Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan
By Sharif al Mujahid
JINNAH was not a mere political leader, but also a statesman. Indeed,
his statesmanship streak influenced and determined his political
leadership role increasingly as he negotiated the tortuous road to
Pakistan in the 1940s.
For the most part, a politician deals with matters of the moment. Since
his focus is rivetted to short-term goals, he is bound to be severely
constrained by a rather limited vision. In contrast, a statesman looks
at problems and developments on a long-term basis. This is not only in
terms of immediate goals only, but, more importantly, how they could be
fitted in, and could be integrated, with the long-term aspirations,
larger perspectives and more enduring goals.
Hence a statesman constantly and continuously tends to prognosticate and
keep in view the long-term consequences of day-to-day developments he is
confronted with. Above all, a statesman looks at events and problems
through the prism of a grand vision.
Jinnah developed the demand for Pakistan with a vision. It is not merely
that a Muslim homeland in the subcontinent had to be created, but also
how it should be structured, what orientation it should opt for, what
ultimate goals it should pursue. All this to make its establishment
meaningful and significant for the masses.
Political independence from both the British rule and Hindu domination
was, of course, the immediate goal, the short-hand metaphor, as it were.
But what was to make it meaningful was a process of quests that would
change the face of the Muslim homeland for a better tomorrow, a brave
new world.
Quests for ideological resurgence, cultural renaissance, economic
betterment and social welfare. And this is precisely how Jinnah spelled
out the rationale for the Pakistan demand in his epochal March 23, 1940,
address in Lahore. He said, “... we wish our people to develop to the
fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in
a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and
according to the genius of the people”.
Thus, his numerous pronouncements from 1940 to 1948 provide guidelines
in a full measure that, when taken together, portray his vision of
Pakistan.
First, in his August 11, 1947, address he called for an indivisible
Pakistani nationhood — a concept by which all the inhabitants, no matter
what their race, colour or religion, would be full-fledged citizens of
Pakistan, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal obligations.
Second, on February 21, 1948, he stressed the need for “the development
and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and
equality of manhood”. Earlier, in his June 18, 1945, message to the
Frontier Muslim Students Federation, he had talked of “the Muslim
ideology which”, he said, “has to be preserved, which has come to us as
precious gift and treasure and which, we hope, others will share”.
In his broadcast to the United States in February 1948, he was sure that
the Pakistan constitution would be of “a democratic type, embodying the
essential principles of Islam”. At the same time, he reaffirmed
unequivocally that “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state ...
to be ruled by priests with a divine mission”. Thus, he stood for a
democratic face of Islam — a pluralist face of Islam.
It is significant that this version of an Islamic democracy was in
accord with the view of Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the foremost
religious leader of the day.
The Maulana had strongly supported the Objectives Resolution of March
1949 which ruled out theocracy as the structural framework of Pakistan’s
constitution. He argued cogently that “an Islamic state does not mean
the government of the ordained priests. How could Islam”, he asked
pointedly, “countenance the false idea which the Quraan so emphatically
repudiated in Sura Tauba verse 37?”
The Quaid stood not only against theocracy, but also against
sectarianism. “Islam”, he said, “does not recognise any kind of
distinction of caste, and the Prophet [PBUH] was able to level down all
castes and create national unity among Arabs. Our bedrock and
sheetanchor is Islam. There is no question even of Shias and Sunnis. We
are one and we must move as one nation, and then alone we shall be able
to retain Pakistan.”
Unfortunately, though, sectarianism has raised its ugly head in Pakistan
during the last fifteen years, creating serious problems for Pakistan.
Curbing religious extremism and marginalising jihadi and terrorist
groups are, indeed, among the most critical challenges confronting
Pakistan today. The future face of Pakistan depends for the most part on
how we go about tackling these critical problems.
Jinnah had invoked Islam because, as he had repeatedly said, “Islam and
its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught equality,
justice and fair play to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to
fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity
and on the basis of fair play and justice for everyday?
Let us make it [the future constitution of Pakistan]. We shall make it
and we will show it to the world.”
At the political level, Jinnah stood for undiluted democracy,
constitutionalism, for autonomy of the three pillars of the state
(executive, legislative and judiciary) and for a free press, for civil
liberties and a civil society, rule of the law, accountability, and a
code of public morality. It is in the formulation of such a code that
Islamic ethical principles would come in handy, and that ideology would
play a pivotal role in Pakistan’s body politic, but, of course, with the
consent of the general populace.
He stood for moderation, gradualism, constitutionalism and consensual
politics all through his public life. He believed in building up a
consensus on an issue, step by step. He believed that controversies
should be resolved through debate and discussion in the assembly chamber
and not through violence in the streets, through sheer muscle power. He
believed in democracy and not mobocracy.
He believed on the lines of Disraeli who laid down the axiomatic rule
for the birth and maintenance of a stable and self-propelling democracy
when he said, “We must educate our masters, the people, otherwise we
would be at the mercy of a mob masquerading as democracy”. This is
tragically what has been missing in Pakistan since the early 1950s. More
often than not, most of our political leaders succumb to wild rhetoric,
weakening the democratic temper of the masses and strengthening the
trend towards mobocracy or dictatorship.
On the economic front, Jinnah stood for a welfare state. Among others,
this calls for structural changes in the economy, ensuring a balanced
and mixed economy with an equitable distribution of wealth. He stood for
full employment opportunities for one and all, for a contented labour,
for a fair deal to the farmer, and for human resource development at all
levels. Finally, his call for an Islamic economic system should not be
misinterpreted to equate with the riba question. It is essentially meant
to ensure economic equity and social justice to one and all, without any
discrimination whatsoever.
Jinnah stood for enforcing law and order, for the elimination of
nepotism, bribery, corruption and blackmarketing, for wiping out
distinction of race, religion, colour and language, for providing equal
rights and opportunities to one and all and for the economic betterment
of the masses. “Why would I turn my blood into water, run about and take
so much trouble? Not for the capitalists surely, but for you, the poor
people”, he told his audience at Calcutta on March 1, 1946.
He counselled the first Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. “Now,
if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we
should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people,
and especially of the masses and the poor”. He also stood for the
emancipation of women for conceding them their due rights, and for
taking them along with men side by side in all spheres of national life.
In short, he wanted Pakistan to be progressive, forward-looking, modern
and welfare-orientated but firmly anchored to the pristine principles of
Islam, since these principles are firmly rooted is the enduring traits
of equality, solidarity, freedom and emancipation of the marginalized
sections of society.
This, then, represents Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. And unless and until
we translate his guidelines into public policy and ground reality,
Pakistan would not become the sort of country that the Quaid had
envisioned.
The writer is a former director of the Quaid-i-Azam Academy.
From invasion of Darfur to invasion of Egypt
Dr Jassim Taqui
A human tragedy is about to take place in Darfur, due to the game of the
big. Sudan has fully cooperated with the international community. As a
result, the Abuja agreement was signed with the rebels. In an emergency
Arab summit conference, the Arab leaders agreed to help finance
expansion of the peace-keeping forces in Darfur. Khartoum went a step
further by accepting more troops from the African Union( AU). However,
something was happening behind the scene.
Suddenly, the UN Security Council met to adopt UNSC resolution 1706.
Accordingly, the UN Security Council decided that 20000 peace-keeping
troops would be sent to Darfur. Subsequently, the African Union (AU)
officially declared that it was pulling its troops out of the war-torn
westernmost Sudanese province of Darfur. The AU peace and Security
Council claimed that its mandate would end on 30 September in Darfur.
Ostensibly, the decision was taken since those who committed to finance
AU’s 7000 peace-keeping troops showed no interests in spending more
money to extend the mission of the troops .
As expected the President of Sudan acted quickly. He rejected the UNSC
resolution 1706 since it was taken without the consent of the Government
of Sudan. It shows that those who control the UN Security Council have
some ulterior motives. In a such a scenario, Sudan has to move in its
troops to Darfur, which is an integral part of Sudan, to ensure the
maintenance of peace and the rule of law in this war-torn region.
It was very unwise decision by the UN Security Council. Had it been keen
to maintain peace and security in Darfur, it should have agreed to
finance AU to maintain and expand peace-keeping mission. The authors of
the UNSC resolution 1706 also failed to read a very complex situation in
Darfur. Many members of the Arab Baggara and Rezeigat tribes support the
armed opposition groups, for example. On the other hand, two northern
Arab tribes, the Jaileyin—
President Al-Beshir’s tribe—and the Shaiqiya—of the highly influential
Second Vice-President Ali Othman Mohamed Taha—fully back the government.
Meanwhile, non-Arab ethnic groups of Darfur have mixed political
loyalties. They change their stance between government and armed groups.
The leader of the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), Minni Arko Minnawi,
tentatively agreed to sign the Darfur peace agreement brokered by the
African Union (AU) in the Nigerian capital Abuja in May.
Encouraged by foreign powers, the leader of a splinter SLA faction,
Abdul-Wahed Mohamed Ahmed Al-Nour, refused to sign the peace deal. A
third group, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), dismissed the
Abuja agreement without giving any reason.
These forces and mercenaries were opposed by Popular Defence Forces—an
Islamist militia and a force to be reckoned with . The militia added a
religious cover to the whole issue. As a result a very grim situation is
created in Darfur instead of a congenial atmosphere of peace ,
compromise and mutual accommodation. The escalation in fighting,
especially with the planned withdrawal of AU peace-keeping troops, has
aggravated the humanitarian situation. Natural factors have also
complicated matters. The rains this year have been plentiful with
convoys of relief supplies blocked by flooding in many parts of the
country.
The Sudanese Government has its suspicion about the high-profile role of
the aid agencies. They found both aid agencies and NGOs, involved in
politics and espionage activities rather than relief operations. It is
also suspicious of the intention of the Bush administration. There are
many voices in Sudan which suggest that the Bush administration is
exploiting the issue to occupy the oil-rich Darfur. Arabic daily Al-Watan
of Saudi Arabia accused the Bush administration of attempting to control
Sudan, topple the Government of al-Bashir and to advance from Darfur to
occupy Egypt. The paper quoted a document published by the French daily
Liberation showing an American long-term plan to occupy Egypt by the
year 2025.
The worst role played in deteriorating the issue of Darfur is that from
the UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan. The latter who is under
tremendous US pressure due to his involvement in the scandal of Iraq’s
programme oil-for-food, seems to be desperate to find a way out by
showing that he is more loyal than the king. Even as Annan has failed to
give any statement on the deterioration of human rights in occupied
Kashmir, occupied Palestine, occupied Iraq and occupied Afghanistan, he
came up with an abhorring statement saying that the Sudanese leadership
“may be held collectively and individually responsible for what happened
to the population of Darfur”.
One only wished that Annan should have the courage to give such a
statement against the Israelis following their indiscriminate killing of
innocent and unarmed Palestinian and Lebanese people in 34 days of the
most barbaric air campaign. The whole world has witnessed the atrocities
of the Zionist entity and how it crippled Lebanon and Palestine. The
Israelis killed and wounded of thousands of civilians and uprooted over
one millions from their homes. As a result of their aggression Lebanon
and Palestine suffered huge losses estimated at 7 billion dollars.
If Mr Kofi Annan is really worried about the human rights in Darfur, he
should act and make a compromise whereby a combined force from the
African Union and United Nations should be sent to maintain peace in
Darfur with the consent and coordination of the Government in Khartoum.
Email:pfi30@hotmail.com
|
