Showing posts with label Jinnah. Show all posts

اے قائد اعظمؒ !ہم شکر گزار ہیں - محمد الطاف قمر (سابق آئی جی پولیس)

اے قائد اعظمؒ !ہم شکر گزار ہیں

اے ہمارے قائد اعظم محمد علی جناحؒ ! ہمیں وہ دن اچھی طرح یاد ہیں کہ جیسے ہی ہندوستان میں مسلمانوں کی حکومت ختم ہوئی اور باوجود اس کے کہ مسلمان حکمرانوں نے اپنی رعایاکے ساتھ ہر معاملے میں حد درجہ رواداری ، اور عدمِ تعصب کا مظاہرہ کیا، ہرمذہب وملت کے لوگوں کو برابر کے سیاسی، سماجی اور مذہبی حقوق دیئے،اور اپنے دین کو زبردستی ٹھونسنا تو کیا سرکاری طور پر اس کی تبلیغ وفروغ کی سِرے سے کوئی کوشش ہی نہ کی،لیکن پھر بھی ہندؤوں نے مسلمان دشمنی کو اپنا نصب العین قرار دے لیا۔انہوں نے عمومی طور پر انگریزوں کو خوش آمدید کہا اور صرف مسلمانوں کو نیچا دکھانے کے لئے اُن کے ہم رکاب ہوگئے۔ انگریز وں کے مشورہ پر ہی انڈین نیشنل کانگریس بنائی اوراس اُمید پر آزادی کی جدوجہد شروع کی کہ انگریز کے جانے کے بعد اکثریتی آبادی ہونے کے ناطے اقتدار اُن کے ہاتھ آئے گا اور پھر وہ مسلمانوں سے اپنی ہزار سالہ محکومی کا بدلہ لیں گے۔ اس دوران وہ مسلمانوں کو تہس نہس کرنے کی دھمکیاں ،ہندوستان کومسلمانوں کے وجود سے پاک کرنے، اورمسلمانوں کو زبردستی ہندوبنانے کے عزائم کا کُھلم کُھلا اظہار کرتے رہے، اور موقع بے موقع ، بات بے با ت، کوئی نہ کوئی بہانہ تراش کر مسلمانوں کا قتلِ عام کرتے رہے۔ اور اسے ہندومسلم فسادات کا نام دیتے، جس میں نقصان صرف مسلمانوں کا ہی ہوتا۔

The founder lost

For the past few years I have been researching literature written on the life of Pakistan`s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah; and also scholarly works which quote him extensively to substantiate theories about what Pakistan is (or was supposed to be).

The exercise is a pursuit to trace the evolution of the image of a man who passed away just a year after the creation of a country that he had so painstakingly put on the map.

My research in this context has produced multiple Jinnahs; each one echoing the zeitgeist or a particular mood of the period in which he was written into books, essays and speeches.

Most interesting is the fact that between the creation of Pakistan in 1947 and the late 1950s, not much was written on him.

The 1950s were a highly mutable period in the history of Pakistan. The country`s founding party, the All-India Muslim League, in its new incarnation as Pakistan Muslim League, was constantly ravaged by infighting, and unable to address the many economic, ethnic and religious challenges that had sprung up when a minority of India became a majority in Pakistan.

My research suggests that, on an intellectual level, problems in this context were hardly ever tackled by evoking Jinnah`s sayings or personality.

Instead, the government and the state depended more on the works of poet and philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal. For example, in 1953, when anti-Ahmadiyya riots in the Punjab spiraled out of control, the government`s response was late but stern. It imposed Martial Law in the province which eventually crushed the riots.

Then, to undermine the men who had instigated the riots, the government published the Urdu translation of a booklet authored by respected Muslim scholar, Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim. Called `Iqbal and Mullah`, it cited heavily (and selectively) Iqbal`s scathing criticism of clerics.

In 1956, when the indirectly-elected Constituent Assembly of the country passed the country`s first constitution, many of the text`s authors explained the supposed balance between the religious and the worldly in the constitution by citing Iqbal`s ideas of `spiritual democracy`.

Again, there was little or no mention of Jinnah.

What`s more, Jinnah`s sister who had authored a book on her brother was dissuaded (by the government) to publish it. The book was not published until 1987.

In 1954, the government authorised British writer, Hector Bolitho, to write a biography ofJinnah. But the published version was heavily censored. Entire quotes of Mr Jinnah were removed from the f`inal text while others were altered.

It was as if`the state and government of Pakistan in the 1950s had failed to f`ind any use f`or Jinnah`s thoughts in an era in which the country found itself reeling from multiple political and economic crevices. Perhaps Jinnah`s memory had seemed to be too multicultural in tone and tenor to a state try-ing to enforce a more monolithic idea of Pakistan? But this attitude was radically altered by the arrival of the Ayub Khan regime in 1958. He became the first Pakistani ruler to promptly start placing Jinnah`s portrait alongside his own in public rallies.

In his quest to modernise Pakistan, he constantly evoked Jinnah as a progressive Muslim. In April 1962, his government published a hefty book containing Jinnah`s speeches. In it were also quotes and sayings that had been censored out from Bolitho`s 1956 biography of Jinnah.

Ayub pulled out Jinnah from the confines he had been relegated to in the 1950s. His regime presented the founder as a man who wanted a modern Muslim-majority state with a strong economy (based on industrialisation), and a powerful army willing to defend the country`s physical and ideological boundaries.

This image of Jinnah was reinforced in books such as 1965`s Struggle for Pakistan (by IH Qureshi); 1966`s Quaid-i-Azam as Seen by his Contemporaries (a compilation of essays); and in 1969`s Jinnah: Founder of Pakistan published by the Information Ministry.Ayub`s opponents on the right rejected this image. They suggested that since Jinnah could not formulate a cohesive ideology (due to his demise soon after Pakistan`s creation), the Ulema should take the lead in framing Pakistan`s ideological direction because the country was made in the name of Islam.

Ayub responded by claiming that this was not possible because most Ulema were opposed to Jinnah andthat Jinnah did not want a theological state.

Much of the literature on Jinnah in the 1960s advances Ayub`s image of the founder. But this image began to change when Z.A. Bhutto`s leftleaning PPP came to power in December 1971.

Coming in on the back of a manifesto promising `socialist reforms`, one of the first signs of another change in Jinnah`s image emerged in a 1973 press advertisement of the Board of Industrial Management. In it, Jinnah`s portrait appears with a 1945 quote of his in which he emphasises the importance of nationalising important industries.

As by the mid-1970s, Bhutto had begun to place himself somewhere between left-liberalism, nationalism and `political Islam`, the brief experiment of weaving a socialist Jinnah quickly gave way to propagating a charismatic and nationalist one.

In 1976, the Bhutto regime formed the Quaid-iAzam Academy. A plethora of literature on Jinnah appeared. In 1976, 12 books on Jinnah were published alone, with most of them presenting him as a charismatic and populist nationalist, who wanted to construct a strong democratic Muslim country. An image Bhutto also wantedfor himself.

Also in 1976, appeared Sharif Al Mujahid`s Ideological Orientation of Pakistan. Published during a period in which the Bhutto regime had moved considerably to the right, the book portrayed Jinnah as a man who worked on building a separate `Islamic polity` as conceived by Iqbal.

Jinnah`s image was changing again. After Bhutto was toppled in a reactionary military coup by Gen Zia in July 1977, the new regime announced the `discovery` of a diary kept by Jinnah. In the diary, Zia claimed, Jinnah had scorned at democracy and wanted a state based on Islamic dictates and a strong army.

The claim was debunked by the surviving contemporaries of Jinnah and the regime went quiet on the issue. Unable to justify its intransigent policies with any of Jinnah`s quotes, the Zia regime `advised` state-owned media to only use those quotes of the founder in which he mentioned faith.

In the 1980s, powerful independent scholarship on Jinnah too began to emerge. It severely tested and debunked Zia`s image of Jinnah. Stanley Wolpert`s Jinnah of Pakistan (1982) and Ayesha Jalal`s The Sole Spokesman (1985), completely turned Zia`s image of Jinnah on its head, present-ing the founder more like the modern, enlightened Jinnah first put forward by the Ayub regime.

As a response, the Zia government pulled out Iqbal`s writings on religion. This was ironic because, in the 1950s, the state had used Iqbal to undermine the so-called fundamentalists; in the 1980s, Iqbal began to be posed (by the state) as an anti-thesis to the alternate image of Jinnah which began to appear from independent scholarship.

So whereas Iqbal was used in the 1950s to counter religious radicalism, in the 1980s, he began to be used to counter those debunking Zia`s idea of Pakistan and Jinnah. It was all a matter of cherry-picking (out of context) from Iqbal`s vast works in philosophy and poetry.

Not much has changed since. If one read`s Riaz Ahmad`s book, Iqbal`s letters to Quaid-iAzam (1976), one finds that both men were on the same page on various subjects. But Iqbal passed away almost a decade before the creation of Pakistan.

Maybe this is why ever since the 1970s, ideologues, politicians, dictators, theologians and intellectuals have (rather convolutedly) placed both men on the opposite poles of numerous debates on democracy, faith, state and polities.
By Nadeem F Paracha
24 April 2016
Dawn.com

A Jinnah for all

Ever since Jinnah`s death in 1948, we have been gazing intensely at our navels to figure out what the founder of Pakistan said and/or didn`t say. Many of us have our own set of quotes of a man who passed away just one year after the creation of this country.

I have been going through Jinnah`s numerous speeches that he delivered from 1946 till his unfortunate death in 1948.

It seems Jinnah was everything to everyone a progressive nationalist to the liberals; a faithful religionist to the religious right; a middle-of-theroad Muslim statesman to the moderates.

But the truth (to me) is that first and foremost he was a sharp politician. And like all good politicians, Jinnah was a pragmatist, adjusting his words according to his immediate surroundings.

For example, in multicultural Karachi he would insist that the state of Pakistan was to be progressive and democratic.

In Lahore, the scene of vicious Hindu-Muslim riots, and where many clerics had accused him of being a `fake Muslim leader` in 1946, he would take a moderate view, suggesting that the South Asian Muslims had a rich cultural and political history that Pakistan ought to match.

In Peshawar, where Jinnah`s Muslim League had struggled to remain afloat in the f ace of the challenge posed by the left-leaning Pakhtun nationalists, Jinnah appealed to the sensibilities of the conservative tribes and clerics opposed to the nationalists.

While talking to the Western press he reminded the world that Pakistan was not to be a theological state, but a democratic Muslim-majority state where all citizens, no matter what their religion or ethnicity, would be given equal rights.

Ever since Pakistan`s inception more than six decades ago, its politicians, military dictators and intellectuals from all sides of the ideological divide have talked about working towards building `Jinnah`s Pakistan` The liberals and even many moderates have continued to present Jinnah as a progressive Muslim and an unbending democrat. The mainstream religious right and the conservative lot have been hailing him as a champion of `Muslim democracy` and a modern interpreter of an Islamic state.Left-leaning parties like the populist PPP, and the other such groups have been vowing to create a Pakistan based on the progressive vision of Jinnah.

Religious parties like the Jamaat-i-Islami (J1), on the other hand, want a Pakistan based on Jinnah`s desire and commitment of creating a country that would become a bastion and fortress of our faith.

Populist conservative parties such as PMLN, and Imran Khan`s Pakistan Tehreek-iInsaf (PTI), interpret Jinnah`s vision as something to do with Pakistan being anIslamic Welfare State` Then there have been military dictators as well, all of whom claimed to be following the course laid down by Jinnah.

The secular Ayub Khan dictatorship (1958-69) understood Jinnah as a progressive Muslim statesman. The Ziaul Haq dictatorship (1977-88) claimed Jinnah to be a fearless Islamic figurehead. The Musharraf dictatorship (1999-2008) re-figured Jinnah`s image and made him to be a `moderate` again.

But what exactly was Jinnah`s Pakistan? This question usually bags numerous dilTering an-swers. No party, military dictator, historian or intellectual trying to address this question has been able to come up with an answer that has enjoyed widespread acceptance. Jinnah died just too soon af`ter the country`s creation l`or one to convincingly judge exactly what sort of a Pakistan he really wanted. Between Pakistan`s creation in August 1947 till his death one year later, Jinnah usually spoke according to the nature of`his audience.

He was still in the process of testing the waters and f`ormulating a cohesive idea about Pakistani nationhood when he died. That`s why all that emerged after his demise are just angled interpretations, claims and counter-claims by politicians, ideologues and historians about who Jinnah was and what he wanted.There is nothing wrong in studying history and, especially, learning from it. But on most oeeasions than not, this is not really what we have been doing.

We only highlight things about our collective past that are according to what we like and imagine, while shunning, repressing and even decrying those bits that contradict our current stances.

That`s how Jinnah has been seen as well.

Liberals will mark out the progressive views of Jinnah, whereas the conservatives will loudly quote from books that only mention quotes of Jinnah in which he comes across as a faith-ful conservative.

Today`s existentialist battles in Pakistan are being fought with what the founders of Pakistan said or didn`t say many years ago; A battle of` existence that is threatening our future like never before. It is a battle lacking the desire to construct a vision or adiscourse of what is to be done today and tomorrow.

Even while discussing possible future courses, we keep slipping backwards, quoting who said what in the past to supplement our view of Pakistan so it can dominate over the views of our ideological opponents.

We seem to be stuck in our own imagined views of history.

With so many Jinnahs floating around, the time has come to create a Jinnah of the future.

By this I mean a well thought-out, debated and consensual vision of a Pakistan based on today`s realities.

Jinnah should be accepted as a pragmatist who today would have addressed issues like extremist violence and acts of bigotry not as an ideologue, but as a pragmatic statesman who would know that such issues were retarding the country`s economic, cultural and political evolution.

He would have understood that the rapid proliferation of conflicting ideas in Pakistan in the last three decades or so have made the bulk of the society increasingly reactive.

The pragmatic Jinnah would not sit on the fence like most of today`s `moderates`, and call it a middle-ground.

He would assertively create a real middleground between religious conservatism and liberalism, for which he would not hesitate to alter, modify and ref`orm a number of` things.

Jinnah would not do this out of any ideological compulsion. He would do so for the survival of Pakistan a country torn and plagued by religious and ethnic strife that is bringing its economics and society to a standstill.

The pragmatic Jinnah would try to find unity in diversity and draw from each ethnic culture, as well as from Muslim sects and sub-sects and minority religious groups in the country, choosing the best that they have to offer to Pakistan in developing its economy, its arts, its sports and its reputation as a modern, thriving and vibrant Muslim nation-state. It`s about time we stop studying and propagating Jinnah as an ideologue. He was an astute and enlightened pragmatist, and pragmatism demands we begin to see him in this light and do today what any enlightened and astute pragmatist would do for the country that he so painstakingly created.
By Nadeem F Piracha: http://dawn.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinnah

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace

Peace Forum Network
Over 1,000,000 Visits

http://PeaceForumNet.blogspot.com
http://AftabKhan.blog.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *...

http://FreeBookpark.blogspot.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Secular or Islamic Pakistan سید الانبیا اور قائد اعظم کا پاکستان

http://dunya.com.pk/news/authors/detail_image/795_25302369.jpg
Also read: >>> http://takfiritaliban.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-post.html

Read more: Free-Books <<Click here>>>

Censoring Jinnah- Secular Pakistan?

WebpageTranslator

Premise:

The Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah during his first address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947 said: “We are all citizens and equal citizens of one state….Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time

Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims

not in the religious sense,

because that is the personal faith of each individual, but i

n the political sense as citizens of the State.

”

This speech is misunderstood and quoted out of context, disregarding Islamic concept of state and fair treatment and rights of minorities, Charter of Medina,

Pakistan movement struggle, other other speeches and Two Nation Theory.

The Charter of Medina, in fact was the first ever written constitution in the history of mankind. This was based on the contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others, stipulating that they all would be treated as equal citizens of Medina, giving the non-Muslims right of choosing a legal system they wished their affairs be governed by, be it Islamic or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. This confirms the principle “no compulsion in religion”, freedom of expression and religious practice was open to everyone. It gave the right of protection, security, peace and justice; not only to Muslims, but also to the Jews who lived in the City of Medina, as well as the allies of Jews who were non-Muslims. The Jews were recognized as a separate political and ethnic minority, and allowed to practice their religion quite freely. In fact, Jews were considered on an equal bases as Muslims under the Islamic State.

Safety, Security and Protection of Non Muslims: Narrated Abdullah bin Amr : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”(Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith:9.49).

Narrated Amr bin Maimun: The second Caliph Umar (after he was stabbed by a man from minority), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying:

“I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle (peace be upon him) in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.287).

Freedom of Faith: There are no forced conversions in Islam, the non Muslim subjects have the right to freely choose to convert to Islam or keep practicing their faith. But once a person converts to Islam, it is obligatory to practice his faith to be a good Muslim. Apostasy has always been considered as a capital offence in all the religions and political systems of the world, because it is considered as a high treason against the established norms of society.

Also read.......

Constitutional Theory of the Islamic State

Madinah shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty. Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute. The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Censoring Jinnah

By Nadeem F Piracha

How the Pakistani state used Orwellian tactics to twist and turn historical events to construct a mythical socio-political narrative is now in the open. Using the media and school textbooks, the state went on a rampage, especially after the loss of the former East Pakistan in 1971. Highly paranoid, xenophobic and aggressive narratives about Pakistan’s ideology, history and society were streamlined that eventually mutated into a warped world view.

Because of this myopic worldview many Pakistanis see themselves at the centre of the known universe, surrounded by enemies and vicious conspiracies. It suggests that these enemies can only be vanquished through wars or blocked out through self-imposed isolation. To justify such war-mongering and isolationism, various mythical and largely distorted theological concepts have been used, as if it is Islam that insists that Pakistanis continue to live in their permanent state of denial and delusion.

One can rightly blame men like Z. A. Bhutto and more specifically, General Zia, for such a state of affairs. Both of these ironically opposite personalities proudly oversaw the methodical construction of a worldview that was more suited to the whims of fringy cranks, but was made a mainstream narrative. It is true that Bhutto and Zia nourished the growth of militaristic and xenophobic fantasies of mythical glories (of both past and present) in our collective psyches, but those who came before these two weren’t all that truthful either.

Religion has always been a handy tool for the ruling elite to continue justifying its undemocratic and exploitative presence. That’s why the said narrative uses gaudy Islamic symbolism and rhetoric to validate what is actually a glorification of institutions associated with the military, the clergy, the bureaucracy and big businesses. This tool was first used to exercise political control, especially over ‘treacherous’ and ‘unpatriotic’ nationalist forces first in Bengal, and later in Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Gradually, by the time Zia took over, this became a tool of social control as well. If the ‘One Unit’ and the 1956 Constitution which, without any concrete definition, declared Pakistan an ‘Islamic Republic,’ were political moves to ward off calls for provincial autonomy and democracy, then Zia’s hotchpotch of Islamic laws and the filling of secular social spaces by garish symbols, lingo and related paraphernalia was a social move to remind society of its manufactured theological roots. Zia was only enhancing (with much gusto) an old Pakistani tradition, one of social and political control by using religion.

This tradition’s earliest roots lie in one of the first insistences of Orwellian manipulation of faith and nationalism way back in 1948. The late journalist, Zameer Niazi (in his book Press in Chains), noted that historian Dr Mubarak Ali (in In Search of Pakistan Identity) and Ahmed Ali (in Culture of Pakistan) have discussed this event in detail. Soon after the creation of Pakistan, Jinnah gave his famous speech to the Constituent Assembly in which he insisted that in Pakistan minorities were free to follow their religions whichever way they wanted and that the Pakistani state had nothing to do with religion. This speech did not go down very well with that section of the Muslim League elite which had tasted the power of using religion as a political tool during the Pakistan Movement.

Some of these men would go on to fan the anti-Ahmadiyya riots in Lahore (1953) by using parties like the Jamat-i-Islami and Majlis-i-Ahrar, the two Islamist outfits that had actually opposed the creation of Pakistan. Soon after Jinnah’s speech, an attempt was made by a number of Muslim League leaders (some believe, these also included Liaquat Ali Khan), to censor the draft of the speech that was to be published in the newspapers. It was only when the then editor, Dawn, Altaf Hussain, threatened to take the issue directly to Jinnah that the League leaders relented, and the media was allowed to print the uncensored, now historic speech.

No wonder then, soon after Jinnah’s death in 1948, the League’s top leadership at once departed from the secular contents of Jinnah’s speech and, in fact, flipped it on its head by drafting the 1949 Objectives Resolution that in the future became the basis of Bhutto’s populist Islamic experiments and Zia’s Machiavellian Islamist demagoguery. After that resolution was passed in 1949, some journalists questioned just how the secular contents of Jinnah’s speech could fit in the resolution’s theological proclamations.

Various senior League members responded by suggesting that the speech was an anomaly, delivered at a time when Jinnah was very sick. Were they implying that towards the end Jinnah was losing his mind? The famous Justice Muneer is on record as saying that he overheard some League leaders say that the speech was ‘inspired by the devil.’

In 1970s Z.A. Bhutto claimed that attempts were even made to burn that speech, while in the 1980s Zia used the director of the Quaid-i-Azam Academy to refute the contents of the speech by apologetically suggesting that Jinnah had no idea what an Islamic state meant, and/or if he had known he would not have made those comments.

Smokers’ Corner: Censoring JinnahNadeem F. Paracha

http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/24/smokers-corner-censoring-jinnah.html

Responses to " Smokers’ Corner: Censoring Jinnah "

NAnda says:

Today at 1:57 pm

Superb peice. I follow you on twitter too. Very good sense of humor.

sharma says:

Today at 12:34 pm

The role of Britishers in what is wrong with the subcontinent now is very much under quoted. The partition of Bengal in 1905 along religious lines on pretext of better administration was the prelude to the 1947 Partition.the problem is that Pakistan still refuses to see through the game of the British-USA Colonialists. The Muslims that have been butchered by the Anglosaxons will far outnumber those that have died in the communal riots across the subcontinent. Also the way Pakistani Muslims are suffering is due to that legacy. Instead of looking at India with jaundiced eyes Pakistan should solve all issues peacefully and grow along with India rather than making itself a fool in the modern form of Imperialism by the West.Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries and evolved so much together that it is not worth throwing away all that cultural growth. The looser in this equation is both India and Pakistan but Pakistan is a bigger looser as it cannot afford the cost.

ArifQ says:

Today at 12:19 pm (4 hours ago)

NFP, I agree with your concerns but unfortunately have to differ with the conclusion. Jinnah wanted a democracy, now if the majority wishes to be a xenophobic fascist state then that is what they should get. Now, if people like yourself and many many more can change this view, well Ahlan wa Sahlan, if not then you have two options: (1) Sit back and respect the majority or (2) Be ready to push the eject button i.e. immigrate. Please do keep writing, if anything it keeps the self righteous on their tenter hooks.

SKI says:

Today at 12:17 pm (4 hours ago)

Mr. Jinnah himself had stressed the separate identity of the ‘Muslim community’ and had demanded the creation of Pakistan for the ‘community’. After that, just by making a couple of speeches with lofty ideals cannot change the Raison d’être for Pakistan.

What the Muslim Leage leaders thought, spoke and did was logical – and probably more honest and keeping with their beliefs. They were the ones who rallied people to the cause of Pakistan across the sub-continent during the Pakistan Movement.

Again, after losing East Bengal, it is but natural for leaders of Pakistan to try to define the identity of Pakistan that holds the country together. So, looking west (Arab/Persian roots) is a natural option. One cannot fault them for that.

So, what is happening is a natural growth of the seeds sown at the time of the Pakistan Movement. Analysing them in small chunks is unlikely to lead to any solutions.

The only solution is to have a federal structure for the whole sub-continent with all states (or regions within them) having complete autonomy for all local affairs – with strong governance at the city/village level. All other solutions (and definition of identities) will be apologies to the reality and will never be able to lead to a lasting peace in the region. With the information age upon us, there is possibility that in a couple of generations, the youth, armed with information and the wisdom of experiences of the earlier generations, will be able to dream and take bold decisions for the collective good.

Asad says:

Today at 12:13 pm (4 hours ago)

Hats off to Sir Nadeem for presenting the painful historical truth. Our whole syllabus of primary and secondary schools should be changed in order to bring the nation out of that delusional state.

A/A says:

Today at 12:12 pm (4 hours ago)

History is repeating….Jinnah in new form of Imran Khan and Iqbal in form of Zaid Hamid….Dont Worry at all….Combination will sail through the crisis…

rikky says:

Today at 2:47 pm (2 hours ago)

are you serious

vijay says:

Today at 12:11 pm (4 hours ago)

In any case Jinnah’s speech was not exactly an exemplar of liberalism or secularism. It merely expressed an indifference or at best a toleration of minorities holding a different religious belief from the mainstream.

There is a fundamental contradiction in forcing a sesession on the basis that muslims formed a nation and could not live under a hindu hegemony and then pretending minorities are welcome (or to be exact, not hounded) under the new muslim regime. What is good for the goose apparently is not good for the gander.

The subsequent development of religious intolerance is truly in keeping with the attitude of exceptionalism that drove the Pakistan Movement.

free thinker says:

Today at 12:05 pm (5 hours ago)

Its awesomely amazing to see free advice (muft musharay) being given by Indians as if they are they are the bastions of self-awareness. How Girish preaches us to “come out of eternal state of denial” highlights the magnificently towering arrogance that reeks in every iota of his pathetic existence.

Jai says:

Today at 11:36 am (5 hours ago)

When religion got out of the confines of the home into politics, the subcontinent became a violent place. The issues are the same in india albeit of a less virulent kind. The only difference is that the gun culture in Pakistan exacerbates it. I often wonder if unresolved issues like Kashmir are a mere excuse to foster violence. I don’t think the resolution of these issues will yet lead to peace in the region. As a people, we are backward, naive and easily misled. The moral fibre is conspicuously missing.

GKrishnan says:

Today at 11:31 am (5 hours ago)

This write-up does not do justice to the memory of ZA Bhutto, and Mr. NFP as a former PPP adherent, should know better. ZAB did at least try to bring in socialist laissez-faire economics in the 70s, an attempt to see that development should be broad-based and reach the masses. That he did not succeed,whatever the reasons may be, is another matter.

Conspiracy Tehreek says:

Today at 11:20 am (5 hours ago)

Our identity crisis continues. Denial, unfortunately is our way of life now.

EJAZ says:

Today at 10:50 am (6 hours ago)

The movement was only to declare Ahmadys a minority and nothing else. Since they were declaring themselves muslims but were not accepting the end of prophethood on Muhammad (PBUH)it was creating a basic misconception over Islam.

S. Sharma says:

Today at 10:49 am (6 hours ago)

Oft quoted speech by Jinnah has negligible value now — and even had little value then.

Pakistan was created by insistence of Jinnah for “muslm majority” – there never was any doubt in the mind of millions who picked up their bags and moved on .. they know what was coming.

So one can lament and deride muslim league .. but the deed was done and there was no coming back.

The rationale for division was shallow and vane – it has grown from that original thought to it’s logical conclusion — fanaticism!

R.N.Swamy says:

Today at 10:48 am (6 hours ago)

Pakistan’s salvation will come when the excessive obsession with religion disappears and people start worrying more about, education, health and progress. Islam will take care of itself and does not need suicide bombers and street rowdies to survive.

Ahmed says:

Today at 10:39 am (6 hours ago)

You are right! It was an historic trend of spiralling downwards. After the British left, we came to inherit the piece of land. However, our mindset is still tribal, and it will take a few centuries to grow some extra layers in our brains to reach the National level. Things were bound to get worse then. Maybe we can speed up our intellectual growth but only time will tell. Many other nations by that time may have grown into Internationalists. We need to push ourselves to achieve.

Anurag says:

Today at 10:35 am (6 hours ago)

Why hankering of past? Do you really believe that present is immutable and Pakistan has to live the consequences of decisions made in its early year for eternity!

Any nation-state is just an abstract concept that is brought to live by its people and surely if enough of people believe they need to change then they can ofcourse it has to be done painstakenly over decades and not in a instant.

It is time for elite/thinking class to move away from past and start imagining the future that they wish to have and build a momentum.

As a non-pakistani it is really trying to read this ‘marsia’ styled column where blame is place on figures of past with no responsibility assumed for changing the future (if not present).

Azeema says:

Today at 10:10 am (6 hours ago)

So what do you suggest to fix these existential anxieties of Pakistanis? How can we do a reverse brain-wash of the people or should the country cease to exist?

Girish says:

Today at 11:18 am (5 hours ago)

Coming out of eternal state of denial and appreciation of actual facts of the history might help..

Jai says:

Today at 11:39 am (5 hours ago)

Is there really an existential crisis emanating from across the border? An honest appraisal of this belief might be of great help.

Related Links:

Pages

Featured Post

FrontPage صفحہ اول