Pakistan vs Pakistan – by Shiraz Paracha
LUBP Exclusive
Pakistan is a country of contradictions and conflicting identities. It is a country that is at war with itself. A vast majority of Pakistanis are confused and most of them have no clear sense of their place in the world. The military in Pakistan has been in the driving seat since the creation of Pakistan. It is the military, which sets the direction for Pakistan. The military creates national heroes and invents villains. The military makes and remakes history in Pakistan, and often it rewrites history based on the imagination of its commanders.
The fate of Pakistan depends on the ‘wisdom’ of few generals who sit round a table and decide how the country should be governed, what its ideology should be, how it should be identified in the world, and what its internal and external policies should be. This is the military’s Pakistan and the military’s vision of Pakistan.
As opposed to the military’s vision of Pakistan, there are other visions and identities of Pakistan in the country. To some it is a secular state, others see it as an Islamic state while several political and ethic groups do not want to be part of Pakistan.
The military is the main player and decision maker in Pakistan. Others are either its junior partners or weak adversaries. Civil bureaucracy, big landowners, businessmen and traders as well as religious parties and a powerful section of the Pakistani media are the military’s constituency. They all have been generals’ bedfellows.
The Poor in Pakistan are dis-empowered. They are divided and the most of them have a confused sense of national identity. Since 1977, the military and its junior partners pitched Pakistanis against each other by using religion and ethnicity.
The military has a deep mistrust of civilians, particularly politicians. The military believes it is the only institution that can keep the country united. The military has been using Islam and Urdu language to glue Pakistan together.
Pakistan has a great potential to survive as a state. Historical and cultural bonds among the people of Pakistan are strong. The people of Pakistan have been living together long before the creation of Pakistan. They have similar religious beliefs and practice identical traditions. Pakistanis understand and communicate in common languages. Their food tastes and dress codes are similar. The shared historical experiences and common culture unite Pakistanis.
Geography and dependence on common natural resources are other binding factors. All the four provinces and the Northern Areas of Pakistan economically rely on each other. Without water from the Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa, the Punjab can not produce grains and other agricultural products that feed the whole country. The Baluchistan provides energy in form of gas, and it has untapped natural resources. The Baluchistan also offers some strategic depth that Pakistan needs. The port city of Karachi, the country’s main business hub, is the backbone of Pakistan’s economy.
Pakistanis are extremely smart and talented people. They are warm and loving. The Pakistanis are among one of the best skilled and unskilled workers in the world. Pakistan’s human resources are one of its strengths. It is a country that has obtained nuclear and missile technologies without having a sound scientific and technological base.
Pakistan, however, is a troubled state despite possessing the ability to be a strong and stable country. For the last few years, Pakistan has been also at odds with the rest of the world. The country has been a target of vicious propaganda that has destroyed Pakistan’s international image and the public opinion around the world has turned against Pakistan. The ruling elites of Pakistan can not counter the negative propaganda because they are intellectually dishonest. And actually they are the ones, particularly the military and the mullahs, who are responsible for the ideological illusions. Perhaps the military and its partners in civil bureaucracy and in religious circles are aware of the shallowness and superficiality of the political and ideological discourse that has been officially adopted in Pakistan.
Indeed, the ideological fathers of Pakistan and the inventors of Pakistan’s false identity feel insecure. They lack confidence. They hide behind a victim mentality and to overcome their fears they have turned Pakistan into a security state that perpetually faces threats of extinction.
Generally the military has been running Pakistan with a commando mentality where achieving a target is important. It does not matter how. In such a line of thinking, the rule of law is not a priority. From the military’s point of view Pakistan faces security threats from all sides, therefore, the country is at war and this is the war of survival. With this mindset the military acts and behaves like a paranoid mother. It does not trust anyone, and it is not ready to allow Pakistan to grow independently.
Probably that is why, to the military, the Constitution is a piece of paper, and in the eyes of generals politicians are greedy and incompetent fools. From the military’s perspective breaking a law is legitimate and violation of privacy and human rights is acceptable because defending Pakistan is a much bigger goal than building a healthy civil society.
Human life does not have much value in Pakistan because in the military’s view those who die in ‘protecting’ Pakistan—the fortress of Islam are ‘shaheeds’. The Taliban, now, justify their acts by the same logic.
Since military does not respect the rule of law, human rights or the civil society, some of its officers have been violating the law without a shred of shame or regret. Examples of General Zia-ul-Haq, General Aslam Bag, General Hamid Gul, General Asad Durrani and General Pervez Musharraf show us that some of the most senior generals of the Pakistan Army were irresponsible and reckless. Junior officers such a Brigadier (retd) Imtiaz or Major Amer followed their seniors in playing foul.
In order to provide Pakistan with a hero and an icon, the military minds of Pakistan invented a new image of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, after Jinnah had died. In his life Jinnah followed Victorian values but after death he was Islamized and was portrayed as an icon of the Islamic ideology of Pakistan.
Jinnah had his own contradictions. He had a love and hate relationship with the West.
Towards the end of the 19th century he went to England at a time when Britain was going through significant social and political changes. Centuries-old British traditions and beliefs had been replaced by liberal political ideas. Jinnah was inspired and attracted by those changes. He was mesmerized by the British system. While in Britain, Jinnah adopted English manners, he drank alcohol, ate pork and wore English dresses. He liked and copied the English culture but at the end of the day he was a colored man.
The 19th century Britain was deeply racist and class differences were conspicuous in the British society. The English would never accept an Indian as an equal. They would not offer him true respect. Jinnah and other Indians in Britain were from an uncivilized culture and were perhaps viewed as inferior human beings. Indians could copy English manners but the master race was too proud of its history and culture, and with its place in the world.
Jinnah learned the lesson. His ego and his intellectual pride were hurt in England. Upon his return to India, Jinnah joined the All Indian Congress Party and campaigned for the Indian independence. But in his heart Jinnah was not comfortable. He was not at peace with his Indian identity and, perhaps, he never felt at home in India.
Unlike Jinnah, Gandhi was a part of the Indian soul. He understood his country, its people and their culture. Gandhi attracted the Indian masses because of his charismatic leadership and his understanding of the public psychology. Gandhi dressed like them, he spoke peoples’ language, and he would cross boundaries of race and religion to appear as a true Indian.
On the other hand, Jinnah had a different personality. He was reserved and closed. He was serious and composed. He was honest and sincere but at the same time he was an intellectual with an aristocratic touch. Jinnah was impressed with the late 19th century liberal British political thoughts and he liked Victorian manners. He was a true gentleman but of a different skin color. Jinnah was a misfit in India but he was a misfit in Britain, too.
May be it was Jinnah’s deep identity vacuum and inner crisis of his place in the world that when he joined the All India Muslim League, he turned his dilemma of identity into his greatest strength. He offered a new solution and his solution was the search for a new identity, a separate identity, for himself and his fellow Indian Muslims.
Eventually, he found his identity in form of Pakistan. But once he achieved his goal he saw a larger problem. What kind of country Pakistan would be?
In his addresses just before the creation of Pakistan and after the independence, Jinnah tried to explain what his new country was about. His love for the liberal Western political thought led him to say that Pakistan would be a modern state, which would treat all its citizens equally regardless of their faith, race or creed. And yet the same Jinnah, in his other speeches, pronounced Pakistan a place to experiment Islamic rules and values.
Jinnah died without resolving the identity paradox. He lived with a dichotomy and he died with a dichotomy but Pakistan still faces consequences of Jinnah’s paradoxes.
The military rulers of Pakistan have re-invented Jinnah that fits the military’s vision of Pakistan. Under this vision, some truths can not be brought to the light and troubling questions are avoided. The result of such a discourse is that everybody, from ordinary people of Pakistan to the media and politicians, live dual lives and follow double standards. For example, corruption is common among government servants and other segments of the Pakistani society but the most corrupt pretend to be most patriotic Pakistanis and true Muslims. Many drink alcohol but also do not miss Friday prayers. The majority of Pakistanis follow Arabic rituals without understanding the language and the Arabic culture. They are sensitive about their Pakistani identity and yet they adopt and follow foreign cultures and identities.
Pakistanis leave Pakistan and even take citizenships of other countries but then they create ‘little Pakistans’ abroad. In Britain, Pakistanis are the only community who are more engaged in Pakistani politics than the British. Pakistani political and religious parties have their branches and offices abroad. Pakistanis have left the country and have adopted foreign nationalities and yet they are part of the peculiarities and hypocrisies of the Pakistani society.
The above behavior is a sign that we Pakistanis have a problem related to identity. Many of us have an inflated superiority complex and at the same time we are also victims of a misplaced fear about our identity. As a society and as people Pakistanis are not calm and relaxed. There is no real sense of belonging and not a single purpose over which all Pakistanis can agree. This makes Pakistan at war with itself and with other cultures.
Indeed, Pakistan needs fundamental changes in direction and in its political and ideological discourse. Such a change will not be easy. It requires a very big vision and broadminded approach. Pakistan is sucked by violence and intolerance. For a meaningful change, the military must give up its obsession with building and controlling the Pakistani society under an identity that is based on fear, hatred and false pride. Secondly, the military and the civil society should stand up to religious pressure groups and must not bow to their blackmailing. The change in Pakistan should start from the cleaning of the education system and this alone is a huge task.
The current Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, has brought some positive changes with regards to the military’s involvement in politics and under his leadership the military seems to have taken a back seat but it is not enough. The military should not be completely excluded from Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs but it should sincerely let the civilian leadership to steer Pakistan out of its current state. The military can have advisory role. Pakistan needs peace not an agenda of an expansionist super power.
جناب اس میں کچھ تضاد اور شامل کرلیں
بھٹو صاحب کی “نشنلازیشن” اور بے نظیر صاحبہ کی “پراویٹائزیشن” پالیسی
بھٹو صاحب کی “اسلامی سوشلسم”، بے نظیر صاحبہ کی “سیکولر کیپیٹلزازم” اور عزت ماب آصف علی زرداری کی “کھاو پیو عیش کرو جمہوریت” اور شہزادے بلاول کی _______۔
ہا ہا ہا ہا ہا ہا ہا ہا ہا ہا
I think this article is to short
Another missing factor is the absence of idea of being a Pakistani in our minds. We belong to tribes, our loyalty, pride and achievments meant for our tribe. Essentially we are a tribal society. The frictions in the society is that their is a competition among different tribes to prove that how they are not part of natives. Some claim to be Arab, some claim to belong to be a Central Asian race and others define theirself to have Iranian ancestary. This gives reasons to them to use terms ‘us vs. them’ and nobody accepts it is all ‘us’, a Pakistani. But not possible, as long as we are adamant to be of foreign race, then we are different people, crowded together by compulsions. Its a shame to accept in our society that our ancstors were Hindus. No we feel pride in being the offspring of Iranians and Arabs. What to talk about others, I myself have been raised with this notion that we belong to a an Arab tribe claiming the ancestry of Hazrat Abbas ( Imam Hussain’s step brother). What that suggests? I am an Arab, so why I am living in Pakistan? Until the day we don’t accept that we are here for hundred’s of years and we are as natives as Hindus claim to be. This will give us the spur to identify ourselve with the land where we live. Until and unless, pidram sultan bood, phenomenon does’nt evaporate from our minds, we cannot work hard. Go to any government office, clerical and superior staff, all of them have a prefix, like Malik, Chudhry, Sardar or suffixes like Khan, Awan etc etc. This entails that a clerk who is sitting on his office chair and his prefix or suffix is one of the aboves, essentially belongs to ruling elite of the past, and now with the changing times and the erosion in his family status has caused him to sit on the clerical chair, otherwise he blongs to a noble background. The probelm with this approach is that guy will not work! At least he can not ‘serve’ (you know nobles rule not serve), as he is supposed to be. We need clear headed people and clear intentions. We need to realize the ‘great-past’ guy that things have changed, better change your thinking process.
I am not sure, many of you got what I said above. This is actually part of my observations of the Pakistani society at all levels. I may be wrong in my assertions, if so, please correct me.
cheers 🙂
Of course why not Dissent is the beauty of Democracy. Now Read about Head Pope “Paleed Mawdudi Founder of Paleed Jamat-e-Islami and Brother of Rafizi Khomeini”
Mawdudi, Jinnah and Pakistan??? [Part 1]
The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure).
In none of the writings of the Jama’at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:
“Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all. [Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25]
Mian Tufail [Former Ameer of JI] was General Zia’s Maternal Father in Law.
Mawdudi, Jinnah and Pakistan??? [Part 2]
Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: “Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path.” [Reference: The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37]
Mawdudi, Jinnah and Pakistan??? [Part 3]
Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi’s writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: “Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work.” [Reference:
Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman] (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23
Mawdudi, Jinnah and Pakistan??? [Part 4]
He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941). However, Maulana Maududi’s stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed at that critical moment. [Reference: Ulema in Politics by Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi , p-368]
Mawdudi, Jinnah and Pakistan??? [Part 5]
He accused Jinnah of not knowing the rudiments of Islam and condemned him for misguiding the Indian Muslims. Nationalism was incompatible with Islam [Reference: The Process of Islamic Revolution. by Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi]
If Pakistan was going to be a state where Western Democracy prevailed, it “will be as filthy (NA-PAKISTAN) as the other part” of the subcontinent. [Reference: Nationalism and India Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi]
Islam forbade the practice of imitation, and the adaptation of Western nationalism was nothing but imitation. “Muslim nationalist” is as contradictory a term as ‘chaste prostitute’ [Reference: Nationalism and India Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi]
He called the Muslim League leaders ‘morally dead’; they had no right to call their movement ‘Islamic’ [Musalman aur Maujuda Siyasi Kashmakash Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi Vol. III]
Objectives Resolution and Secularism – by Wajahat Masood March 7th, 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/6879
The Munir Commission Report (Lahore, 1954) states:
“Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has, and that definition differs from all others, we all leave Islam’s fold. If we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to everyone else’s definition.” The report elaborated on the point by explaining that the Deobandis would label the Barelvis as kafirs if they are empowered and vice versa, and the same would happen among the other sects. The point of the report was that if left to such religious ‘scholars’, the country would become an open battlefield. Therefore, it was suggested that Pakistan remain a democratic, secular state and steer clear of the theological path.
Unfortunately, this suggestion was not heeded and, consequently, the exact opposite happened. Pakistan became hostage to the mullahs and is now paying a heavy price. Our politicians played into the hands of these fanatics for expedient political reasons and overlooked the diminishing returns from such an unwise overture.
The journey of politicising Islam began with the Objectives Resolution. Jinnah envisioned a secular Pakistan, but Liaquat Ali Khan made the mistake of adopting the Objectives Resolution in 1949 that stated, “Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.” This stipulation gave the mullahs the chance they were looking for, a chance to flash their religious card and put fear in the heart of the ignorant masses. After moving the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Liaquat Ali Khan said, “As I have just said, the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.” Although he believed in the power of the people and aimed for a secular, democratic rule, yet by bringing the name of religion into the Objectives Resolution, he gave an edge to the
mullahs who later claimed it as their licence to impose the Shariah. And so began the rise of the fanatics.
Ulema did not wait long to demand their share of power in running the new state. Soon after independence, Jamat-i-Islami made the achievement of an Islamic constitution its central goal. Maulana Maududi, after the creation of Pakistan, revised the conception of his mission and that of the rationale of the Pakistan movement, arguing that its sole object had been the establishment of an Islamic state and that his party alone possessed the understanding and commitment needed to bring that about. Jamat-i-Islami soon evolved into a political party, demanding the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan.
It declared that Pakistan was a Muslim state and not an Islamic state since a Muslim State is any state which is ruled by Muslims while an Islamic State is one which opts to conduct its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam and accepts the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His Law, and which devotes its resources to achieve this end. According to this definition, Pakistan was a Muslim state ruled by secular minded Muslims. Hence the Jamat-i-Islami and other religious leaders channeled their efforts to make Pakistan an “Islamic State.”
Maulana Maududi argued that from the beginning of the struggle for Pakistan, Moslems had an understanding that the center of their aspirations, Pakistan, would be an Islamic state, in which Islamic law would be enforced and Islamic culture would be revived. Muslim League leaders, in their speeches, were giving this impression. Above all, Quaid-i-Azam himself assured the Muslims that the constitution of Pakistan would be based on the Quran.
This contrasts to his views about the Muslim League leaders before independence: Not a single leader of the Muslim League, from Quad-i-Azam, downwards, has Islamic mentality and Islamic thinking or they see the things from Islamic point of view. To declare such people legible for Muslim leadership, because they are expert in western politics or western organization system and have concern for the nation, is definitely ignorance from Islam and amounts to an un-Islamic mentality. On another occasion, Maulana Maududi said it was not clear either from any resolution of the Muslim League or from the speeches of any responsible League leaders, that the ultimate aim of Pakistan is the establishment of an Islamic government…..Those people are wrong who think that if the Muslim majority regions are emancipated from the Hindu domination and a democratic system is established, it would be a government of God. As a matter of fact, in this way, whatever would be achieved, it would be only a non-believers government of the Muslims or may be more deplorable than that.
When the question of constitution-making came to the forefront, the Ulema, inside and outside the Constitutional Assembly and outside demanded that the Islamic Shariah shall form the only source for all legislature in Pakistan.
In February 1948, Maulana Maududi, while addressing the Law College, Lahore, demanded that the Constitutional Assembly should unequivocally declare:
1. That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign’s Will.
2. That the Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.
3. That all existing or future legislation which may contravene, whether in letter or in spirit, the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of the constitution; and
4. That the powers of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of the Islamic Shariah alone. On January 13, 1948, Jamiat-al-Ulema-i-Islam, led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, passed a resolution in Karachi demanding that the government appoint a leading Alim to the office of Shaikh al Islam, with appropriate ministerial and executive powers over the qadis throughout the country. The Jamiat submitted a complete table of a ministry of religious affairs with names suggested for each post. It was proposed that this ministry be immune to ordinary changes of government. It is well known that Quaid-i-Azam was the head of state at this time and that no action was taken on Ulema’s demand. On February 9, 1948, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, addressing the Ulema-i-Islam conference in Dacca, demanded that the Constituent Assembly “should set up a committee consisting of eminent ulema and thinkers… to prepare a draft … and present it to the Assembly.
It was in this background that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, on March 7, 1949, moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, according to which the future constitution of Pakistan was to be based on ” the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam.”
While moving the Resolution, he said: “Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today.”
The resolution was debated for five days. The leading members of the government and a large number of non-Muslim members, especially from East Bengal, took a prominent part. Non-Muslim members expressed grave apprehensions about their position and role in the new policy.
Hindu members of the Constitutional Assembly argued that the Objectives Resolution differed with Jinnah’s view in all the basic points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said: “What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan – the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.” Birat Chandra Mandal declared that Jinnah had “unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state.” Bhupendra Kumar Datta went a step further: …were this resolution to come before this house within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape….”
The leading members of the government in their speeches not only reassured the non-Muslims that their position was quite safe and their rights were not being impaired but also gave clarifications with regard to the import of the Resolution. Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the Deputy Leader of the House, while defending the Resolution said: “It was remarked by some honorable members that the interpretation which the mover of this Resolution has given is satisfactory and quite good, but Mr. B.C. Mandal says: “Well tomorrow you may die, I may die, and the posterity may misinterpret it.” First of all, I may tell him and those who have got some wrong notions about the interpretation of this resolution that this resolution itself is not a constitution. It is a direction to the committee that will have to prepare the draft keeping in view these main features. The matter will again come to the House in a concrete form, and all of us will get an opportunity to discuss it.”
In his elucidation of the implications of the Objectives Resolution in terms of the distribution of power between God and the people, Omar Hayat Malik argued: “The principles of Islam and the laws of Islam as laid down in the Quran are binding on the State. The people or the state cannot change these principles or these laws…but there is a vast field besides these principles and laws in which people will have free play…it might be called by the name of ‘theo-cracy’, that is democracy limited by word of God, but as the word ‘theo’ is not in vogue so we call it by the name of Islamic democracy.
Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi further elaborated the concept of Islamic democracy: Since Islam admits of no priest craft, and since the dictionary meaning of the term “secular” is non-monastic — that is, “anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests,” Islamic democracy, far from being theocracy, could in a sense be characterized as being “secular.” However, he believed that if the word “secular” means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then, I am afraid,…that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan.
During the heated debate, Liaquat Ali Khan stressed:
the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission (and that) the other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind. He was hopeful that even if the body of the constitution had to be mounted in the chassis of Islam, the vehicle would go in the direction he had already chosen. Thus he seemed quite sure that Islam was on the side of democracy. “As a matter of fact it has been recognized by non-Muslims throughout the world that Islam is the only society where there is real democracy.” In this approach he was supported by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani: ” The Islamic state is the first political institution in the world which stood against imperialism, enunciated the principle of referendum and installed a Caliph (head of State) elected by the people in place of the king.”
The opposite conclusion, however, was reached by the authors of the Munir Report (1954) who said that the form of government in Pakistan cannot be described as democratic, if that clause of the Objectives Resolution reads as follows: ” Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.” Popular sovereignty, in the sense that the majority of the people has the right to shape the nation’s institutions and policy in accordance with their personal views without regard to any higher law, cannot exist in an Islamic state, they added.
The learned authors of the Munir Report felt that the Objectives Resolution was against the concept of a sovereign nation state. Corroboration of this viewpoint came from the Ulema themselves, (whom the Munir Committee interviewed) “including the Ahrar” and erstwhile Congressites with whom before the partition this conception of a modern national state as against an Islamic state was almost a part of their faith. The Ulema claimed that the Quaid-i-Azam’s conception of a modern national state….became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949.
Justice Mohammad Munir, who chaired the committee, says that “if during Quaid-i-Azam’s life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it.
In an obvious attempt to correct the erroneous notion that the Objectives Resolution envisaged a theocratic state in Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan repeatedly returned to the subject during his tour of the United States (May-June 1950). In a series of persuasive and eloquent speeches, he argued that “We have pledged that the State shall exercise its power and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. In this we have kept steadily before us the principles of democracy, freedom equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. There is no room here for theocracy, for Islam stands for freedom of conscience, condemns coercion, has no priesthood and abhors the caste system. It believes in equality of all men and in the right of each individual to enjoy the fruit of his or her efforts, enterprise, capacity and skill — provided these be honestly employed.”
The Objectives Resolution was approved on March 12, 1949. Its only Muslim critic was Mian Iftikhar-ud-din, leader of the Azad Pakistan Party, although he believed that “the Islamic conception of a state is, perhaps as progressive, as revolutionary, as democratic and as dynamic as that of any other state or ideology.”
According to Munir, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differ in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam’s views e.g:
1. The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.
2. There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.
3. The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.
4. The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.
It was natural that with the terms of the Resolution, the Ulema should acquire considerable influence in the state. On the strength of the Objectives Resolution they made the Ahmadis as their first target and demanded them to be declared a minority.
After the adoption of Objectives Resolution, Liaquat Ali Khan moved a motion for the appointment of a Basic Principles Committee consisting of 24 members, including himself and two non-Muslim members, to report the house on the main principles on which the constitution of Pakistan is to be framed. A Board of Islamic Teaching was set up to advise the Committee on the Islamic aspects of the constitution.
In the course of constitutional debates, a number of very crucial issues were raised that caused much controversy, both inside and outside the Constituent Assembly over specific questions such as the following:
1) The nature of the Islamic state: the manner in which the basic principles of Islam concerning state, economy, and society were to be incorporated into the constitution.
2) The nature of federalism: questions of provincial autonomy vis-a-vis federal authority with emphasis on the problems of representation on the basis of population and the equality of the federating units; the structure of the federal legislature — unicameral or bicameral.
3) The form of government: whether it was to be modeled on the British or the U.S. pattern — parliamentary or presidential.
4) The problem of the electorate: serious questions of joint (all confessional groups vote in one election) versus separate (each confessional group votes separately for its own candidates) electorate.
5) The question of languageboth national and regional. These very fundamental issues divided the political elites of Pakistan into warring factions that impeded the process of constitution-making.
Jinnah – Liaquat Relations. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/jinnah-liaquat-relations.html
Moral and Financial Dishonesty are not that dangerous as dangerous the Intellectual dishonesty is. The good thing in American System, which should be appreciated is that, they declassify their State’s Privileged documents {Please visit the US Declassified Documents on Pakistan in the links below} after certain years and these declassified files help a great deal to those who want to learn from history. Since the society of ours is consist upon bunch of Intellectual Dishonest what we do instead of telling the truth to the nation we change and tamper with the history and if that is not enough we altogether change the text books of Social Studies or Pakistan Studies with the change of every government. Examples are as under:
Late. Ms. Fatima Jinnah in her memoir ‘My Brother’, which she prepared with the help of Mr. G. Allana is still not fully published some excerpt of which as per the mood of our Establishment and the nation as well are very sensitive. However, the same are being quoted below:
“QUOTE”
“Towards the end of July, without prior notice, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister, arrived in Ziarat accompanied by Chaudary Mohammad Ali. He asked Dr. Ilahi Bux about his diagnosis of Quaid’s health. The doctor said that as he had been invited by me to attend to the Quaid, he could only say what he thought of his patient to me.
“But, as Prime Minister, I am anxious to know about it. The doctor politely replied. “Yes, Sir, but I can’t do it without the patient’s permission”.
As soon as I was sitting with the Quaid, that the Prime Minister and the Secretary General wanted to see him, I informed him. He smiled and said, “Fati, do you know why he has come?” I said I wouldn’t be able to guess the reason. He said, “He wants to know how serious my sickness is. How long I will last”. After a few minutes he said, Go down. Tell me. Tell me Prime Minister I will see him”.
“Its late, Jin. Let them see you tomorrow morning”.
“No, let him come now. Let him see for himself”.
The two were together for about half an hour, and as soon as Liaquat Ali Khan came down, I went upstairs to my brother. I found him absolutely tired, and he wore a sickly look. He asked me to give him some fruit juice, and then said, “Send Mr. Mohammad Ali”. The Secretary General of the Cabinet was with him for about fifteen minutes, and when he was once again alone, I went into his room. I asked him if he would have juice or coffee, but his mind was too preoccupied to answer me. By now it was dinnertime, and he said, “You better go down. Have dinner with them”.
“No”, I said emphatically, “I would rather be with you, and have dinner upstairs”.
“No, that is not correct. They are our guests here. Go. Eat with them”.
I found the Prime Minister on the dinner table in a jolly mood, cracking jokes and laughing, while I shivered with fright about his health, who was alone in his sick bed. Chaudary Mohammad Ali was silent, thinking. Before the dinner was over, I rushed upstairs. He smiled at me as I entered and said, “Fati, you must be brave”. I did my best to conceal tears that came surging into my eyes.
After a few days, Mr. Ghulam Mohammad, who was Finance Minister at that time, came to see the Quaid-e-Azam. As I sat alone with him over lunch, he said, “Miss Jinnah, I must tell you some thing Quaid-e-Azam’s Independence Day message has been played down, while the Prime Minister’s message was printed on the posters and pasted on buildings all over the cities. It was also thrown from aeroplanes over big cities”. I listened to this quietly: what was the use of bothering about such things? The only thing that mattered to me was my brother’s health, not his publicity.
“UN-QUOTE” [PAGE 438-439 from Shahabnama by Late. Qudratullah Shahab.]
Second opinion: Who killed Miss Fatima Jinnah? Khaled Ahmed’s Urdu Press Review Daily Times Friday, September 17, 2004
Many political leaders of Pakistan died unnatural deaths. But it is shocking that many natural deaths too are being converted today into unnatural death through hindsight. If this thing goes on it might put the entire official history of Pakistan out of joint
In Pakistan, there are far too many mysterious deaths among the elite. If you think Liaquat Ali Khan was the first leader murdered by an assassin in 1951, you are wrong. Many people think that the Quaid-e-Azam, the founder of the state, was murdered too, by none other than the administration of Liaquat Ali Khan! Then Bhutto was hanged by General Zia who was himself killed by someone who shot down his plane. There are many who think that ex-premier Suhrawardi was killed in Beirut. And General Ayub was killed by an American photographer who was hiding a lethal device in his camera!
According to “Nawa-e-Waqt” (22 July 2003) former attorney general of Pakistan and “honorary” secretary of the Quaid-e-Azam from 1941 to 1944, Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada, revealed outside a conference-room in Islamabad that Miss Fatima Jinnah had not died a natural death in 1967 but was murdered by a servant of hers. Mr Pirzada did not speak about the incident in the conference “for fear of spoiling the atmosphere” but added that more revelations would be made by him on August 14 about who hushed up the murder and then asked the Karachi police to bury the case. The revelation has not failed to shock the entire nation busy observing a year dedicated to the memory of Fatima Jinnah, the Quaid-e-Azam’s most revered sister. She led the opposition to General Ayub Khan’s military regime and figured as his most powerful electoral opponent in elections which were widely believed to have been rigged. Ms Jinnah returned late at night from a wedding. She locked up the house and threw the keys in her kitchen as was her habit and went to sleep. In the morning when Ms Jinnah could not be awakened, her neighbour Begum Hidayatullah was called, who got the door opened in the presence of commissioner Karachi and the inspector general of police, but found that Ms Jinnah had been murdered. Her bed was covered with blood and her neck was scarred. The police later declared that the death had been caused by cardiac arrest. Ms Jinnah’s lawyer nephew Akbar Pirbhai flew over from Bombay to investigate the real cause of her death but was confronted with an official smokescreen. Mr Pirzada thinks that she was killed by a servant of the house, but that the cover-up was later managed by the Ayub government.
Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada had appeared in a case that opened at the Sindh High Court in 1970 contesting Fatima Jinnah’s claim that the Quaid was a Shia. Miss Jinnah had entered an affidavit in 1948 at the High Court saying that she and Mr Jinnah were Shia. On 29 October 1970, one Hussain Ali Gangji Walji filed a suit at the High Court against Shirin Bai contesting her claim that Fatima Jinnah was a Shia. He sought to prove that Miss Fatima Jinnah was in fact a Sunni, as was Jinnah, and that therefore Shirin Bai was entitled to only half the inheritance under Sunni law, the other half going to the agnate relations, that is, to the offspring of Fatima Jinnah’s paternal uncle. Hussain Ali was the son of Gangji Walji who was in turn the son of Walji Poonja, the paternal uncle of Jinnah and Fatima Jinnah. The chief witness to appear for Hussain Ali Gangji Walji contesting Shirin Bai’s claim in 1970 was Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada. He had been honorary secretary to Jinnah from 1941 to 1944. He deposed that Jinnah was avowedly non-sectarian and had kept away from Shia politics. Had Miss Jinnah been alive she should would have been offended with him. He referred to documents which confirmed the secular Muslim faith of the Quaid. It appears that Matloobul Hassan Syed and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada were for some time simultaneously secretaries to the Quaid, one ‘honorary’ and the other ‘private’. When Pirzada supported General Ayub Khan and declared his connection with Jinnah, Miss Fatima Jinnah issued a statement contradicting that he was ever his secretary. Pirzada submitted a press clipping at the Court which said that ‘Mr Pirzada, the husband of a Bohra lady, had become secretary to the Quaid’.
According to “Khabrain” (22 July 2003) Saira Hashmi’s book published some years ago had revealed that Fatima Jinnah went to attend the wedding of the daughter of Mir Laiq Ali on 8 July 1967 and returned from there after a short stay. She locked up the house and took her usual glass of milk. In the morning Lady Hidayatullah was called who got the house opened and discovered Miss Fatima Jinnah dead. One window was open which was unusual and the glass of milk was not there. Her cook had been fired three days earlier and a new cook had been hired. The new cook disappeared and was not to be found after the incident. After she was given two separate “namaz janaza” Miss Jinnah was not allowed to be buried near the Quaid by the Karachi administration which wanted her to be buried in Karachi’s Amir cemetery, but under public pressure commissioner Karachi allowed a piece of land 120 feet away from the Quaid’s mausoleum for her grave. That’s where she was finally laid to rest. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani who was Ayub Khan’s information minister said that he had heard rumours that Ayub Khan had got her killed but when he asked Ayub he said he would be mad to do a thing like that. Diplomat and a friend of the Jinnah family Qutbuddin Aziz told “Jang” (23 July 2003) that his mother had given “ghusl” to Miss Fatima Jinnah and had noticed no wounds or spots of blood. He said Ms Jinnah had died a natural death. Justice (Retd) Javed Iqbal told “Nawa-e-Waqt” that Mr Pirzada had kept quiet for 36 years and for some strange reason had now chosen to speak to distract attention. Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan told daily “Pakistan” that he knew that Miss Fatima Jinnah had been murdered but that the IG had covered it up. “Jang” (24 July 2003) quoted one Jawad Beg from Karachi saying his mother Mrs Raheel Sherwani was one of the ladies who gave the last “ghusl” to Miss Fatima Jinnah and had found no blood or scars on her body. Nawabzada Nasrullah remarked that ex-foreign secretary Mian Sheheryar Khan, whose late mother was a friend of the Jinnah family, would know the truth about Fatima Jinnah’s death.
Nawabzada Nasrullah definitely thinks that Miss Jinnah was killed by someone. He is also convinced that ex-prime minister Suhrawardi too was murdered. The mystery has developed because Miss Jinnah’s radio address after the death of the Quaid was switched off, meaning that all was not well between her and Liaquat Ali Khan. Then she had a tough confrontation with General Ayub whose son Gohar Ayub took out a violent procession against her in 1964 during elections when Karachi was expected to fall to her. It is psychologically damaging to the nation to learn all these details during a year dedicated to her memory. *
2nd example:
“Quote”
In 1945 Liaquat signed an agreement with Bhulabhai Desai of the Congress party, committing the Muslim League to a certain line of action on future constitutional progress of the country. He did this after telling Desai that Jinnah was a sick man and was dying and if the Congress desired a lasting and practicable solution of the Muslim problem it should deal with him (Liaquat) rather than with Jinnah. It was a secret and shady deal and Jinnah was neither consulted nor informed. When he read the news and the text of the Liaquat-Desai Pact in the press he was shocked, and considered it as an act of treachery on Liaquat’s part, and ordered his domestic staff not to let Liaquat enter his residence if he came to visit him.
Even as Prime Minister, Liaquat did not enjoy the trust of Jinnah. How could he with this background? Chaudari Muhammad Ali implied in his talks with me that the two men were not even on speaking term except in public and large company. M.A.H. Ispahani said that the Prime Minister did not take the files to the Governor General for personal discussion but sent them by the hand of his secretary. Thus there is sufficient evidence from authentic quarters to prove that Liaquat Ali Khan, in spite of being the first Prime Minister of the country, was far from being a national hero. His own record in office provides additional support to this contention. He failed to expedite the process of constitution making and died after more than four years in command without giving the country its basic law. He made a deliberate decision to refuse to visit the Soviet Union from which he had received an invitation. Instead, he chose to go to the United States and take Pakistan into the American Camp, thus initiating a slide, which led, by stages to friendship, junior partnership, dependence, obedience, beggary, and servitude.
He groomed certain bureaucrats for high political offices and preferred their advice to the counsel of his political colleagues. He neglected the task of organizing the Pakistan Muslim League and making it into a grass root party. He did nothing to meet the needs or allay the fears of the indigenous population of East Bengal. He posted arrogant, unsympathetic and self-willed Punjabi and Urdu-Speaking civil servants to the Eastern Wing, laying the first brick around the foundation stone of Bangladesh.
“Un-quote”
{The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. AZIZ}.
Following link is a courtesy of a member of LUBP
Mawdudi’s Excellent Quotes against Pakistan, Jinnah and Muhajirs.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs353.snc3/29265_403085361028_145207581028_4479158_6092819_n.jpg
It was USA who was supporting Zia who inserted Zakat Ordinance to fix Shias. It was USA who was supporting Zia when tampered with the Constitution to hound Ahmedis: Read it was published as a Headline and discussed during SC Proceedings:
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that it was a criminal negligence to bring changes in the documents like Objectives Resolution as former president General (retd) Zia ul Haq tampered with the Constitution in 1985 however, the sitting parliament had done a good job by undoing this tampering. At one point Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the Objectives Resolution in 1985 by a dictator, which was an act of criminal negligence, but the then parliament surprisingly didn’t take notice of it. He said the Constitution is a sacred document and no person can tamper with it. The chief justice said credit must go to the present parliament, which after 25 years took notice of the brazen act of removing the word relating to the minorities’ rights, and restored the word ‘freely’ in the Objectives Resolution, which had always been part of the Constitution. The chief justice further said that the court is protecting the fundamental rights of the minorities and the government after the Gojra incident has provided full protection to the minorities. “We are bound to protect their rights as a nation but there are some individual who create trouble.” CJ lauds parliament for undoing changes in Objectives Resolution Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Says minorities’ rights have to be protected; Hamid says parliament should have no role in judges’ appointment By Sohail Khan http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29367
ISLAMABAD: Heading a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry termed as criminal negligence the deletion of a word about the rights of minorities from the Objectives Resolution during the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1985. Ziaul Haq had omitted the word “freely” from the Objectives Resolution, which was made substantive part of the 1973 Constitution under the Revival of Constitutional Order No. 14. The clause of Objectives Resolution before deletion of the word ‘freely’ read, “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to ‘freely’ profess and practice their religions and develop their culture.” CJP raps change in Objectives Resolution * Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry says deletion of clause on rights of minorities was ‘criminal negligence’ * Appreciates incumbent parliament for taking notice of removal of clause by Gen Zia’s govt in 1985 By Masood Rehman Wednesday, June 09, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201069\story_9-6-2010_pg1_1
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday praised the parliament for undoing a wrong done by the legislature in 1985 (through a constitutional amendment) when it removed the word ‘freely’ from a clause of the Objectives Resolution that upheld the minorities’ right to practise their religion. The word “freely” was deleted from the Objectives Resolution when parliament passed the 8th Amendment after indemnifying all orders introduced through the President’s Order No 14 of 1985 and actions, including the July 1977 military takeover by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and extending discretion of dissolving the National Assembly, by invoking Article 58(2)b of the Constitution. After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Objectives Resolution now reads: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.” The CJ said: “Credit goes to the sitting parliament that they reinserted the word back to the Objectives Resolution.” He said that nobody realised the blunder right from 1985 till the 18th Amendment was passed, even though the Objectives Resolution was a preamble to the Constitution even at the time when RCO (Revival of Constitution Order) was promulgated. CJ lauds parliament for correcting historic wrong By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 09 Jun, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/ziaera-deletion-from-objectives-resolution-criticised-cj-lauds-parliament-for-correcting-historic-wrong-960
Secular Republic or Islamic Republic of Pakistan http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/secular-republic-or-islamic-republic-of.html
PEMRA says they have not issued any blocking order on Ahmadis appearing on TV, express tv says they have. Who is telling the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xLwG07SKNc
I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I am quite certain I’ll learn plenty of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!