By Ayesha Siddiqa
DAWN – Friday, 19 Feb, 2010
Some time ago, I had a chance to read veteran columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee’s article ‘Bring back Jinnah’s Pakistan’ in which he talked about the founding father’s liberal vision for the country.
Mr Cowasjee’s argument was that the state envisioned by Mohammad Ali Jinnah would have been governed by a different set of social norms than the one in place today. 
I would like to inform the respectable writer that while he is searching for Jinnah’s Pakistan, we might be threatened with the eventuality of losing Pakistan’s Jinnah.
A journalist friend was recently presented with a historic photograph of the founding father in which he was holding his pups.
I am glad it was given to a friend rather than a foe because there is always the possibility these days that the person presenting the photograph would be accused of being a foreign agent for distributing such photographs of Jinnah.
We shouldn’t be surprised if in a few years’ time we come across a doctored photograph of the founding father in a turban and a beard to prove a certain point.
There are now devious elements who are tinkering with Jinnah — the person — and his narrative. We are being told that all those details which describe the Quaid-i-Azam as a man with western liberal habits are but a conspiracy and a figment of the imagination of enslaved minds.
We are being told that Jinnah never had a lifestyle that might not get the approval of the puritanical-religious crowd in the country. The purpose behind altering details of Jinnah’s personality is the first step towards changing the national narrative.
The next step will be to argue that Jinnah wanted a state where only a certain school of thought could live. Others would have the status of second-class citizens or be shunned, or put in jail for their alternative identity.
But why is a liberal Jinnah unpalatable to these people? Mohammad Ali Jinnah could have hidden his identity as a liberal as he concentrated on the legal case of getting a separate state for the Muslims of India.
He didn’t hide his reality or make an effort to adapt to what the majority of the people followed because in his mind the new state could allow for all creeds, castes and religions.
The Muslims of India had not struggled to move away from the dominance of one culture to the dominance of another. This would be a country where people of different religions could proudly become equal citizens.
In a speech in 1948, Jinnah had said: “We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.
We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”
Having access to modern forms of media, these characters seem to be assisted by ‘ghost warriors’ in creating a new national narrative formulated on the basis of a post-modernist agenda.
The country’s survival, hence, does not any longer depend on the struggle of its citizenry to make its political system work, but on establishing an imagined political system which these people guarantee their followers will rid the state of all its evils. Based on puritanical norms, the new political system, which they call the ideal khilafat, can do wonders.
These people are not the Taliban, nor are they even a single bunch of people. There are several layers operating at various levels and in different forms.
There are those that market the traditional religious identity and then there are others who appeal to the secular. Not to forget those who sell high doses of what they term ‘nationalism’ while pursuing a very western, liberal kind of lifestyle.
Very few people realise that the country’s national narrative is being strategically and cunningly reorganised and rewritten. The underlying norm of the new narrative is a puritanical version of religion and history.
In the process, the nation-state is being stretched and society adjusted to meet the challenges of the new version of nationalism.
What goes without saying is that there is probably very little space for those who do not conform to the description of an ‘ideal’ citizen. The description not only extends to those condemned as ‘enemies of the state’ but also others who cannot fall into the category of this description due to their peculiar caste, creed, faith, ethnicity, or other factors.
So, it is with a heavy heart that I would like to inform Mr Cowasjee that the new perimeters of citizenship define a citizen and give him/her rights on the basis of their putative relationship with religion as interpreted by a certain set of people.
This is no longer about a pluralistic state and a multi-polar polity. Therefore, the new narrative makes it imperative for this ‘gang’ of people to kidnap Pakistan’s Jinnah.
Can the honourable columnist and citizen do something about getting the founding father back? Surely, there will be those willing to fight for his recovery or even a pay ransom to do so.
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.
ayesha.ibd@gmail.com
Secular Pakistan 
Bin Ismail
February 19, 2010
Pakistan’s Jinnah is eternally bonded to Jinnah’s Pakistan. The day we succeed in rescuing one, the other will be there too, right before our eyes.
Nusrat Pasha
February 19, 2010
Commendable article.
Asim Saeed
February 20, 2010
Very rightly written by Ayesha Siddiqa. Pakistan cannot progress without introducing secluar thoughts among the peoples, which was the dream of the father of the nation. Religion, sects, ethinicity and race will create indifference within the masses resulten weakening of the state and its existence as we are seeing it in case of Pakistan.
Mansoor Khalid
February 23, 2010
Indeed secular thoughts need to be introduced into the Pakistani system to set it on the path to recovery and ultimately progress.
Yasir Qadeer
February 24, 2010
A very insightful evaluation and analysis by Ayesha Siddiqa. The picture along with the article clearly shows what the founder of Pakistan would have thought when he was striving for a separate homeland. We should work on the principles given by the father of the nation and set Pakistan on a road to prosperity.
Justin
March 8, 2010
Jinnah is an enigma in himself. Those who claim to know him or understand him are merely amusing themselves.
If you say that Pakistan should be secular in nature, then what was the logic behind the partition of the Indian subcontinet?
Why did Jinnah ask Muslims to participate in “Direct Action Day” in which thousands of Hindus were mercilessly slaughtered.
The reason why Pakistan was created was because of a phobia of Hindus, which lead Jinnah to believe that in a Hindu dominated united India, Muslims would have to bear the brunt of being minorities. Partly the Muslim anger was also directed at the British, since they believed that India was ruled by Muslim for a period of 600 or years and thereby giving them the right to rule to majority without the majority having any kind of say in the decision making process.
Now to say that a state that was created on the basis of a phobia of a people would give equal opportunities to the very same people, even when they were minorities would be engaging in self deciet.
Let us take a hypothetical situation, in which Hindus or Christians would become the dominant majority by outbreeding Muslims or by virtue of conversions. What then? Would Muslims ask for another partition, or would they enagge in another public massacre.
Can someone provide me an answer to my question?
Bin Ismail
March 9, 2010
@Justin
“…Can someone provide me an answer to my question?…”
Certainly, and with pleasure. People generally fail to distinguish between the following 4 terms and interchange them with considerable liberty:
1.Islam
2.Muslims
3.Muslim-majority states
4.Politico-economic wellbeing of Muslim-majority states
Out of these 4, the latter is what Jinnah actually strived for. Jinnah saw the Indian states as comprising of 2 sub-categories:
1.Muslim-majority states
2.Hindu-majority states
Of these 2, the politico-economic condition of the former was evidently precarious. Jinnah stood to struggle for them. He was essentially a pro-minority activist. Muslims were not the only minority who caught his eye. His concern for the community of the Untouchables was even greater. He said, “in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans. ” [address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934].
There was no “phobia of a people” as you’ve suggested. There is quite a bit of difference between securing the politico-economic interests of a people and having a phobia of another.
Before we discuss “another public massacre”, let’s first put the record straight regarding the one that took place around independence. Mob-violence is driven by mob-logic. The Muslim casualties outnumbered the Hindu casualties. These unfortunate incidents were largely spontaneous and easily triggered off in that volatile environment. Now about your hypothetical question of the possibility of Hindus outbreeding Muslims within Pakistan, all I can humbly suggest is that in view of the existing population boom, that would not be a very prudent option, would it.
Our nations have to look forward with a positive attitude, rather than looking backwards with a negative one.
shweta mittal
June 8, 2012
i didn’t get your logic. if muslims were economically backward compared to hindus then they should have taken up western education, reformed their religion, given greater rights to their women and start working hard to the same degree as hindus or parsis or sikhs. demanding a separate nation is not the solution. what has it achieved for muslims? the economic & political difference between pakistan and india has actually increased because muslims unlike hindus failed to carry out necessary social reforms. there are similar people in my state of maharashtra. they demand that maharashtra should remain for marathis and that ‘outsiders’ should not be allowed. they fail to realise that it is their own fault if they have not succeded as much as gujaratis, marwaris or south indians. pakistan was created by telling hindus “we don’t want to live with u”. it is an ugly, intolerant thing to tell people that they are unwelcome and unwanted in their ancestral homeland. jinnah had said things like “we don’t want to live with hindus. we can’t. why don’t they understand this?” after achieving pakistan he suddenly turns around and says religion is a private matter..etc, etc. well, u can’t create a nation of tolerance on the basis of intolerance. it’s a fundamental contradiction. besides a country or city prospers when it is cosmopolitan and open-minded enough towards ‘outsiders’. what will happen if lots of muslims were suddenly forced to leave bombay? our film industry and economy, society would be badly affected. there were so many hindus and sikhs in pakistan earlier. but partition changed all that. pakistan is basically a muslim ghetto. studies prove that when u grow up with people of other cultures, u tend to be more tolerant. for many pakistani muslims today, they have never known a hindu or sikh in their lives. the reverse (in india) is simple not true. i have known muslims all my life. i am not being anti-pakistan i am just trying to be honest about what i feel is wrong about the idea of pakistan.
Pervez Hasnain
May 5, 2010
Pakistan is a ‘non-religious’ state. Such a corrupt society cannot be religious or “theocratic” as commented by our Quaid. A true religious person cannot be corrupt, irrespective of which religion he/she belongs.
It is opportunistic state where religion is kept behind while accepting bribes and kickbacks, ridiculing laws of land, usurping others rights and freedom, killing for pseudo-honor, and the list go on and on.
Muslims living in Secular States are more Muslims than living in defined Islamic States.
Only Secular Pakistan is a solution for the progress.
Long Live Pakistan!
Syed Amaar Ahmad
June 10, 2012
@ Shweta Mittal (June 8, 2012)
If History has been murdered in Pakistan, one can safely say that it has been brutally molested, if not murdered in India. I am not being anti-Indian in saying this. I say this after having interacted with a considerably large number of Indians. It would be so not true to say that Pakistan was created on the principle of anti-Hinduism. Even if that’s what they’re teaching you these days in Indian schools, that is just not true. I would appreciate it, if you could give me the reference and the complete context of the quote you’ve attributed to Jinnah. At the time of Independence, economically and politically speaking, the Muslim-majority states of India were clearly in a disadvantaged position, as compared to the Hindu-majority states. The general attitude of the Gandhi-Nehru led Congress had left the Indian Muslims, who were a minority in India, convinced that the Congress cared little for them. If the Indian Muslim community lost faith in the Congress, it was not an over-night thing. It took a while. The last opportunity that came, to prevent India from being partitioned, was in the from of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which offered greater political and economic autonomy to the Muslim-majority states, yet keeping India undivided. Jinnah endorsed it openly and unconditionally, while Nehru remained elusive, until it eventually failed.
It would not be fair to judge the origin of Pakistan from its present situation. Today, Pakistan is a hostage of the Mullahs. Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was of a modern and secular country, comprising of the Muslim-majority Indian states, where State and Religion would be kept apart. Nothing more – nothing less.