I think Dicky can also plead non-guilty on the plea that he had joined the fray too late in the day to prevent the fragmentation of India. He had taken over as Viceroy in the last week of March 1947 and by that time Congress had already moved a resolution to partition Punjab (8th March 1947). Although the prospects of a united India were not yet entirely out of the realm of possibility, it was Congress and not Mountbatten that was calling the shots in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the partition plan. Moreover, it was not just the machinations of the ‘rulers’ but also the bigotry, shortsightedness and narrow class, sectarian, economic and regional interests of the ‘ruled’ in the ranks of all major communities that steered the spokesmen of a nationalist vision of India toward an agenda espoused in increasingly communitarian terms in the last decade before the partition. In the long years of struggle for independence countless opportunities to resolve the communitarian issue amicably were lost due to inflexibility of Indian leaders on both sides of the communal divide.

In the early months of 1947 Congress had shut the doors of political accommodation with Muslim League irrevocably by once and for all denying the spirit of the Cabinet Mission Plan and thus failing to allay Muslim fears of eternal subjugation by a so-called majority. Mountbatten will, nevertheless, remain answerable for several misdemeanors: for introducing the extraordinary ‘rule’ of negotiating with one of the two contending  parties in a conflict, for supervising a fraudulent boundary commission and for hastening the process of division resulting in massacre of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions. Moreover, by handing over Kashmir to India on the sly, he bequeathed a legacy of hatred, mistrust and war to the newly created states.

In my opinion the need to give narrow and rigid interpretations to ‘Pakistan Ideology’ and ‘two nation theory’ after the creation of Pakistan also arose from the imperatives of defending a ‘truncated’ and ‘moth eaten’ state, and of forging unity among its many disparate elements. There are several other factors, of course, which compel us to relinquish the need to critically examine what constitutes a nation and to analyze whether there were two nations in India or multiple nations, separate in a few dimensions and yet connected on several other levels.

In his speech in the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August 1947 Jinnah had unequivocally spelled out his vision for a liberal and secular Pakistan. He asserted categorically that all citizens of Pakistan would have equal rights regardless of which religious faith they professed. Addressing the Constituent Assembly, which he called ‘a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan’ he said:

‘If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his color, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago.’……… ‘Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this’.

It is important to take a look at Jinnah’s speech of 11th  August in order to rethink the  implications of two nation theory in the post-partition age and to see the finer hues of the theory as opposed to the stark us vs. them dichotomy that some faithful adherents of the theory seem to venerate. It would be a useful exercise as some parochial interpreters of the two nation theory and Pakistan Ideology continue to use them to justify violence in order to solve the Kashmir issue and also to build a case for the imposition of Sharia Law in Pakistan. Jinnah went on to say:

‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or 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. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one 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.’

Stanley Wolpert in his biography of Jinnah wrote that in his 11th August speech Jinnah was probably ‘rambling’ due to the effects of illness as his talk of a secular Pakistan was in sharp contrast to his earlier  emphasis on two nation theory  that  stressed separateness of a Muslim identity defined by religion. There are many others who think that Jinnah’s 11th August speech should not be read in isolation from his several other speeches in which he, according to their view, seemed to want the laws of the land to be based on religious doctrines. There are others who interpret ‘Pakistan Ka Matlab Kiya La Ilaha Illa-Allah’ as a kind of theocratic vision for the nation propounded by the founding fathers of Pakistan instead of seeing it as a political slogan that the politicians used as a rallying cry for their Pakistan demand (a routine and mundane use of slogans that no politician worth his salt is above making).

Geo TV telecast an excellent debate on ‘Nazria-e Pakistan’ earlier this week with Dr. Ayesha Jalal, Shareef-ul-Mujahid and Professor Mehdi Hassan as guests, who offered refreshingly new perspectives on Jinnah’s view of two-nation theory and Pakistan Ideology. According to Sharif-ul-Mujahid, Jinnah’s address to the Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947 reflected a paradigm shift on his part. Mujahid implied that Jinnah’s emphasis on separateness had evolved out of the need to struggle for an equitable power sharing arrangement with Congress in a united India, and in the changed context of an independent state he thought that two nation-theory was no longer relevant. Professor Mehdi Hassan said it was wrong to assume that the two nation theory had died after the creation of Pakistan; he said it was still very much alive for if it was not the Hindus and Muslims would be treated equally and the highest offices of the state would not be denied to non-Muslims. In Professor Hassan’s view, an Islamic theocracy cannot be created because ‘jab state kalma parh leti hai to jamhooriyyat ki nafi ho jati hai’; when you create an Islamic State, the non Muslims become second class citizens. Professor Hassan argued that there was no contradiction in Jinnah’s statement of 11th August vis-à-vis his previous views since it came from a person who was once believed to be the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.

Dr. Ayesha Jalal did not see any contradiction between Jinnah’s respect for Islam as a distinct culture and way of life on the one hand and his vision for a secular and liberal Pakistan on the other. She said that Jinnah had always believed in Islam as a modern, democratic and progressive force which was inclusive of other cultural traditions rather than exclusionary. In his speech of 11th August 1947 or in any of his subsequent speeches, she saw no inconsistency or diversion from his earlier stance that he had maintained before the partition. She argued that Jinnah was a staunch constitutionalist who had struggled for equal rights of all citizens of the state all along, before as well as after the creation of Pakistan. His political struggle before the partition had been centered on securing the right of self determination for the Muslims of India and a fair power sharing arrangement with other communities; his assertion of difference did not deny or preclude commonalities with other religious communities. Mujahid argued that Objectives Resolution was an enabling document for the representatives of the people; he said it affirmed that Islamic principles would be the source of law and the representatives of the people would be sovereign. All three participants agreed there was too much religion in 1973 Constitution.

The host ended the program by calling for the need to continue with democracy; and to base all practical decisions on the wisdom dictated by current issues (darpesh masail ki roshni mein) and informed by ethical principles common to all religious traditions. The fact that this program was aired at 11 pm with reruns at 5.00 am and 2.00 am speaks volumes about the worries that beset the media other than those created by the authorities. By continuing to obfuscate issues and accepting officially approved versions of history and ideology of Pakistan, we have perpetuated rigid ideologies without stopping to think what is so great about ideologies that remain fixed above the realm of time and space instead of evolving to suit the needs of a rapidly changing nation. ‘Letter to the Queen’  is particularly commendable because in trying to examine the ‘guilt’ of partition the writer has made a subtle and rare attempt to go against the grain of an uncritical, black and white and officially authorized view of history. In view of the widely prevalent forces of bigotry and intolerance that led to the communal madness at the time of the partition, and continue to haunt us to this day, Jinnah’s words reflect the considered conviction of a visionary and not just ‘disjointed rambling’ of an ill man. It is not without significance that he concluded his address of 11th August in these words:

‘I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favoritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.’

Uzma

Thank you for your help!

thanks!  very helpful post!! like the template btw ;)

Searching for this for some time now - i guess luck is more advanced than search engines

Searching for this for some time now - i guess luck is more advanced than search engines

I guess there's always an easier way ...

thanks!  very helpful post!! like the template btw ;)

The comments by you are the most idiotic and childish that i ve ever seen. come on and grow up, dont take Pakistanis too light!!!! this is 4 you and the other idiots like you.