Jinnah - the secular man ?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Saw the film Jinnah lately which resulted in me discussing Jinnah and his career/personality with others.

To my surprise I came across amongst other things literature and discussions asserting him being mainly a political man with political ambitions, and that people like Mawududi accused him of having no interest for Quranic Teachings, and that he was inspired by western law and thought. And that Pakistan for Muslims was merely a slogan who could give Muslim league votes.

How do u ppl relate to this ?!

2

I am a muslim and I like to help muslims, yet I am not very religious. I dont have someone else doign something for the muslims while not being a practising muslim.

3

Jinnah was a barrister, educated in London, I believe. He was not anti-Muslim, was he? Being inspired by western law and thought is not necessarily bad. It doesn't mean you buy the whole package or implement everything. Muslims still go to the West for traing in many areas, law included. Why couldn't a westerner study the Eastern way of things, conversely?

4

Of course Jinnah was a staunch secularist, something which the mulla establishment in Pakistan have tried to whitewash since 1947. I believe Jammat-e-islami did not even like to put Jinnah's picture on their walls as they considered him a kaafir.

And whether he was a genuine muslim nationalist or merely a politically ambitious person who disliked the congress leadership and used Islam to gain a nation, is something only Jinnah can tell us.

But one thing is for sure and even if you do not agree with some of his decisions (like I do), he was a modern and secular person who realized the importance of Western values and was opposed to the literate mullah type people we have running around in Pakistan today.

5

History of the sub-continent is fascinating and if you really want to figure out what motivated Jinnah and how the whole notion of Pakistan came into being, you have to start from the early 1800s. The struggle against the British, the Muslims resentment, the Hindu’s cleverness, the bigoted clerics etc. They all took part. Then it was Gandhi that played a very important roll …

Jinnah indeed was a secularist but then I don’t know why a Muslim can’t be a secular person? And yes, Mawdudi has been quoted calling Pakistan - Paleedistan, not because of its people but because he despised Jinnah!

A good recent autobiography is The Sole Spokesman by Aysha Jalal. I don’t necessarily agree with all her opinions about Jinnah but she gives a pretty good picture.

6

:hula: JINNAH ------SYMBOL OF MUSLIM & HINDU UNITY :hula:

7

Jinnah was liberal and I do use the word loosely...he was one of the Greatest leaders in History.It was a moment of pure rejoice for Hindus to watch him die a slow death...and his own people put him away in that Godforsaken place in quetta for 'rest'..I have been there...in those days any news would take weeks to reach there...Pakistan and its true dream died with Quaid..we are the legacy of murderers of that dream..nothing more and nothing less..

8

Okay Pakistani Tiger :hehe: See what raw is capable of :smiley:

9

Sorry PT, but this is funny!! LOL.

10

Pappu, you ducked my question like always.

It was Jinnah, who wanted Muslims and Hindus to fight against Brits. Lucknow Pact was Jinnah’s acheivement.

Nehru was the one, who broke the Unity of Muslims and Hindus by presenting Nehru Report of 1928.

Have you heard about Nehru love affair with Lady Mountbatten? :stuck_out_tongue:

As the matter of your laughing goes, Boston-Karachi has already mentioned that :rotfl:

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *

Sorry PT, but this is funny!! LOL.
[/QUOTE]

Don't be sorry Man.

Chill out and enjoy my sensible joke ;)

12

Well said aries. PT, no need to use two accounts, it will make no difference. No sane Pakistani likes Musharraf anymore.

13

The movie wasnt that good and made by a dull guy, and was only 73 mins. long. After 53 years when some1 produced a movie , even in that they couldnt do a good job. In that movie he was portrayed as some kind of secularist. He never was. He was educated in Britian, and thats where the liberatarian tradition stems from. A man with who would preach respect for ones religion and culture. He was a liberal (not in the curretn corrupted sense of the word but in the classical sense).
Althhough he wasnt religious in practice, he definitely bore at heart the interst of the Muslim community. It is unfortunate that some Pre-Pakistan religious quarters misunderstood him and took him for a western puppet. It would've been fortunate if they realized that he, as an individual was much closer to their teachings than many of his own leaguers.

14
15

Well, with the way you support Mush (blindly that is), It wont be a surprise.

Another source of RAW tell me that Mushy’s son lives in Boston. He ususally takes **BOSTON-KARACHI ** :hehe: plane to go to Pakistan.

16

Boston-Karachi or Boston-Islamabad. Why would Musharraf’s son will go to Karachi since his dad is in Islamabad ? :confused:

17

PT, are you Mush's son? Because you sure sound like you are related to Mush, including your lack of reasoning ability.

18

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Maula Baksh: **
PT, are you Mush's son? Because you sure sound like you are related to Mush, including your lack of reasoning ability. **
[/QUOTE]

...and yes you do have ability.

Don't tell me that 70% uneducated Pakistanis are because of Army.

...and it has been proven, you ain't Pakistani. Therefore, you ain't know what I'm talking about.

Like other guppies you are ducking my words, relating me with Musharraf, duh!

19

The formation of the Muslim League in 1906 sprang from UP ashraf (elite Muslim) insecurities in the aftermath of Hindu domination of municipalities and local councils. The Muslim League, despite weak organisation, was able to demonstrate its strength in the 1946 provincial elections through the ** lethal marriage ** of ‘elite communalism’ and ‘popular communalism’, abruptly transforming Jinnah into the “sole spokesman” of the millat at the expense of the more accommodative Muslim politics of Punjab Unionist Party.

‘Imagined Communities’ in a Shaky Subcontinent](http://www.himalmag.com/september2001/review.html)

In the elections of 1946 the Muslim League had won 73 seats, Unionist Party 19, Congress 51, Akalis 21 and independents 11. Punjab was ruled by the Unionist Party in coalition with the Congress and the Akalis. Sir Khizr Hayat Tiwana was the Prime Minister of the state.

Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India by Ian Talbot

The Unionist party, having ruled Punjab for nearly three decades, marched towards regionalism. Representing the interests of landlords and peasant proprietors, it symbolised the importance of a cross-communal alliance of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim agriculturalists, in times when communal forces had plagued the rest of the country. It endured the national, communal pressures, circumventing intrusions of national parties and bodies. Hence, the Congress remained ineffective. So did the Muslim League. In effect, Punjab remained isolated from mainstream political pressures and ideological manipulations. The Unionists, in turn, continued with strengthening the forces of Punjabiyat. Hence, a Punjabi identity flourished politically and culturally.

The Punjab puzzle

Sir Chhotu Ram(1891-1945) was one of the most prominent pre-partition politicians in Punjab and an ideologue of the Jat peasantry and a champion of its interests.

He was associated with organizations representing peasant interests like the Zamindar League and the Unionist Party (after resigning from the Congress in 1920). He was one of the founders of the Unionist Party (along with Sir Sikander Hyat Khan).

Sir Chhotu Ram opposed the concept of Pakistan and formed a separate group of thirteen members in the Punjab Assembly when most Muslim Unionists joined the Muslim League. His death brought about the demise of the Unionist Party.

Sir Chhotu Ram

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Maula Baksh: *
Well said aries. PT, no need to use two accounts, it will make no difference. No sane Pakistani likes Musharraf anymore.
[/QUOTE]

Maula why are u not using ur old accounts, err lets see faraz mir? mir oh hunza? Did you get banned or something ;) I bet Mush had a hand in it too :D