I believe (based on the little knowledge I have) if Jinnah were alive he would have opposed the Islamic Republic idea. Even some Hindu parliamentarians from EP believed the same. I was googling the evolution of Pakistan's constitution. One Hindu MP said in the parliament that the proposal of an Islamic constitution had not come either from Jinnah or even Liaquat Ali Khan, it had come originally from Ulama although it was first presented in the assembly by Laquat Ali Khan. I think there is some truth in it.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
If "secularism", is defined as "irreligiosity", Jinnah was definitely more secular than Gandhi. However, if "secularism" is defined as the state policy of treating people equally irrespective of their religious beliefs, Gandhi was secular, and Jinnah was not. As I also said in the post below, "He (Jinnah) was not a serious believer in Islam; he was fanatic about his Muslim clan." Of course, one might say that his Muslim-clannish fanaticism was only for him to be a supreme leader, as opposed to for loving the Muslims.
A flat statement of 'Sure, he was more secular than Gandhi' surely sounds like giving Jinnah too much respect, doesn't it? As Dr. Das has also noted, Jinnah's politics had no grassroots. In other words, Jinnah was no angel for democracy.
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Jinnah, the secular democrat?
"If he was not a Muslim fanatic bigot,...". Jinnah relished pork sandwich and never even bowed towards Mecca. He was a British agent as observed Wali Khan. When Mr. Khan went for treatment in England, he had the opportunity to study the declassified British information about Jinnah and his role in the partition of Pakistan. About five years before he was made the President of All India Muslim League, he actively retired from Indian Politics, and left India for England to practice law there. Then he was hand picked by the Winston Churchill to pursue his heinous politics. Sure, he was more secular than Gandhi. His politics had no grassroots. In sickbed during his last days, he confessed that his worst mistake in life was to achieve Pakistan.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
May be Dr. Jiten Roy should read the following article by Faiz Ahmed Faiz:He should also read the book, India Wins Freedom, by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.Jinnah insisted that Congress was a Hindu party, even when Maulana Azad was the President of that party. He also insisted that Muslim League was the legitimate representative of all the Muslims of India, even when that party did not have parliamentary majority in three principal Muslim-majority provinces, Punjab, N.W.F. and Bengal. If he was not a Muslim fanatic bigot, who was? I would insist that his talk of a secular Pakistan in 1948 was probably due to his over-consumption of alcohol on that day. He was not a serious believer in Islam; he was fanatic about his Muslim clan.I am surprised by Dr. Roy's question, "What could have been the national language of Pakistan, other than Urdu?" Why could you not think of Bangla as a more appropriate choice?Obviously, Urdu was the language of the Muslim aristocrats. Bangla was the language of an overwhelming majority population of Pakistan. In terms of usage in artistic and scientific literature, Bangla was better than Urdu. I would be happy to be corrected if you can provide comparative works in the two languages, both in science and in arts. My limited knowledge tells me that people like Rabindra Nath Tagore in literature and Jagadish Chandra Basu in science were not to be found in Urdu in 1948, when Jinnah wanted Urdu, the language of only 8% of the population of Pakistan, to be the national language. Thus, respecting people (democracy) was not what Jinnah had in his head.Sukhamaya Bain.=====================================From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Shame on us that today pakistan is being sourced out, because we are unable to run the country.....ishrat Tender for running Pakistan Vaqar Ahmed Tender No. GOP 2013/193CTR/PTL/TEN/420 Ten
I tend to agree with Sukhamaya about Jinnah thoughTo: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.comFrom: jnrsr53@yahoo.comDate: Sun, 5 May 2013 15:58:58 -0700Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Shame on us that today pakistan is being sourced out, because we are unable to run the country.....ishrat Tender for running Pakistan Vaqar Ahmed Tender No. GOP 2013/193CTR/PTL/TEN/420 Tender Notice for Ru
Sorry, another mistake in the last line - it's 'state affairs', not 'national affairs' --- On Sun, 5/5/13, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Shame on us that today pakistan is being sourced out, because we are unable to run the country.....ishrat Tender for running Pakistan Vaqar Ahmed Tender No. GOP 2013/193CTR/PTL/TEN/420 Tender Notice for Ru
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 5, 2013, 6:53 PM
I disagree. Jinnah was much more secular than any other Islamist autocrats came after him. They all hated him for that. He deserves much more credit than was given to him; his ideals would have made Pakistan a much better country than it is today. What could have been the national language of Pakistan, other than Urdu? Hindi is the national language of India, but – each state has own language for national affairs. I don't see your point.
Jiten Roy
--- On Sun, 5/5/13, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Shame on us that today pakistan is being sourced out, because we are unable to run the country.....ishrat Tender for running Pakistan Vaqar Ahmed Tender No. GOP 2013/193CTR/PTL/TEN/420 Tender Notice for Ru
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, May 5, 2013, 6:18 PM
Jinnah's only ideology was probably to make himself the supreme leader of Pakistan. Please stop giving him undue credits. His secular credential has been way overblown. If he wanted a secular Pakistan, he could not have worked with religious hate-mongers to accomplish that. He was not a democrat, he was an aristocrat. If he had much respect for democracy, he could not have insisted on Urdu to be the national language of Pakistan.
