Pakistan Historian

Why Nehru haters like Jinnah? Loving Jinnah in the land of Gandhi

As an ardent student of history we track and trends in the historical development of points of views. There is a subtle transformation that is happening in Bharat. From a historian’s point of view two seminal events have happened in Bharat in recent times:

Demonizing Mohammad Ali Jinnah is Bharat (aka) is a national past time at all levels of the government, media and academic institutions. The electoral and constitutional defeat of  the Indian National Congress (INC) towards the All India Muslim League got translated into the perpetual enmity towards Mohammad Ali Jinnah and for his creation “Pakistan“. By association, all those who believed in Jinnah’s dream were seen as enemies of Hindustan. For the past 60 years, the INC has been the vanguard of leading the charge against Jinnah. The INC made colossal mistakes by not accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan and not giving Separate Electorates to the Dalits. Both these actions were opposed by Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru. These actions led to the alienation of the Muslims and the Dalits and continue to be the cracks in present day Bharat.  Was Pakistan inevitable? The INC made major mistakes before and after 1947

At the other end of the spectrum from the Indian National Congress is the RSS. It was an RSS man that killed the spiritual leader of the INC, Mr. Mohandas Gandhi. The RSS revered Mr. Sarawak and Mr. Rai and hated Mr. Nehru and Mr. Gandhi. When Mr. Gandhi was murdered, the INC used it an an excuse to ban the RSS. Under popular pressure a couple of decades ago the RSS was unbanned. The BJP rose to power and actually formed a government undr Mr. Vajpayee.

A strange phenomenon is emerging in Bharat, home of the right wing BJP and and Ultra right wing RSS. Internal politics in Bharat is now rethinking Jinnah. At least the right wing is. The denials of the official BJP not withstanding, the fact of the matter is that several BJP leaders have eulogized Jinnah in the recent past. This was unthinkable in the land of the Ganges where is almost universal consensus on hating Jinnah.

1) The leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Mr. L.K Advani  praised the founder of Pakistan during a visit to the country. For his “sins” he had to resign as the leader.

2) Now Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior party leader of the BJP and a  former Finance and External affairs minister has been defending Jinnah and praising him. The BJP officially disassociates itself from his recent book  “Jinnah: India-Partition- Independence”. Mr. Singh’s book should be seen in the context of the Pakistani perspective on the creation of Pakistan. Why we created Pakistan? The Pakistan Ideology. ONT vs TNT

From an official point of view, the BJP is stuck in a position where it doesn’t want to be. Two of its major leaders have praised Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah–the bane of Indian politicians. BJP rethink on Jinnah: Federalism & Majoritarianism vs Muslim rights

Soutik Biswas in an prodigiously effulgent article published on the BBC (BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009) tries to tackle the increasingly vocal question in Bharat ”Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah“. Mr. Biswas gets it partially. However the question that he has raised is as pertinent today as it was in 1946.

Mr. Biaswas has made some good points in pointing out the “Liberal” credentials of Mr.  Jaswant Singh but the writing does not really get into the dynamics of why right wing Hndu parties love Jinnah. The following excerpts inform us about the charged atmosphere in South Asia.

I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Lal Hardiyal. Excerpted from Dr. Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan”.

Soutik Biswas quotes the reactions of Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah but he he does not quote the writings of Mr. Savarkar. Dr. Ambedkar discusses Swaraj in his book “Pakistan” and quotes Mr. Savarkar. Firstly, the retention of the name Hindustan as the proper name for “lndia”. “The name “Hindustan” must continue to be the appellation of our country. Such other names as India, Hind, etc., being derived from the same original word Sindhumay be used but only to signify the same sense—the land of the Hindus, a country which is the abode of the Hindu Nation. Aryavarta, Bharat-Bhumiand such other names are of course the ancient and the most cherished epithets of our Mother Land and will continue to appeal to the cultured elite. In this insistence that the Mother Land of the Hindus must be called but “Hindustan,” no encroachment or humiliation is implied in connection with any of our non-Hindu countrymen.

Our Parsee and Christian countrymen are already too akin to us culturally and .arc too patriotic and the Anglo-indianstoo sensible to refuse to fall in line with us Hindus on so legitimate a ground.

So far as our Moslem countrymen are concerned it is useless to conceal the fact that some of them are already inclined to look upon this molehill also as an insuperable mountain in their way to Hindu-Moslem unity. But they should remember that the Moslems do not dwell only in India nor are the Indian Moslems the only heroic remnants of the Faithful in Islam. China has crores of Moslems. Greece, Palestine and even Hungary and Poland have thousands of Moslems amongst their nationals. But being there a minority, only a community, their existence in these countries has never been advanced as a ground to change the ancient names of these countries which indicate the abodes of those races whose overwhelming majority owns the land. The country of the Poles continues to be Poland and of the Grecians as Greece. The Moslems there did not or dared not to distort them but are quite content to distinguish themselves as Polish Moslems or Grecian Moslems or Chinese Moslems when occasion arises, so also our Moslem countrymen may distinguish themselves nationally or territorially whenever they want, as “Hindustance Moslems” without compromising in the least their separateness as Religious or Cultural entity. Nay, the Moslems have been calling themselves as “Hindustanis” ever since their advent in India, of their own accord. “But if in spite of it all some irascible Moslem sections amongst our countrymen object even to this name of our Country, that is no reason why we should play cowards to our own conscience. We Hindus must not betray or break up the continuity of our Nation from the Sindhus in Rigvedic days to the Hindus of our own generation which is implied in “Hindustan,” the accepted appellation of our Mother Land. Just as the land of the Germans is Germany, of the English England, of the Turks Turkistan, of the Afghans Afghanistan—even so we must have it indelibly impressed on the map of the earth for all times to come a “Hindustan”—the land of the “Hindus.”

Mr. Adhvani and Mr. Singh cannot be anomalies. They pretty much represent the thinking of the Right Wing Hindus. The reason for the “:Love Jinnah” phenomenon can be traced back to the origins or the RSSand its relationship with the likes of Mr. Gandhi. The RSS hated Gandhi for many reasons. One reason was that the RSS did not believe that the appeasement policies of Mr. Gandhi was value added activities. The RSS and others has originally propounded the Two Nation Theory (TNT)espousing a land for the Hindus. Iqbal and Jinnah were later converts to the TNT. When the INC opposed the Jinnah they opposed the TNT. The BJP and the RSS want to bring about Ram Rajha in Bharat so that it can be extended from Kabul to Raj Kalhani in the East. Opposing Jinnah, and fealty to a secular ideology runs against the very foundation of the BJP thinking.

===========================================================

WE REQUEST ALL OUR READERS TO WRITE TO webmaster@daily.pkto ask them to stop plagiarizing our original conent from Rupee News.

TO GET HITS AND GET REVENUE FROM ADVERTISERS THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING AND PUBLISHING OUR ARTICLES ONE DAY AFTER WE PUBLISH THEM. It has no original content. Almost all their articles are stolen from other sites.

. THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING OUR STORIES AND POSTING THEM ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT ANY LINK BACK OR CREDIT TO THE AUTHORS. To make the theft worse than it is, they have delete the names of our authors and added their own authors to the stories on the Dalits and on Mig 35 fighters. Accept no substitute, visit http://www.rupeenews.com. We update our stories after publishing them —to keep our original content safe from piracy and to ensure that our readers get the best content.

All material on these sites is copyrighted, Rupee News, Pakistan Historian, The Dawn, Pakistan Ledger, Military Strategy, Pakistan Punch, The Turth about Mohandas Gandhi, Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute, and American Joint Multifaith Association sites

==========================================================

Mr. Singh discusses Federalism versus state rights. The discussion of Pakistani was exactly that, a discussion of majoritarianism and Muslim rights. It is very true that Mr. Jinnah’s primary concern was to secure the rights of the Muslims and the minorities of the Subcontinent.

The best evidence of this was the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Cabinet Mission Plan was the best hope for a multiethnic and multireligious  South Asian confederation which would have prevented the majoritariansim in Bharat, or in Pakistan for that matter. Today the same majoratarianism is an issue for Lanka, Bangladesh and even the Maldives. The British parliamentary system of government does not allow security for the minorities–as evidenced by the unicameral legislature of the United Kingdom. The impotent and selected House of Lords cannot be really considered as a house representing the people–it represents the aristocracy and the wealthy. The bi cameral system of government in Bharat would have railroaded the rights of the minorities—as evidenced in the past 60 years. Mr. Jinnah’s Cabinet Mission Plan (CBM) showed a way to the Hindus to avoid the alienation of the Muslims. Mr. Gandhi approved the Cabinet Mission Plan. Nehru accepted it briefly, but then he couldn’t go through with it. In this sense the Cabinet Mission Plan was the last hope of preventing Pakistan. Mr. Nehru by torpedoing the CBM in fact destroyed any chance of the Muslim Hindu reconciliation.

Why are some of India’s Hindu nationalist leaders in love with Mohammed Ali Jinnah? The founder of Pakistan is a much reviled man in India, treated as a minor conspiratorial figure, and considered to be the architect of the bloody partition of the country on religious lines in 1947. Even the secular Congress party abhors him.

So when leaders of the Hindu right sing praises for Mr Jinnah, they stir up a hornet’s nest. Four years ago, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) LK Advani, who led a successful Hindu revivalist movement in the early 1990s, praised the founder of Pakistan during a visit to the country. This raised the hackles of Hindu fellow travellers and invited scorn from the Congress party. The BJP leader even offered to put in his papers after the kerfuffle.

Now Jaswant Singh, a doughty senior party leader and former finance and external affairs minister, who counts people like Strobe Talbott as his friends and chess, golf and polo as his pursuits, has praised Mr Jinnah as a “self made man” who “created something out of nothing and single-handedly stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn’t really like him.” He has expanded on his thesis in his new, unimaginatively titled 669-page book Jinnah: India-Partition- Independence, which released this week.

What is surprising is Mr Singh’s defence of Mr Jinnah in a TV interview in the run-up to the book release where he is even more effusive in his praise of the Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader) as Mr Jinnah is remembered as in his homeland. He demolishes the popular Indian historiography of Mr Jinnah being a Hindu-basher and a born demagogue. “That certainly he was not,” says the BJPleader. “His principal disagreement was with the Congress party. Repeatedly he says and he says this even in his last statements to the press and to the constituent Assembly of Pakistan.”

Indian historiography has come full circle. The past six decades have been spent in demonizing the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, Mr. Jinnah. By using Mr. Jinnah as an escape goat, the Indian National Congress (INC) has tried to hide the inadequacies and blunders of its leaders. By avoiding to identify the mistakes of the INC the Bharati historians have done a great disservice to world history and to the fabric of South Asia. By using Mr. Jinnah as as escape goat the Bharati intellectuals have been unable to identify the error of their ways. This paradigm continues to haunt the Delhi politicians and has led to the huge tensions and wars. Soutik Biswas does a good job or highlighting the points made by Mr. Singh about the ambassadorial credentilas of Mr. Jinnah

Then Mr Singh goes on to say that India misunderstood Mr Jinnah “because we needed to create a demon”. He insists the Congress party’s majoritarian instincts were responsible for the federalist Mr Jinnah turning away from the idea of India and asking for a separate nation for Muslims.

Yet Mr Jinnah began his political career with the Congress and until after World War I remained India’s best “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. Biographer Stanley Wolpertsays he was as “as enigmatic as Gandhi, more powerful than Nehru, and one of the most charismatic leaders and least known personalities”. Historians like Patrick French believe that though Mr Jinnah “remained a secularist of sorts until his death, but also at times… willing to use communal antagonism in a strategic way.”(BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009)

.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS |  Updated April 9th, 2009 | Moin Ansari| معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

Listen to Mr Jinnah before the formation of Pakistan, raising the spectre of Hindu majoritaranism: “We Muslims have got everything – brains, intelligence, capacity and courage- virtues that nations must possess. But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these. One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life that has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us.”

Or listen to him after a meeting with Egyptian and Palestinian Arab leaders in 1946: “I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would represent for the Middle-East … If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries.”

At the same time, it is true that Mr Jinnah felt short changed by the Congress. On 26 July 1946, Jinnah and his working committee spoke about Muslim India having “exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means; and whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British…”

In Mr Singh’s book, JawaharlalNehru and the Congress emerge as some of the principal architects of the partition. He writes that the Congress “overestimated its strength, its influence, and its leaders were extremely reluctant to accept Jinnah as the leader of just not the Muslim League but eventually of most Muslims in India”.

There is some truth in all this. But in trying to say that Mr Nehru and Congress were largely responsible for partition, Mr Singhis possibly ignoring the larger political realities of the time. Mr Jinnah positioned himself as the “sole spokesman of Pakistan”, but his party Muslim League which led the Pakistan movement, won the last election in 1946 in British India with the number of Muslim voters at significantly no more than 10 to 12% of the total Muslim population in that year. As many historians say, the nation of Pakistan came into being “even before its mass base was established.” The fault lines have widened since.

But to return to the original question, why did Mr Singhwrite this book? Does it have to do withhis wider political ambitions? He is a self professed liberal in a party of hawks. In 1992, at the zenith of the BJP’s rathyatra (motorised chariot) movement to whip up support for a temple at Ayodhya, Mr Singh did not attend a single function on the road. His induction into the cabinet in the late 1990s was vetoed once by the party’s ideological fountainhead, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

With his mentor and BJP’s only pan-Indian leader and former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee fading out and Mr Advani himself weakened by political defeat and party infighting, is Mr Singh trying to position himself as a liberal party leader-paterfamilias that Mr Vajpayee once occupied? It is difficult to say.

In a sense, one could argue, Mr Singhkills two birds withone stone withhis revisionist take on the partition – as a senior leader of the main opposition party, he goes for the Congress’s jugular by holding it responsible for the partition along with Mr Jinnah; and by heaping encomiums on Mr Jinnah, he endears himself to Indian Muslims, who have been lukewarm to the BJP’s overtures. Is Mohammed Ali Jinnah a way for Mr Singh to reach out to Muslims and push his political ambitions in a party which appears to have lost its way in modern India? We will know in the days ahead. BBC. Why the Hindu right wing loves Mr Jinnah. Soutik Biswas | 08:35 UK time, Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Apparently the BJP-RSS hatred of Gandhi and dislike for Nehru has been converted to love for Jinnah. What implications does this have for Bharat and Pakistan now? A better understanding of Jinnah in Bharat will surely have a positive impact on the discourse of history. The BJPs love for Jinnah has not translated into a love for Muslims and it never will. But perhaps the books like the one written by Mr. Singh will improve the Bharati understanding of Pakistan and why it was created. Surely this may translate into better relations between the two countries.

===========================================

WE REQUEST ALL OUR READERS TO WRITE TO webmaster@daily.pkto ask them to stop plagiarizing our original content from Rupee News, Pakistan Historian, The Dawn, Pakistan Ledger, Military Strategy, Pakistan Punch, The Turth about Mohandas Gandhi, Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute, and American Joint Multifaith Association sites.

. THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING OUR STORIES AND POSTING THEM ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT ANY LINK BACK OR CREDIT TO THE AUTHORS. To make the theft worse than it is, they have added their own authors to the stories on the Dalits and on Mig 35 fighters. Accept no substitute, visit http://www.rupeenews.com. We update our stories after publishing them —to keep our original content safe from piracy and to ensure that our readers get the best content.

============================================

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Defensebriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS |  Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

While another BJP leader has come out and praised Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The physical and spiritiual progeny of Mohammad ALiJinnah in Pakistan are discussion the legacy of Jinnah and what he believed in. One one side is the Paksitanipeople. One the other sideis the so called English speaking elite “the so called liberals” allied with the power brokers in Delhi usually led by the protagonists of the INC. Pakistan’s founder Quaid e Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah was not secular.

The late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir is perhaps best known for his highly controversial book, From Jinnah to Zia (1979), in which he openly stated that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a secularist. To support this claim Munir used two quotes attributed to Jinnah. One of these quoteshas become the prime favourite of the pro-secularist writers because it provides seemingly indisputable proof that Jinnah was a secularist. However, the quote is a fake. The interview it is sourced from is real, but the words that Jinnah supposedly said are nowhere to be found.

In her new book, Secular Jinnah: Munir’sBig Hoax Exposed, a young British writer tells the story of how a point of curiosity – based on little more than an issue of grammar – led her to the startling truth. Saleena Karim shows us how much damage the ‘Munir quote’ has done over the last 26 years, not only in terms of twisting the facts of history, but now in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Pakistani scholarship. The author names those who have cited the Munir quote, and discusses the various myths about the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, then sets the record straight. SaleenaKarim is a British Asian writer with a BSc (Hons) in Human Biology from Loughborough University. She has worked as a literary columnist and editor, and has also translated some Urdu Islamic works into English, including Economic System of the Holy Quran (2005) and Liberty as defined in the Quran (2004). She is the founder and Director of the recently launched Jinnah Archive.

Those allied with the elite in Bharat somehow see Jinnah through the same prisim. Ayesha Jala’s book “the Sole Spokesman” on the Pakisani sideand Mr. M.J. Akbar’s book about Jinnah on the Indian side portray the same demonized picture of Jinnah that Mr. Singh has tried to rebut. Justice Munir (who approved the illegal actions of Ayub Khan under the Doctrine of necessity) did more harm to the Pakistani psyche by defining Jinnah in his own image than he did when he approved the illegal actions of Ayub Khan. Between the protagonists and the antagonist, one of the best biographies of Mohammad Ali Jinnah remains the book written by Stanley Wolpert.

===========================================================

WE REQUEST ALL OUR READERS TO WRITE TO webmaster@daily.pkto ask them to stop plagiarizing our original conent from Rupee News.

TO GET HITS AND GET REVENUE FROM ADVERTISERS THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING AND PUBLISHING OUR ARTICLES ONE DAY AFTER WE PUBLISH THEM. It has no original content. Almost all their articles are stolen from other sites.

. THE DAILY HAS BEEN STEALING OUR STORIES AND POSTING THEM ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT ANY LINK BACK OR CREDIT TO THE AUTHORS. To make the theft worse than it is, they have delete the names of our authors and added their own authors to the stories on the Dalits and on Mig 35 fighters. Accept no substitute, visit http://www.rupeenews.com. We update our stories after publishing them —to keep our original content safe from piracy and to ensure that our readers get the best content.

All material on these sites is copyrighted, Rupee News, Pakistan Historian, The Dawn, Pakistan Ledger, Military Strategy, Pakistan Punch, The Turth about Mohandas Gandhi, Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute, and American Joint Multifaith Association sites

==========================================================

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | Defensebriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS |  Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

There is a new discussion going on in Pakistan. Actually, it is an old discussion which has been resurrected by the physical and spritual progeny of Sr. Chutto Ram’s Zamindara Party (renamed the Unionist Party). Backed by the cultural onslaught from Delhi, the Old Unionists have come out of the woodwork to challenge the Pakistan Ideology as enshrined in the immutable Lahore Declaration, the holy “Qarardad e Maqasid”, and the glorious Pakistani Constitution. These 5th Column gasbags are supported by the likes of Aakar Patel who routinely pulls out arcane arguments, and inane points to undermine the Pakistan ideology and destroy the its leadership. The “discussion” is the same as it always was “Why we created Pakistan? One Nation Theory vs Two Nation Theory:

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | The Dawn | Military Strategy | Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute | Failed States | Pakistan Historian | Gandhi Unmasked | PAKISTAN LEDGER |  پاکستاني کھاتا |  RUPEE NEWS  | May 19th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ |

It is profitable to be Anti-Pakistan. Writings that deface Pakistan can make money for the author. The thinktanks hire Pakistanphobic authors. There is a premium on the price of writers if they hail from South Asia. There is a super premium if the author is a Muslim or a Pakistani. The bonus id doubled if it is a Muslim Pakistani woman.

There are three main culprits that have spread nonsensical misinformation about the Quaid e Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah. The first source is  Muhammad Munir. The second source is Akbar S. Ahmed. The third source is Stephen Cohen. This tripod pretty much defines the enemies of Pakistan. It is pedagogical to analyze the sources of the information as well as what they are saying and why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaD3FzjVEI

Pakistan was created for the Muslim majority areas of South Asia. It is like Israel which insists on its Jewish character. Ireland and Lebanon also insist on their Catholic and Christian character. The agenda of the enemies of Pakistan is simple and has been he same since the 1930s. If Pakistan is converted into a secular state then what differentiates it from the secular sate of Bharat? The raison d’etre for Pakistan’s existence is its Islamic identity.

The credibility of sources are self evident. There is an American Jew on the Indian payroll, a ”Pakistani” who has madeaFaustian deal with the Pakistanphobic Carnegie Thinktank and a Pakistani who has done more harm to the Pakistani judicial system than any man alive.  So we have a axis of evil which blatantly and surreptously tries to pour Sulphuric Acid into the foundations of the Pakistani identity.   

Let us start with the discussion of Justice Munir Ahmed. He sold his soul to the devil and came up with the untenable “Doctrine of Necessity“. The absurd Doctrine sanctioned Martial Laws as legal and paved the way for dictators to undermine the foundation of peoples rule in Pakistan. It was the same Justice Munirwholater came up with silly articles about Mohammad ALi Jinnah and asked Field Marshall Ayub Khan to drop “Islamic” from the name of the Pakistani republic. The decisions of Justice Munir ledboth Zia Ul Haq and PervezMusharraf to usethe same “Doctrine of Necessity” to impose militaryrule in Pakistan. It has taken Pakistanis about four decades to reverse the insidious designs of Justice Munir. It may take longer to purge the psyche of this historical malfeasance.

The late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir is perhaps best known for his highly controversial book, From Jinnah to Zia (1979), in which he openly stated that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a secularist. To support this claim Munir used two quotes attributed to Jinnah. One of these quoteshas become the prime favourite of the pro-secularist writers because it provides seemingly indisputable proof that Jinnah was a secularist. However, the quote is a fake. The interview it is sourced from is real, but the words that Jinnah supposedly said are nowhere to be found.

In her new book, Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed, a young British writer tells the story of how a point of curiosity – based on little more than an issue of grammar – led her to the startling truth. Saleena Karim shows us how much damage the ‘Munir quote’ has done over the last 26 years, not only in terms of twisting the facts of history, but now in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Pakistani scholarship. The author names those who have cited the Munir quote, and discusses the various myths about the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, then sets the record straight.

Saleena Karim is a British Asian writer with a BSc (Hons) in Human Biology from Loughborough University. She has worked as a literary columnist and editor, and has also translated some Urdu Islamic works into English, including Economic System of the Holy Quran (2005) and Liberty as defined in the Quran (2004). She is the founder and Director of the recently launched Jinnah Archive.

Some Pakistani patriots are setting the record straight. Salima Karim is one such author who has integrity.

The study of Mr. Jinnah, the Quaid-i-Azam of Pakistan, is crucially important in understanding the debate about Islam and Democracy in our post 9/11 world. Saleena Karim’s book is essential reading to understand Jinnah. I strongly recommend it. Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington D.C. (Prof. Ahmed is an authority on Jinnah, best known for his ‘Jinnah Quartet’.) American University

Saleena Karim’sclose reading of Jinnah’s speeches concludes that the father of Pakistan was not an ideologue who demanded that the new nation be an exact model of a western capitalist society. She claims he rather wanted Muslims to work for a more humane social order, one that would reflect the core Islamic principles of justice and compassion for all.  Prof. Sheila McDonough, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religion, Concordia University (Prof. McDonough is one of the foremost scholars of Islam in South Asia)

(The book) is a well-documented and thoroughly researched treatise about the views of the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as to the future setup of Pakistan. The book demolishes convincingly Chief Justice Munir’s assertion in his book from Jinnah to Zia that: ‘the pattern of Government which the Quaid-i-Azam had in mind was a secular democratic government’. … (The) Quaid opposed theocracy and did not talk of secularism but pleaded for an Islamic State. The author must be congratulated on this publication which will be welcomed by all, especially the scholars and intellectuals.

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, former Honorary Secretary to Jinnah (1941-44) and Legal Advisor to the President, Pakistan

… In her heart and mind (SaleenaKarim) is firmly Pakistani, and she has a great faith in the Quaid-i-Azam. … She has concluded that the Quaid-i-Azam was absolutely not a secularist. The author has thoroughly pursued (the claims in) Justice Munir’s book on the Quaid-i-Azam, and has labelled its baseless hypothesis a hoax. If anyone were to make such a statement in Pakistan, he/she would be accused of being backward and ignorant … (Yet) this book has been written by a young scholar who was born and raised in a liberal environment, educated in England, and who therefore cannot be accused of narrow-mindedness or ignorance. (Translated from Urdu). Dr. Safdar Mahmood, eminent historian and columnist at Jang, in the article Jazbay, 10th February 2007 – DAILY JANG Read full Urdu text here

… you have brought forthahighly professional little book, from the get-up to the content. You are a blessed and gifted lady withmuch promise for the future. … (The book) will be revered by scholars and future researchers, thereby making a lasting room for itself in the realm of knowledge, especially about Quaid-e-Azam and “PAKISTANIAAT”. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Florida, renowned Islamic scholar and author- OurBeacon.com

Your book is excellent. Every page has the impress of thorough research and careful documentation. The source material that you have used and have mentioned in the book is reliable and intelligently selected. … I hope more books on the Quaid and Pakistan will follow from your pen. Qutubuddin Aziz, former Pakistani diplomat and distinguished journalist and broadcaster

Well done – I may not agree with certain views but you make interesting points. … However I’m an ardent supporter of Voltaire’s famous saying and am always willing to agree to disagree in total amity. Ardeshir Cowasjee, Senior Columnist at DAWN – DAWN

Saleena Karim’s book has come as a bombshell … The book could be a guideline to the people of Pakistan. Ghulam Asghar Khan, former Inspector General of Police – Frontier Post Pakistan

I found your book to be very interesting … it certainly opened my eyes, and it just goes to show how people can interpret things wrongly. Once people take the time to read your book they will see that Mr. Jinnah only wanted the best for (the people of) Pakistan regardless of who they are and what religion they are. Terry Davies, a reader, United Kingdom

It is really unfortunate and rather strange that a person of (Chief Justice Munir’s) stature should have gone astray so grossly in comprehending a person, i.e. Jinnah Saheb, who was not at all ambiguous in his expositions. His view about the Great Leader could only be regarded as a slander … your book which is highly analytical and well-documented, leaves no room for defence of the position taken by the Chief Justice. In fact, your book has exposed his hoax boldly and exquisitely. I congratulate you for a frank and irrefutable presentation.

Sirajuddin Ahmad, author, “Understanding Islam” (Saleena Karim) has brought to light some interesting aspects of Jinnah’s life. … Her interpretation of Islam carries a modern outlook shunning the idea of theocracy. She also emphasised the social and economic equality as a basic tenant of Islam. The image of the Quaidthatemerges from this book is that of modern Muslim leader who endeavoured to create a system where there could be equal rights for all the citizens having any faith or creed. VISTA Magazine (The Post), 14th February 2006 – VISTA

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | The Dawn | Military Strategy | Strategic Thinking and Policy Institute | Failed States | Pakistan Historian | Gandhi Unmasked | PAKISTAN LEDGER |  پاکستاني کھاتا |  RUPEE NEWS  | May 19th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | اخبار روپیہ |

Expressing his  views on Hindu-Muslim  relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad  Ali  Jinnah  observed:

“The  Hindus  and Muslims belong to two  different  religious  philosophies,  social  customs  and literature. They neither intermarry,  nor interdine together, and indeed they  belong  to  two  different  civilizations   which   are  based  on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life  and of life are different.”

Mr. Aakar Patel has been given space in Pakistani newspapers to propagate the same old arguments that were rejected by the Pakistanis and the Muslims of South Asia. No Indian paper gives any space to Pakistani writers to disseminate the “Two Nation Theory” and the basis for Pakistan. Here is Mr. Patel obfuscating the issues and characterizing Mohammad Ali Jinnah in the bigoted views of the Hindu Mahasaba.

Jinnah after August 11, 1947 Sunday, September 28, 2008 by Aakar Patel. Jinnah was secular and liberal, but he deliberately left the door open for Pakistan to become an Islamic state.

On August 11, 1947, Jinnah delivered his great speech to the Constituent Assembly. He said Pakistanis should take as their ideal Great Britain, where “Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen.”

“We should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims; not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

The speech was precise and elegant, as his speeches often were. It was delivered without notes; as he put it, he said “a few things as they occur to me.”

Liberal Pakistanis hold the speech up as proof of Jinnah’s determination to see Pakistan produce a secular constitution instead of an Islamic one. But he doesn’t use the word secular and his speeches after Aug 11 do nothing to support this view.

If anything, they support the view of Jinnah’s associates like Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. On March 9, 1949, six months after Jinnah’s death, Nishtar told Hindus in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly who opposed the Islamic language of Liaquat’s Objectives Resolution, that though Jinnah had “given pledges to the minority, (he) had also given pledges to the majority.”

Mr. Patel cherry picks the quotes to justify the carnage in South Asia. He doesn’t present a holistic picture of the historical realities of that era. Here is a quote from Dr. Ambedekar–the Dalit leader who defines “Pakistan” through Hindu eyes.

“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible.

The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .

…Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .

…If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.” Pratap of Lahore, Lala Hardayal in 1925. Quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan”

Haldiram’squote is as pertinent today as it was in 1925. The likes of Haldiram were propagating a Spanish Inquisition type of expulsion of all Muslims from South Asia after the conquest of Afghanistan. Muslims ruled Spain from 711 to 1492, but after losing their last foothold were converted back to Christianity or expelled from Spain. The RSS, the BJP, the VHP still believe in Shuddi and Shangtram movements which want to reconvert the Muslims back to Hinduism and keep them in their place as Untouchable Dalits.

Shabbir Ahmed Usmani reminded the Assembly of Jinnah’s letter of March 10, 1945, to the Pir of Manki Sharif, where he promised that the Constituent Assembly would enact laws for Muslims “not inconsistent with the ShariatlawsandMuslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws.”

There were other instances.

On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:

“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”

“Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a codeforeveryMuslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like.”

THE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:

“that geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

In February that year, in an address to Americans: “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.”

Pressed for an answer about the structure of government at a press conference in Delhi on July 14, 1947, he said the matter was for the Constituent Assembly to decide. Asked: “What is your personal opinion?” He said: “No responsible man expresses his personal opinion in anticipation of a supreme body like the Constituent Assembly, the function of which is to frame the constitution.”

To the question, “Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?” he replied: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.” When the correspondent said it was a state in which only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens, Jinnah said: “I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy 13 centuries ago.”

Why would a secularist be this ambiguous? Not becauseJinnahwas a hypocrite, but because he understood his constituency. Jinnah would not have been surprised by the creeping Islamisation that came with Zia’s amendments.

1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.

What is the Two Nation Theory exactly? The moniker “‘two’ ‘nation’ ‘theory’” is a misnomer. The theory of nationalities states that “India does not have a homogeneous population”.  There are many racial, ethnic and linguistic groups in India. India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a  sub-continent composed of “nationalities”. The two nation theory clearly states that that there are several nationalities in the subcontinent, and the Hindus and the Muslims are the largest of the two nations.  Hindus and Muslims are different therefore Muslim majority areas must exist separately. Chaudry Rehmat Ali’s “Pakistan proposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES  in the subcontinent.”

In this document a map of India has also been published showing India split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamispan, Hindoostan comprising Rajistan, Kathiwar, Maharashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia. This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934  (Ref: The Great Divide by H. V. Hodson page 81). Karakal Pakistan’ existed as autonomous region of USSR.

But Jinnah also felt deep concern for Pakistan’s minorities and kept issuing statements after Aug 11 in their favour. On Aug 24, he said: “I consider it my duty to call upon Muslims to temper their sentiments with reason and to be aware of the dangers which may well overwhelm their newly won State, should they allow their feelings of the moment to gain mastery of their actions.”

• On Sept 17, he told the Afridis. “My advice to Mussalmansin Pakistan and outsideisthat it will be most unwiseon their part, wherever they are in the majority, to resort to retaliation or adopt any action in sprit of revenge.”
• On Oct 11, to Pakistan’s military officers: “We shall continue to protect the life and property of minorities in Pakistan and shall give them a fair deal. We do not want them to be forced to leave Pakistan, and that so long as they remain faithful and loyal to the State they shall be entitled to the same treatment as any other citizens.”
• On Oct 30, in a speech on Radio Pakistan after a massacre of Hindus: “I am speaking to you under deep distress and with a heavy heart. Are we now going to besmear and tarnish this greatest achievement for which there is no parallel in the whole history of the world by resorting to frenzy, savagery and butchery?” He was moved enough to speak in Urdu at the end: “DonoN hukumatoN ka yeh pak farz hai ke woh awaam ke maal aur jaan ki har-tarah se hifazat (kareiN).”
• On Jan 9, 1948, in a message to Karachi’s riot victims: “I once more want to impress upon all Muslims that they should fully co-operate with the Government and the officials in protecting their Hindu neighbours…”

Over time he began to despair and believe that the Hindus were not fleeing in fear but because of a conspiracy by the Indian government. In the Oct 11 address to military officers in Karachi, he added: “I, however, regret to say that the minorities here did not give us a chance to prove our bona fides and give us their wholehearted cooperation as citizens of Pakistan when the crisis suddenly overtook us.”

On Jan 9, he spoke to Karachi’s Hindus, who “have been misled by propaganda that is being carried out to pull them out of Sind…” On Feb 3, in a speech to Parsis in Karachi: “If (Hindu) exodus from Sindcontinues, it is not becausetheyarenot wanted here but because they are more prone to listen to people across the border who are interested in pulling them out. I am sorry for these misguided people, for nothing but disillusionment awaits them in their promised land.”

On March 28, in a speech on Radio Pakistan, Dacca (Dhaka): “Migration of Hindus has been… due to psychological reasons and external pressure.”

ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.

According to many Pakistanis “The two nation theory did not solve all the problems of the subcontinent. However it did save 200 million Muslims (those emancipated in Pakistan and Bangladesh) from social economic and political servitude. The servitude is proven by the decadent condition of Indian Muslims in a “secular” Indian state. Perhaps it sacrifices 150 million Indian Muslims. But the alternative was 450 million Muslims in servitude.” “Secularism” in “India” means “Hinduism Light.“

Nationhood is defined as the tendency of a nation to exist. No two nations have the same reason to exist. USA and Canada exist separately, though you may think that both nations have English speaking population, with similar accents, similar religions, similar culture, similar economic structures, and similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. Do you hear America question the validity of Canada to exist. I believe that the USA has the power to take over Canada, if it really wanted to. BUT the USA recognizes the right of the Canadians to exist separately.

Though he would have been aware of the consensus being built in India under Ambedkar, for some reason Jinnah thought India would be a Hindu State. “There are many events which go to show the reality, which is that the Dominion of India is a Hindu State. Even a great Professor, Dr Gadgil, in his statement of Oct 9 says that a Hindu State, or more fully a federation of Hindu national states, is the only proper description of the new Indian Union.”

Jinnah was a direct and honest man. He had admirers in India even after he divided the country. The Bombay Bar Association, then as now, almost fully Gujarati, sent him a letter through Honorary Secretary C M Trivedi on March 17, 1947, informing him of its decision to host a reception in honour of Jinnah’s completing 50 years at the Bar and asking him to pick a day suitable to him. Jinnah replied on March 25. He thanked Trivedi for the decision but said: “According to my information this resolution was carried out by 37 votes against 35, and in face of such strong opposition, while I am grateful to the majority, I am reluctant to force myself upon a large body of unwilling members of your association.”

Even had Jinnah lived longer, Pakistan’s constitution would have still been Islamic–it did not get its teeth till the 60s. And it took another liberal, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, to take the leap and turn the Pakistani Assembly into a Maulvi, performing takfir, with the Second Amendment in September 1974. aakar.patel@gmail.com

“(Jinnah) wanted Muslims to work for a more humane social order, one that would reflect the core Islamic principles of justice and compassion for all.”Prof. Sheila McDonough, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religion, Concordia University “…

an important contribution.” Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington D.C. – American University

“(A) masterpiece book, one of the best I have read this year.” Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Islamic scholar and author – OurBeacon.com

PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD: Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that “India was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the “Indian” map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatya’s era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that “Akhand Bharat” was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.”

Plutarch expressed this sentiment well some centuries ago: “A conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into your cities unopposed.” Does India talk peace in the Plutarchian sense?

THE FORTIES: THE THEORIES IN AIR
Freedom is in the air. The Union Jack is to come down. How do we deal withindependence? Are we mature enough to behave as civilized nations? The years preceding our independence was an intense time. The Freedom Movement created many leaders and many movements. Neither the Muslims nor the Hindus nor the Sikhs were monolithic groups. Each political group had many leaders. Many times the leadership seemed to head in different directions. The Harrow-Eaton Oxbridge led INC under the leadership of Motilal Nehru was a very different Congress. The INC led by his son Jawaharlal Nehru was a very different INC.

The INC had several factions that split and made up. Similarly the Muslim Movement had factions and grouping in it. Disgruntled elements in each of  the major parties went and formed their own political parties and contested the elections. Each group had sub-groupings and subdivisions. There were more than 550 states in the Subcontinent. The Forties gave us the opportunity to forge a country in the Subcontinent or create many nations. As a people we failed to remain at peace. As countries we failed to keep the peace. As nations we failed to usher in an era of prosperity into the Subcontinent. Today let history teach us some lessons.

ONT VS. TNT:
The Two Nation Theory is in direct contradiction of the One Nation Theory. There were proponents of the One Nation Theory in the Indian National Congress and many Muslims believed in the One Nation Theory. Similarly there were many Congressional Leaders that believed in the Two Nation Theory. There were many variations of the TNT and there were many variations of the ONT . On the one hand the TNT espoused many countries in the Subcontinent, on the other is espoused two countries.

Rama Rajha vs Darul Islam:
The ONT had many variations too. There were fundamentalist minority of Muslims who also supported the ONT and had declared India as “Darul Harb” (Area of war) with a view to convert it to “Darul Islam” (Area of peace).  The religious right espoused  a religious Brahman theocracy based on the dharma. “Ram Rajha” were proposed with forced eviction and/or conversion of all Non-Hindus by some of the fundamentalist parties on the right.

United States of India vs. Mahabharta vs India and Pakistan
There were the secular versions of the ONT and there were many that propagated a United States of India. The secular and moderate wings of the Congress and the Muslims won the day, and the fundamentalist on both sides lost the elections.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا | RUPEE NEWS | March 24th, 2009 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |

“THE PAKISTAN IDEOLOGY”  EXPLAINS “WHY PAKISTAN?: For those who TRULY want to understand Pakistanis, let us go over the excerpts from: Ideology of Pakistan by Prof. Saeeduddin Ahmad Dar

The Muslims of South Asia are  a  nation  in  the modern senseof the  word; The basis of their nationhood  is  neither  territorial, nor racial, nor linguistic nor ethnic; They are a nation because they profess the same faith Islam; They are entitled to self-determination. The areas where they (Muslims) are in dominant majority should be constituted into sovereign states/state; Wherein they should be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accord with  the teachings and requirements of Islam asset out in Holy Quran and Sunna; and The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The Ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim Community of South Asia to maintain its individuality by resisting all attempts to absorb it by the Hindu society. They  believe that Islam is incompatible with Hinduism. Historical experience  has shown that Islam and Hinduism have two different social orders and given birth to two distinct cultures and that there is no meeting point between the two.