Latest news with #Jinnah
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Islamic state and the Muslim world
Listen to article What is an Islamic state? This is a question that has been asked ever since the founding of the religion by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As I will discuss later, this question has been answered in several different ways in different parts of the Muslim world. Most recently, the question has become important as the various factions and leadership groups in Syria are attempting to establish a state that would serve its highly diverse population. What happens to Syria is likely to affect the rest of the Muslim world. I should perhaps start with what Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founding father, had in mind when he campaigned for the establishment of Pakistan, a country in which the large majority of the citizenship would follow the Islamic faith. Was Jinnah creating an Islamic state or a country in which the large majority of the citizens would follow the Islamic faith? He had an answer to this question in the much-quoted address delivered on August 11, 1947, three days before being sworn in as Pakistan's first Governor General. He made it clear that he had worked hard not to create an Islamic state but a state in which most Muslims of the British Indian colony would be able to live their lives as Muslims, not subject to the wishes of the Hindu majority that would greatly outnumber the Muslim subjects. There was an enormous cultural difference between the members of these two communities. To illustrate this point, Jinnah is reported to have said that "whereas Hindus worship the animal cow, Muslims eat it." In the countless meetings Jinnah had with the British leaders who had been instructed by the government in London to take India towards independence, he pressed this point and managed to convince the departing British that the best way for the two religious communities would be to let them have their own countries in which they would follow their own ways. If Pakistan were to be created he did not suggest that it would be an Islamic state; only a country where the Muslim community could live comfortably not fearing intrusion by the majority Hindu population. At the time the British handed over power to the successor states of India and Pakistan, their colony's population was estimated at 400 million people. Of these, one fourth or 100 million were Muslims. Of the Muslim population, 75 million became Pakistanis and 25 million stayed bank in India. However, those who were to become Pakistanis would live in two parts, East and West Pakistan separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory. This was not a viable solution to what the British had called the "India's Mussalman problem". In December 1971, after a bitterly fought civil war, East Pakistan became the independent state of Bangladesh. The people of Pakistan had to wait 70 years before they saw the truth in Jinnah's strongly held views about the cultural differences between the large religious communities that lived together uncomfortably under the British rule. When Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in India after winning the elections of 2014, Narendra Modi, the Hindu nationalist, led the devoted followers whose aim was to turn India into a Hindu nation. The BJP made it clear that the large Muslim minority by then estimated to number 200 million – eight times its size in 1947 – could not be treated as equal to the large Hindu majority. Modi also began to work to change the name of India to Bharat. There was logic in this move since the name India applied by the British rulers of the land they governed was named for the River Indus, one of the longest rivers in the world. It originated in the high plateau of Tibet and then flowed into Pakistan, not touching India. After moving through Pakistan it emptied into the Indian Ocean, through a large delta not far from the Indian border but not located in India. I will go briefly into the history of Islamic states in the Muslim world. The first Islamic state was in the Arabian city of Medina to which the Prophet (peace be upon him) went after conveying the messages sent to him by God to preach to the Meccans. These came in the form of revelations in the Koran. In my fairly extensive readings on early Muslim history, I have found the book, The First Muslim, by Leslie Hazelton to be especially revealing. According to her, the concept of al-Shura consists of the following four elements: One, selection of a leader to guide the discussion about Islamic governance. This leader was usually called the caliph. Two, all members of the community are given the opportunity to express their opinions. Three, the basic discussion should be to define public interest. Four, the majority opinion should be accepted as long as it does not violate the teachings of the Koran and Sunnah. Muslim scholars of Islam identify the following countries as providing different interpretation of Islamic statehood. Brunei is an absolute Islamic monarchy, with the constitution of 1959 adopting Islam as the official religion. Iran's 1979 revolution led to the adoption of the doctrine of Imamate which initially allowed political rule by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or one his true successors. The current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is now the imam. Saudi Arabia leadership has declared the Koran and the Sunnah to be the official constitution of the country. The Taliban rulers of Afghanistan claim to have followed Saudi Arabia by declaring the Koran and the Sunnah to be the ultimate basis of governance. But the way they govern is not envisioned in the holy books of Islam. Nowhere do the Islamic scriptures downgrade the status of women to the level to which they have been brought down by the governance structure in Afghanistan. The governing Taliban have gone to the extent of totally isolating women. They are not allowed to go to schools and educate themselves. They can't venture out unless they are accompanied by a male member of their family. There are other examples of nations moving towards extremism in other parts of the Muslim world. Turkey, for instance, became a secular state patterned after those in the West. Its then leader, Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, brought about radical changes in the way the country was governed. He went about to the extent of abandoning the Arabic script in favour of Romanising the language thus depriving the Turks the knowledge of their own history. Tayyip Erdogan, the current president of the country, is attempting to bring his country back to its traditions.
News18
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- News18
'You Ate Pork And Drank Alcohol But Later...': Javed Akhtar Slams 'Power Hungry' Jinnah
Last Updated: Akhtar expressed his displeasure over Jinnah, a figure celebrated in Pakistan, for promoting the two-nation theory. In a scathing critique, renowned lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar questioned the principles and motivations of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, sparking controversy and debate. While speaking with the Lallantop, Akhtar said, 'These are power-hungry people," Akhtar said, criticising Jinnah's shift from a Western lifestyle to embracing his Muslim identity. 'Till yesterday, you were eating pork and drinking alcohol. Now you have become so Muslim. When did this happen in our England?" Akhtar questioned, highlighting Jinnah's earlier lifestyle choices. Akhtar expressed his displeasure over Jinnah, a figure celebrated in Pakistan, for promoting the two-nation theory. Akhtar also referenced Jinnah's association with Mahatma Gandhi and the Khilafat Movement, suggesting that Jinnah's actions were driven by a desire for power and recognition. 'He wanted to become a star, so he did this," Akhtar said, referring to the formation of Pakistan. He further implied that Jinnah's transformation was opportunistic. First Published:
The Wire
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Pakistan's Chimerical Quest for Parity with India Has Hit a Dead End
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Top Stories Pakistan's Chimerical Quest for Parity with India Has Hit a Dead End Manoj Joshi 6 minutes ago Seventy-seven years after Partition, Pakistan's four-pronged strategy to achieve 'effective parity' with India – through alliances, military spending, nuclear weapons, and terrorism – has left it weaker, not stronger. It's time for both nations to embrace reality over fantasy. Illustration: The Wire. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now Few will deny that the roots of India's problems with Pakistan lie in the partition of the country in 1947. But just what a tangled growth those roots have yielded is difficult to grasp at times. When negotiations were taking place with the British, Muhammad Ali Jinnah sought to somehow ensure that Muslims, constituting a quarter of the Indian population, would be given political parity with the majority Hindus. Jinnah's views were based on the two-nation theory – that the Hindus and Muslims in India were separate 'nations'. Over the years, his demands varied, but it was always aimed at somehow squaring the circle – assuring 'Muslim' political and cultural equality in an unequal demographic situation. During the negotiations for the Interim Government in 1946 he demanded a 50-50 representation in the government between the Muslim League and the Congress. He initially engaged with the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 for a federal India with Muslim and Hindu provinces, and sought equal representation of such provinces in the federal legislature and the executive. Four planks for effective parity Since real parity was not possible, what Pakistan did after Jinnah was to pursue 'effective parity' whose central strategy was to somehow diminish India geographically, politically and economically, so that Pakistan could be, and be seen, as its equal. This policy has been based on four planks 1. External alliances to balance a larger India. 2. High military spending to build a force that can deter India 3. Fabricating nuclear weapons 4. Using terrorism as an instrument to promote separatism and civil war to breakup and destabilise India. As M.S. Venkataramani has shown, Pakistan approached the US in 1947 and requested an alliance and went to the extent of even asking the Americans to pay the salaries of their military. The US was not initially interested in South Asia and turned down the requests. But by 1953, the US had identified Pakistan as its partner in South Asia. In 1954, the US and Pakistan signed a mutual defence assistance agreement followed by Pakistan joining SEATO and CENTO. Its mutual defence pact has yet to be revoked. Pakistan sensed opportunity when India was humiliated by China in the war of 1962 and it began back-door talks with China which culminated in a border agreement. This was the beginning of the Pakistan-China relationship which has today reached the status of a quasi alliance. There have never been doubts that this alliance is based on the mutual interests of both sides to check India. In the 1965, Pakistan sought to wrest Kashmir from India through a war in which China played a bit role in aiding Karachi. In the 1960s, through its eastern wing, Pakistan helped a slew of north-eastern separatist groups in India. All this was with the view of breaking up India into manageable bits. However, karma struck back when Pakistan itself came apart following the rebellion in East Pakistan and Indian military intervention in 1971. Going nuclear Pakistan's leaders, military and civilians, now decided to get the ultimate deterrent, the nuclear bomb. In a project begun following a meeting in Multan in January 1972, President Bhutto authorised a programme to go full steam ahead. He had been an advocate of nuclearisation since the 1965 war. This is one area where Pakistan has been at par with India, if not slightly ahead. Though India conducted a nuclear test in 1974, Pakistan received assistance from China in terms of nuclear materials and weapons design in 1982. Further, in 1990, the Chinese tested a Pakistani device based on their designs at Lop Nor. Pakistan thus had a verified design which enabled its prompt response to the Indian tests in May 1998. Militancy Pakistan started 'facilitating' the Khalistani militancy at its very outset in the early 1980s by enabling militants to acquire arms and go through the border to carry out their terror campaign in Indian Punjab. In the late 1980s, things started bubbling up in Jammu and Kashmir, and Pakistan 'facilitated' the growth of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and its uprising against India at the end of 1989 and early 1990. Thousands of Kashmiris crossed the border and returned with some training and arms provided by Pakistan. When this militancy was defeated, Pakistan, having learnt a great deal from the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union, took up the Kashmir 'cause'. It sent in Pakistani terrorists who took on the security forces and conducted occasional massacres of civilians on the Indian side of the Line of Control. In the 1990-2000 period, Pakistan had also sought to link the Khalistan and Kashmir movements but it did not work out. The Khalistani militancy was quickly rolled up by military and police action by 1993, the year in which Pakistan facilitated the multiple bombing attack in Bombay aimed at unsettling India's economic growth. Pakistan also stepped up its support for the Kashmiri militancy by sending in ever-larger number of Pakistani fighters into the fray. Following a near war after the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, Pakistan, under President Pervez Musharraf, took a step back. By now it was clear that Kashmir was not about to break away from India. But the terror campaign did not ease off. Terror Following the destruction of the Babri Masjid, Pakistan had sought to capitalise on the angst of Indian Muslims by recruiting them for a terror campaign in an arc from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh. Operating from Nepal and Bangladesh, ISI operatives sent a stream of terrorists and Indian recruits to destabilise India. But this campaign, peaked in 2008 when the so-called Indian Mujahideen carried out a trail of bombings and were eventually wiped out. Their leaders have always operated from sanctuaries in Pakistan, as have some Khalistani terrorists. The Mumbai attack of 2008 was the last major attempt to use terrorism to destabilise India. Whether in the messaging or in their get up, an effort was made to pass off the terrorists as Indians. But the capture of Ajmal Kasab and the interception of their communications in the 60 hour rampage made it clear that the planners of the attack were in Pakistan. The Mumbai attack in a sense also marks the point at which the terror monster began to bite back in Pakistan. Led at various times by Baitullah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsud, Hafiz Gul Bahadur and others, they turned their militancy against the Pakistani state. This was described by the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid in his book Descent into Chaos in 2008. This period also marked the growing infirmity of the Pakistani state. Benazir Bhutto's assassination and the downfall of the Musharraf Presidency began a process that was marked by political instability, polarisation and a delicate balance between the military and the civilian government, even as militancy rose across the country. Opposition The rise and fall of Imran Khan's PTI only underscored the decline. The 2024 elections revealed that Imran was the most popular force in the country and his arrest sparked widespread rioting and an anti-military upsurge. The 2024 elections were rigged against him and since then instability has grown with a rising toll of terrorist attacks. The dominance of the military cannot even provide a band aid to stem the bleeding. We must see the Pahalgam attack in this context. The exaggerated Pakistani claims of its 'accomplishments' in the fighting that followed Operation Sindoor and its elevation of Gen Asif Munir to the rank of Field Marshal are a desperate attempt to stabilise the situation. But the military, as the experience of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf shows, can hardly provide solutions. Economy Over time, Pakistan's claims to effective parity with India have worn thinner and thinner. Now, on the economic front, there is nothing to claim. On the military front, too, nuclear weapons have not proved to be the magic wand under which terrorism could flourish. India had earlier shown it can deal with all the terrorist attacks Pakistan can throw at it. And now it inclined to hit back as well. China remains as Pakistan's 'iron brother' but there are clear limits as to what the alliance can do. Pakistan's insecurities at the time of independence are understandable; it was a nation conjured out of the thin air by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. But today, though flailing, it is an established state whose security against its huge eastern neighbour is guaranteed by nuclear weapons and not by its over-weening Army. Now it needs to get beyond its national insecurities and learn to live as a normal nation with its neighbours. Both Pakistan and India need to realise that they are destined to be neighbours forever. A failing or failed Pakistan is not in India's interest, neither is a belligerent one. A country that is hoping to emerge as a major world power cannot be sharing a major portion of its border with a hostile power. As for Pakistan, it is geography and demography that make its effort at parity with India a chimerical quest. But there is nothing that says that it must not live in terms of sovereign equality. There is the matter of Kashmir, which has woven itself into the make-believe world of Pakistan. There was nothing in the Partition arrangements that said that the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was to become part of Pakistan. Jinnah's acceptance of the (failed) accession of the overwhelmingly Hindu Junagadh indicated that he did not assume that the princely states were to be divided on religious grounds. Pakistan made a grab for Kashmir, but failed to capture the prized valley and has since woven the myth of it being the jugular of the Pakistani state. Peace Over the years, there have been tantalising glimpses of the possibility of a South Asia where India and Pakistan live in peace. The first was in 1953 when Prime Ministers Nehru and Mohammad Ali Bogra agreed to a plebiscite in Kashmir, but the issue foundered when the US appeared as a military ally of Pakistan. In 1972, India's hopes that its lenient handling of post-Bangladesh War Pakistan could lead to peace came to a nought as the Pakistan Army embarked on a long quest for revenge. In 2007-2008, through the so-called Four Point formula, the two countries worked out a way of handling Kashmir without changing borders, but the process collapsed along with the Musharraf presidency. Indeed, in 2004, at the SAARC summit, they had agreed on creating a South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) by 2014, but all of it has come to nought. Good relations can only be built on realistic terms not on political fantasy. There are things India can do, and has tried to do, to aid this process – Gujral's composite dialogue of 1997, Vajpayee's Lahore trip in 1999, the Agra summit of 2001, Manmohan Singh's dialogue with Musharraf and forbearance (combined with using evidence to build a global case for Pakistan to act) after the Mumbai attack of 2008, and even Modi's outreach of 2014-15 – have been recent instances of the effort. Indeed, recall that the Modi government actually invited Pakistani officials to investigate the Pathankot airbase attack of 2016. Since we are neighbours who, as Vajpayee famously said you don't have the option to change, we seem destined to ride a relationship roller-coaster that is becoming steeper by the year. In recent years there has been little interest on either side to change the situation for the better. Like an open wound, the India-Pakistan situation is like a wound that can only fester. Manoj Joshi is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News A Nation Is Known By the Enemy It Keeps 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court Full Text | India-Turkey Relationship Before and After the Recent Conflict With Pakistan Five Questions That Indian MPs May Have to Face Abroad India May Push FATF to Revert Pakistan to 'Grey List' on Terror Funding Charges India, Pakistan and The Day After Pakistan's Slick US Strategy: It's Deja Vu All Over Again India's Outreach to Kabul Amid Simmering 'Pashtunistan' Demand Could Give It Leverage Over Pakistan Violent Pakistan Storms Trigger Floods, Landslides Killing At Least 10 View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Express Tribune
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
The nation created by Jinnah
The writer is an educationist based in Larkana. She can be reached at sairasamo88@ Listen to article Led by great leaders, envisioned and created by Jinnah, and carried forward by the Muslim community — youth, men and women alike — this nation was built through sacrifice, selflessness and relentless efforts. Resilient, patriotic and high in spirit, it cannot bear the evil eye. The freedom of Pakistan embarked on a new era, ushering in economic, political and social perspectives, and enabling the practice of religion freely. It presented enormous opportunities for the public and the state to strive for the nation's progress. Like an enchanting story, the people inclined themselves towards making their vibrant culture even more beautiful with its unique traits of love and kindness. No external power can now diminish the worth and mettle of its people. This was proved 77 years ago when Jinnah declared, "There is no power on Earth that can undo Pakistan." Stanley Wolpert, in his book, Jinnah of Pakistan, beautifully writes in honour of our Quaid: "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with making a nation." Quaid-e-Azam, the architect of the nation, launched the freedom movement and raised Indian Muslims to the height of glory, which was to be preserved in the Land of Pure for all times to come. Not only Muslims but Hindus too were dear to him. Hence, he was called the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity — a unity seen when the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League came together on one platform for the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In his early career, he advocated for Hindus and Muslims to live together and flourish peacefully on the subcontinent. But time became so turbulent that the unity once epitomised at the Lucknow Pact was never witnessed again. Over the years, the rift between Hindus and Muslims widened, ultimately leading to the partition. Nevertheless, after the partition, the animosity between Hindus and Muslims escalated, resulting in three wars and several skirmishes. More recently, this has culminated in events like Operation Sindoor and its reaction, Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos. Panic ensues on both sides. Tragically, 77 years have passed since the partition, and in the meantime, both nations have remained at daggers drawn, with less positivity and increasing negativity in their ties. This belligerence seems to be a continuum of the past hostility, when both nations lived together despite diverse cultures and beliefs. The differences between the two nations were rightly envisioned in the Two-Nation Theory — a fact that remains undeniable. Kashmir, meanwhile, has long been the main cause of fluctuating relations between the two countries. The integrity, stability and sovereignty of the region have been chained by constant conflict, resulting in chaos and hatred. The surge in belligerence continues, especially with India's verbal attacks after a superpower-brokered ceasefire. Listening to PM Modi's fake stance and watching Indian media coverage reveals humiliation and degradation directed at Pakistan. The blame game and misinformation by Indian media remain on the rise, leading its public through bias and hatred against Pakistan. India cannot win this game through ill will and misinformation to gain public favour. Victory lies in strong and sincere efforts — something our armed forces have demonstrated with their patriotism and valour, surprising their counterparts. In this regard, the armed forces deserve a grand salute for making the nation proud of their bravery. May these protectors always stand tall in the face of adversity! Evil eyes off! This is the nation of Jinnah, who created Pakistan on the principles of Unity, Faith and Discipline. Therefore, the nation stands by these principles and abides by international law. Though it might be economically weak, it is rich in patriotic love and enthusiasm — because here lives the nation created by Jinnah.
Indian Express
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi interview: ‘Waqf change an administrative reform, not religious… Only those who enjoyed a legal licence to loot are scared'
The Waqf (Amendment) Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court by several individuals and organisations. In an interview with The Indian Express, former Union minister and BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi backs the law, saying India is a country of reforms and that the Waqf system needed reform, and that the amendments brought by the government rectify problems administratively without encroaching on matters of faith. Excerpts: The amendment is an administrative reform and not a religious one. Only those who thought they had a legal licence to loot are scared of this correction. The law does not pertain to any community but is the law of the land, whose beneficiaries will include Waqf stakeholders, including Muslims. Some people are trying to communalise it (the Act) by creating an imaginary legal confusion and want communal conflict by creating fear. Everyone must understand that India is a nation of reform, and has seen many kinds of reforms – be it social, economic, administrative, electoral, educational, agricultural or health – before and after Independence. We are not a closed country with a touch-me-not approach to legislation. They tried to make the entire system of Waqf a touch-me-not one. This approach is neither in national interest nor in the interest of society. The idea (of the Act) is to bring the system within the Constitutional hierarchy to benefit stakeholders. People must understand that when they talk about (land going back to) 1913, baat niklegi to door talaq jaayegi (a lot of other things will come up). The Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council held in 1894-95 that this is a system of the worst kind. Countries under British rule then reformed their Waqf systems. I was Union Minority Affairs minister for a long time and studied this issue in depth. In India, the Muslim League went for communal polarisation. They politically exploited the issue. In 1910, (Muhammad Ali) Jinnah became a member of the Imperial Legislative Council from Bombay in connivance with the British. The 1913 Act was a product of Jinnah's connivance with the British… Even in Pakistan, the Waqf system has been reformed in 1959, 1960, etc. They claim Hindus have been included in the Waqf Council and Waqf boards, but we need to understand that after Partition, Muslims went to Pakistan in large numbers while Hindus and Sikhs came to India in large numbers. The Muslims who chose to leave India left their properties behind, while those Hindus and Sikhs who chose India left theirs in Pakistan. The Muslims (in Pakistan) were allowed to occupy the vacant properties, and today own them. But Hindus who chose India are neither owners nor tenants of those properties that the Muslims left behind. A sword constantly dangles over their heads. Hence, non-Muslims are also stakeholders in the Waqf system. (Religious) conversions are dangerous, particularly if they are forced, taken up by fraudulent means or are funded. When one speaks about tribals, they should ask for whom the Waqf system exists? It is for Muslims and only those practising Islam can do Waqf. As I said earlier, non-Muslims are also stakeholders in the Waqf system as they left everything they owned in Pakistan. Their stakes need to be respected. People in many states say things like… 'We got this shop in 1949 when our family came to India from Pakistan, but I still get notices and have to pay hafta to retain them'. So, legal correction is the need of the hour. Please remember that people have been claiming half the country's property as Waqf. They say Parliament, roads, fields, trees and rivers are Waqf properties. This kind of criminal anarchy needed to be remedied by bringing it within the bounds of the Constitution. Faith is protected under the law but administrative problems need to be addressed.
