Why am I Creating This Blog?
The documentary “I remember Jinnah” telecasted by Dawn News TV, article published by Dawn in December 2008 was followed up by a series of articles written by Irshad Ahmad Haqqani in “Jang”. All these contributed in overcoming a national taboo: “Quaid-e-Azam was Infallible. He cannot be criticised”. Marium Chaudhry, in “I remember Jinnah” even got courage to write that, “Was he a statesman that fought for the right of a people who he shared a religion with? Was he a man who married for love and then lost his daughter to a land that was home and then became foreign territory? Was he a civilian with the fire of a freedom fighter or a villain with a vendetta”?
But even then, and quite understandably, the people doing this criticism were feeling vulnerable, and were very cautious. This caused lack of in-depth and accurate analysis. But the time is ripe to analyse our history in an objective way. We must abide by the truth, no matter how bitter it is.
The postings of this blog are an effort to analyse the history of Pakistan in an unbiased manner. My analyses lead me, and I suppose they will lead many of the readers, to the conclusion, that many, if not all, of the political problems faced by Pakistani nation are consequences of the mistakes/errors made by the Quaid.
I really thank Irshad Ahmad Haqqani, Marium Chaudhry and others who took part in the debate that started following the appearance of Haqqani’s series of articles published in Jang, because these people gave me courage to start my blog that you are reading now. Soon I will post my first essay on the issue, indicating Quaid’s biggest mistake in our history.
In the end, I want to share that I know that the majority of the readers of this blog will not only disagree with me, but also will react cinically. Many will also abuse me. But in my view truth is so important that it should not be concealed at any price.
But even then, and quite understandably, the people doing this criticism were feeling vulnerable, and were very cautious. This caused lack of in-depth and accurate analysis. But the time is ripe to analyse our history in an objective way. We must abide by the truth, no matter how bitter it is.
The postings of this blog are an effort to analyse the history of Pakistan in an unbiased manner. My analyses lead me, and I suppose they will lead many of the readers, to the conclusion, that many, if not all, of the political problems faced by Pakistani nation are consequences of the mistakes/errors made by the Quaid.
I really thank Irshad Ahmad Haqqani, Marium Chaudhry and others who took part in the debate that started following the appearance of Haqqani’s series of articles published in Jang, because these people gave me courage to start my blog that you are reading now. Soon I will post my first essay on the issue, indicating Quaid’s biggest mistake in our history.
In the end, I want to share that I know that the majority of the readers of this blog will not only disagree with me, but also will react cinically. Many will also abuse me. But in my view truth is so important that it should not be concealed at any price.
Inappropriate Model of Parliamentary Democracy
Since 1947, we are experiencing instability in the political system of Pakistan. From 1947 to 1958, seven prime ministers were changed. In 62 years we saw four martial laws. Most of the Presidents tried to acquire all powers in their hands and as a consequence parliaments, cabinets and prime ministers became puppets. Yousaf Raza Gilani is our 26th prime minister. From independence until now (2009) the office of prime minister existed for about 39 years only. It means average time for a prime minister in his office is about 18 months. History tells us that the choices Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah took, played an important role in the formation of this situation. He preferred to become governor-general of Pakistan, instead of being the prime minister. This weakened the office of prime minister and the parliament, and in turn encouraged civil and military bureaucracy to involve in politics. Martial laws and instable political governments were the consequence.
Two countries got independence in August 1947: Pakistan and India. The popular leader, Nehru, who won independence for India chose to be prime minister, while Mountbatten was made the governor-general. This was the true parliamentary model of democracy. It strengthened the parliament and the office of prime minister. What Quaid-e-Azam did was quite contrary to it. Instead of making an unimportant person the governor-general, he himself chose to take this office. Quaid was the most popular, influential and strong political figure. His stature overshadowed parliament and the prime minister. More over Quaid was the head of the ruling party Muslim League. He was the symbol of the power of people. It resulted in weakening the confidence and supremacy of the parliament and the prime minister. Thus the office of governor-general became source of great political power.
Quad did not confine to his constitutional role as titular head. He started to interfere in the affairs of political government. History tells us that the relations between the Quaid and the prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan were strained. This is not possible until a titular head like Quaid-e-Azam starts using his political grandeur to disturb government. In these circumstances an elected prime minister could only long to get rid of such a situation, so that he could exercise his powers according to the constitution and the traditions of parliamentary democracy. This is exactly what Liaquat Ali wished, as told by Miss Fatima Jinnah in the biography of Quaid “My Brother”. Miss Jinnah writes:
"Towards the end of July, without prior notice, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the pime minister, arrived in Ziarat accompanied by Chaudari Mohd. Ali. He asked Dr. Illahi about his diagnosis of Quaid’s health. The doctor said that as he had been invited by me (Fatima) to attend to the Quaid, he could only say what he thought of his patient to me. “But, as Prime minister, I am anxious to know about it”. The doctor politely replied, “yes, Sir, but I cannot do it without the patient’s permission”.
As soon as I was told, as I was sitting with Quaid, that the Prime Minister and the Secretary General wanted to see him, I informed him (Quaid). He smiled and said, “Fati, do you know why he has come?” I said I wouldn’t be able to guess the reason. He said, “He wants to know how serious my sickness is. How long will I last”?
What was the correct approach? Either Quaid should chose to be the prime minister, or if he had chosen to be the governor-general, he should not have interfered in the government. He should have confined his role similar to that of the Monarch of United Kingdom.
Due to this mistake of Quaid, governor-general became a powerful office. All the conspiracies to curb democratic process were brought about by the governor-generals later. When Pakistan became a republic after the first constitution was made, same role was adopted by the presidents, as president is counter part of governor- general in a republic. These governor-generals and presidents always conspired with civil and military bureaucracy to control the prime ministers and parliaments. Thus the passage of martial laws was paved. This is what Iskandar Mirza did, repeated by General Zia in the case of Prime Minister Junejo, repeated by Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Laghari in the case of prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, repeated by General Musharraf in the case of Prime ministers Jamali and Shaukat Aziz, and recently repeated by Asif Zardari in the case of Prime Minister Gilani. All these people assume the power to dissolve National Assembly and thus the prime ministers and the parliaments become puppets. This is Jinnah-Liaquat model of democracy, which is in fact sham democracy. Only Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto introduced the correct model of parliamentary democracy. Bhutto, the popular leader, chose to be the prime minister instead of president. This choice strengthened the parliament and the office of prime minister. Bhutto-Fazal Elahi model is the proper model of parliamentary democracy. We must get rid of Quaid’s legacy, if we want stable political system according to the norms of parliamentary form of government.
Two countries got independence in August 1947: Pakistan and India. The popular leader, Nehru, who won independence for India chose to be prime minister, while Mountbatten was made the governor-general. This was the true parliamentary model of democracy. It strengthened the parliament and the office of prime minister. What Quaid-e-Azam did was quite contrary to it. Instead of making an unimportant person the governor-general, he himself chose to take this office. Quaid was the most popular, influential and strong political figure. His stature overshadowed parliament and the prime minister. More over Quaid was the head of the ruling party Muslim League. He was the symbol of the power of people. It resulted in weakening the confidence and supremacy of the parliament and the prime minister. Thus the office of governor-general became source of great political power.
Quad did not confine to his constitutional role as titular head. He started to interfere in the affairs of political government. History tells us that the relations between the Quaid and the prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan were strained. This is not possible until a titular head like Quaid-e-Azam starts using his political grandeur to disturb government. In these circumstances an elected prime minister could only long to get rid of such a situation, so that he could exercise his powers according to the constitution and the traditions of parliamentary democracy. This is exactly what Liaquat Ali wished, as told by Miss Fatima Jinnah in the biography of Quaid “My Brother”. Miss Jinnah writes:
"Towards the end of July, without prior notice, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the pime minister, arrived in Ziarat accompanied by Chaudari Mohd. Ali. He asked Dr. Illahi about his diagnosis of Quaid’s health. The doctor said that as he had been invited by me (Fatima) to attend to the Quaid, he could only say what he thought of his patient to me. “But, as Prime minister, I am anxious to know about it”. The doctor politely replied, “yes, Sir, but I cannot do it without the patient’s permission”.
As soon as I was told, as I was sitting with Quaid, that the Prime Minister and the Secretary General wanted to see him, I informed him (Quaid). He smiled and said, “Fati, do you know why he has come?” I said I wouldn’t be able to guess the reason. He said, “He wants to know how serious my sickness is. How long will I last”?
What was the correct approach? Either Quaid should chose to be the prime minister, or if he had chosen to be the governor-general, he should not have interfered in the government. He should have confined his role similar to that of the Monarch of United Kingdom.
Due to this mistake of Quaid, governor-general became a powerful office. All the conspiracies to curb democratic process were brought about by the governor-generals later. When Pakistan became a republic after the first constitution was made, same role was adopted by the presidents, as president is counter part of governor- general in a republic. These governor-generals and presidents always conspired with civil and military bureaucracy to control the prime ministers and parliaments. Thus the passage of martial laws was paved. This is what Iskandar Mirza did, repeated by General Zia in the case of Prime Minister Junejo, repeated by Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Laghari in the case of prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, repeated by General Musharraf in the case of Prime ministers Jamali and Shaukat Aziz, and recently repeated by Asif Zardari in the case of Prime Minister Gilani. All these people assume the power to dissolve National Assembly and thus the prime ministers and the parliaments become puppets. This is Jinnah-Liaquat model of democracy, which is in fact sham democracy. Only Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto introduced the correct model of parliamentary democracy. Bhutto, the popular leader, chose to be the prime minister instead of president. This choice strengthened the parliament and the office of prime minister. Bhutto-Fazal Elahi model is the proper model of parliamentary democracy. We must get rid of Quaid’s legacy, if we want stable political system according to the norms of parliamentary form of government.
The Problem of the East Pakistan
Pakistan Army surrendered before Indian Army on December 16, 1971. It was a great tragedy. One of the greatest causes of this tragedy was Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s wrong decision to keep the dominion of Pakistan as one country. The culture, language and demography of East Pakistan and West Pakistan were so different, and the distance between these two parts was so great (distance between Karachi and Dhaka is 1800 km) that it was not at all reasonable to make one federation of these two parts. It was not a mistake; it was a blunder.
Only a person, completely disconnected from reality, and living in an ideal world of his own mind, could make such a strange decision. Quaid is considered a pragmatic politician, but this decision was far from any shade of pragmatism.
Urdu-Hindi conflict played an important role in the formation of two-nation theory in the subcontinent. But when two-nation theory crystallized in the form of a separate country Pakistan, the ground realities took a strange shape: none of the part of Pakistan belonged to Urdu speaking zones of subcontinent. And as far as the East Pakistan is concerned, Urdu was an unfamiliar language to a large extent. There was an unrest regarding Urdu and Bengali languages in the East Pakistan.. During this unrest Quaid arrived Dhaka and announced that Urdu, and only Urdu will be the national language of Pakistan, and those who differ with this view are enemies of Pakistan. Such policies of Quaid played important role in partition of Pakistan.
In other cultural phenomenon, people of both wings of the country were completely aliens to each other. Unfortunately the doctrine of defence suggest by General Ayyub was extremely fatal. He suggested that the defence of the East Pakistan lay in the West Pakistan. This doctrine inculcated a sense of deep insecurity in the people of East Pakistan.
Not dividing both wings into two separate countries was strategically not feasible. This strategic error played role in 1971 war. India succeeded in capturing the East Pakistan quite easily.
Had Quaid made proper decision, and had declared both wings as two different countries; we would not have been experienced defeat in Dhaka.
Only a person, completely disconnected from reality, and living in an ideal world of his own mind, could make such a strange decision. Quaid is considered a pragmatic politician, but this decision was far from any shade of pragmatism.
Urdu-Hindi conflict played an important role in the formation of two-nation theory in the subcontinent. But when two-nation theory crystallized in the form of a separate country Pakistan, the ground realities took a strange shape: none of the part of Pakistan belonged to Urdu speaking zones of subcontinent. And as far as the East Pakistan is concerned, Urdu was an unfamiliar language to a large extent. There was an unrest regarding Urdu and Bengali languages in the East Pakistan.. During this unrest Quaid arrived Dhaka and announced that Urdu, and only Urdu will be the national language of Pakistan, and those who differ with this view are enemies of Pakistan. Such policies of Quaid played important role in partition of Pakistan.
In other cultural phenomenon, people of both wings of the country were completely aliens to each other. Unfortunately the doctrine of defence suggest by General Ayyub was extremely fatal. He suggested that the defence of the East Pakistan lay in the West Pakistan. This doctrine inculcated a sense of deep insecurity in the people of East Pakistan.
Not dividing both wings into two separate countries was strategically not feasible. This strategic error played role in 1971 war. India succeeded in capturing the East Pakistan quite easily.
Had Quaid made proper decision, and had declared both wings as two different countries; we would not have been experienced defeat in Dhaka.
'Principlelessens' was the Only Principle of Quaid-e-Azam
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the most staunch proponent of Two-Nation Theory. In All India Muslim League Presidential Address delivered at Lahore, on March 22–23, 1940, he explained:
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”
But in 1947, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would try to convince Sikhs, that they should opt to join Pakistan, instead of India. Quaid-e-Azam actually wanted to avoid the division of united Punjab. Click here for detail.
In his effort to keep Punjab united, Quaid-e-Azam completely overlooked his stance on Two-Nation Theory. He completely ignored that he is creating Pakistan because Muslims of India are altogether a different nation, by any definition of the word. So what he was pursuing in 1947, was exactly in opposition with his stated beliefs. This shows that 'principlelessness' was the only principle of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Life of Quaid-e-Azam is full of such unprincipled stances and opportunistic behaviour (Wali Khan's book 'Facts are Facts' elaborates this in detail). As Quaid-e-Azam was naturally a role model for the nation, this tendency of Quaid-e-Azam was transferred to the whole nation. Thus a nation consisting of unprincipled people came into being.
“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”
But in 1947, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would try to convince Sikhs, that they should opt to join Pakistan, instead of India. Quaid-e-Azam actually wanted to avoid the division of united Punjab. Click here for detail.
In his effort to keep Punjab united, Quaid-e-Azam completely overlooked his stance on Two-Nation Theory. He completely ignored that he is creating Pakistan because Muslims of India are altogether a different nation, by any definition of the word. So what he was pursuing in 1947, was exactly in opposition with his stated beliefs. This shows that 'principlelessness' was the only principle of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Life of Quaid-e-Azam is full of such unprincipled stances and opportunistic behaviour (Wali Khan's book 'Facts are Facts' elaborates this in detail). As Quaid-e-Azam was naturally a role model for the nation, this tendency of Quaid-e-Azam was transferred to the whole nation. Thus a nation consisting of unprincipled people came into being.
بر صغیر کیسے ٹوٹا؟
Arif Mian, a journalist, compiled/authored a book with the name بر صغیر کیسے ٹوٹا؟. As the purpose of the book is to analyse the history of Pakistan in neutral and unbiased manner, and the purpose of this blog is the same, so a brief introduction of this book is being given here.
Name of the Book: برصغیر کیسے ٹوٹا؟ Barr-e-Saghir Kasise Tuta? (How was the Subcontinent Disintegrated?)
Compiler/Author: عارف میاں Arif Mian
Language: Urdu
Publisher: Broadlay Institute for Research and Publications
Sadiq Building, 65 Temple Road, Lahore
Phone: +923334318017
Email: noakla@yahoo.com
In this book the compiler/author has tried to propagate his view about Quaid-e-Azam by interviewing top intellectuals, historians and scholars of Pakistan. Questions in these interviews are selected in such a way that they represent the views of the compiler/author also. The compiler/author has tried to analyse the politics and personality of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in a critical way. Crucial but harsh questions are raised about him. Some of the allegations levelled on Quaid-e-Azam or referred to are:
* How did Quaid-e-Azam obtain the degree of Bar-at-Law, when he had not completed his matriculation?
* Quaid-e-Azam was appointed temporary magistrate for six months. In this period he paid his debts, purchased a car, arranged the admission of his sister in a reputed school, got an office with good quality furniture. Was he really an honest person?
* He decided to be the governor general of Pakistan, instead of becoming its prime minister. It was against the norms of parliamentary democracy.
* In 1926 he signed Lucknow Pact, but rejected it in 1924.
* Quaid-e-Azam signed an accord in 1938 with Sir Sikandar Hayat, but refused to accept it in 1945.
* In 1945 Quaid-e-Azam issued tickets to the candidates without consulting G.M. Syed, the President of Muslim League, Sindh. This compelled G.M. Syed to resign.
* In NWFP, Quaid-e-Azam dismissed the provincial government of Dr. Khan Sahib, which was a majority government.
* In Sindh, Ayyub Khoro had some political differences with Quaid-e-Azam. He was the chief minister of Sindh. He got passed a bill in Sindh Assembly with a clear majority. On it Quaid-e-Azam involved him in a corruption case and dismissed his government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)