A lot of threads in Pakistan affairs tend to degenerate into different people trying to cite that Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be like how they want Pakistan to be. For example:
“Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan, because in this speech he said…”
or
“Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan, because he said in this speech that…”
I challenge: why does it matter what Jinnah wanted? Why not argue over what Pakistanis want instead?
Ataturk wanted a Turkey that rejected religion, but today the Turks no longer adhere to Ataturk’s vision.
Chiang Kai-Shek founded the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a dictatorship ruled with the iron fist, but the Taiwanese today reject his vision.
Canada and Australia were founded to be a loyal nations within the British Empire, but in time their people rejected that vision and made a new one as independent states.
Why should Pakistan be forever beholden to Jinnah’s vision, whatever that may be? Why not pursue our own vision?
It's very undemocratic to blindly follow just one guy.
Qaid e Azam is a hero to me but so are the many thousands who trod the path before him and after him.
Allama Iqbal was no less a contributor and i doubt Jinnah Sahib would ever have succeeded in his dream had he not had the support of a considerable number of people.
If the majority want an Islamic state so be it.
If the majority want a secular state then so be it.
I am tied more to my faith than my country but since Pakistan is the worlds first Islamic Republic i will not let it go without a fight and nor would any loyal Pakistani.
Yeah i also dont like how Jinnah is seen as the only figure... sure Jinnah sahib was among the most important but he would have been nothing without the help of many others and sadly amny of those seem lost to history.
Well, we cite Jinnah because he remains the least disputed leader we ever had. His 'khotay sikkay' have been running the show ever after.
As far as his vision is concerned, we abandoned that as soon as Pakistan was created. He did not consider India as an 'enemy' country (he would have sold his assets in Bombay and elsewhere in India if it were so). We and our religious fanatics ignored Jinnah and Indians and their extremists ignored Gandhi when we went out on a killing spree. This idea still gives legitimacy for the two countries to have huge armies and indulge in massive defense expenditure. It has lead to fruitless wars and interference in civil matters by Pakistani army. In this day and age, where economic superiority matters more than military superiority (Japan is a case in point), we might need to revisit Jinnah.
Having said that, his other ideas are not irrelevant now. We have never 'tested' them. Turks did 'test' Ata-Turks vision as long as it was beneficial to them.
Islamic or secular Pakistan was least of his worries. His biggest ideas for Pakistan were:
Good governance (very clear from his one year of conduct of official matters)
Education
Rule of law
Frankly, 1 cannot be achieved without having done well in 2 and 3.
I personally know of many non-resident Pakistanis who want to do good for the country but are afraid that if anything goes wrong, there would be no fair 'justice' available. We do need to implement education reforms on an emergency basis. Our agriculture is barely enough now to cater for the growing population. We need to move into technology and service sectors where we need skilled, educated people. We might even achieve a balance between religiosity and secularism in the affairs of the state if we have a fair system with decent mass of educated people running the show.