the Hindus - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.”
According to him Muslims would not get equitable share in jobs and other areas of socio-economic endeavour. Their best of the brains would be numbered by the better educated Hindus. This observation was a manifestation of increasing polarisation on grounds of economic disparities between the two nations despite the fact Sir Syed believed that “Hindus and Muslims are two eyes of the beautiful bride that is Hindustan.”
During the British Raj all the religious communities living in India enjoyed equal rights. They could practice their faiths in full freedom. Where they did not have equitable opportunities were the fields of employment and economic enterprise. And this friction got adequately postulated in Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s 14 points rejected by the Nehrus.
Had the Indian National Congress accepted his proposal a unified India could have been free much earlier and without long struggle and bloodshed. Like Sir Muhammad Iqbal who did not talk of independent Muslim state in his historic Allahabad address of 1930, the Quaid did not believe in dividing India as the Lahore Resolution of March 1940 specifically wanted recognition of Muslims within Hindustan and not as an independent state. It was a much later after thought that Lahore Resolution became Pakistan Resolution.
Until 1946 Quaid had agreed to be part of confederal India as outlined in May/June 1946 plan. It envisaged a united India in line with Congress and Muslim League aspirations. The Jinnah-Nehru consensus ended when Jawaharlal Nehru told a journalist that Congress would be in majority and as such it would decide the future of India negating the basis of Muslim demands of ‘political safeguards’ built into post-British Indian laws so as to prevent absolute rule of Hindus over Muslims forcing Jinnah to opt for independence as a last resort.
Many pseudo-historians in Ziaist mould have ever since tried to paint a life-long secular Jinnah into a theocratic crusader misconstruing his linkage of Islam and modern concept of democracy. Quaid in the right-earnest — believed it as an Islamic concept when he said that democracy is in our bone marrow and in our blood since the advent of Islam. Could there be anything more explicit than Islamic concept of Ijtehad, debate, discussion and consensus - for decisions of the state strictly under Huquq Ul Ibad - rights of human beings on each other based on Islamic social justice guarantying egalitarian principle of greatest good of the largest number? Most certainly not.
The Quaid spelled out his vision in his speech of August 11, 1947 in the mother legislative assembly -rightly described as his Magna Carta for Pakistan, that:
Jinnah’s Pakistan-all its citizens will be equal, they will enjoy equal rights-irrespective of caste, creed, colour or gender;
Islamic socialism and secularism-according to the Quaid— were not contradiction of Islam but its real manifestation;
That Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was Rehmatul Lil Alameen - blessing and leader of all human kind - irrespective of caste, creed, colour or gender - an essentially secular concept; That’s why Jinnah Sahib separated religion from state management and declared categorically that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state.
However, after his death (Sept 11, 1948) his dream of Pakistan as a modern, democratic, liberal and secular state was waylaid by the power troika comprising of military, civil and judicial bureaucracy backed by the feudals. From social welfare state Pakistan was converted at gunpoint into a security state (garrison state) supported by religious groups that had opposed all three Muslim greats - Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal and the Quaid.
While observing his death anniversary we must understand the dynamics of history. We have before us the most recent example of the break up of the Soviet Union. It had the biggest military in the world, with a nuclear arsenal second to none and its super spying agency KGB had the most dreaded overt and covert operational network worldwide and yet none could save it from disintegration and collapse as it could not sustain its population, provide it succour and socio-economic well-being or bear the heavy load of a back breaking Praetorian establishment. When such institutions become larger than the state, then their existence becomes entirely dependent on external forces. They end up reaping the bitter harvest of the seeds sowed by self-serving troikas and religious extremists.
The writer is the former High Commissioner for Pakistan to UK. wshwsh786gmail.com