basis on which the partition was demanded and the nation was formed. And all along, we had another concept built into our psyche. Whatever India does, we should do the diametrically the opposite.

Pakistan means ‘We-are-not-India.’ India was supposed to be a Hindu country. And so, by extension, our country exists solely for, of and by Islam. This was supposed to be our identity.

Let’s stop our usual bluster on the the founding vision speech of Jinnah. No one believed it then and no one believes it now. His own followers – who had heard him speak on countless occasions on Pakistan being a country for Muslims alone – naturally they did not swallow it, because, they knew it was meant for global audience, not for local public, and not to be taken seriously.

That’s why they junked his ideas the moment the man was out of sight.

Recommend39

Som

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:09PM

Reply

“In a nutshell, he wanted citizenship not religion as the founding principle of the new state.”

- Is this what really Jinnah wanted? If he can create a country based on religion alone, then what different result can he expect than what pakistan is today. Probably Jinnah was reading too much ‘Aladdin ka chirag’ type stories where the gennie can wipe the mindset of people once you carve a nation out of religion. he was probably the biggest bigot of the bigoted pakistanis we see today. pakistan is born out of religion and it will die out of religion only. jinnah got what he wanted- now cheer and be happy, dont bemoan and insult that great bigot. Happy independence day.

Recommend16

TANOLI.

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:10PM

Reply

All our life we heard pakistan we got as a muslim and islamic state also qilla e islam and

suddenely we start hearing no no pakistan is secular state if this is the case then madrassa Deoband and jammat islami was right why u want to break the india after that

islam will stop growing in india. i dont know what kind policy u guys run on and who is

behind this shiet is.

Recommend4

Ashok

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:37PM

Reply

Jinnah, like many other Muslim leaders of the subcontinent who strived for the creation of a new state comprising the Muslim majority areas, was a modernist

Dear Author – creating Islamic majority countries where there was none before is a concept of modernity? Where do you get this notion from? What a ridiculous statement.

Recommend14

Nadir El-Edroos

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:46PM

Reply

The first mistake in our analysis is to reduce the creation and the thinking behind Pakistan, to the personality of Jinnah. It was never Jinnah’s Ideology, for Jinnah’s views on the status of Muslim’s in British India were not consistent over his life time. The politics of the movement that lead to the creation of Pakistan borrowed from a host of leaders and was influenced by all of them. The Muslim League was a pragmatic political entity. Jinnah himself shunned the limelight and the cult of personality. He neither wanted any title, and would have been disappointed that the title Quaid-E-Azam bestowed on him, is owned by varying political and religious groups, all of them oversimplifying a political struggle into the individual, which is based on myth not reality.

What all of us must appreciate is that the conditions within which Pakistan was created, the people who worked towards creating it, was varied and not homogeneous. The expectation that today Pakistan, should suddenly become “Jinnah’s Pakistan” would soil the memory of all those leaders who worked towards her creation, but were not shy of raising their voices, sharing their opinions and raising points of dissent. Dissent or disagreement today can lead to ones death, now that tarnishes the founding fathers and mothers legacy.

Recommend7

hariharmani

Aug 14, 2011 - 9:49PM

Reply

Dear Rasul,saheb,Good day,Today is your Independant day.Many return of the day,theoritecally,you do not want me to wish literally,do you?Since you communicate to me ,I ‘m far better informed on Dara Sikoh,but also learned about Sarmad the naked fakir poet,who was beheaded by Aurenjeb in 1661.Lot of unintended consequence of events have happened to your dear country of late.I’m born at the beginning of War,and my father was a war correspondant,and he knew lot of leaders of his day including,Mahatma,Pandit Nehru and Ofcourse Mr Jinnah.As a English writer my father had tremendous respect for Mr Jinnah’s sharp intellect and also his command of constitunal law and its keen sense of argument,he was like the present day Christopher Hitckins,you went at your own peril if you went unprepared,even if you did,he made mince meat of you. He lived very short,and we do not to much know of his inner working of his mind as he did not confide in too many people,his sister fatima was the only person whom he fully trusted.I tend to believe more on present day BJP leader Mr Singh and Adwani more than anybody as far as what Mr Jinnah was like.It is most guess work,any way even if we go by his speech of 11 Aug,1947,it was you who said devoid of context,as it serve very little purpose,to-day Pakistan is in crisis and at the cross road,can take wrong turn at the fork.Well wishers like me and good well meaning patriot like you only wish her “happy Birthday” and hope fresh calamity do not befall on her as well on us all world dwellers as well.Thank you,once again,for a good column, Hariharmani,nj,USA.

Recommend3

Solomon2

Aug 14, 2011 - 10:09PM

Reply

Contextual interpretation is extremely

important for any great speech or

analysis, undertaken by historians and

later-day commentators to explain the

intent of great leaders.

Yes, Jinnah made a great speech boasting,

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another.”

but the reality was that outside on the streets there was fighting between Muslim and Hindu and Jinnah failed to condemn this, much less intervene. He was more concerned with bribery, corruption, and black-marketeering. Thus Islamists have grounds to claim that what Jinnah really sought was Islamic dictatorship and this speech was merely an empty promise to lull the gullible and further such a goal.

Recommend8

rusm

Aug 14, 2011 - 10:15PM

Reply

religion is the most emotive and devisive social system. history shows that when religion is in ascendence progress is in decline. Religion dragged Europe into the dark ages with it’s intolerance and does the same to the Muslims in the present day.

Only an idiot would keep religion as the foundation of a state.

Recommend10

Bigboy

Aug 14, 2011 - 10:27PM

Reply

“Ideology of Jinnah”. There is no agreement on what it was and it no longer matters now.

Recommend15

Alsahdiq

Aug 14, 2011 - 11:12PM

Reply

Let us make no mistake. Quaid-e Azam M A Jinnah’s intentions whatever they were, were in totality, for the well being of all the citizens of Pakistan.

However one does feel that both Mr. M K Gandhee and Mr. M A Jinnah made total miscalculations of the abilities of their nation. They both became barristers, as such miscalculated the abilities of the whole Indian nation as the majority still lives in ignorance. The nation proved through their deeds that they were not fit and worthy of being entrusted with the task of managing their lands as did the British with well calculated precision.

The whole Indian nation had remained in slavery of Rajahs, Maharajahs, Nawaabs, Moghuls etc. They still dwell in that kind of slave mentality. The people known as Muslims know nothing about the true Islamic culture as their mind is overshadowed by line of dynastic Autoctarts who adopted Yazeed’s autocratic system of rule which continues to this very day in those countries where people known as Muslims are in the majority.

They simply do not know that the true Islamic society could never str=art to emerge if it was not a society of the people, by the people. Which people? the people who rallied round no man but the Lord Almighty very true to the slogan of allegience they raised which is “There is no one worthy of being our Ruler except the Almighty Lord”.

So to sum up if people truly want to transform this part of Western India into Pakistan they will have to come out to join hands with each other and work. Work hard as did those who through their relentless hard work established the first and model Islamic state. That Islamic state was owned by no one but by the people. So one can say that a true Islamic state will come into being again only and only when the masses will come to work to achieve it.

The pre requisite for it is exactly as what was done by those Arabs who became early Muslims. Anyone and everyone desirous of creating Pakistan will have to change their habits and attitude as did those Arabs. There is simply no escape from this fact as the saying goes. No pain no gain.

Recommend

Fahad

Aug 14, 2011 - 11:16PM

Reply

Professor is itself confused and biased.. :P

Recommend8

Akhtarrao

Aug 14, 2011 - 11:29PM

Reply

No doubt Muhammad Ali Jinah wanted a liberal and modern state not religious. We always quote his speech of 11the August 1948 and forget other speeches before and after.

He emphasised on Quran and Sunnha , a Muslim cannot ignore these fundamental principles.

Islam has granted the basic rights to the Minorities 1400 years ago so Jinnha also did and admitted their rights in an independent state.

Here I would like to ask the author to respond these questions:

1. Did Muslim create a separate state just for bread or butter/or to impliment their idealogy? (Islam)

2. was Pakistan established by British (due to their favorable policies toward Hindu) as some politicians talk on different forums?

3. What happened If Pakistan would not estblish?

4. Did Jinnah give any solution to avoide from the existential threat?

5. If Qaid were alive how could he deal with the present national and international theatining enviornment?

Recommend6

well-wisher

Aug 15, 2011 - 12:08AM

Reply

I did not expect this from you. Jinnah formulated two nation theory based on religion. He propogated same theory for 17 year from 1930 to 1947. And then in fit of moment he wanted pakistanis to be secular…. After partition, Pakistan followed same path what he followed before partition for his political gain.

Salvation lies within… Libral and educated pakistanis like you should accept this fact and move on…… A public figure can not be judged on basis of one speech.

Recommend43

Muzaffar

Aug 15, 2011 - 12:37AM

Reply

I am from the same moreover from the same segment of the society to which the writer belongs, however, I have strong reservation the type of Pakistan which the writer is portraying. Every August the same thought process is imposed by a certain mind set by using the terms “Jinnah’s Pakistan” or “Jinnah Secular Pakistan”. It is used in a manner as if that is the way Quaid defined the management style of for Pakistan…Mostly we all using this expression thinking that Quaid wanted a secular Pakistan……………………It is not the case at all.

Unfortunately this term and style of interpretation moreover caught ground when Justice Munir (The CJ who pioneered the downfall of Pakistan political system ie when Isikandar Mirza dissolved the parliament in 1958 and announced martial law, Justice Munir and the Supreme Court placed a judicial stamp of approval on what had taken place)wrote a book from Jinnah to Zia and mis quoted a statement of the Quaid…(other reasons also but due to limited space one cannot go into details)

If I am saying that Quaid was not secular that does not mean that he did not want what most pro secular group state–i.e. modern, peaceful, rights of women/minorities etc etc. Yes he wanted but not necessarily by being called a secularist…..One can achieve all this by following the true Islam /Quran. There are many examples in which the Quaid stated that the basis on which he wanted the foundation of Pakistan was on Islam teachings….Further, the two nation theory itself is evident of the fact that he believed in the manner Islam defines the difference between the two beliefs(Islam and Hinduism). How would he have strongly supported such a theory if he was wanting secular governance of the country??? which was made for muslims.

Recommend4

Hairaan

Aug 15, 2011 - 12:41AM

Reply

Very surprisingly, most of the articles on ET today are about the 3% population. Nobody is talking about the 97% and the future plans for their welfare and progress.

As for the speech of Mr. Jinnah, let me remind the writer that he was a great politician, leader and visionary. However, we have even better leaders and visionaries in terms of our prophet, Khulfa-e-rashideen and the companions to take real guidance from.

We are all for the rights of the minorities but does it really necessitate separation of state and religion? I believe no. A true Islamic state can better protect the rights of the religious minorities if the guidelines set by the Khulfa-e-rashideen are followed.

Recommend6

Junaid

Aug 15, 2011 - 1:44AM

Reply

Even Quaid-e-Azam was convinced in his last days that the only system that can work justly and consistently is the one modeled on the democratic values of Caliphate.. he was a true adherent of constitutionalism, so he couldn’t have denied the importance of religion in the system of the state–even from a democratic point of view when the majority was Muslim, that would have been the right thing the to do. We need to create consensus on interpreting religion, not on depriving it of its political tendencies.

Recommend5

M. Faizan Siddiqui

Aug 15, 2011 - 2:43AM

Reply

This is the only speech seem to be conveying this message and many have said that this too was marred by his fellows. Jinnah was the leader of “Muslims”, he lead and represented “Muslims” from “Muslim” League’s platform for securing them a “Muslim” state, called Pakistan!

This is the reality that you have to live with, so please stop going back into circles and focus on real issues!

Recommend8

mohammed abbasi

Aug 15, 2011 - 3:40AM

Reply

@Hairaan:

Indeed Pakistan would be GREAT under the rule ofthe uneducated village mullahs! after all in our brains we can conquer the universe and bring it under the rule of these mullahs – imagine we can replace the universal laws of Allah swt and Islam with ‘Mullahism’

Recommend3

Cynical

Aug 15, 2011 - 3:51AM

Reply

‘Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan’.The most worn out cliche of the last 64 years.

His vision(s) changed four times during his life time, while twice would put the lesser mortals under a scanner.The unending referral to his speech and the only speech of August 11,1947 by all and sundry at every conceivable opportunity shows how thinly his liberal credentials hangs in the air.

A brilliant lawyear by any standard, as far as he was concerned ‘the end justified the means’.

Among other things he was an uppity aristocrat quite indignant of ordinary mortals (offcourse in his estimation) ,megalomaniac,egoist and autocrat.

But we should remain gratefull to him for getting us Pakistan from the British.

Recommend4

Saleem

Aug 15, 2011 - 4:01AM

Reply

very well written by the author, the present day people are being confused Pakistan was created for the muslims of india to live a life for the betterment by getting an even chance in a separate country ruled by law equally for all its citizens. Rest of all the religious issues are personal matter and not the business of the state.

Recommend3

Muqarrib

Aug 15, 2011 - 4:06AM

Reply

The best way to judge what was the Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan and whether he intended Pakistan to be a secular state or an Islamic state is to objectively study his speeches, interviews, and policy statements that he made on various occasions – during the struggle for Pakistan and after achieving Pakistan. In fact, after Pakistan became a reality and he became its Governor General, Jinnah showed more inclination to Islam then he did during the combating years.

Here are a few of Jinnah’s sayings that leave little doubt about his vision for Pakistan with an Islamic identity.

In August 1941, in relation to Pakistan, the Quaid-e-Azam was questioned by Osmania students: What is the distinctive feature of the Islamic state? He responded: “There is a special feature of the Islamic state which must not be overlooked. There obedience is due to God and God alone, which takes practical shape in the observance of the Quranic principles and commands. In Islam, obedience is due neither to a king, nor to a parliament, nor to any other organization. It is the Quranic provisions that determine the limits of our freedom and restrictions in political and social spheres. In other words, the Islamic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions.”

In his presidential address at the All India Muslim League Conference in Karachi on December 26, 1943, he said, “What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man and who is the bedrock and sheet anchor of the community? It is Islam; it is the Great Book – the Quran which is the sheet anchor of Muslims in India. I am sure that as we go on and on, there will be more Oneness – One God, One Book, One Prophet and One nation”.

In his Eidul Fitr message to the Muslims in September 1945, Jinnah said, “… Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals or ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslims society, every department of life, collectively and individually”.

Addressing the civil, naval, military, and air force officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947 the Quaid said: “It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles”.

Recommend3

faraz

Aug 15, 2011 - 5:11AM

Reply

There are contradictions in Jinnah’s politics and two nation theory. First, Islam has not provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of faith. Islam is a universal ideology that transcends all borders. Second, clergy opposed the Muslim league. Third, Jinnah wasn’t a particularly religious man. He belonged to a minority sect and of course he didn’t want clergy of majority sect to interpret Islam. Fourth, half of Muslim population remained in India and preferred their local identity over religion. In fact, it wasn’t about preferring religion or not, because there is no such obligation in religion to migrate to a Muslim majority area. Fifth, Jinnah never demanded partition till the very end. He accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan 1946 which prescribed a federation with 3 autonomous groupings. It was Nehru and Patel who rejected the plan. If Jinnah wanted a state for the Muslim nation, why did he accept autonomy? And if he didn’t want a separate state, why did he invoke the two nation theory? Sixth, Jinnah’s entire struggle was over constitutional rights. He never quoted verses from Quran or Hadees to justify his politics. Seventh, regarding division of Punjab and Bengal, Jinnah remarked that he won’t accept this moth eaten Pakistan. So he contradicted himself by opposing division of land on the basis of religion. Jinnah also supported the idea of an independent undivided Bengal. This again negates the two nation theory. Eighth, Jinnah’s speech of 11 August separates religion from state, but his other speeches emphasized on the principles of Islam. His two nation theory is obviously based on religion. Ninth, why did he appoint a Hindu as Law minister if he wanted to run the state according to Islam; that non-Muslim wasn’t supposed to formulate laws according to Islam.

Recommend10

Abbas Ali

Aug 15, 2011 - 6:33AM

Reply

The statement that Jinnah wanted the basis of Pakistan citizenship and not religon is an oxymoronic one as basis of the creation of Pakistan is religon.

Recommend2

ali

Aug 15, 2011 - 6:48AM

Reply

If Pakistan was supposed to a secular state then why did we separate from India. India is the biggest secular democracy in the world. There is no such thing as secular Islam or Secular Muslim.

Recommend25

narayana murthy

Aug 15, 2011 - 6:54AM

Reply

DEAR AUTHOR,

On this occasion, I would like to raise a very valid point, which is just an echo of what Kaved Akhthar (Indian writer) raised in one of Pakistani news channels.

He said that Jinnah never represented all the Muslims of India. He said that Jinnah never had the interest of all Indian Muslims.

As per his assertion, JINNAH only represented the interests of the rich/elite Indian Muslims (businessmen, landlords, academics of that time), who believed that they could never compete with the likes of Tata/Birla and others. The only way they could ensure their bright future was to seek it in a different land with very less competition.

Here’s the proof of it – while Nehru abolished Zameendari and other equivalent evil systems immediately after independence, Jinnah did not. Because Jinnah knew that, it’s these people who had to be protected to remain in power. In other words, JINNAH was fighting for these people’s interests.

What do you think about his point? I think it’s very valid.

Recommend22

N

Aug 15, 2011 - 7:32AM

Reply

Respect for Jinnah – our founder, is understandable. But the argument that he wanted a secular future for Pakistan is disingenuous. It is playing with definitions and rooted in one speech cited in the article. Secular – per the definition in the democracies across the world, he did not believe in. Secular within the traditions and fabric of Islam he believed in perhaps. Now truth be told many scholars muslim and non-muslim alike dispute ‘secularism’ as a long standing tradition within Islamic societies.

Furrther and importantly, if we are to truly embrace a spiritual and tolerant Islam, we need to have the courage to accept facts and various view points. Mr. Jinnah promoted the two nation theory – the premise of which is that Muslims are special and separate from Hindus and therefore are entitled to a separate homeland where they can preserve their own unique culture and way of life. He rejected the call of the Congress for one man – one vote. He literally fought for his beliefs – blood and all.

After independence, perhaps he saw the aggressive company of the Maudidi types and realized the need for some distance between him and the Isalmists. But it was, too, late. His embrace of Islam as a political instrument to gain political rights became the norm in our politics and society. Rest is history, as they say. So celebrate him – for because of him we have Pakistan. But have the courage to question facts – disagree peacefully and genuinely accept his 1947/48 speech finally without any Islamic underpinnings. I would like to imagine he was evolving – why can’t we also do the same and rise to be a tolerant nation where we accept all minorities as equals. We can still be Pakistanis and Muslims without giving up either. Can we not? Why should anyone stop us?

Recommend7

Pakistan1

Aug 15, 2011 - 8:08AM

Reply

We will continue to have the problems that we are facing today. Why dont we forget just Jinnah’s Pakistan and start living in our own Pakistan. I do not understand how can you even say Jinnah’s Pakistan? A man who until December 1946 was not in the favour of division of India can be called the Founder of Pakistan?

As long as you continue to twist and turn fact you will continue to be plagued by you are already going through?

The most quoted quote about Jinnah is that of stanley wolpert “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”

I would like the readers to go through the following paragraphs that are writtern about Jinnah on Wikipedia

The Western world not only inspired Jinnah in his political life. England had greatly influenced his personal preferences, particularly when it came to dress. Jinnah donned Western style clothing and he pursued the fashion with fervor. It is said he owned over 200 hand-tailored suits which he wore with heavily starched shirts with detachable collars. It is also alleged that he never wore the same silk tie twice.

According to Akbar S. Ahmed, nearly every book about Jinnah outside Pakistan mentions the fact that he drank alcohol. Several sources indicate he gave up alcohol near the end of his life

I urge all people to please check the facts before they post responses and to accept the fact the way it is. Denying that the sun does not exist will only harm you and not the sun.

Recommend4

Pashtun

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:01AM

Reply

As per “Indian Independence Act”British were to handover power to India and Pakistan on 15 August.Why do we celebrate 14 August as Independence Day while it was 15 August?Jinnah was sworn in as Governor General on 15 August.The all India radio broadcast, from Dacca,Peshawar and Lahore, continued till 2300 hours(11PM), 14 August.Pakistan Radio Broadcast started on 15 August.The only reason for choosing this date,which was done in 1948, was to create an impression that Pakistan got independence on 27th Ramzan ( in KPK it was 28th Ramzan).So religious narrative was always there.GHQ chose 786 as its sign on creation of Pakistan.Jinnah gave different statements, depending to whom he was addressing.He gave in writing to Pir of Manki, that Sharia will be imposed in Pakistan.However in my opinion he was a secular man and wanted a secular Pakistan.His pre partition speeches, should be taken as political,and what he said, after fulfillment of his dream,is more important.His 11 August speech, since he was addressing the constituent assembly, should be taken as a guideline for framing a secular constitution for Pakistan.

Recommend7

Nadeem

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:03AM

Reply

I think we can learn something here from the Turks, who accept Mustafa Kemal as the undisputed leader of modern Turkey (‘Ataturk’), but 75 years after his death are ready to evolve in other directions, as dictated by the electorates’ preferences, and as dictated by the demands of a modern world. For instance, they know that their founder would not have approved of the headscarf, but have peacefully come to terms with it without considering it a betrayal. We should do the same: 64 years down the road we know what is needed to make Pakistan work, regardless of what Jinnah said or did. What is needed – just like Turkey – is an acceptance of the diversity among us (religous diversity, ethnic, sectarian, linguistic etc). The moment we institutionalize this tolerance, Jinnah’s intentions become a moot point and we start progressing as a modern nation state.

Recommend1

BruteForce

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:44AM

Reply

After 65 years you are still debating and stressing on the other camp what Jinnah really wanted. What does that tell you?

You cannot implement Jinnah’s vision because it is just not clear. You take great pain to tell us how important his August 11 speech was, but shall we ignore his earlier speeches where he talks endlessly about Islam and Muslims?

Acts are better indicators than words, words are cheap. He created a Country saying 2 sets of people just cannot co-exist together, at any cost. He essentially created a nation based on the idea of division.

After 65 long years and about 3 generations later, this is a failed exercise. I say give up on Jinnah, embrace Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Nehru and Ambedkar, who are clear on their idea of India and come from a time when Pakistan was India.

Recommend12

Ex Pakistani

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:44AM

Reply

@Junaid:

any credible reference to your statement?

Recommend

Ex Pakistani

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:47AM

Reply

The best way to look at it is what was the end result of his experiment…. Did it bring the change he think will bring or pushed the people further towards abyss? We killed any basis of creation when we denied bengalis the one man one vote in 1956 constitution and forced them to a parity despite them being majority and then denying them the right to rule when their party one the 1970 election.

We have committed more crimes as a nation in a short history of 64 years than any other… and hence discussing or trying to enact the basis of partition we have to be held accountable for all we did from the onset to this date… if we wont we will perish.

Recommend9

Asiya

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:54AM

Reply

Historically speaking, Dr sb is correct.

Recommend1

narayana murthy

Aug 15, 2011 - 10:57AM

Reply

It’s extremely illogical when people say that Jinnah was secular. It sounds ridiculous if I say “I want to create a secular country for religion x, out of a secular country”. What does that even mean?

Like I mentioned in my previous post, I firmly believe that Pakistan was created only for the Muslim elite (rich businessmen, landlords, officers in British Indian offices, politicians etc) to escape from a country which would give them more competition.

The same underlying principle is applicable to Pakistan even today. Rich are becoming richer and are ruling the country. Poor are becoming poor and have virtually become slaves.

Jinnah never cared for the poor Muslims.

Recommend6

Ex Pakistani

Aug 15, 2011 - 11:01AM

Reply

@Nadeem:

I agree with you but I can also say.. It will never happen. As long as we continue to sustain this system nothing will happen.

Recommend

Usman

Aug 15, 2011 - 11:28AM

Reply

Please try and read my comment with an open mind.

I believe what most of the readers who have criticized the article need to first clear their own understanding. Jinnah was a Congress party member to start with and he joined Muslim League in order to protect the interests of minority Muslims of British India – Politically. When Jinnah stated that he wanted to have a separate homeland for Muslims, he meant …politically (please note this word). Just because he wanted a separate homeland for Muslims does not mean Pakistan’s ideology was Islamic (that was Iqbal’s philosophy – and Jinnah and Iqbal differed on that). Hence Jinnah’s speech about a secular state – now whether you agree with Jinnah’s idea or not is another matter but please do not try change the meaning – he was crystal clear on this idea. Need proof? Pakistan was formed as Dominion of Pakistan in 1947 and only named ‘Islamic Republic’ in 1956…not at the time of Jinnah.

I myself do believe that Islam gives us the best guiding principle in terms of forming a society and to run its affairs. However, it must be noted that democracy and secularism are not un-Islamic (as some people claim). It is narrated by various sources that the Holy Prophet himself said the wordly affairs are best decided by people collectively and matters pertaining to God and religion should be sought from Quran and Hadith.

I hope people reflect and educate themselves rather than blindly following the word on the street.

Recommend4

Anonymous

Aug 15, 2011 - 12:03PM

Reply

At best Jinnah was myopic in his vision. It can be corroborated by the state Pakistan is in today

Recommend3

Ex Pakistani

Aug 15, 2011 - 12:07PM

Reply

@Solomon2:

You are right on dictatorship. He wanted to impose one party state. Lets make no mistake the flag of Pakistan was actually a modified version of AIML flag. Dissent was never accepted in Pakistan

Recommend2

A J Khan

Aug 15, 2011 - 1:27PM

Reply

Jinnah’s Pakistan was derailed by its founding fathers. If one looks at the first decade of history of Pakistan we will find, how myopic, selfish, incompetent and ill prepared was the leadership of Pakistan . The best would be that one should compare the actions done by Pakistani leadership vs Indian Leadership.

1. When Indian Leadership was preparing the constitution for India, Pakistani leadership under Liaqat Ali Khan was laying the foundation of land grabbing of the properties of Hindus and Sikhs who had departed to India.

2. Under leadership of Nehru, The Indian Assembly formally approved the draft Constitution on November 26, 1949 and on January 26, 1950, the Constitution took effect, a day now commemorated in India as Republic Day.

3. Liaqat Ali Khan remained the Prime Minister till 1952 till his murder. During five years in office, he could just jot down a fifth graders solution what is called Objective Resolution. He failed to carry out any elections nor give any constitution to Pakistan.

4. When Nehru was consolidating the economy of India and working on the indigenous industrialization program, Laiqat and his friends were busy in allotting jobs, plots and lands to people who had accompanied his from India thus laying the foundation of nepotism.  

The list of stupidities is long and makes us sound more pathetic if we unveil it. So it is better we keep silent on many issues of Jinnah’s Pakistan.

Recommend20

A J Khan

Aug 15, 2011 - 1:36PM

Reply

@hassan:

Your comments seems to be an article in itself and may I say they are more near the reality than that of the author’s. I appreciate your truth and courage

Recommend5

Rais

Aug 15, 2011 - 2:03PM

Reply

An answer to the Liberal Secular crowd, Ideology of Pakistan in Jinnah’ own words

Recommend

Tabi

Aug 15, 2011 - 2:08PM

Reply

The ideology of Pakistan was the brain child of Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal and NOT that of Quaid-e-Azam. Quaid-e-Azam was the guy who implemented the ideology, he DID NOT create it. So this article does not deserve commenting. Naive author!

Recommend1

Cynical

Aug 15, 2011 - 2:29PM

Reply

@hassan

My point as well, but you articulated it far better.

Recommend2

Mehr Ali Shah

Aug 15, 2011 - 3:08PM

Reply

I think that Mr Jinnah R.A after failing to re-conciliate with congress and bigotry of congress forced him to struggle for Muslims of the sub continent in an independent direction to achieve an independent state.He want to safe guard the rights of Muslims as stated in Islam and was firmly in favor of Iqbal’s ideology of making Pakistan a dynamic Islamic state which can evolve itself in contemporary world as per instructions of Islam through proper Ijtehad and strong political consensus being done through mutual consensus and through democratic means in the Parliament.

Recommend

Mehr Ali Shah

Aug 15, 2011 - 3:10PM

Reply

I think that Mr Jinnah R.A after failing to re-conciliate with congress and bigotry of congress forced him to struggle for Muslims of the sub continent in an independent direction to achieve an independent state.He want to safe guard the rights of Muslims as stated in Islam and was firmly in favor of Iqbal’s ideology of making Pakistan a dynamic Islamic state which can evolve itself in contemporary world as per instructions of Islam through proper Ijtehad and strong political consensus being done through mutual consensus and through democratic means in the Parliament.

Recommend1

A.Narasingarao

Aug 15, 2011 - 4:42PM

Reply

India has a big list of freedom fighters and leaders both secular and spiritual to remember and cherish.I wonder what is the list for Pakistan

Recommend3

parvez

Aug 15, 2011 - 4:48PM

Reply

Excellent opinion piece. One can disagree ( I agree with you ) with your view on what Jinnah had in his mind for Pakistan but it would have to be a person in total denial if he did not agree that today Pakistan is far from being a model Islamic state or a functioning democracy. Jinnah did his job, gave us a country and sadly died. Taking this forward from there was our duty and we have failed in this. Arguing on what was or should have been is futile.

Recommend2

Max

Aug 15, 2011 - 4:56PM

Reply

ADDENDUM:

The readers may note that Mr. Jinnah was a lawyer by profession. He presented the case of a separate homeland in a traditional legal way and won it. He was not a politician and out of court settlement was not his way of doing business.

Once the case was won, it was up to the clients to take care from there onwards. That is where we failed. Es Mulk ko rakkhna meray bacho Sanbhal kay (Take good care of this country).

The readers should also not equate Mr. Jinnah to the prophets of Old Testament. He was just an ordinary person and anything he said is not equivalent a Haddith.