Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

firstly, whats so abusive about what I posted? Secondly, do I look like Jinnah to you?

62

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

With a forked tongue. Jinnah does not need approval from men with beards pretending to be people of god, what Jinnah has achieved these morons can never come close even in their dreams. Reason: Mullas believe in destruction, chaos, fear and spreading the message of hate, all self-imploding ideologies.

63

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

^ok.......Did Jinnah ever call anyone a moron or idiot in his speech?

Baray aaye Jinnah kay followers!

64

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Rightly said, the JI in the history of Pakistan has always sat in opposition of the government. Bin Aadam, not having our house in order is different from not having a house at all. When you live in somebody elses house you are never free.

Yes Pakistan has failed in many things however that does not mean Pakistan should not exist. The people who govern Pakistan need to change. Jinnah created the opportunity for us and if we didn't avail it, its not his fault.

Anyway, the thread was about Jinnahs views on Pakistan being an Islamic shariah state or secular state with muslim majority. Have anything to discuss in that regard?

I would agree with people who say the vision of 50 years doesn't matter anymore, what matters is what people of today want from the state.

65

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Good thing u open up instead of calling posts idiotic.
It was bala bahi patel who sent indian army in kashmir.
England had a pact with pakistan but thanks to Nehro's affair with Mont Baten wife, Mont baten stop english employed army from interfering in kashmir.

Mont baten along with Nehro set pakisatan up for a disaster But We did a good job telling india/englan and rest of the** world what we are made of**

66

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Pakistan is not going to be a theological state...MA Jinnah. Message is very clear, Mullas cannot be allowed to rule simply because they are incompetent loosers who cannot be trusted. And had Jinnah met these current Mullas Iam sure he wud have had something apt to say.

67

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

The question is not whether Jinnah wanted a secular state or a muslim state. What he wanted was a successful Pakistan. He saw that in the west the success was lieing in the partition of religious matters and politics. He wanted Pakistan to be a tolerant country towards everyone, whether he was a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew or whoever. Being stuck in the past and saying what he did was wrong and he created a mess is not going to improve the current situation. Jinnah was a man of vision not a man of being stuck in the past and this was the secret to his success. If we would set a vision and just look beyond the crap of him being a british agent or a chinese agent and look at the points he listed in his speech, that he wants to get rid of curroption, blackmarket, bribery, then you can see these are all things forbidden in Islam, so in a way he was unknowingly creating a true Islamic state, that does not exist in this world anymore. He wanted everyone to have equal rights, and an islamic countries the way they are run today cannot give everyone the equal rights, just take a look at the rest of the islamic countries. India may not be all that, but one should acknowledge that it has reached somewhere and it has no honour killings of girls, rapes of girls and the girls being punished or women of maddrassas walking around in black burkas. Come on people, wake up and realize it, Pakistan is not going to make it as an islamic state.

68

Re: Mr. Jinnah’s presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a visionary politician and ex president of Congress party predicted seven decades ago that what would be the future Pakistan in his book “India Wins Freedom”. He was correct almost about 100% in his vision about Pakistan. Lovers of Quaid should know that his Pakistan does not exist any more, when major portion of the country parted away. I don’t know whether these “Lovers” were even born in 1971. Personally I am neither against him nor his lover. But what he founded, did not serve the purpose and ultimately turned to a failed state. No one should be emotional about it. Though I still believe that failed state can be turned around and become a remaining viable state if remedy to causes of failure is addressed.

Maulana must have commented on this subject in 1956.

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/azad/azad_statement1.html

India Wins Freedom
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

Maulana Azad’s statement on Muslim issues in India
April 15, 1946

… on 15 April 1946, I issued a statement dealing with the demands of Muslims and other minorities. Now that the division of India is a fact and ten years have passed, I again look at the statement and find that everything I had then said has come to happen. As this statement contains my considered views on the solution of the Indian problem, I feel I should quote it in full. This is what I then said, and would still say:
I have considered from every possible point of view the scheme of Pakistan as formulated by the Muslim League. As an Indian I have examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a Muslim I have examined its likely effects upon the fortunes of Muslims of India.
Considering the scheme in all its aspects I have come to the conclusion that it is harmful not only for India as a whole but for Muslims in particular. And in fact it creates more problems than it solves.
I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are impure. Such a division of territories into pure and impure is un-Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides men and countries into holy and unholy - a division which is a repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognises no such division and the prophet says, ‘God has made the whole world a mosque for me.’
Further, it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol of defeatism and has been built up on the analogy of the Jewish demand for a national home. It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold their own in India as a whole and would be content to withdraw to a corner specially reserved for them.
One can sympathise with the aspiration of the Jews for such a national home, as they are scattered all over the world and cannot in any region have any effective voice in the administration. The conditions of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise. Over 90 million in number, they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important element in Indian life to Influence decisively all questions of administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by concentrating them in certain areas.
In such a context, the demand for Pakistan loses all force. As a Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as my domain and to share in the shaping of its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a mere fragment of it.
As is well known, Mr Jinnah’s Pakistan scheme is based on his two nation theory. His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences. Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations have separate states. When Dr Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr Jinnah that Hindus and Muslims live side by side in thousands of Indian towns, villages and hamlets, Mr Jinnah replied that this in no way affected their separate nationality. Two nations according to Mr Jinnah confront one another in every hamlet, village and town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two states.
I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge it from the point of view of Muslim interests alone. I shall go still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept it myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the truth is that even If I examine the scheme from the point of view of the communal interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the conclusion that it can in no way benefit them or allay their legitimate fears.
Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into two States, one with a majority of Muslims and the other of Hindus. In the Hindustan State there will remain three and a half crores of Muslims scattered in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in U.P, 12 per cent in Bihar and 9 per cent in Madras, they will be weaker than they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well known centres of Muslim culture and civilisation there.
They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become an unadulterated Hindu raj.
On the other hand, their position within the Pakistan State will be vulnerable and weak. Nowhere in Pakistan will their majority be comparable to the Hindu majority in the Hindustan States.
In fact, their majority will be so slight that it will be offset by the economical, educational and political lead enjoyed by non-Muslims in these areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were overwhelmingly Muslim in population, it still could hardly solve the problem of Muslims in Hindustan.
Two states confronting one another, offer no solution of the problem of one another’s minorities, but only lead to retribution and reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages. The scheme of Pakistan therefore solves no problem for the Muslims. It cannot safeguard their rights where they are in a minority nor as citizens of Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs which they would enjoy as citizens of a major State like the Indian Union.
It may be argued that if Pakistan is so much against the interests of the Muslims themselves, why should such a large section of Muslims be swept away by its lure? The answer is to be found in the attitude of certain communal extremists among the Hindus. When the Muslim League began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a sinister pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it out of fear that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslim with trans-Indian Muslims States.
The opposition acted as an incentive to the adherents of the League. With simple though untenable logic they argued that if Hindus were so opposed to Pakistan, surely it must be of benefit to Muslims. An atmosphere of emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable appraisement impossible and swept away, especially the younger and more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be considered dispassionately, those who now support Pakistan will themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim Interests.
The formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress accept secures whatever merit the Pakistan scheme contains while all its defects and drawbacks are avoided. The basis of Pakistan is the fear of interference by the Centre in Muslim majority areas as the Hindus will be in a majority in the Centre. The Congress meets this fear by granting full autonomy to the provincial units and vesting all residuary power in the provinces. It also has provided for two lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that if any provincial unit so wants, it can administer all subjects itself except a minimum delegated to the Centre. The Congress scheme therefore ensures that Muslim majority provinces are internally free to develop as they will, but can at the same time influence the Centre on all issues which affect India as a whole.
The situation in India is such that all attempts to establish a centralised and unitary government are bound to fail. Equally doomed to failure is the attempt to divide India into two States. After considering all aspects of the question, I have come to the conclusion that the only solution can be on the lines embodied in the Congress formula which allows room for development both to the provinces and to India as a whole. The Congress formula meets the fear of the Muslim majority areas to allay which the scheme of Pakistan was formed. On the other hand, it avoids the defects of the Pakistan scheme which would bring the Muslims where they are in a minority under a purely Hindu government.
I am one of those who considers the present chapter of communal bitterness and differences as a transient phase in Indian life. I firmly hold that they will disappear when India assumes the responsibility of her own destiny. I am reminded of a saying of Mr Gladstone that the best cure for a man’s fear of the water was to throw him into it. Similarly India must assume responsibilities and administer her own affairs before fears and suspicions can be fully allayed.
When India attains her destiny, she will forget the chapter of communal suspicion and conflict and face the problems of modern life from a modern point of view. Differences will no doubt persist, but they will be economic, not communal. Opposition among political parties will continue, but it will be based, not on religion but on economic and political issues. Class and not community will be the basis of future alignments, and policies will be shaped accordingly.
If It be argued that this is only a faith which events may not justify would say that in any case the nine crores of Muslims constitute a factor which nobody can ignore and whatever the circumstances they are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.
[India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, 1997, pp. 150-152]

69

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Oh there are many Maulanas who readily agreed with Jinnah as well. Let me post articles about them. Respecting Jinnah for what he has done is one thing, following what we deem is right another. Jinnah to me is a highly respectable individual but he was not a religious scholar so he could've had wrong ideas about certain things. In any event to me Jinnah has always been a follower of what he judged to be the right thing. He was never shy of excepting an error nor should we be. I think sound and authentic religious education would do nothing but benefit Pakistan.
Down with the religion is a slogan that is never ever going to work in Pakistan. Lets face it we are passionate people with religion that is divine and beautiful ,why not take advantage of it?

70

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

What are you telling me? I already know that Jinnah's views were based on secularism.
Muslims were being deceived at that time by the politicians that Pakistan will be an islamic state.

71

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

^ Interestingly, Maulana Jinnah considered the State of Madinah as a model and in his previous speeches before he came out of the sack, he preached Islam claiming he wanted a land to practise Islam. If he meant secularim by that, then Muslims were / are already practising Islam at their homes in India, they didn't need another land to practise that at home if Islam wasn't required to run state affairs.

72

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Quaide Azam believed in model Madina state because it was run by the Prophet, and Jinnah being a Muslim, believed in Islam.
Yet he was opposed to mullahcracy like Taliban, because he did not equate mullahcracy with state of Madina.

73

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

People knew VERY well that Pakistan is not going to be a theocracy. This is why many Islamic parties like Jamiate Ulamae Hind and Khaksar Tehreek were absolutely against Pakistan. So much so that they called Quaide Azam to be Kafire Azam.

74

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

^ ^ both posts above I totally agree

75

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

And in Islam minorities are protected and allowed to practice their faith freely as long as they have designated places for it, which is other words is called equal citizens in terms of law and order and also what Jinnah had said. Equal in terms of beenfits, religious dictions apply based on their faith. In a Mullahcratic state there is zero tolerance for other minorities and faiths as it has been demonstrated by areas under their control and Taliban.

Islamic state and Mullahcratic state are farther than heaven and hell apart.

76

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Sis Hareem, you have it wrong. Muslims knew they would have a state where muslim majority would rule and not under the hegemony of Hindus.

Backward writing/Fay ki boli
77

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Seriously if Pakistani muslims were deceived then they shouldn't have trouble migrating to india and making a life there now. Comparing the life of a muslim in india and Pakistan, i wouldnt wanna swap for anything.

78

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Talibans are not a role model to an Islamic State, our role model is Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam and the model state is Madinah before us. Seculars use the excuse of Talibans to oppose Muhammad's Shar'ah.

In an Islamic State, non Muslim minorities have their rights as they had under Muhammad, Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman etc.
They are our role models.

Jinnah was a Hyppocrite who fooled Muslims of India in the name of Islam.
I don't care what religious political parties have / had their views about Jinnah, I don't even have any support to such stupid parties which think that they can implement Shari'ah using the present political system of Pakistan.
In my Pakistan, there is no place for Western Democracy, as Western Democracy means if the vast majority of a nation is Jaahil (ignorant) or they have been made Jaahils, they will elect a Jaahil like themselves to rule over them.

Can you tell me how to get.....
79

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

^ Who was a hypocrite, Jinnah or the mullahs who opposed the creation of Pakistan and are today creating havoc in the same Pakistan. They are the true hypocrites. May Allah rid us of such idiots.

80

Re: Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

Some Mullas did oppose the creation of Pakistan, but when they saw Pakistan came into existence what they would do? Kept opposing its creation? lol
Of course Pakistan was a reality, Pakistan created or not was not their basic concern, they only wanted the Rule of Islam, this is another thing that most of the Mullas in Pakistan or anywhere are showing Hypocricy to some extent, that is the reason why many people don't like them including myself, but who cares. Islam is not about Mullas!

Islam is about Allah, Muhammad and Quran. If Jinnah or Mullas were / are hypocrites, doesn't make any difference. Our goal should be the Islamic State of Pakistan on principles of the Islamic State of Madinah of Muhammad.