Debate on Two Nations Theory, Dr Shabir Choudhry

Debate on Two Nations Theory

Dr Shabir Choudhry      11 March 2016

Pakistan will be 69 years old in August, but still people are not sure what the purpose of establishing this new country was. Moreover, what is the future of this unfortunate country, which suffered humiliating defeat in 1971 and a break up of its Eastern wing, now known as Bangladesh?

Growing body of opinion now believe that Pakistan was not created to serve Islam or for the benefit of Muslims of united India, if anything, the partition of India divided Muslims of the Indian Sub Continent. Also it resulted in death of more than half million innocent people, rapes, destruction and unending hatred and extremism.

Some critics even say that creation of Pakistan was designed to serve the British interests after their departure from South Asia. The British Generals in India proposed a creation of a buffer state between India and Afghanistan, stretching from Gilgit Baltistan to Balochistan. Idea was to protect India from Soviet Russia. The British also wanted to reward the landed aristocracy and the men in uniform who helped the British Raj to expand and survive in the Indian Sub Continent.

Muslim League under the unyielding command of Mohammed Ali Jinnah apparently championed the cause of Pakistan in name of Islam. Before we analyse what Mr Jinnah wanted to do with his new country, let us look at what were the aims and objectives of the Muslim League, the party that spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan. The Muslim League was set up on 28 December 1906 in Dhaka, with the following objectives:

1.    To promote among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the British government and to remove misunderstandings;

2.    To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Muslims, and to represent properly their needs and aspirations to the British government; and

3.    To prevent the rise of hostility among Muslims toward other communities. 1

The Muslim League and the rulers of Pakistan, to date, have very sincerely served the British and the American interests in Pakistan and in the region. To accomplish this task, the landed aristocracy and the men in uniform also played their part brilliantly, and benefited immensely.

The bitter fact is that the landed aristocracy, the Generals and the security forces now control Pakistan and its destiny; and sad thing is even they don’t know what is the destiny of this unfortunate country and how to reach there. Another bitter fact is, service to Islam and welfare of the Muslims is no longer priority of those who control and run Pakistan. I have heard Muslims of other countries saying that they feel sorry for the Pakistani Muslims, as they are not safe even in their own country.

Was Two Nations Theory a political stunt?

Of course millions of Pakistanis still believe that the Movement for Pakistan was to advance the cause of Islam. In reality that is not true. Some analysts believe there was a competition between two brilliant Gujrati lawyers – Mr Jinnah and Mr Gandhi for supremacy in the Indian Congress and in the Indian politics. Both had charisma and brilliance, and both had great influence in the Congress. However, gradually Jinnah felt he was outmaneuvered by politics of Nehru and Gandhi; and in frustration he shifted to Britain.

Critics ask, if he was such a staunch Muslim and true and dedicated soldier of Islam who wanted to advance the cause of Islam, then why did he accept the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, which provided a unitary State within India?

Jinnah was not a fool. Indeed he was a shrewd politician. He knew he could not take all Muslims to his new country – Pakistan. He knew millions of Muslims will stay behind in India. He also knew that nearly all Islamic scholars opposed his idea of dividing India in name of religion. Then question arises why he was bent upon to get India divided. Was it because of his pride and ego; or was there some other agenda?

Mountbatten had a meeting with Mohammed Ali Jinnah on 17^th April 1947; and told him that if he insisted on dividing India in name of religion, then the provinces of Punjab and Bengal should also be divided on religious lines. This, Mountbatten asserted, would mean you will have ‘Very moth-eaten Pakistan, the eastern and north-west parts of which were unlikely to be economic propositions, and which would still have to come to some centre for general subjects for a long while after we had  left’.

To this Mr Jinnah replied by saying: ‘I do not care how little you give me as long as you give it to me completely’. 2

These words of Mr Jinnah ‘I do not care how little you give me’, makes it clear that his project did not have service to Islam or welfare of the Muslims of India as his top priority. However, he and his team skilfully used the name of Islam as the slogan to motivate Muslims, millions of whom were illiterate. Smaller and truncated Pakistan meant a weaker Pakistan, separated by one thousand miles. This kind of Pakistan did not have a bright future. Moreover, millions of Muslims would be left outside of this Pakistan. Did he not think for a minute, what would be the fate of the Muslims left back in India, especially when the Two Nations Theory unleashed a genie of hatred and violence?

It leads people to only one conclusion: Mr Jinnah wanted the division of India at any cost, and become a Governor General of the new country that he could be at par with Mountbatten who would be the Governor General of India after independence.

Furthermore, before the creation of Pakistan Mr Jinnah forcefully asserted that Muslims and non Muslims cannot live together. However soon after the creation of Pakistan he asserted:

‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State........... Now, I think 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’. 3

Question arises, if it was not possible for Muslims and non Muslims to live together because of strong differences and bitterness, then how could all this changed soon after Pakistan was established? Is it because his agenda of dividing united India was accomplished with disastrous outcome? Or Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s ego was satisfied and he had become the Governor General of Pakistan.

Why Jogendra Nath Mandal was appointed first Law Minister of Pakistan

Critics argue if the purpose of establishing Pakistan was to serve Islam and have Islamic laws in Pakistan, then why he made the above statement in the Constituent Assembly? His speech clearly shows he wanted to have some kind of a secular Pakistan. Furthermore, if he wanted to serve Islam and have an Islamic Pakistan then he should have appointed a Mufti or a religious scholar as a Law Minister of Pakistan.

Instead of appointing a Muslim Scholar as a Law Minister he appointed Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Hindu, as the first Law Minister of Pakistan. Surely he did not expect Jogendra Nath Mandal to enact and implement Islamic laws. People of Pakistan have been fooled for too long in name of religion. Time has come to call spade a spade, and understand what was done in name of Islam.

Many people might not know that Mr Jinnah appointed Jogendra Nath Mandal the first Chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He presided over the historic session of the Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947, where Mohammed Ali Jinnah was sworn in as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. Apart from being the Law Minister, Jogendra Nath Mandal was also the Minister of Labour, and Second Minister of Commonwealth and Kashmir Affairs.

On the role of Jogendra Nath Mandal, Ahmed Saleem notes:

“The fact that one of the minority members was elected to preside over the session hints at the progressive attitude of the new state, and it augurs well for the future. Pakistan itself was brought into existence by the unrelenting efforts of a minority of the Indian Subcontinent. 4

After the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Jogendra Nath Mandal was disgraced; and he was left with no choice but to resign. Chaudhry Mohammad Ali sincerely served the British Raj before the emergence of Pakistan. After becoming Secretary-General of the Pakistani Cabinet Secretariat, he thought Mr Mandal was not a sincere Pakistani, and perhaps Mohammed Ali Jinnah made an error of judgement in appointing Mr Mandal to this key Ministry. On this topic, Pir Ali Mohammed Rashidi wrote:

‘Consequently, he tried to keep many cabinet documents away from the Law Minister. It was too much for Mandal. His pride was hurt. Hitherto, he had lived as a self reliant man, who knew his self-worth. Before becoming a minister, he had offered huge sacrifices and as a Hindu, swum against the tide to support our Quaid in the Pakistan Movement. How could he possibly pocket the insult from a cabinet secretary, who had taken it upon himself to judge a Hindu minister for his political character and loyalty to his country? Mandal quit as minister and went back to Calcutta to spend the rest of his life being taunted by Hindus.’ 5

Frustrated and humiliated Jogendra Nath Mandal, on 8th October 1950, wrote 18 pages long letter to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and narrated his services to Pakistan Movement and Pakistan; and explained why he had to resign. In the last paragraph of his long letter he wrote:

‘Leaving aside the overall picture of Pakistan and the callous and cruel injustice done to others, my own personal experience is no less sad, bitter and revealing’. 6

Plight of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was the man who first coined the word Pakistan. He arranged a reception in honour of Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Waldorf Hotel, London; and explained to him his idea of Pakistan. He presented him his booklet ‘Now or Never, We are to Live or Perish for Ever’, which he wrote in 1933. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was not persuaded; and retaliated by saying, ‘Pakistan was an impossible dream’.7

Later on in life, Mohammed Ali Jinnah got convinced that he had to use his skills and ability to accomplish the task of this ‘impossible dream’. After creation of Pakistan, in April 1948, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali also moved to Pakistan – a land of his dream. However, he soon developed some differences with the Muslim League government; and he was ordered by the government to leave Pakistan. He left Pakistan in October 1948 and settled in England, where he died on 3 February 1951. No one was there to even take responsibility for his funeral. This duty was performed by a Professor of the Cambridge University and he was buried on 20 February in a grave yard on New Market Road, Cambridge.8

As always, I know some emotional Pakistanis will use foul language against me to express their anger and frustration; but I hope some sane people will appreciate the effort and the valuable information this article provides.

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

References:

1.    Quaaid-i- Millat Liaquat Ali Khan', Page 27, by Ziuauddin Ahmed.

2.    Marseger, Nicholas, Transfer of Power, Volume 12, H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1982-83. Viceroy’s Personal Report No. 3: Point 19.

3.    Speech of Mohammed Ali Jinnah to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11 August 1947.

4.    Ahmed Saleem ‘Pakistan aur Aqliatien’ (Pakistan and Minorities), page 104

5.    Jogendra Nath Mandal: Chosen by Jinnah, banished by bureaucracy, Akhtar Balouch, Dawn 4 November 2015

6.    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Resignation_letter_of_Jogendra_Nath_Mandal

7.    Collins, Larry and Lapierre, Dominique, Freedom at Midnight, London, 1976, page 120

8.    Dr Lal Khan, Abi Manzil ne ahi

http://dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/dr-lal-khan/2014-03-23/6481/47312849#.Uy9rpfl_uSo

Naeem Khan condemns Human Rights abuses in South Asia.

Naeem Khan condemns Human Rights abuses in South Asia.

While addressing a seminar held during the 31st Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Naeem Khan President of KNP Austria said:

Mr. Chairman

I am thankful to the Organizers of this important event to highlight the Human Rights situation in South Asia.

The human rights situation is getting from bad to worse day by day in entire World. The profit oriented ruling class in most parts of the World, thinks human rights is a luxury for today’s human.  Millions of people are uprooted from their homes, and tens of thousands of people are targeted and killed including women and children. 

Cross border terrorism and Ceasefire violation on Line of Control is another example of grave violation of human rights in occupied Kashmir by the security forces of India and Pakistan. 

I condemn the cycle of impunity of the security agencies in Indian and Pakistani occupied Kashmir. 

I strongly condemn Pathankot Air Base attack by the United Jihad Council from Azad Kashmir. This act of terror caused the suspension of India Pakistan peace talks. 

As chairperson of the organization of Human Rights in Asia, I condemn the arrest and sedition case against student leader of JNU, Mr Kanhaiya Kumar by the Indian Security agencies. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. 

I condemn judicial murder of JI leaders by the Bangladeshi government in bogus sedition cases. 

I also condemn the systematic harassment of Dr Shabir Chaudhry, a British national, author of several books, TV Anchor and Diplomatic head of Kashmir National Party; by the Security agencies of Pakistan. His only crime is his peaceful political struggle for the fundamental human rights in occupied territory and for a secular and United Independent Kashmir.

Mr Chairman

India and Pakistan has ratified the UN resolution on Kashmir. They are committed to provide travel documents to all Kashmiries living in their administrative part of Kashmir. I urged the government of Pakistan to end harassment of Dr Choudhry, his family and issue them necessary travel document to visit their family members in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir and that is their fundamental human right.

The pro-Pakistan “elected” Assembly of Gilgit Baltistan expresses her concern and anger on China Pakistan Economic Corridor and protest for ignoring the main region and its people. There is no single Economic Zone planned to be established in Gilgit Baltistan out of 60 Economic Zones alongside CPEC. 

What the people of GB are getting is Just Pakistan Army HQ in Diamer District to ensure CPEC Security. 

No Part of Kashmir is getting any benefit from this 46 billion Dollar project.

The Human Rights situation in Pakistan is getting worse day by day.

The killers of Model town tragedy in Lahore, (on 17^th June 2014)  in which18 political workers, mostly women and youth of a political party (PAT), were killed in broad day light in presence of print and electronic Media, are still free and enjoying their immunity and impunity.

Days after the Punjab Assembly passed the protection of Women against Violence Bill, another 22 years old woman, Amina Bibi, a resident of Salamat colony in Lahore’s Harbans Pura ; attacked with acid on 28^th February this year (just 11 days ago). 

Pakistan’s daily English newspaper “The Nation” (5^th March 2016) published a report of home ministry which indicates that Security forces killed some 323 “terrorists” and arrested 12,234 suspects in Balochistan in 2015.

3 days ago, on 6^th March 2016, the National Commission of Human Rights Pakistan express its concern,  on the Systematic child abuses, child pornography and black-mailing of more than 280 school children and their families in Hussain Khanwala, in Kasur. According to the commission, the government of Punjab ignores all its recommendations to enforce preventive measures and devise a policy to avoid child abuse incidents in future.

These are just few recent examples of the violations of human rights in South Asia. On behalf of the Organization for Human Rights in Asia, I appeal to International community, Specially EU and International NGO’s to raise their voice to end human rights violations by states, state sponsored agencies and non-state organizations.

Mr Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen I thank you for your patience

Gilgit Baltistan’s Three Current Issues, DJ Mathal

Gilgit Baltistan’s Three Current Issues, DJ Mathal

Though Gilgit-Baltistan has no representation I the Council of Common Interests (CCI), a few days ago Chief Minister Hafiz Hafizur Rehman very confidently claimed that the issues relating to the area’s shares in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) would be raised in the meeting of the CCI. It is beyond our comprehension how the chief minister, who knows very well the system, made such a claim in the first place.

The CCI holds its meeting after long delays even though it has to meet after three months. Provinces are represented in the CCI and national issues are discussed. But as Gilgit-Baltistan is not a constitutional province of Pakistan, it has no representation in it and hence in many major decisions it has no say at the national level ad its interests are compromised. Though Islamabad always says that making Gilgit-Baltistan a province would complicate its policy on Kashmir, there are no hindrances and either making GB a member of the CCI would leave any negative impact on the issue of Kashmir.  But despite making promises with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan to give the area representation in the CCI, the PML-N government is not in a mood to give a consideration to the proposal.

It may be noted that the PML-N had also promised to give representation to Gilgit-Baltistan in the NFC and IRSA. But like many other such promises, these also remain unmet so far. If Gilgit-Baltistan is included in the NFC, there would be no difference on the policy of Islamabad regarding the issue of Kashmir but the backward area would get its share of divisible pools form the federation and the money can be utilized for the development of the area.

But irrespective of the good wishes and sweet promises of Hafizur Rehman, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan should understand it that Nawaz Sharif is not going to make any headway in giving Gilgit-Baltistan more rights of governance powers during his remaining tenure. About seven months ago, the prime minister formed a committee under the head of Sartaj Aziz to come up with proposals to give Gilgit-Baltistan constitutional powers including making it a province of Pakistan. However, after holding a few meetings, the committee seems in hibernation as it neither presented its recommendations to the prime minister nor seems interested to expedite the work. Unfortunately, the attitude of the PML-N does not seem any different from the PPP which kept the people of Gilgit-Baltistan in false promises during its five years of rule. Though chief minister Hafiz has become a shuttlecock between Gilgit-Baltistan and Islamabad and wants the federal government to give all need powers to the area, his requests are not being taken seriously by the centre and the establishment due to unknown reasons.

Even the PM-N government could not fulfil its promise of starting work on the much-awaited reconstruction of Gilgit-Skardu road. Though the chief minister has said that tenders would be floated in march, his words cannot be taken seriously as in the past scores of promises made with the people were never fulfilled. The successive governments both of the PPP and the PML-N have exploited the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and done nothing for the betterment of the people. Instead of doing anything and changing the life of the masses, both the governments have been hands in glove in bringing the people under taxation even though being a disputed territory and out of the geographical and constitutional jurisdictions, Islamabad cannot impose any kind of taxes o the people of the area.  Fed up with the unkept promises of the chief minister, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have launched a anti-tax movement after rejecting the chief minister’s assurances. Though the chief minister has been doing his best, it is all the federal government to be blamed for the unjustified taxation in the area.

We are of the opinion that the system put in place under the dubious autonomy order of 2009 has not given any tangible powers to the area except crowning some individuals with the titles of chief minister, governor and ministers. They are as toothless as the former members of the erstwhile Gilgit-Baltistan council were. Just changing the name from council to legislative assembly does not make any difference. Today the chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan has no more worth of importance than Mehdi Shah had during the PPP regime. Rehman may make scores of claims and promises, his stance is hardly taken seriously in Islamabad where bureaucrats sitting in the Kashmir affairs ministry still call the shots.

When it comes to our national interest, all the key decisions are taken by rulers sitting in Islamabad without even listening to the viewpoints of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. Same was done with the area regarding the CPEC project. It was initially stated that two economic zones would be set up in Gilgit-Baltistan under the mega project but when it was probed further it transpired that there was no such plan of the federal government. Last months, some members of the legislative assembly and the chief minister tried their best and even met the president in Islamabad to get some good news but nothing came out of the efforts. 

 It is regrettable that no breakthrough seems to be coming out for the satisfaction of the people regarding three main issues of the region: withdrawal of the illegal tax, ensuring the share of Gilgit-Baltistan in CPEC and construction of the Gilgit-Skardu road. These are the three issues for which a united voice would have to be raised from the platforms of all religious and political parties irrespective of their differences on many other issues.

http://brooshaaltimes.com/gilgit-baltistans-current-issues/

Constitutional rights and Islamabad’s denial, DJ Mathal

Constitutional rights and Islamabad’s denial, DJ Mathal

According to reports, a decision has been taken by Pakistan to continue with the governance system implemented in Gilgit-Baltistan since 2009. And with it, the expectations of making Gilgit-Baltistan the fifth province of Pakistan or giving the area representation in parliament or any other forum such as the national finance commission have been buried forever. 

It has been learnt that Islamabad has decided not to make any changes in the administrative system of Gilgit-Baltistan due to its long-standing Kashmir policy, immense pressure from political leaders of AJK and other factors. This decision is not a temporary one but remain in standstill till the resolution of the longstanding issue of Kashmir to which Gilgit-Baltistan is a major party. But the question here is when the issue of Kashmir would be resolved or if it would be resolved anytime.

 However, the federal government has decided to give some facilities and package to Gilgit-Baltistan as a face saving in order to dispel the impression that Islamabad was left with nothing to give to the people even after making tall claims and many promises. It is on record that we have been writing through these pages since day one that Islamabad is playing a cat and mouse game with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan for long and it has no intension to give the people anything. Now those who were demanding and giving good ens of having representation in parliament or making Gilgit-Baltistan a province have nowhere to hide their faces and they have also realized their worth.

The champion of such claims was no other party that the PPP which did nothing for the emancipation of the people while in power for five years but was expecting its rival PML-N and pressuring it to get all such facilities. The biggest misfortune of Gilgit-Baltistan is the scourge of sectarianism which has never allowed the people to unite at s single platform and fight for their rights.

The seeds of sectarianism were sowed among the people by outsiders who wanted to pitch the people against each other in order to prolong their own rule in the area. The demand for the AJK-like set-up also had no worth but there were slim hopes about getting representation in the parliament of Pakistan but Islamabad was wary of any possibility of the Indian government taking advantage of it by highlighting it at the international level in the context of the UN resolutions.

It is important to note that the direction of the rulers in Pakistan and the federalist political parties and their leaders in Gilgit-Baltistan is not in the interest of the people of the disputed area. It was known to all that the committee to come up with recommendations for the so-called political reforms in Gilgit-Baltistan under Sartaj Aziz was constituted by the prime minister without any tangible seriousness. The chief minister, Hafizur Rehman was under pressure to make it public in the wake of public protests in Gilgit-Baltistan.

During the visit of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the chief minister mentioned the demand in his welcome address to ease the pressure and it is expected that he had already taken Mr Sharif into confidence. But at the end of the day, the recommendations of the committee remained the same as expected by most of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. There is the possibility that the area would get a handful of more powers that would be unimportant but it is a fact that had all the political parties been united and demanded their rights, the situation would have been different.

There was a need that the united political parties should have put forward their demands based on historical facts and UN resolutions as regard to the issue of Kashmir. But this was not done and on the other hand an impression was created that China was pressuring Islamabad to give more constitutional rights to Gilgit-Baltistan in order to implement the CPEC project without any hurdles.

It is strange to link the CPEC project with the rights of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. China has been working on CPEC since 1994 and had Beijing been concerned and wanted the local people’s rights it would have put up the demand right from day one. It is also ridiculous that the demand of China is being linked to any pressure or objection from India.

China is a super power and can it be bowed down to any pressure by India over the issues concerning the people of a third country. It is very unfortunate that the matter concerning the constitutional rights of the two million people of Gilgit-Baltistan has been made a joke and people make such stories that one gets bewildered over it. But the fact of the matter is that the latest drama by Islamabad has necessitated that the people and all the political and religious parties of Gilgit-Baltistan should get united and launch a unanimous struggle for their rights.

It is important to know that people of a disputed territory also have their basic rights and no one has the powers to deny them the rights. It is the rights of the people that any party coming in power in Gilgit-Baltistan should have the right and power to run the affairs of the area without any interference from Islamabad. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan should have the right over the natural resources of the region and should utilize them for the benefit of the people of the area. If any other authority uses the land or any natural resources of Gilgit-Baltistan, it should pay royalty to the people of the area after entering into an agreement. –

 See more at: http://brooshaaltimes.com/constitutional-rights-islamabads-denial/#sthash.VjQJNIBH.LovEhDze.dpuf

Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan, Shabir Choudhry

Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan

Shabir Choudhry

Director, Institute of Kashmir Affairs

As a matter of a policy I avoid writing on history and politics of Pakistan. But those who project that Mohammed Ali Jinnah wanted a theocratic state are not doing any service to Pakistan. And using that as a pretext these people have set their eyes on Kashmir. These people have twisted and abused the above topic so much that facts are clouded by their propaganda. And it is in this context that I felt obliged to put the record straight. In doing so I am aware of the fact that I am inviting criticism from this very powerful lobby.

Muslim League was the vehicle used to achieve Pakistan. Let us look at what was the purpose to set up this party of Muslims. The Muslim League was set up on 28 December 1906 in Dhaka, with the following objectives:

·         To promote among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the British government and to remove misunderstandings;

·         To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Muslims, and to represent properly their needs and aspirations to the British government; and

·         To prevent the rise of hostility among Muslims toward other communities.

(Source: 'Quaaid-i- Millat Liaquat Ali Khan', Page 27, by Ziuauddin Ahmed).

The Muslim League, which was dominated by landlords and Westernised elite, closely followed the policy of Sir Syed Ahmed and did not want to annoy the British. They wanted to show that like Hindus, Muslims are also loyal to the British. It is partly because of this strategy that the Muslim League opposed the Khilafat Movement led by Maulana Mohammed Ali. This Movement was against the British and in support of Turkey. It is surprising that the Congress openly supported this Movement, which was popular with the Muslim Masses; and Mr Gandhi was at the forefront of this. Mr Jinnah told Gandhi that the Congress should not get involved in this, as it was a religious issue and religion and politics should be kept separate.

(Source: 'Pakistan-The formative phase', pages 48-50, by Khalid Sayeed).

This explains what was the thinking and philosophy of the Party which was used as a vehicle to "make" Pakistan. Now let us see the thinking and political philosophy of the man who was at the helm of affairs. Mohammed Ali Jinnah formally assumed the responsibility of the President of Muslim League in 1935, after his return from England. He firmly believed that religion and politics must be kept separate, and one could see the strength of his views by his speech made in the Legislative Assembly of India, he said:

"I, Sir, stand here with a clear conscience and I say that I am a nationalist first, a nationalist second, and a nationalist last….I once more appeal to this House, whether Mussulman or a Hindu, for God's sake, do not import the discussion of communal maters into this House and degrade this Assembly which we desire should become a real national Parliament".

(Source: 'Islamic concept of a modern state', page 27, by Dr Muhammad Shaffique).

This clearly tells what was the real thinking of the man. But after his bitter experience in dealing with Gandhi and Nehru, and especially after the elections of 1937, forced him to change his strategy. Allama Iqbal had always encouraged him to spearhead the Pan Islamic Movement. Allama Iqbal once said that:

"One lesson I have learnt from the history of Muslims. At critical moments in their history it is Islam that has saved the Muslims and not vice versa".

(Source: 'Pakistan-The formative phase', page 1, by Khalid Sayeed).

Apart from these factors, Mr Jinnah also witnessed during the Khilafat Movement that Muslims aroused in the name of Islam and a mass movement started. In order to achieve Pakistan he wanted a slogan to get the mass support, and he used that very successfully. He made hundreds of speeches that he wanted Pakistan for Muslims in the name of Islam. This became a very popular slogan and Muslims throughout the Sub Continent were ready to sacrifice their lives. Some commentators, after analysing the above development, believe that: "Jinnah had to bring Islam into his programme in order to win mass support".

(Source: 'Islamic concept of a modern state', page 28, by Dr Muhammad Shaffique).

Many Muslim scholars of the time, especially of Jamiyyat -al -Ulama -e -Hind, seriously suspected the religious commitment of the Muslim League as they had secular back ground and little Islamic knowledge. They thought Muslim League was using the name of Islam to push through their political agenda, and they had many other reasons for opposing this movement. Molana Maududi, Amir Jamat e Islami, also opposed Mr Jinnah and his demand for Pakistan. While speaking to students of Aligarh, he said:

"A particular type of revolution demands the same type of movement, the same type of leaders and workers and same type of social consciousness and cultural and moral atmosphere". In his view the 'people who did not care for Islamic values would create a state which would not be Islamic, it would not be Kingdom of God but be a Kingdom of Jungle'.

(Source: 'Islamic concept of a modern state', page 35, by Dr Muhammad Shaffique).

Most people, who claim that Mr Jinnah wanted to create an Islamic State, only quote his speeches made during the campaign for Pakistan. They dismiss his earlier statements by saying that Mr Jinnah changed from secular to an Islamic leader, after assuming the leadership of the Muslim League. This transformation, they believe, was complete when he launched his demand for Pakistan in 1940.

But these people very conveniently forget his speech he made to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947. In his speech, Jinnah explained the core of his philosophy, his ideas, and his vision of the new state he had founded. He said:

"You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan…. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the 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".

(Source:Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, vol 1 no 2, 11 August 1947, page 20)

From the above one can clearly tell that he wanted to establish a Muslim State, which is, of course, different to an Islamic state. Arif Hussain in his book, 'Pakistan: Its ideology and Foreign Affairs', on page 22, commented: Jinnah was not religious from the point of view of Islamic dogma. Pakistan was not to be an Islamic state because Islam was not used as a programme, only as a slogan, to achieve its creation'.

From the time when the Lahore Resolution was passed until Pakistan became reality, Mr Jinnah spoke in support of an Islamic State. He could not have said to the people that he wanted to set up a liberal and democratic state. But that is exactly what he wanted to do. He was a secular minded person who believed in liberal and democratic values, but he could not have sold this to his people, as they did not fully appreciate the value of these ideals.

After the Punjab disturbances in 1953, Justice Munir was appointed the head of court enquiry to find out the reasons for this. In his report, 'Justice Munir reached the conclusion that Jinnah believed in the equality of all citizens without regard to religious differences. He believed that religion should not interfere in political matters because religion is a matter of personal faith. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a modern Muslim national state'.

(Source: 'Report of the Court of Inquiry', pages 203-232, Justice Munir Ahmed).

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, by any one's standard, was a great leader. He achieved Pakistan despite all the odds, and if he had lived for some time, he would have laid down foundations for a liberal and democratic state. As he did not live long, those who opposed his dream of Pakistan, saw the opportunity to destabilise his Pakistan, in fact, they have broken it. May be they are taking revenge of their failure from Jinnah's Pakistan, and in doing so they are also hurting Kashmir, my homeland, which Mr Jinnah wanted to remain as an independent state.

Is Pakistan’s problem Urdu? PERVEZ HOODBHOY

For Pakistan’s founders, Urdu was to be the glue cementing together the new country. The pre-partition Muslim League rejected suggestions that English, Hindi, or Hindustani be the official language of undivided India. Instead, it wanted Urdu (Pirpur Report, 1938) because it was thought to be the carrier of Islamic culture. In 1948, Mr Jinnah addressed the students of Dacca University in immaculate English. He was emphatic: “The state language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. And anyone who tries to mislead you is an enemy of Pakistan.”

Mr Jinnah spoke little Urdu and did not read its script. East Pakistan rioted but he was unmoved; nation-building needs a language. With time Pakistan rid itself of the burden of Bengal. Its new leaders drafted a new Constitution of Pakistan (1973) which decreed that Urdu become the official language within 15 years. This did not happen.

Gen Ziaul Haq also thought that Pakistan needed the ‘correct’ official language. He wanted Arabic, but some of his colleagues and administrators dissuaded him. He consoled himself by imposing compulsory Arabic teaching upon schools.

Examine: Urdu in schools causes ‘grievances’, says Unesco report

Since that time our language obsession has continued. In September 2015, an irritated Supreme Court judge, Justice Jawwad Khwaja, gave Nawaz Sharif’s government three months to implement “Article 251 in line with Article 5 of the Constitution”. This would make Urdu mandatory for “official and other purposes”. The ultimatum expired, English stayed.

---

Though not yet the official language, Urdu is Pakistan’s lingua franca.

---

Eventually Urdu did come to Pakistan — naturally and painlessly. Today fewer and fewer people speak and understand English — far fewer in percentage terms than in India or Sri Lanka. For lack of viewership, local English-language television channels have closed down but there are dozens of Urdu channels and some Sindhi and Punjabi ones too. Though not yet the official language, Urdu is Pakistan’s lingua franca.

But the rise of Urdu, and the decline of English, have not weakened regional, tribal, or class identities. Baloch separatism is fuelled by inequitable distribution of resources and high-handed treatment by the centre. Sindh’s grievances are over issues of water and land. Nation-building needs more than just a common language.

Ditto for building education. If we are to believe some of today’s education activists, most problems will miraculously disappear if only we make the right choice of language — whatever that “right” choice means. But flogging the language horse will get us nowhere. The problem lies elsewhere.

Read: Ways to switch over to Urdu

About 30 years ago, my colleagues at Quaid-i-Azam University and I had explored the conundrum of language and education through a documentary film broadcast by Pakistan Television. It was part of a 13-part series Rastay Ilm Kay that took a critical look at the crisis of Pakistani education. Serious then, it is far more serious now.

Upon viewing a rare surviving copy of this documentary, I felt that time had come to a stop. Not a single argument or counter-argument has changed. On the one hand, our cameras recorded those who wanted education in Urdu and condemned English as a colonial remnant. They blamed it for creating social inequality, and argued that teachers with bad English skills force students to memorise blindly. The cameras also captured those who said that English provides a vehicle to carry us forward. A true debate!

Unless we wish to spend the next 30 years arguing the very same points, we must squarely face two basic truths — those that mere wishes cannot change. If these truths take us in opposite directions, then we must learn to navigate as best as possible.

First, English opens a window into the external world so wide that all vernacular languages, Urdu included, are tiny peepholes in comparison. In principle, all languages can carry the same content. But in practice they reflect very different stages of intellectual development. Nobody is more unreasonably proud than the French. But even they have grudgingly accepted their language’s reduced status. English is now the choice of a shrinking globe, not the spearhead of aggressive colonialism.

Second, English cannot be a solution for Pakistan. Early learning happens fastest in the mother tongue, and only the tiniest fraction of Pakistanis speaks English at home. But even if English is decreed compulsory from the cradle onwards, there is insufficient language teaching capacity to make this work. Moreover Pakistan’s different languages encode distinct cultures with beautiful prose, poetry, and fiction in each. To lose this history would be tragic.

How terribly contradictory! Yet this bipolar conflict is generic to all former colonies. Using different mixes of bilingualism, and even trilingualism, managing conflict intelligently has enabled some to develop a better education for their young. Pakistan has not. Our students have ever decreasing ability to reason, low curiosity levels, and abysmal general knowledge. Why?

The real enemy of education in Pakistan is a regressive mindset, not language or financial resources. Critical thinking is actively discouraged, memorisation is encouraged. There is heavy presence of religious materials in all school subjects from history and social studies to biology and math.

So go ahead and change the language to the ‘right’ one. You might get a 10pc improvement at most. A parrot singing in Urdu or Sindhi understands no more than one who sings in English. The terrible authority of the teacher, sanctioned by tradition, weighs heavy upon young minds.

Here’s an example — a real one. Some pre-engineering college F.Sc students came to see me the other day. For fear of retribution they asked me to keep their visit secret. Their teacher had told them in class that seven divided by zero was zero! Dissatisfied, they sought an explanation. Instead they were reprimanded for being cheeky. I am older and more qualified than you, said the teacher, and so I am right.

To conclude: no nation becomes stronger by having the ‘correct’ official language. Instead it gains strength when it addresses the real needs of its people. Likewise, education cannot be improved by flipping from English to Urdu or vice versa. Change can happen only when education is seen as a means for opening minds rather than an instrument of ideological control.

The writer teaches physics in Lahore and Islamabad.

Published in Dawn, March 5th, 2016