Debate has been going on (and raised again by comments on Jaswant Singh's book) about what the Quaid wanted Pakistan to be. A case in point is Yasser Latif Hamdani's article "Jaswant's book and Partition" in the News, Pakistan, Sep 24, 2009.
Mr Hamdani's reading of the history of our Quaid is essentially correct, but I find the last paragrah a rather misleading statement of choices.
There are others who argue that "Pakistan ka matlab kiya, la ilaha illallah" (what is the meaning of Pakistan - there is no god but Allah. And contrary to Mr Hamdani's that does not imply that we have to live in a ghetto with a terrorist mentality. That is grossly unjust way of putting things.
I am not a historian, nor an academic of Pakistan Studies, so I do not remember the exact words, but I do recall reading that this question was asked of Mr. Jinnah by the Hindu Press walas that he used to be in the Congress and for Hindu-Muslim unity, why was he now campaigning for an independent Pakistan? He answered that once he was also in the primary class.
This speaks volumes, for it says that he had matured.
My intention is not to get into what Mr. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be. Let me reiterate that he was an excellent person, very upright and took the legal vs. the populist way to achieve for us Muslims an independent state. His integrity and capability and achievements deserve all the praise we have been heaping upon him.
The issue is different, though. Whatever his views on what the Pakistani state should be, those views were appropriate for him, and while appreciating his merits, we should not blindly follow what we think he wanted us to be.
For us, the question is whether as Muslims we are required to have an Islamic state, to be governed by laws derived from the Quran and the Sunnah, or are we required to adapt our ways to the dominant systems in the world.
That’s the issue, and that is what needs to be debated, if a debate is needed at all.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment