Our National Purpose

"What we must look for is, first, religious and moral principles; secondly gentlemanly conduct; thirdly intellectual ability.” Thomas Arnold


The national resilience of the Pakistani people is to be judged by the degree of their consciousness and commitment to guard their values, traditions and honour called the ‘national purpose’, or the raison d’être, as the French call it. National purpose is sacrosanct and sublime. Quaid-i-Azam first of all preferred to affirm his own faith, belief and commitment to the cause of Pakistan.


On October 22, 1939, while addressing All-India Muslim Council, he said:
.
.

“I have seen enough in my life, experienced the pleasures of wealth, fame and life of repose and comfort. Now I have one single ambition, to see Muslims gaining freedom and rise to the pinnacle of glory. It is my very ultimate wish that when I die, my conscience and my Allah may testify that, Jinnah never betrayed Islam and that he relentlessly struggled for the freedom of Muslims, to forge institutional discipline among them and strengthen their resolve. I do not wish to get acclamation or reward from you. I only nourish the desire that, my heart, my faith and my conscience, all bear testimony till my death that Jinnah, ‘you contributed your share for the resistance against Islam and my Allah proclaim that “Jinnah you were a born Muslim, lived as such and died, quite steadfastly, holding the banner of Islam against the evil forces.”

Quaid's Concept Of Pakistan

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the greatest leaders of the modern age, who not only led his people to independence but founded a separate homeland for them, where they could mould their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Quran and traditions of Islam and cultivate their culture and civilization. This was a far greater achievement of the Quaid than any other national liberation leader. Other leaders struggled for independence within states already in existence. This he achieved almost single-handedly and constitutionally, and in the teeth of stiff opposition.

Prof. Stanly Wolpert has rightly said about the Quaid that “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three”.

Pakistan’s emergence was not just the emergence of a new state, but it was created on the basis of Islamic ideology. If Pakistan had not been created, the Muslims would have been under the militant Hindu majority in united India and lost in the Hindu majority.1

The only objective of the Pakistan movement was not to separate some provinces to save them from Hindu domination. Had it been so the Muslims of the minority provinces would never have taken the active part they did in the freedom movement. The Muslims of the minority provinces knew that if Pakistan was created they would stand to gain nothing. Indeed might lose everything. Infact, the Muslims of South Asia believed that they were not fighting for a territory only, but for the preservation of their culture and civilization, language and literature and Islamic way of life.

The Quaid-i-Azam at first devotedly worked for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity and spent most of energies and efforts towards its attainment. His efforts were appreciated and Mr. Jinnah was acknowledged by the Hindus themselves. But the conditions soon led the Muslims of the subcontinent to change their outlook and adopt a different course.

The awareness of a separate Muslim nationhood in the subcontinent can be traced back to a millennium when it was noticed for the first time by Alberuni, who visited India in the 9th century and wrote in his famous work Kitab-al-Hind as under:

For the reader must always bear in mind that the Hindus entirely differ from us in every respect, many a subject appearing intricate and obscure which would be perfectly clear if there were more connection between us. The barriers which separate Muslims and Hindus rest on different causes. First, they differ from us in everything which other nations have in common. And here we first mention the language, although the difference of language also exists between other nations.2

He further said:

Many Hindu customs differ from those of our country and of our time to such a degree as to appear to us simply monstrous. One might almost think they had intentionally changed them into the opposite, for our customs do not resemble theirs, but are the very reverse; and if ever a custom of theirs resembles one of ours, it has certainly just the opposite meaning.3

Quaid-e-Azam and the Sikhs

Quaid-e-Azam with Master Tara Singh & Khizar Hayat Tiwana

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was undoubtedly a fascinating, striking and remarkable personality. Possessed of excellent qualities of pen and mind, he played a significant role in changing the course of history and destinies of men in South Asia. A born leader of men, an experienced politician, a dynamic parliamentarian and a far-sighted statesman, he valiantly fought against the British imperialism and Hindu chauvinism in India and single-handedly won the battle of Pakistan.

More strikingly, the Quaid was not only a great defender of the cause of Pakistan, he equally struggled to safeguard the interest of all minority communities in India, irrespective of race, religion and colour. A moderate leader, he stood for a just and honourable treatment of them. Belonging himself to a minority nation, the Indian Muslims, he well understood the minority peoples. At the same time, he fully realized the dominating behaviour and mentality of majority people, the Hindus. A far-sighted politician, he did comprehend the future designs of Hindu majority raj in India. Anyway, the Quaid always remained anxious about the future of minorities in undivided India. “To live and let live” was the basic principle of his political philosophy. To support the cause of any community was an article of faith with him. He often sympathized the grievances of scheduled castes and frequently advocated the cause of Sikhs.

Jinnah & Hindu - Muslim Unity

The founding of Pakistan by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah so greatly dominates his political life and career that his other roles are bound to be ignored. One important role which Jinnah played in the politics of India was for the achievement of unity between the Hindus and Muslims by bringing about some understanding between the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League. In fact, for more than two decades Jinnah was known more for this role than for any other. It will be recalled that Gopal Krishna Gokhale expressed the view that Jinnah “has true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”1 Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, who compiled Jinnah’s speeches and writings in 1918 gave the volume the sub-title An Ambassador of Unity and wrote that Jinnah stood “approved and confirmed by his countrymen not merely as an ambassador, but as an embodied symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity.”2 Similarly, Jawahar Lal Nehru, who strongly differed from Jinnah on several political issues, wrote in 1936 that Jinnah had been “largely responsible in the past for bringing the Moslem League nearer to the Congress.”3 The fact is that Jinnah continued to work for unity between the Hindus and Muslims until he was convinced early in 1940 that the Hindu leaders were not at all prepared for any kind of understanding. The purpose of this paper is to discuss this aspect of Jinnah’s political life.

The Evolution of the Quaid-e-Azam - A Personal Observation

The reputation of the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as the champion of Muslim rights, as the protagonist of the Two Nation Theory and as the Founding Father of Pakistan is so secure that I feel we may be in some danger of forgetting the long road which he had to travel before he could emerge as the Leader of the greatest Muslim mass-movement of our time. In saying this I do not refer only to the slow process of uniting sections or the Muslim community, deeply divided as they were in aims and outlook, in pursuit of a common objective, but also the struggle which went on in his own mind as hard facts compelled him to discard certain of the ideas which had inspired him to attain the first rank among Leaders of the All India Nationalist movement. This mental revolution, if I may use the term, was painful enough to drive him into temporary political exile, from which he only emerged when he had adjusted his thinking to meet the needs of a new situation. Experience had taught him, as it had taught the famous Florentine statesman, the deadly danger of mistaking things as they are for things as we would like them to be.

As a young contemporary of Muhammad Ali Jinnah – he was only thirteen years of age when I was born – I was privileged to follow his career in some details, and, indeed, to come into close contact with him at some of the turning points by which that career was marked. While it was still at school I began to see Mr. Jinnah’s name in print. I gathered that when he was only sixteen years old, his Father, a shrewd Khoja businessman of Karachi, had sent him to England to read for the Bar examinations; that when in England, he had come under the influence of that Grand Old Man of the Indian Nationalist Movement, Dadabhai Naoroji, then President of the Indian Society in London, and one of the founding members of the Indian National Congress. The young Jinnah became an enthusiastic convert to Congress ideas; and when, as a newly qualified Barrister, a decline in the family fortunes obliged him to seek wider opportunities than his native city of Karachi could offer, he migrated to Bombay, he found himself in a society which was already among the most flourishing seedbeds of these ideas in the India of the day. Jinnah was, it seemed, particularly attracted by the personality and outlook of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who, on his part was delighted to find in Jinnah a man after his own heart. He wrote to him: “He has the true stuff in him; and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity”. By 1996 Jinnah was not only building up a lucrative practice at the Bombay Bar; he was marked as a rising political figure. In that same year he acted as Secretary to Dadabhai Naoroji at the Calcutta meeting of the Indian National Congress when the ideal of self-government for India was formally adopted as a Congress objective.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Fundamental Human Rights

By Sharifuddin Pirzada

Quaid-e-Azam always believed in and stood for human rights. In pre-Partition period he championed the cause of liberty, freedom of speech and association and other rights. In the Eighteenth Annual Session of the Muslim League held at Delhi in December 1926, Quaid-e-Azam proposed a resolution demanding that the Government of India Act 1919 should be revised and that without delay a Royal Commission be appointed to formulate a scheme so as to place Indian Constitution on a sound and permanent basis with provisions to establish full responsible Government in India.The resolution further demanded that any scheme of the future of Constitution of India should secure and guarantee, among others, the following basic and fundamental principles.

"Full religious liberty i.e. liberty of belief, worship, observances, propaganda, association and education shall be guaranteed to all communities."

In the famous Fourteen Points formulated by the Quaid-e-Azam on March 28, 1929, point No.7 embodied the provisions relating to liberty, association, education, belief and other fundamental rights and it was demanded that such rights should be guaranteed to all the communities.

The Quaid: A Brilliant Statesman

Pakistan, the beacon of hope for the Muslims of South Asia and beyond, was created under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He was not a traditional politician but a great leader, brilliant statesman and a master strategist, who fought the case for Pakistan so well that he did not only frustrate the designs of the British that wished to see the subcontinent united at one form or another till the last moment, but also made the brute Hindu majority believe that division of the subcontinent had saved it from some bigger catastrophe. He had united the Muslims of the subcontinent and waged struggle for a separate homeland for Muslims to rid them of brute majority’s exploitation and repression and also to enable them to lead their lives according to their faith and culture. This twin-objective is, in fact, is the ideology of Pakistan.

Our leaders should emulate Quaid-i-Azam who had united the people who were earlier divided on the basis of sects and ideologies. The Muslims of the subcontinent had reposed full confidence in him and accepted his concept and perception of the new state – Pakistan. Today, the myriad political and religious parties, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals have variegated views and perceptions, and there is ongoing debate for the last 62 years about the purpose and rationale behind the creation of Pakistan. Different schools of thought interpret Quaid-i-Azam’s speeches to serve their ends, but Quaid-i-Azam had envisioned Pakistan to be a modern progressive state, rooted in the eternal values of Islam, and at the same time responsive to the imperatives of constant change.

Iqbal & Jinnah on Palestine

In 712 A.D. Hajjaj bin Yusuf Saqafi despatched Muhammad bin Qasim at the head of an expeditionary force to punish Dahir of Sind. That Hindu Raja had shown recalcitrance and behaved with impunity when warned not to neglect the safe passage of Hajis along the coastal strip of his territories. The young arab general won the first Muslim foothold on the Subcontinent. But it was a long time before torrent after torrent of Muslim conquerors from Afghanistan and Central Asia swept down the passes of the North-West Frontier. Thus, established Muslim rule in the Subcontinent continued in varying power and glory for about a thousand years. For in 1707 A.D. when Aurangzeb died, almost all India was under Muslim sway.

Early in the seventeenth century the British came to the Subcontinent by sea, appearing as merchants, and, favoured by Mughal generosity, they established trading posts mostly on and near the western coasts. A century and a half later they were in the thick of the power struggle going on the replace the declining Mughal authority. Through conspiracy, force and fraud, they grabbed, annexed and transacted Muslim principalities and Muslim territories wherever they lay, in Bengal in the east, in Oudh in the north, in Mysore in the sourth and in Sind in the west. The first big blow came 50 years after Aurangzeb, in 1757, when Nawab Sirajuddaulah lost the day against the English at Plassey in Bengal, and the last one 150 years after Aurangzeb, in 1857, when the last Mughal emperor, Sirajuddin Bahadurshah Zafar, lay prostrate at Delhi, watching helplessly the massacre of his children and appearing as a rare-show in the bazaars of his capital before being exiled to Rangoon in Burma where he died and was buried.

The British rise to power in the Subcontinent was marked by two perennial factors: first, their inveterate hostility to Islam and the Muslim which they shared with the other Christian countries of Europe since their defeat at the hands of Sultan Salahuddin in 1187 A.D. and, secondly, the ready and steady cooperation which the Hindu, having been ruled by the Muslim for a thousand years, extended to the British. Thus while the British built up and boosted the Hindu in every field and by every means, they put down and ruined the Muslim everywhere and in alt possible ways; and the Hindu, paying off old scores, has often on the side of the British and pitted against the Muslim. The most heinous outrage that this British-Hindu combine perpetrated was the sale-deed of Kashmir. In 1946 the British struck a deal with Gulab Singh, a Dogra Hindu of Jammu, to give him possession of that beautiful land, with its 80% Muslim population (now about 6,500,000) and its area well over 180,000 sq. km., for a cash payment of 15,000,000 rupees. A people and their homeland transacted as a common piece of landed property. It was an enormity, a most monstrous crime against humanity; Allama Muhammad Iqbal, himself of Kashmiri stock, cried out some eighty years[1]

Wood and stream and field and ploughman, And a nation into the bargain,

Without o’er a scruple or shudder,

All they sold for filthy lucre,

Is the dark, long night about to end?

“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history,” wrote Stanley Wolpert in the preface to his book on Mr Jinnah. “Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.” By 1940, the mystical bond linking Jinnah and the people was so profound that nobody could challenge Jinnah’s leadership of the Muslims of India. He was their sole spokesman.

Beverly Nichols, who first met Mr Jinnah on December 18, 1943, called him a giant, the most important man in Asia. “India is likely to be the world’s greatest problem for some years to come, and Mr Jinnah is in a position of unique strategic importance. He can sway the battle this way or that as he chooses. His 100 million Muslims will march to the left, to the right, to the front, to the rear at his bidding and at nobody else’s… that is the point.” Without Jinnah, it is safe to say, there would have been no Pakistan. Rarely, in the history of human endeavour, have so many owed so much to one, single, solitary person.

Mr Jinnah, as I knew him

By Sameen Khan

I saw Mr Jinnah for the first time when he came to speak on the invitation of the Muslim University Union in the famous Strachey Hall. My class fellow and close friend Fasihuddin Ahmed, who was also a nephew of Dr Ziauddln Ahmed, the Vice Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, asked me if I was going or wanted to go to hear Mr Jinnah speak. I said: “The hall will be full with students, how shall we get in?” But Fasih took me there and we entered the hall from the backside. We sat near the dice where students were piling up their autograph books to be signed by Jinnah. I think the Vice President of the University Union (the President was always a professor) was perhaps Shamsul Hoda/Haq from Bengal, who delivered an eloquent speech and prepared the audience for Jinnah’s speech. When his name was announced, there was complete silence in the hall. He delivered an eloquent speech and, perhaps, in this speech said: “Aligarh is the arsenal of Muslim India.” But the only sentence that I remember till now is “build your character”, and since then I have tried to do just that. That was my first encounter with Mr Jinnah.

Quaid-e-Azam as a Role Model

By Mian Muhammad Javed

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah the most revered leader of the Muslims of the Subcontinent was a man having inter alia a strong moral character unmatched by any other contemporary leader of those days. He is quoted as an example of impeccable integrity on which he never compromised. He is a role model for those who believe that in a Muslim nation personal character of leadership is as important as other necessary inherent qualities of leadership which get radiated to inspire people at large. This is in variation from the secular world concept that leadership may have personal weaknesses but should excel in political or military acumen merely. It is rather strange and beyond understanding that most of the subsequent political leadership in Pakistan instead of looking at and emulating the most successful and adored personality of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his traits never tire of eulogizing the services and examples of foreign leaders, many of whom considered personal conduct not a matter of public scrutiny and took pride in their adventures which were frequently based on unaccepted social norms. An ideological state having been created it would be only right that politicians clamoring to play a leadership role in such a state should follow a proper role model of which the shining example is that of trend setter Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan who was an embodiment of qualities of head and heart. In the context of prevailing political situation in Pakistan where there are serious problems of internal security and country is facing foreign pressures it is all the more important that inspiration should be drawn from examples set by the Quaid in dealing with internal dissidents and outsiders.

He took firm stand on principles, remained adamant in face of unruly opponents and ported a strong sense of self-respect. Even with colonial masters of the day he would neither put up with improper behavior nor would tolerate a slight. It would be opportune to recall some of the incidents to elaborate on his conduct. One incident dates back to the period in his life when he started legal practice as a young lawyer. He always pleaded cases with solid arguments without involving an iota of imploration. In the course of hearing in a court of law the English magistrate due to some reason or other reminded Jinnah that he was in the court of a 1st class magistrate. Prompt came the reply by Jinnah that the advocate in him was of no lesser class. Jinnah carried his sense of self- respect every where in dealing with Indian leaders of the day including those belonging to Indian Congress. He never allowed himself to be brow beaten. Jinnah was endowed with an impressive personality by nature, and on top of it he would dress himself immaculately and maintain a posture and facial expression which commanded respect from all who were in company. It is narrated that on visit to London for political parleys he stayed in hotel. In the morning he descended from his hotel suite into the breakfast hall, using stairs. When the people present in the restaurant noticed him they all rose involuntary and stood up as a gesture of respect to him. Another interesting story about Quaid also relates to his appearance in a court of law as pleader of a client. While making arguments, monocle which Jinnah was using for reading from his notes slipped from his eye and dropped on the floor. The magistrate mischievously grinned and felt delighted, anticipating that Jinnah would have to bend in his court to pick up the monocle. He was disappointed when Jinnah put his hand in his pocket, brought out another monocle and applied it to his eye while continuing the arguments.

What Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not?

Mowahid Hussain Shah

A Muslim visitor returning from India feels instinctively a sense of gratitude to Jinnah for founding Pakistan, which, with all its warts and imperfections, is a place free from the spectre of Muslims at the receiving end of communal fury.

This is not to denigrate India, a country difficult to match in the range of its cultural diversity. But no honest Indian would contend that India is a safe haven for Muslims. But no lofty claims are made here for a secular order. Yet, some Pakistanis would still like to reassess the utility of the creation of Pakistan and the wisdom behind the founding. The debate would be conclusively answered by asking the single question: Are the Muslims of India better off than the Muslims of Pakistan?

By some accounts, India has more Muslims than Pakistan. But that fact, apart from tokenism, is not reflected at the helm of affairs. Sikhs, for all the agitation, were (and still are) far better represented than Muslims despite their significantly smaller size. Secularism is intellectually attractive but, in effect, fraudulent. The obvious needs to be restated. But for Pakistan, there would not have been too many generals, business moguls, sport superstars and bureaucrats of the Islamic faith. Having said that, it does not necessarily follow that the experiment of a Muslim homeland has been an unqualified success.

Pictorial History of Pakistan Movement