Re: “country” not “Religion” defines us.
Jinnah never used the word secular. He wanted a modern, democratic, Islamic state. What he meant by Islamic state was either opportunistic popularism, or an arcane ideology only he had knowledge of, if we are to presume it’s something other than what his contemporary Islamists, to some degree, implied.
When I was growing up, people were hell bent on thinking Jinnah wanted a theocracy…now, they think he was a kemalist. Will the real Jinnah please stand up? Because he was certainly neither…and he had a personal relationship with the so-called Attaturk, so it’s not like he didn’t know what secularism was or meant.
Jinnah’s silence on the subject after Pakistan was founded, save a speech here or there, seems to speak louder than anything else…the truth is, he didn’t really care…so long as he was Gov. General. The Muslim personal law remained intact, there was no banning of the selwar kameez, never bind the burker, and Urdu did not adopt a latin script. Nor were the young encouraged to adopt western dress and engage in ballroom dancing…this latter banter should be familiar to those who are acquainted with the forced westernization policy which was adopted throughout the middle east.
Jinnah would have nothing to do with that crap. He personally was a cultural Muslim, had no problem with Islamic law as part of the writ of the state (as per the Muslim family laws inherited from British India), did not loath his culture nor think it was in some way responsible for “backwardness”, and would not have a theocracy under his watch. It’s a very nuanced view which too many are desperate to “simplify”.