The speech that the Quaid made on 11 August, 1947
Pakistan may be no heaven on earth but we are undoubtedly much better off today than our elders who had to live through the nightmare of communal rioting which had ensued months before India’s independence. Yet we are no closer to reaching a consensus on the issue whether Pakistan was meant to be a secular state. It is debatable, therefore, that those in tens of millions who headed both East and West of India during the eventful days, traumatised but running very high on religious nationalism, had any clearer notion of the ideological contours of their new nation. This is not to suggest that those who never had to migrate had hedged their bets in favor of secularism.
This is however not to suggest that there are no takers of secularism in today’s Pakistan. Self-proclaimed liberals are also the self-appointed guardians of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s liberal political legacy and actively advocate the form of governance wherein there is a divorce between the state and the religion. To this end, Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech has been quoted time and again, stating “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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…” No doubt that the father of the nation uttered these words, but is this all he said on that historic occasion?
Jinnah delivered a composite speech in a recommendatory tone, in which he laid out a roadmap for Pakistan’s future. The speech must be read as a whole to make better sense of what was going on in Jinnah’s mind on that historic day. Those who pick and choose are willfully distorting history to achieve their own contemporary political ends.
On 11 August, 1947, the first constituent assembly of Pakistan unanimously elected Mohammad Ali Jinnah to preside over its meetings. However, what would otherwise have been a joyous moment for him, the blood stained landscape of northern India had made him gravely saddened. Even the historic occasion and the thunderous applause could not pull him out of his morbid mood. What had been nagging him all along was the plight of millions of refuges who had either voluntarily or involuntarily chosen to migrate to Pakistan. The British Raj had decided to quit India in a hurry and by doing so had put millions of defenceless Indians before the wolves. The ethnic cleansing that took place was unprecedented in the recorded history of the human race.
Therefore, rather than choosing to lecture on the virtues of secularism, Jinnah decided to start his speech by reminding the constituent assembly of its two foremost responsibilities; framing of the new constitution and functioning of the new assembly as “a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan.” Underscoring the importance of sovereignty of the assembly, he further said, “The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasise is this – remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.”
Of course Jinnah was not only an astute politician, but also a visionary. He had realised that the scourge of corruption would eat up the very foundations of the new state; therefore, he reminded the constituent assembly: “The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison.” The old sage then chose to warn the elected leaders against the malaise of black-marketing, nepotism, and jobbery. He then chose to justify the division of India and hoped that the future historians would agree with him. Next segment of his speech could rightly be classified as his “unity, faith, discipline” message, reminding the members to work for their constituents and for the prosperity of all Pakistanis, irrespective of their differences. It is only then that he uttered the famous words, music to some ears: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples…” Finally, he chose to conclude the speech by affirming “…My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.”
Those who have analysed his speech have often overlooked the fact that it was made before a group of “… mullahs, pirs, nawabs, rajas, shahs, and khans…” (Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan p. 338) Had Jinnah been a secular fundamentalist he would have either not allowed the mullahs and the pirs into the House or ordered their expulsion. Rather, being a realist, he appreciated multiple facets of the new state. He may have held Mustafa Kamal Ataturk in high esteem but unlike him he was a pluralist. Jinnah did not believe in a top down model but rather preferred politics of consensus. Therefore, those who make a point that he had an anti-clergy agenda, are advancing their argument on flimsy grounds. The clerics may have had an anti-Jinnah agenda; the reverse however is not true.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, Pakistan could not have been a secular state otherwise as well. Sporadic communal rioting aside, neither the Muslims nor their religion was faced with mortal threat at any time in the secular British India. Nobody appreciated this reality better than Jinnah. Therefore, as late as 1946, he had no real desire or was in no hurry to carve out a separate secular state for the Muslims of India.
Furthermore, exigencies of realpolitik precluded Pakistan from turning into a secular state. It would have robbed the new state of its raison d’être. Pakistan had to be a special state, formed in negation of secular India. It, therefore, could not have been secular India’s twin. India’s demographics, of course, were ideal for the formation of a secular state. Notwithstanding its large minority population, the Indian Hindus, even today, are extremely diverse, owed largely to the fact that Hinduism is not a religion but a mythology. A deity worshipped in Delhi is not necessarily worshipped in Chennai. Brahmins are strict vegetarians all over India but in West Bengal, fish is a part of Brahmins daily staple diet. Therefore, even if the Congress’ hierarchy had ever dreamt of a Hindu India, the idea was readily and prudently shelved. Muslims of India however were a different case altogether.
During the 1946 elections, Muslim League ticket holders, mindful of the fact that the new nation could not be India’s clone, sparingly played the “Muslim card”; their Congress opponents with a secular manifesto really stood no chance. Contested on separate electorate basis, needless to say, the Muslim League trounced Congress in that election. The same politicians, lets be mindful, became members of our very first constituent assembly. Therefore, those who had won their seats on the “Muslim card” and separate electorate could not have turned around and advocated a separation between the state and the religion. It is interesting to note that neither that constituent assembly nor any subsequent assembly has ever chosen to pass a resolution demanding Pakistan to be a secular state. The Parliament, let’s not forget, represents the collective will of the people.
Pakistan, we all agree, was formed for the Muslims of India, in which they could not only live but also thrive according to their own ways of life. A thriving Muslim way of life naturally demands safeguarding its various aspects through legislation. How could a state stay neutral or in the extreme case, divorced, from religion, while regulating both the temporal and nontemporal, is a question for you to ponder. Hopefully a debate would start soon, determining for once and all the value we still attach to those words uttered on 11 August, 1947. Let me rephrase the question again: If Jinnah was secular; did he want the same for Pakistan?
Good how is Islam centric state working out for you. Even the Indian Muslims feel safe in Mumbai than muslims in Karachi for all their rioting. Indian Muslims have opportunities to excel. Shah ruk Abdul kalam Amir etc. U name it. Name me on hindu in Pakistan who has reached such zennith. Dont tell me about that hindu spin bowler. He is treated as a joke here.
The social-economical backwardness of muslims in india is well known. Your own govt published some data in this regard not so long ago. The khans of bollywood are not representative of the muslim population at large in india where vertical social mobility is limited. Not to mention that muslims have been subjected to systematic purges/rioting/genocide at regular intervalls the last time in gujarat in 2004!
@pashtunyar:
You say:”Not to mention that muslims have been subjected to systematic purges/rioting/genocide at regular intervalls the last time in gujarat in 2004!”
{1} In Gujarat riots, about 250 Hindus(In addition to 59 burnt in rail boggy in a planned manner) and about 750 muslims were killed which has been made a biggest propaganda of this world by vote-bank politicians. Though all that is regretable.
{2} Not in 1947 but in 1951, there were 20% hindus left in Pakistan.They have been subjected to systematic purges/rioting/genocide at regular intervalls and NOW, reduced to 1.5 to 2% in Pakistan(Do not look at Hindu girls abductions and conversions in Sindh recent days).
{3} In India, muslims remaining in 1951 were about 10 to 11% and NOW, they are 15%. Facts speaks for themselves.
NOW,let your intellect decide who are subjected to systematic purges/rioting/genocide at regular intervalls.
My dear, simply shouting on loudspeakers do not convert lie to a fact. Truth and lie both remain well established for those who want to look at them impartially and in an unbiased way.
@pashtunyar:
you seem to be propagandist coz you are distorting the facts.
I challenge you to name one Muslim country in this world who has taken care of its minorities in a better way than India.
Since 1951 minorities in pakistan have been reduced from 20% to 2%.Your metaphor of purges/rioting/conversions applies to Pakistan.(Never forget East Pakistan genocide)
Since 1951 minorities in India have increased from 11% to 15%. It shows India has taken care of its minorities well.
As far as Gujarat riots are concerned, if we leave aside the vote-bank politics of India, the facts is that 59 hindus were burnt alive in a rail boggy in a planned manner. Consequently riots erupted wherein about 250 Hindus and about 750 muslims were killed. Whatever happened is regretable. But the matter has been blown out of proportion due to vote-bank politics.
Whenever there is a debate about a possibility of – A secular Pakistan?, the debate turns Pakistan Vs India or Muslim vs Hindu. Leave. Come your point of "The social-economical backwardness of muslims in india is well known". Why in India only, what about backwardness of Pakistani muslims? People like you don't want to look at the real reasons in both countries for which muslims are themselves responsible. Muslims send their wards for education to such institutions where only religious education is imparted which further makes muslim younsters un-employable. Why don't you teach Science and mathematics and other modern subjects? Why only religious indoctrination?
Rana Bhagwandas,who is a hindu ,had served as acting cheif justice of pakistan.
While one can say that on looking from the columnist’s point of view, his views are very paletable and can be considered as one view of the history amongst many regarding Pakstan movement. The only thing is very objectionable is his assertion that Hinduism is mere mythology not religion.
Also, while hindus are very much diverse, it would be wrong to think that Indian Muslims are uniform.For example,Malayalam and Arab speaking Malabar Muslims of Kerala and Pakhtun Muslim of KPK or Urdu speaking UP Muslim and Tamil speaking Muslims of Coastal Tamil Nadu or Marathi speaking Muslim of Marathwada of Maharashtra and Sindhi speaking Sufi Pir influenced Muslims of Sindh or Kashmiri Muslim and a Bengali Muslim
The above mentioned groups and also various other enthnic, regional communities of Muslims in Subcontinent are as diverse in their daily day to day lifestyle, culture, etc. as Hindus are amongst them
Was Jinnah a Prophet? Jinnah is gone, move on. Jinnah was founder of Pakistan but not its Prophet.
Pakistan needs strong culture of both religious and Worldly education and respect. Don’t aim to become another Afghanistan or Turkey. Aim for a country where intellect and Islam are in harmony. No point of a safe haven for hippies or zealots.
@ali Dada:
Islam can never be in harmony with ‘intellect’.(Scrutiny is the essential trait of ‘intellect’ which is not allowed in Islam)
It can not be in harmony with democracy.
It can not have liberal ideas.
It does allow muslims to peacefully co-exist with others because ‘Jihad’ is an essential duty of a muslim.
@ali Dada:
It does NOT allow muslims to peacefully co-exist with others because ‘Jihad’ is an essential duty of a muslim
S.Lal is a delusional hindu facist working at a call centre inhyderabad and somehow manages to study islam and comes to the conclusion that islam is not compatible with democracy! Roger you are making a fool of yourself!
@pashtunyar:
I do not mind your angry words.
But my dear, islam is not compatible with democracy is being repeatedly said by Pakistani opinion writers in Pakistani newspapers.
Moreover, if ever you have opened the websites of the muslim propagators, they clealy say that a muslim can not be a liberal and a liberal can not be a muslim.
— To be liberal and tolerant towards others opinion is the basic requirement of a democracy. There is no space for dissent in islam. Look at Shias and sunnis, ahmadiysa and other peripherial muslim communities. Scrunity of religious beliefs is also not allowed that is why I said Islam can not be in harmony with 'intellect'. What democracy is without 'intellect'. You may consider me any thing but that won't make you wiser.
It amazes me that Pakistanis are still struggling for the last 64 years as to what should their nation be; secular, Islamic, theocratic. They must understand that nations are not built on religion but on culture, ethnicity, etc. Now that you are free, move on and think of your country rather than just the region and stop being India centric.
Hinduism is not a mythology.It is a polytheist and tolerant unlike proselytizing monotheistic religions.It has never been spread by violence or conquest.It is a deeply philosophical religion which has made great contributions to mankind and many of them are relevant even today. It is interesting to note that in the west there is a movement to bring back the Greek Gods which is not mythology!
According to the author Jinnaha's version of Pakistan is Talibanisation. He purposefully avoids Jinnaha's way of western life ( including alcohol )
Constitutional words only can not form a State.
Constitutionally Pakistan is an ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’. If it really so, then, what for are the Jihadis fighting for ? They want Islamic republic of their wishes, would it be in accordance with Jinnah’s idea or something of 7th century caliphate? Picture is completely blurred. Can any body clarify?
Hinduism is not a religion alone, it is a way of life. It has got procedural and philosophical sides to it. Ignoring it as a mythology alone is ignorance. Mythology and story telling are part of any culture to imbibe good values, role models and culture. Pakistan and muslims may not understand this if they are close minded and brought up in a strictly non tolerant, hate propagating environment
.
I don't know why people are trying to correct this author …
As it is, he is so worried and worked out from the moment he heard 'Jinnah speech'! Please treat him with some kindness …
.
There are many historians having opinion that Jinnah was a secular leader and many who believe that Jinnah was not secular.
As far as I think Pakistan was proposed because muslims were deprived of their basic rights.Muslims knew that they were in minority if compared with hindus.They will not get their due rights because of being minority under democratic system.
Therefore they strongly demanded Pakistan and muslims were instigated by the name of Islam. Only politics was played on the name of Islam to get their rights.
I will conclude my comment by quoting:
Ameer e sheher ghareeb ko loot leta hai
Kabhy watan k naam pe kabhy mazhab k naam pe….
This was the scenario of Pakistan too.
Islamic countries have never succeed because these countries are made for Islam not for muslims.
Problem with pakistan is that it is still run by army though it looks like they have a govt but its fake. Your army has occupied Balochistan, kashmir, Sindh without the will of their people thats why you are paying for it.
The name of Pakistan should be changed from ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN to SUNNI REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Comments are closed.