The 75th death anniversary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was observed on 11th September 2023.
On this occasion Moeed Pirzada, the eminent Pakistani journalist, has posted a vlog.
I respect Moeed who is bravely opposing the reign of terror unleashed in Pakistan by its army. However I regret that in his vlog he has totally distorted the truth.
Moeed says that Jinnah was an advocate of Constitutionalism and the rule of law, and he deplores the fact that these have broken down today in Pakistan, which is directly contrary to Jinnah’s vision.
What he overlooks is that Jinnah’s relentless advocacy of the bogus two nation theory which led to creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state, inevitably led to today’s situation in Pakistan and the destruction of the rule of law..
No doubt at one time Jinnah opposed separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims, and was called the ‘Ambassador of Hindu unity’. But that was at the early stage of his political career. Later, particularly after the Lahore Resolution of 1940 he relentlessly and fanatically demanded partition of India on communal lines, and he went all over India preaching this.
I have mentioned in several articles that in fact Partition of India in 1947 was a British swindle, and was the culmination of the British policy of divide and rule.
It was the British who were responsible for the Partition of India, with Jinnah as their main agent (though ultimately the Congress Party also acquiesed), and the purpose was to prevent India from emerging as a modern industrial giant ( as China has become ) and becoming a big rival to Western industry. I have explained this in detail in this interview I gave to Moeed recently.
The same Jinnah who was secular and the ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’ in the 1920s later became highly communal, and the main protagonist of the fraudulent two nation theory in the late 1930s.
Obviously he did this to satisfy his ambition to become the ‘Quaid-e-Azam’, regardless of the suffering his actions caused to both Hindus and Muslims. His call for Direct Action Day resulted in the terrible Calcutta killings in 1946. And, of course, the Partition resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 people, Hindu and Muslim, and the uprooting of millions from their native places. Did this cause any grief to Jinnah? Not at all. As long as his ambition was satisfied he was not bothered about the horrible miseries he had caused.
If one reads Jinnah’s speeches and his letters ( they have all been published) one will see that from the late 1930s onwards he relentlessly preached the 2 nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations, and therefore cannot co-exist together. This was of course humbug, and surely Jinnah knew that, since he had lived in Bombay for long, and must have interacted as a lawyer and otherwise with a lot of Hindus.
Moeed has harped on Jinnah being a Constitutional expert and upholder of the rule of law. What he omits to state is that creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state, which Jinnah relentlessly advocated, effectively destroyed constitutionalism and the rule of law.
This is because the Indian subcontinent has such tremendous diversity that a theocratic state in it simply cannot be stable, prosperous or governed by the rule of law.
Even if one creates an Islamic state, the question immediately arises what kind of Islam, Sunni or Shia, Deobandi or Barelvi, Wahabi, Salafi or Sufi ? Fights often occur between these denominations in Pakistan e.g. over the issue whether dargahs are islamic or unislamic. Mobs of religious extremists have often attacked minorities over concocted blasphemy allegations with impunity
Religious bigots like the Tehreek-e-Labaik often resort to extra legal measures which create havoc.
And of course Ahmadis have been thrown to the wolves.
Moeed has often said that the British Cabinet Mission proposal, which Jinnah’s Muslim League supported but Congress opposed, could have avoided Partition.
In reply it must be said firstly that the Cabinet Mission was just a ploy, since the British were determined to partition India before they left ( for the reason abovementioned ). In fact this was a typical British technique before they left a country e.g. partitioning Ireland, Palestine, Cyprus, etc.
Secondly, the proposal to give only defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications to the Central Govt meant that India would remain weak, and continue to be dominated indirectly by foreign powers.
A strong Central Govt led by modern minded leaders determined to rapidly industrialise and modernise the country is a sine qua non for the country’s progress.
I suspect that Moeed has in mind that one day he would like to return to Pakistan ( he presently lives in USA and dare not return immediately as he is persona non grata with the present Pakistan Establishment due to his strong support for Imran Khan ), but he knows that even if things change later and he returns he may be charged under section 123A Pakistan Penal Code which carries a sentence of upto 10 years jail for speaking against Partition.
So to avoid unpleasant consequences he must support the ‘Baba-e-Quom’, who caused so much misery to tens of millions.
Markandey Katju is an Indian jurist and former Supreme Court judge of India who served as chairman for the Press Council of India. He has also worked as Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
The views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not represent the editorial policy or views of Global Village Space.