Re: Secular?
Really TLK?
Ask yourself this. If it was in the name of islam, why were all the mullahs against it? Quaid-e-azam made it abundantly clear that he wasn’t working for a theocracy. No part of his personal life reflected anything that the mullahs stand for and demand. Heck, he wouldn’t even be allowed to lead the muslims if current pakistani laws were implemented.
When quaid-e-azam says that all citizen’s of this country will be equal, he is negating the idea of an islamic pakistan which most people are promoting now a days. Equality of citizenship means that there is no discrimination against any citizen in any matter whatsoever. Our very constitution is discriminatory when it says that certain officies can only be held by Muslims. This is again a result of religious zeal. It wouldn’t be possible for a non-muslim to get elected to these offices anyway so why the hell put it in the constitution? Again the reason is that it comforts some people and proves to them their religiousity.
I think that the reason we separated had a lot to do with the idea that in a hindu majority, muslims will be under-represented in every walk of life. They would become the lower class of society. These fears were based on the situation under the british when hindus were dominating everything. The religious reason was not the be all and end of the whole stuggle as it is now portrayed. Of course it had its importance but the reason it was proposed as the rallying point was because that was the only thing that all the muslims had in common.