Jinnah’s ‘unwanted’ heirs

And MML’s merry circus

Pre-partition, even after, Jinnah’s political speeches and rallies are teeming with statements that paved the way for Islamism in the country

Mr Jinnah has fallen to contradiction in the same breath as it would be hard to envision a state that is based on endorsement of some specific religion and at the same time treat others equally

 

Amid election campaigns fuelled with ‘avenging Nawaz Sharif’ and ‘PML-N is corrupt’, we seemed to have missed the irony of Pakistan’s political climate. Nostalgic, yet novel; two parties enter Punjab politics with political view of far-right; history based on violence against minorities; and rampant xenophobia: Tehreek Labaik Pakistan and Milli Muslim League.

Milli Muslim League bagged five percent votes in the NA-120 by-poll; interesting yet concerning. It looks like a very successful attempt at launching themselves in the political arena of the country; the Election Commission of Pakistan does not matter, apparently.

MML’s manifesto includes ‘Kashmir rights; minorities’ rights; homogenous faith-based state and, ironically, women empowerment’; it is not much different from what the All India Muslim League had aimed for pre-partition—though with different apparent motives. But still converging somewhere on historical grounds.

Pre-partition, even after, Jinnah’s political speeches and rallies are teeming with statements that paved the way for Islamism in the country; thus bringing ourselves to one the aforementioned heirs of Jinnah: Milli Muslim League—an offshoot of Jamaatud Dawa.

Launched in the first week of August, the party vowed to make Pakistan “a real Islamic and welfare” state. Or to be put in Jinnah’s terms state with “essentials principles of Islam”—1,300 years old, though.

Since partition, the politics in Pakistan has taken an apparent shift from faith-based to sect-based. MML’s “Ahl-e-Hadith school of thought” politics is based on making Pakistan a “real” Islamic state while the other, the pre-partition Muslim League Islam-based politics, focused on state with “essential” Islamic principles.

“The set of ideals and principles that Jinnah used to form his Muslim league, Milli Muslim League (MML) shall continue upon the same ideals,” says MML chief Saifullah Khalid on the party’s website. The MML president invokes ‘two-nation theory’ to challenge the ‘traditional politics’, he said.

Well, the theory goes like this: Hindu and Muslim communities are two separate nations which cannot coexist. But one major problem with the theory is that it undermines the social, ethnic and linguistic identities. It takes Muslims as one homogenous entity above all. Such crude generalisation led to creation of Pakistan and strengthening of the problems that we still face today. This is the very clause which MML invokes that the party wants Pakistan based on one single identity, Islam.

Ironically, Islamic identity was not shaped by the Muslims of the area which constitute Pakistan now, except some parts of Punjab. Muslim League was the sole forefront of ‘Muslim identity’. Baluchistan did not agree with Jinnah’s two-nation theory, NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) remained loyal to ‘anti-Muslim’ Congress while Sindh joined much later. These differences were crushed with force and indifference and they were made part of Pakistan eventually. The MML wants the same, basing politics on shunning linguistic, ethnic and provincial difference and “unite again as Muslims”.

Jinnah, as quoted in ZH Zaidi’s Jinnah Papers, said, “When we [Muslim League] say ‘this flag of Islam’, they think we are introducing religion into politics, a fact of which we are proud of, Islam gives us a complete code… In fact, it contains everything that matters to man from morning to night.” Well, the flag of Islam which Muslim league had once is in the hands of MML now and they too are proud of it. What Jinnah introduced has come of age politically as well—the proud Islamist parties.

Furthermore, Islam shaped the politics of India and Pakistan’s birth and Jinnah took full advantage of it by making the Muslim League a vanguard of Muslim identity and politics. If you are not a Muslim leaguer then you cannot represent Muslims, Jinnah’s answer to Congress for nominating Muslim members in its 1946 ministries.

Jinnah has tried to define Muslims by this feat, at least politically, but also starting a dangerous precedent for the Muslims who were to inherit his legacy—to be observed later and now, even though he ‘did not want it’.

Pakistan has been facing anomalies since its creation. The abrupt creation of the ‘moth-eaten’ country caught All India Muslim League and its leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah off guard so they remained perplexed what to do with it, as Jinnah stated in 1948, “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this [Pakistan’s] constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam”. And then enters Objective Resolution following his death, ‘purely’ based on Islamic principles. Nobody knows what Jinnah wanted but the prevalent thought in his political rhetoric is not so secular.

Jinnah’s August 11 speech, though important, cannot redeem his action of using Islam as a political tool. His speech mentions that Pakistan is made for all citizens irrespective of religion, colour and creed, but what about the years before the creation? When Islam was the sole force in gathering Muslims under the umbrella of faith-based nationalism through constant references to a state based on Islamic principles. Justifying his actions by comparing a handful of post-partition ‘secular’ statements with pre-partition statements that endorse Islamic state would be an absurd attempt.

Liberals quote Jinnah who says, “Everyone is free to go to their temples and mosque”; and his speech broadcast in the US in 1948: “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission”. Interestingly, the speech goes on to say, “I am sure that it [Pakistani state] will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam”. Mr Jinnah has fallen to contradiction in the same breath as it would be hard to envision a state that is based on endorsement of some specific religion and at the same time treat others equally. A state-based religion means the superiority of one religion over others.

Well, Jinnah died. His August 11 speech disappeared—later to be returned but ineffective since—much to the disappointment of Pakistani liberals and leftists: Communist Party of Pakistan too sided with Jinnah on the creation of Pakistan. Objective resolutions paved the way for all what Jinnah had been trying to undo—a popular claim in academia and other circles.

Many admire Jinnah, no doubt he had charisma, but Imran Khan also has charisma, so did OBL and Hitler. Charisma does not prove anything but it is just an appeal to emotion. Jinnah can be owned by Islamists in fact they have more right to do so than liberals as liberals have little to corroborate; on the other hand, your first meeting with the Jinnah of MML takes place in history textbooks in the early teens and on a number of occasions afterwards. If MML through its candidate is taking part in the elections with Jinnah and Iqbal’s pictures on their campaign posters, there is no need to get angry nor is this absurd in any way, as MML has not hijacked Jinnah. In fact, they feel closer to Jinnah’s Pakistan than other faction in the country. As you can’t just take a u-turn from previously-held politics and expect others to follow you.

The writer is a staff member and can be reached at [email protected]