Editorial
Imbalance of power
To an outsider this may look surreal.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden’s presence in a garrison city did not bother
the people of this country at all but the breach of its sovereignty did. The
self-destructing content of the speeches delivered in a Jamaatud Dawah-sponsored
rally — the calls for Jihad and the vitriol against the US and India —
in Lahore would baffle him equally. And, finally, a casual reading of the
events surrounding a controversial memorandum and the response of various
institutions may make him want to bang his head against the wall.
military
Where the ‘rethink’ came
to an abrupt end
By deciding to file a response which is
separate from that of the federation, the military has put itself in a
quandary
By Farah Zia
The cat is out of the bag like never before. It may refuse to go back in
again and, to this extent, there is some room for hope — that the
imbalance of power might see a decisive shift to whichever side weighs
heavier.
judiciary
Necessity of
the doctrine
Every Martial Law in our country has been
followed by a PCO
By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed
The other day Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani categorically stated
that the army and the judiciary were supporters of democracy and did not
have any intentions of derailing the democratic process in the country.
These words came in response to journalists’ questions about what they
called strained ties between the PPP government on the one side and the
judiciary and the military on the other.
two sides
History has it...
The democratic and liberal
Greek worldview versus the military mindset of the Spartans
By Sarwat Ali
In the ancient world, two views evolved over time that determined the
nature of the state and the society. These two views were dramatically
brought to the surface during the Peloponnesian Wars between the Greek City
states of Athens and Sparta around 500 BCE.
political
parties
Is the party over?
Pakistan’s political forces
have walked every time into a trap where they paradoxically end up being
manipulated into strengthening the Establishment and its agenda
By Adnan Rehmat
Political parties are vehicles for a state’s subjects to drive in and
arrive at a destination — usually imagined as the proverbial rainbow’s
end itself — that is determined in advance and one where they would all
like to go. But in a polity like Pakistan’s that is fractious, a country
that is a pluralist entity
media
The manipulator
is manipulated
Undermining the legitimacy of
parliamentary democracy has come naturally to the ‘people’s media’
By Adnan Rehmat
Reporting politics is as old a profession as politics. That’s pretty
straightforward. However, when it comes to Pakistan, how old really is
reporting about the national polity’s dominance of the Establishment? The
answer is not as straightforward as one would imagine.
religious
groups
Under ‘one’ umbrella
Islamists and jihadists pose
the biggest existentialist threat to the Pakistan military today
By Arif Jamal
The so-called Difa e Pakistan rally in Lahore on December18 sent shock
waves among Pakistan’s democratic forces. Ostensibly organised by the Difa
e Pakistan Council, a group of 40-odd Islamist-jihadist groups, the rally
was actually a show of force by the Jamatud Dawah (JuD).
Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan
By Prof Sharif al Mujahid
Jinnah was not a mere political leader, but also a statesman. Indeed his statesmanship streak influenced and determined his political leadership role increasingly as he negotiated the tortuous road to Pakistan in the 1940s.
From Jinnah to Quaid-i-Azam
By Nabiha Gul
It was close to the end of the 19th century and the world was experiencing several political upheavals when the struggle for independence from British Raj gained momentum in the subcontinent. Among other leaders, Muhammad Ali Jinnah vigorously advocated the rights of the people of the subcontinent and four decades later he became the founder of Pakistan?the Quaid-i-Azam. Hailing from a rich mercantile family, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the eight children to Jinnah Bhai Poonja (Poonja Jinnah). There are multiple factors that influenced Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political upbringing. It was only when he went to England for higher studies that he became familiar to Western ideas of liberalism and gradually spreading movements on the basis of nationalism. He also had an opportunity to closely observe the changing political and social scenarios in Europe based on democratic values.
Jinnah’s Pakistan: an integrated nation
By Muttahir Ahmed Khan
Truly speaking, if Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had been present amongst us today he would have been extremely grief-stricken to see his nation falling prey to the fatal diseases of disunity, disharmony and disintegration. The whole voyage of the great leader’s struggle for a separate homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent was based on the pivot of Muslim unity and oneness as a nation, without any thought of ethnic, lingual or sectarian discrimination. Addressing a public meeting at Dacca on March 21, 1948, Mr Jinnah clearly warned: “Let me warn you in the clearest terms of the dangers that still face Pakistan. Having failed to prevent the establishment of Pakistan and thwarted and frustrated by their failure, the enemies of Pakistan have now turned their attention to disrupt the State by creating a split amongst the Muslims of Pakistan. These attempts have taken the shape principally of encouraging provincialism. As long as you do not throw off this poison (of provincialism) from our body politic, you will never be able to weld yourself, mould yourself, galvanise yourself into a real, true nation. What we want is not to talk about Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Pathan and so on. They are, of course, units. But I ask you: have you forgotten the lesson that was taught to us thirteen hundred years ago? If I may point out, you are all outsiders here. Who were the original inhabitants of Bengal? Not those who are now living here. So what is the use of saying, ‘We are Bengalis or Sindhis or Pathans or Punjabis.’ No, we are Muslims.”
QUAID-I-AZAM AS GOVERNOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN
Dr M Yakub Mughul
The Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was one of the greatest leaders of the modern age. He not only led his people to independence but founded a separate homeland, where they could mould their lives in accordance with the traditions of Islam and cultivate their culture and civilisation. This was a far greater achievement of the Quaid than any other national liberation leader. Other leaders struggled for independence within states already in existence whereas the Quaid alone sought a separate homeland where none had existed. This he achieved almost single-handedly and constitutionally and in the teeth of opposition.
Pakistan’s emergence was not just the emergence of a new State. It was created on the basis of Islamic ideology. Had Pakistan not been created, the Muslims would have been under the subjugation of militant Hindu majority in the united India and would have lost their identity in the Hindu majority.
Quaid-i-Azam house museum
The softer side
By Uzma Batool
While crossing Shahrah-e- Faisal and Fatima Jinnah road, one comes across a strikingly elegant yellow/red stone building in the middle of a vast open piece of land which is popularly known as Flag Staff House or Quaid-i-Azam museum. This flag staff house belongs to father of the nation Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Quaid through the years
1876: Mohammad Ali Jinnah was born on December 25, 1876.
1882: At the age of six he started learning Gugrati at home and got elementary education in primary school.
Editorial
Imbalance of power
To an outsider this may
look surreal. The fact that Osama Bin Laden’s presence in a garrison city
did not bother the people of this country at all but the breach of its
sovereignty did. The self-destructing content of the speeches delivered in a
Jamaatud Dawah-sponsored rally — the calls for Jihad and the vitriol
against the US and India — in Lahore would baffle him equally. And,
finally, a casual reading of the events surrounding a controversial
memorandum and the response of various institutions may make him want to
bang his head against the wall.
Call them inanities, plain
stupidities or vested interests at work, the sheer frequency of these
blunders is testing the patience of even a resilie
nt
Pakistani. Enough of Sheikh Rasheed on television, they seem to be saying as
they wonder at the sudden birth of a ‘Civil Society Front’ out of
nowhere.
As the drama enacts in the
Supreme Court with a volley of affidavits and counter-affidavits exchanged
on a daily basis, TNS seeks to look at the whole affair in the framework of
institutions and what we made of them. This, we feel, is a potentially
decisive moment in our history. The so-called Memogate offers a microcosmic
opportunity to see where our institutions stand today.
Whatever the short-term
effects of Memogate may be, through it we see the overarching influence of
one institution and how it used and dwarfed and inhibited the growth of
other institutions. Once the institutional imbalance was accepted, these
institutions overstepped their limits for obvious reasons. The institutions
which were permanently affected in this civil-military imbalance, and the
ones we have discussed in this Special Report, are political parties,
judiciary, media and religious groups apart from the military, of course.
But the original sin must
lie at the doorstep of this one institution. Ironically, the Memogate
scandal has served to reinforce this sense.
military
Where the ‘rethink’ came
to an abrupt end
By deciding to file a response
which is separate from that of the federation, the military has put itself
in a quandary
By Farah Zia
The cat is out of the bag
like never before. It may refuse to go back in again and, to this extent,
there is some room for hope — that the imbalance of power might see a
decisive shift to whichever side weighs heavier.
This time, it has come in
the shape of a memorandum delivered to Admiral Mike Mullen on the 10th of
May, 2011, the then chairman US joint chief of staff and revealed to the
Pakistani public in varying bits and pieces. The contents of the memo
reflect the aspirations of the civilian government in shaping a polity that
is at odds with the one desired by the country’s security establishment.
The consequences are for everyone to see.
The point is that in the
media-generated frenzy, headlines hog all attention. The details either get
lost or the wrong details are brought up for scrutiny. This unfortunately
happened with the said memo. Beyond the loud cries that lambast inviting a
foreign country to interfere in our local affairs, and despite the slack
language used by Mansoor Ijaz, the six points made in the memorandum clearly
spell out the grey areas of our foreign policy which is essentially
controlled by the military.
Speaking from the
standpoint of civilian supremacy, there is nothing wrong with any of these
six points (which are easy to Google if you missed them when they originally
came to light). The military, for obvious reasons, views it differently and
seems unprepared to give up the powers it feels belongs to itself. And,
hence, the separate affidavits submitted before the Supreme Court to show
that it stands apart from — and above — the elected government.
But is this the first time
that the military took a different stand? Certainly not. It always spoke
from a position of strength and managed to have its way. 
The assassination of
Benazir Bhutto drew a different kind of response in the initial months,
though. Before the election of 2008, in January, General Ashfaq Parvez
Kayani “passed a directive which ordered military officers not to maintain
contacts with politicians.” On February 13, 2008, he ordered the
withdrawal of military officers from all of Pakistan’s government civil
departments (the details about the implementation never got public).
After the elections, on
March 7, 2008, he “confirmed that Pakistan’s armed forces will stay out
of politics and support the new government.” Speaking to a gathering of
military commanders in Rawalpindi, he said that “the army fully stands
behind the democratic process and is committed to playing its constitutional
role.”
That is where the
‘rethink’ came to an abrupt end. Curse the elected government for
getting the wrong signals. Curse Prime Minister Gilani for deciding to put
the ISI under the control of the Ministry of Interior (he was made to
de-notify the order within hours) and curse him for announcing to send the
DG ISI to India for a joint investigation of Mumbai attacks (the DG did not
go). Both the incidents came rather early on, in 2008, and the government
was expected to have learnt its lesson for good.
For most part, it did.
If, however, the occasion
required, the corps commanders would sit as a parallel cabinet and announce
their displeasure over, say, the conditionalities of Kerry Lugar Bill. On
the other hand, if silence was the need of the hour, like in the case of
release of Raymond Davis or during most drone strikes, it was duly
maintained.
Meanwhile, the power
equation (read the status quo) sustained as the mantra of all institutions
“on the same page” was repeated ad nauseam. If the Newsweek named
General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani the 20th most powerful person in the world in
2008, the Forbes magazine declared him the 34th most powerful person in
2011. Not to forget that in July 2010 the prime minister extended Kayani’s
term as Chief of the Army Staff by three years, making him the first
four-star general to receive a term extension from any democratic
government.
But then came May 2011 or,
to borrow from Mansoor Ijaz (and, by implication, Husain Haqqani), the
“1971 moment”. Once again the state is doing what it did post-1971.
As one of the country’s
leading political parties PML-N decided to take the case for inquiry away
from its rightful domain, the parliament, into the Supreme Court, the COAS
and the DG ISI decided to file separate affidavits.
The truth is that by doing
so, the military has put itself in a quandary. The existence of the memo
itself has proved that it stands on a shaky ground, and by coming out in the
open it must prove, to itself more than anyone else, that it has regained
its feet. But that’s not where the matter ends. All eyes of the world are
set on the ‘Memogate’ inquiry — to see what steps does the military
take vis-a-vis the elected civilian dispensation. Whether it is ready to
wind up the current experiment and take overt charge of the country or
whether it would continue to operate from behind the scenes (Bangladesh and
Burma models are not just thrown up for discussion’s sake).
Opinion is divided on what
course the military would take. Even if the international dimension is kept
aside for the moment, military’s direct rule is rejected for the simple
reason that this will put the integrity of the country at stake, given the
insurgency in Balochistan and the expected unease in Sindh. Does this mean
that the security establishment now reels under its own weight?
The quandary holds even if
the security establishment decides to bring in any other political
dispensation, in whatever form (the Bangladesh model failed eventually while
the Burma model is untenable given our peculiar experience with terrorism).
This new political dispensation, we fear, shall bring in its own memo-like
blueprint, not addressed to a US official maybe but drawn along similar
lines as this one.
This is the lesson of
history and the structural flaw that Pakistan must live with — looks like
the Memogate is going to rub the Pakistani institutions the wrong way.
judiciary
Necessity of
the doctrine
Every Martial Law in our country has been followed by a PCO
By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed
The other day Prime
Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani categorically stated that the army and the
judiciary were supporters of democracy and did not have any intentions of
derailing the democratic process in the country. These words came in
response to journalists’ questions about what they called strained ties
between the PPP government on the one side and the judiciary and the
military on the other.
Amid speculations that
change in government, if any, would come through a court order and that the
military would be there to help execute it, this statement was termed a
feeble attempt to diffuse the tensions existing among state institutions.
No doubt, the PM’s
statement was expected and media concerns genuine keeping in view the
history of the country. Many a time in the past elected governments were
sent home on different charges by the military and the sitting judiciary had
approved these acts. The latter showed defiance as well but such instances
were very few and it’s a comparatively newer phenomenon in the history of
military-judiciary relations.
A look into the annals of
history shows how the removal of the Khawaja Nazimuddin government by
Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad in 1954 was approved by the judiciary under
the “Doctrine of Necessity.” The term used for the first time in
Pakistan by Chief Justice Munir, while hearing a petition filed by Maulvi
Tamizuddin, president of the dissolved constituent assembly, was frequently
referred to by the judiciary in years to follow to give approval to military
coups.
Used to describe the basis
on which extra-legal actions by state actors, which are designed to restore
order, are declared legal, the term (“Doctrine of Necessity”) formed the
basis of the martial laws of General Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan in
1958 and 1969 respectively. The superior judiciary this way gave a legal
cover to these acts at the cost of democratically elected governments.
Whether they qualified to continue to be in power was a totally different
question.
The first two military
rulers abrogated the constitution with impunity as Article 6 was
incorporated in the constitution only in 1973. Under this article, acts such
as abrogation of constitution by force were declared acts of high treason.
It is believed that for this very reason, Gen Ziaul Haq suspended the
constitution in 1977 and stayed away from abrogating it.
Unfortunately, the
justification for Zia’s martial law was once again the same doctrine of
necessity. Ironically, the person who got this article inducted in the
constitution to stop the way of a military dictator was awarded death
sentence and all appeals against the decision were rejected by the
judiciary.
Musharraf’s 1998 coup
was taken a bit differently by the judiciary and its approval was subjected
to the condition of his holding general elections within three years.
The rare confrontation
between the military and the judiciary also had its manifestation during
Musharraf’s tenure when Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry refused to resign
on his demand on March 3, 2007. In November the same year, 60 judges
followed him after the imposition of emergency in the country as they all
stood deposed.
It’s an established fact
that even when the army is not in power, its political muscle has been
present. The army has even established military courts, a move which was
challenged by former Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah which in his opinion was
an attempt to set up a parallel judicial system.
The military rules have
always won legitimacy from the succeeding elected assemblies whose first
acts have been to indemnify the acts of their predecessors. For example,
Musharraf’s Legal Framework Order (LFO) legitimised his tenure which,
according to him, enjoyed full support of the judiciary.
“I don’t need the
assemblies’ approval. If anyone has an objection to this, he’d better go
to the Supreme Court which has mandated us to amend the constitution,” was
what he said on the occasion.
Coming back to the current
fiasco over Memogate, the general perception is that this time the coup, if
any, would be a judicial one. The court many think may give an order against
the government and none other than the army will be asked to execute it.
This would not be
unconstitutional as the apex court can call the Army for help in getting its
verdict implemented under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The
apex court has given many decisions against the sitting government but these
could not be executed. The next, if given against the government and in
favour of the military, may not lack the enforcement power lacking so far.
two
sides
History has it...
The democratic and liberal Greek worldview versus the military mindset of
the Spartans
By Sarwat Ali
In the ancient world, two
views evolved over time that determined the nature of the state and the
society. These two views were dramatically brought to the surface during the
Peloponnesian Wars between the Greek City states of Athens and Sparta around
500 BCE.
The Spartans were great
warriors and laid huge premium on building the military might of their
state. They premised that the defence of the city state, the highest virtue
that could be attained was only possible by investing hugely in their
military infrastructure.
The most important aspect
of any state are the people — Sparta invested heavily in the citizens
which revolved round their education and training totally focused on the
ability to be great soldiers. Education primarily was meant to train the
young in the art of warfare and to be militaristically ready to defend the
city state. This made all other institutions dovetail to this ideal. The
youth were made to give preference to the art of warfare and the entire
system was conditioned by it. The society, too, was structured in such a way
that the ideal of war was upheld and guarded with full devotion and
reverence. All men had to be militaristically trained and to be a soldier
was the most prized status and station in the society. They espoused
oligarchy, abhorred democracy and insisted on building a society that was
focused, regimented and geared towards singular objective. All else was
either wasteful or mere indulgence which the human and material resources of
the city state could hardly afford.
Laconophilia, the love or
admiration of Sparta and of the Spartan culture or constitution, typically
means praise, valour and success in war, laconic austerity and
self-restraint, aristocratic and virtuous ways, the stable order of
political life and constitution. Spartan state was seen as ideal theory
realised in practice and was admired not for its art and literature, but for
the disciplined character of its citizens. The Lacedemonians were masters
not of creating things in words or stone but of men.
On the other hand, their
opponents — the Athenians — espoused a different world view. The
Poleponnesian Wars were as much a battle of two city states as of two world
views. The Greek were basically democrats and took great pride in building a
society that was based on the freedom of ideas and thinking, the resultant
expression of that endeavour, philosophy and arts were highly-prized. The
military mindset was ensconced in the bigger picture of what they wanted
their society to be, more wholesome and open, not enslaved by one
overwhelming mission, the defence of their city-state.
Stressing on the
speculative aspects of thought, the human beings were perceived as deserving
of a higher purpose and to be creative. They produced philosophers,
political scientists, artists; created epics and tragedies and guaranteed
space for those not that purpose-driven.
There were philosophers
who just thought and whiled away their time in sophistry, poets who wrote
and wallowed in the luxury of their imagination, builders who placed form
above content in seeking the ultimate design that may have escaped the
building on the truth of received wisdom.
The infiniteness of reason
and the compactness of imagination were cherished; “shauq e fazool” was
valued as more things in heaven and earth than could be dreamt of in a
philosophy were pursued. For them human beings were more important as they
created society and not the state that created its citizens.
Athenian society thrived
in diversity and a work ethic that was not based on regimentation — the
idea of discipline more subjective than overt, and the ideality and idleness
not that grave crimes.
Similarly, criticism and
cynicism was entertained as human activities not totally wasteful, and even
if they were, so what. The task of a goal-oriented order was relegated in
pursuit of discovering a goal.
political
parties
Is the party over?
Pakistan’s political forces have walked every time into a trap where
they paradoxically end up being manipulated into strengthening the
Establishment and its agenda
By Adnan Rehmat
Political parties are
vehicles for a state’s subjects to drive in and arrive at a destination
— usually imagined as the proverbial rainbow’s end itself — that is
determined in advance and one where they would all like to go. But in a
polity like Pakistan’s that is fractious, a country that is a pluralist
entity but pretends to be a singularity and boasts a critical mass of
citizens that is deprived of even the fundamental guarantees that a written
constitution promises — political parties have fallen short of
expectations when it comes to delivering them to their destination.
True, the conditions that
some of the political parties that are openly owned up by many millions in
the country have navigated have been darned difficult and their job made
thorny by the real overlords of Pakistan. They have fought valiant battles
that were not even supposed to exist in the first place since the
Constitution promises them not just legitimacy but necessity and
inevitability even. However, the bottomline is that national dreams and
aspirations have soured and the disillusionment with political parties of
Pakistan — whether they are the mainstream Big Two or the provincial
powerhouses — is setting in deep.
Or, is it? What about all
the heads Imran Khan is turning and the headlines his Tehrik-e-Insaf is
running away with, leaving even established political parties nervous in
their shoes ahead of the race for the hustings? Are all these the signs of a
political transition where the hopes of tens of millions of a relatively new
generation of Pakistanis are growing weary of the old ways of politics, when
a majority outsourced protection of their interests to political parties, in
a new age of greater individual liberty and growing impatience?
The major political
parties are certainly about to find out. Yes, some important fingers are
pointing towards the Establishment as the patrons of the newest kid on
Pakistan’s political block. But every firmly established political party
with the ability to win votes by the millions, be they kings or kingmakers
at the national or provincial level with at least 15 years behind them —
Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Awami National Party
and Muttahida Qaumi Movement — are not really asking the right questions
in-house or out in the public.
If Imran Khan and his
party are being given more than just a quiet backing by the Establishment,
why is PPP ready to be manipulated into believing that the ‘Captain’ can
only harm its principal rival PML-N? By tactical level politics of
indirectly supporting PTI against an admittedly pesky PML-N isn’t PPP
undermining its own interest of promoting a largely two-party system that
nurtures within it the surest guarantee of political longevity for itself?
By focusing on personalities — read: Asif Zardari — rather than the
government’s unravelling economic and social policies, isn’t Nawaz
Sharif and his aides only helping themselves to be manipulated once again by
the military into discrediting the very structural edifice upon which the
political legitimacy of the transition from Musharraf’s ham-fisted
military reign to constitutional, representative government has been built,
which includes their Punjab government?
That Pakistan’s biggest
political fights are not played out in the streets and homes among political
parties in the legitimate battle for people’s mandate but behind closed
doors between the constitutional political forces and the illegitimate
Establishment and their cohorts for the control of the country is hardly a
secret. In fact, the current phase of this long-running battle between these
two protagonists is being played out in the highest court of the land,
turning it from a tragedy to a farce. Where this heartless battle is headed
can be understood by the fact that the military has now formally given up
even a pretence that it is supposed to be a part of the government.
This then brings us to the
old question: For the control of Pakistan — and, by that extension, to the
destiny and destination of 180m Pakistanis — who is manipulating who? For
even an average 23 year old Pakistani it’s obvious that against its old
foe PPP, the military is manipulating PML-N and PTI. By way of promise, the
spoils for this include a chance at forming the next government in
Islamabad. The PPP is being manipulated by the military into thinking it can
manipulate PTI into cutting into PML-N’s house in Punjab. The PTI is, of
course, happy to be manipulated into a position where it can take on
Pakistan’s oldest political foes (two wickets with one ball).
A departure from their own
stated objectives and people’s mandates, Pakistan’s political forces
have walked every time into a trap where they paradoxically end up being
manipulated into strengthening the Establishment and its agenda of a
stranglehold over the state’s resources, taking the country in a direction
opposite to what they started out for in 1947.
Who did PPP strengthen by
launching a nuclear programme; appeasing Islamic forces (declaring a section
of the population “kafirs” by law, Friday as weekend, banning alcohol,
etc.); creating ISI and giving it a political role; increasing the military
budget threefold even after it lost East Pakistan; cutting a deal with the
military duo of Musharraf and Kayani in the shape of the NRO; and,
unforgivably, giving a face-saving to the military after Osama Bin Laden was
found in Pakistan under its nose?
Who did PML-N strengthen
by testing nuclear, dealing with an army chief to spare its leaders a stint
in prison; taking PPP to court on Memogate and, therefore, giving legitimacy
to the Establishment’s re-establishment of its old game of de-legitimising
political forces; siding with the judges and giving them the right to
undermine elected governments who restored them rather than take on generals
who are still in office who were among those who forced the chief justice
out and jailed his fellow judges; and by not sending Nawaz Sharif to the
current parliament and strengthening it?
The thing is that the
morality of political parties has to grow out of the conscience and the
participation of the voters, but by letting themselves be manipulated by the
Establishment again and again, they are ending up not just becoming under-legitimised
but also taking the people to a destination they did not pay for.
media
The manipulator
is manipulated
Undermining the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy has come naturally
to the ‘people’s media’
By Adnan Rehmat
Reporting politics is as
old a profession as politics. That’s pretty straightforward. However, when
it comes to Pakistan, how old really is reporting about the national
polity’s dominance of the Establishment? The answer is not as
straightforward as one would imagine.
Consider: until only a
decade ago, there was no independent TV or television news in Pakistan,
which means that only the state-owned PTV was the primary source of formal
information as a default. Even as recently as five years ago, there were
barely five TV channels in the private sector, which offered any decent news
worth its name or real-time information. Now it’s a tsunami, to use the
favourite word of Imran Khan, who is the Pakistani media’s idea of a
politician and leader, currently.
Until the independent
broadcast media came along some years ago, the state media controlled even
by the elected governments could not dare offer open opinion that went
against the self-assumed extra-constitutional role of arbitrating national
destiny by the military Establishment. There never has been uttered the
“T” word — treason — on the state media, either under elected or
military governments, when it comes to the actions of a few generals who did
what is unthinkable in democracies. This despite the fact that there have
been three coups d etat in Pakistan where the army chiefs violated the
constitution and overthrew elected governments. All of them either died or
were discharged with state honours.
No national honours for
the elected leaders, however. The state media, including PTV and Radio
Pakistan — under Generals Zia and Musharraf — have openly painted the
country’s first elected prime minister as a “traitor” who allegedly
broke up the country (even though General Yahya, yet another army chief, was
the ruler!) and hung him, elected prime minister Benazir Bhutto as a
“security risk” and elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif as a
“hijacker”, dismissing their governments with contempt.
Which is why high hopes
have rested on independent broadcast media — supposedly the voice of the
people and the guardian of their democratic interest. Because only about 15m
Pakistanis get their information from newspapers and a very large majority
of the country’s 180m citizens from TV media, it is crucial that this
medium understands and acts out on its principal responsibility as a
watchdog of not the Establishment’s interests but the guardian of public
interest.
But, is it? With the
exception of the summer of 2007, when Musharraf’s fit of soldierly impulse
against a Supreme Court packed with his cronies made heroes out of them from
the stand in support of the constitution taken by the media, Pakistan’s
independent TV has in a big part turned out to be not the educator on and
articulator of the real big fight for the people’s destiny as a pluralist
democracy that is played out behind the scenes. Accountability of the
government — another central role of the media — is one thing but
actually taking positions that undermine the legitimacy of parliamentary
democracy has come astonishingly naturally to the supposedly ‘people’s
media’ of the new millennium in Pakistan.
There have been at least
three instances in 2011 alone that have established that the independent TV
media in Pakistan have failed in their role of either informing or educating
the people and on what really is happening when the people were primed to
make up their minds on the issue about who really governs the country. The
first was when CIA agent Raymond Davies was caught in Lahore, the second
when Osama Bin Laden was found comfortably snuggled in Abbottabad and the
third when Nato troops gunned down Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border.
In each of these three
instances, the media was manipulated by the military Establishment into
taking anti-American sentiments sky high to increase their leverage over
Washington. By using the Establishment’s standard narrative of
nationalism, religion and patriotism, the media got played into ignoring the
basic principles of journalism that demand a professional, neutral posture
based on fact rather than opinion. TV in Pakistan is full of opinion-making
anchorpersons on primetime talk shows that are always blurring the line
between fact and opinion and the line between opinion and analysis.
For any media
professional, in its short life of a few years, the prime medium of
public’s information in Pakistan has proved an embarrassing advocate of
the cliché and the stereotype. “Parliament has failed,” (really? Who
has cleansed the constitution of a large part of the legacies of Generals
Zia and Musharraf, passed a battery of pro-women laws and got back powers
from the president that didn’t belong to him?) “Military is the guardian
of national frontiers,” (as if the military is not part of the government
and the government and parliament are not the guardians). “The government
is corrupt,” (which court has declared the government corrupt?) “Doing
business secretly with the US is against the national interest,” (So, if a
military government does it, it’s in national interest?)
The media in Pakistan in
general has been easily manipulated, with the exception of print media in
the past, by the Establishment but what is happening now is that the TV
media is openly and unthinkingly strengthening the military establishment
and the judiciary against the parliament, which means the media is becoming
part of the story and of the manipulation — a political actor itself. How
professional is this? The answer is obvious to all, except to the
media.
religious
groups
Under ‘one’ umbrella
Islamists and jihadists pose the biggest existentialist threat to the
Pakistan military today
By Arif Jamal
The so-called Difa e
Pakistan rally in Lahore on December18 sent shock waves among Pakistan’s
democratic forces. Ostensibly organised by the Difa e Pakistan Council, a
group of 40-odd Islamist-jihadist groups, the rally was actually a show of
force by the Jamatud Dawah (JuD).
The rally comes at a time
when the general elections are a little more than a year away if the
political system is not derailed once again. Some of the analysts and
commentators in the Pakistani media see it as an attempt by the Deep State
to gather its ‘client’ political/religious groups under one umbrella to
defeat the democratic forces. They see it as an attempt to create an
alliance on the lines of the IJI or the MMA.
The fear may be misplaced
as the JuD is not likely to take part in any electoral activity in the near
future. However, the rally is significant as it is for the first time that
the JuD has organised such a big political rally, even though it has held
far bigger religious rallies in the past.
The cause of unease about
the intentions of the Deep State is the fact that the alliance between the
Deep State and the religious parties has become so deep. It is quite natural
that the rally has once again brought the subject of the military-mullah
alliance to the fore. It has strengthened the suspicions that the Deep State
is once again waiting in the wings to use its client religious/political
parties to manipulate the results of the next general elections. Rallies
such as the Difa-e-Pakistan may strengthen the pro-military political forces
as the general election nears; the contents of the speeches make it clear
that the rally aims at paving the way for the fuller use of jihad as an
instrument of policy by the Deep State in the emerging regional scene.
The mullah-military
alliance was forged during the Bangladesh war of independence when the
Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan formed al-Badr and al-Shams to fight alongside
the Pakistan Army against the Bengali nationalists in the erstwhile East
Pakistan. Al-Badr and al-Shams fought alongside the Pakistan army and
brutally targeted and killed the Bengali intelligentsia. They lost the war
but they understood the importance of alliance between the army and the
religious parties. The Pakistani military and religious parties have been
inseparable since then. The trend started by the Jamaat-i-Islami of Pakistan
was later followed by all other religious parties.
The alliance bore fruit
for both sides in 1977 when the military dismissed the
democratically-elected government of Z.A. Bhutto as a result of a prolonged
agitation by the religious parties. Neither of them could have brought the
Bhutto government down alone. For the first time, they shared power. The
significant thing about the 1977 coup was that it made it clear that the
Pakistani military was no more a secular force. The military regime under
General Ziaul Haq would not have survived without the support from the
religious parties such as the Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Pakistan and
Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (Samiul Haq). At the same time, these parties could
not have grown in strength and numbers in a democratic political system. To
create a support base and survive in power, Gen. Ziaul Haq encouraged
sectarian and jihadist groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan.
The jihad in Afghanistan
and, later, in Kashmir not only strengthened the Islamist parties in an
unprecedented way but also turned them violent. Jihadist groups mushroomed
and most religious parties formed their armed wings. The military regime
used jihad as an instrument of defence policy. The jihadist groups were
doing both in Afghanistan and India what the military could not do openly.
On the one hand, they bled the Soviets in Afghanistan and, on the other
hand, they tried (unsuccessfully) to cause the death of India by using the
tactic of thousands cuts. The military ignored the high cost for the
temporary successes. The strategy of using jihad as an instrument of defence
policy proved the best policy as it involved virtually no loss of Pakistani
soldiers’ lives. Consequently, they provided unlimited resources to
jihadist groups.
After the success of the
Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), an opposition alliance dominated by
religious parties, the Islamist parties were also used to destabilise the
democratically-elected governments in the 1990s. Before each illegal
dismissal of a democratic government, the Islamist/jihadist groups brought
in a wave of violence. The military created Islamic Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI)
in the late 1980s to defeat the PPP. In early 2000s, the military encouraged
the formation of Muttahidda Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), commonly known as the
mullah-military alliance. In the deeply manipulated elections in 2002, the
MMA emerged as a major political player. It formed government in the former
NWFP and joined the coalition in Balochistan. In the centre, it played the
friendly opposition, facilitating General Musharraf’s rule.
On the face of it, the
military has been successfully using the Islamist/jihadist parties to
further its agenda. However, the rise of Islamist/jihadist parties proved to
be a double-edged sword for their benefactors and creators. On the one hand,
Islamist/jihadist parties gained in strength and numbers under the patronage
of the military and, on the other hand, they ideologically influenced the
military. Consequently, when the jihadi Frankenstein turned against the
military in the wake of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, they got
support from within the military.
Today, the Islamists and
jihadists pose the biggest existential threat to the Pakistani military but
their influence within the military is such that the military is unable to
abandon the use of jihad as an instrument of defence policy.
The
writer is a US-based journalist and author of Shadow War – The Untold
Story of Jihad in Kashmir
JInnah’s vision of Pakistan
By Prof Sharif al Mujahid
Jinnah was not a mere political leader, but also a statesman. Indeed his statesmanship streak influenced and determined his political leadership role
increasingly as he negotiated the tortuous road to Pakistan in the 1940s.
A statesman looks at problems and developments on a long-term basis unlike a politician who deals with matters of the moment with short-term vision. This is not only in terms of immediate goals, but, more importantly how they could be fitted in and could be integrated within the long-term, larger perspective and more overriding goals.
Hence a statesman constantly and continuously tends to prognosticate and keep in view the long-term consequences of day-to-day developments he is confronted with. Above all, a statesman looks at events and problems through the prism of a grand vision.
No wonder, Jinnah had developed the demand for Pakistan with a vision. It is not merely that a Muslim homeland in the subcontinent had to be created, but also how it should be structured, what orientation it should opt for, and what ultimate goals it should pursue. All this meant to make its establishment, meaningful and significant to the masses in terms of their living standards, economic betterment, cultural uplift, and spiritual contentment.
Political independence from both the British rule and Hindu domination was, of course, the immediate goal, the short-hand metaphor, as it were. But what was to make it meaningful was a process of quests that would change the face of the Muslim homeland for a better tomorrow, a brave new world.
Quests for ideological resurgence, cultural renaissance, economic betterment and social welfare were main goals of this struggle. And this is precisely how Jinnah spelled out the rationale for the Pakistan demand in his epochal March 23, 1940, address in Lahore. He said, “... we wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of the people”.
Thus, his numerous pronouncements from 1940 to 1948 provide guidelines in a full measure that, when taken together, portray his vision of
Pakistan. First, in his August 11, 1947, address he called for an indivisible Pakistani nationhood, a concept by which all the inhabitants, no matter what their race, colour or religion would be citizens of Pakistan with equal rights, privileges and obligations.
Second, on February 21, 1948, he stressed the need for “the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and equality of manhood”. Earlier, in his June 18, 1945, message to the Frontier Muslim Students Federation, he had talked of “the Muslim ideology which has (got to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure, and which, we hope, others will share”.
In his broadcast to the United States in February 1948, he was sure that the Pakistan’s constitution would be of “a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam”. At the same time he reaffirmed unequivocally that “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state ... to be ruled by priests with a divine mission”. Thus, he stood for a democratic face of Islam - a pluralist face of Islam.
The Quaid stood not only against theocracy, but also against sectarianism. “Islam”, “he said does not recognise any kind of distinction of caste and the Prophet [PBUH] was able to level down all castes and created national unity among Arabs. Our bedrock and sheet-anchor is Islam. There is no question even of Shias and Sunnis. We are one and we must move as one nation, and then alone we shall be able to retain Pakistan”.
Unfortunately though, sectarianism has raised its ugly head in Pakistan during the last fifteen years, creating serious problems for Pakistan. Curbing religious extremism and marginalising jehadi and terrorist groups are indeed, among the most critical challenges confronting Pakistan today. The future face of Pakistan depends for the most part on how we go about tackling these critical problems.
Jinnah had invoked Islam because, as he had repeatedly said, “Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyday?
“.... Let us make it (the future constitution of Pakistan). We shall make it and we will show it to the world.”
At the political level, Jinnah stood for undiluted democracy, for constitutionalism, for autonomy of the three pillars of the state (executive, legislative and judiciary) and for a free press, for civil liberties and a civil society, for the rule of the law, for accountability, for a code of public morality. And it is in the formulation of such a code that Islamic principles would come in handy, and that ideology would play a pivotal role in Pakistan’s body politic, but, of course, with the consent of the general populace.
He stood for moderation, gradualism, constitutionalism and consensual politics all through his public life. He believed in building up a consensus on an issue, step by step. He believed that controversies should be resolved through debate, a discussion in the assembly chamber and not through violence in the streets. He believed in democracy and not monocracy.
He believed on the lines of Disraeli who laid down the axiomatic rules for the birth and maintenance of a stable and self-propelling democracy when he said, “We must educate our masters, the people; otherwise we would be at the mercy of a mob masquerading as democracy”. This is tragically what has been missing in Pakistan since the early 1950s. More often than not, most of our political leaders succumb to wild rhetoric, weakening the democratic temper of the masses and strengthening the trend towards monocracy or dictatorship.
On the economic side, Jinnah stood for a welfare state. Among others this would call for structural changes in the economy, ensuring a balanced and mixed economy with a more equitable distribution of wealth. He stood for full employment opportunities for one and all, for a contented labour, for a fair deal to the farmer, and for human resource development at all levels. Finally, his call for an Islamic economic system should not be misinterpreted with the riba question. It is essentially meant to ensure economic equity and social justice to one and all, without any discrimination whatsoever.
Jinnah stood for enforcing law and order, for the elimination of nepotism, bribery corruption and black marketing, for wiping out distinction of race, religion, colour and language, for providing equal opportunities to one and all and for the economic betterment of the masses. “Why would I turn my blood into water, run about and take so much trouble? Not for the capitalists surely, but for you, the poor people”, he pointedly told his audience at Calcutta on March 1, 1946.
He counseled the first Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. “Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor”. He also stood for the emancipation of women for conceding them their due rights, and for taking them along with men side by side in all spheres of national life.
In short, he wanted Pakistan to be progressive, forward-looking, modern and welfare-orientated but firmly anchored to the pristine principles of Islam, since these principles are firmly rooted in the enduring traits of equality, solidarity, freedom and emancipation of the marginalised sections of society.
This, then, represents the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan. And unless and until we translate his guidelines into public policy and ground reality, Pakistan would not become the sort of Pakistan which the Quaid had envisioned.
- HEC Distinguished National Professor, the writer has recently co-edited Unesco’s History of Humanity, vol. VI, and The Jinnah Anthology (2010) and edited In Quest of Jinnah (2007), the only oral history on Pakistan’s founding father.
caption
The Quaid-i-Azam delivering his first address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947
caption
First Cabinet of Pakistan (from left): Fazlur Rehman, Ghulam Muhammad, Liaquat Ali Khan, M A Jinnah, I I Chundrigar, Abdul Rab Nishtar and Abdul Sattar Pirzada
“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a Nation-State. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Hailed as a ‘Great Leader’ (Quaid-i-Azam) of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, Jinnah virtually conjured that country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will.”
- Stanley Wolpert
From Jinnah to Quaid-i-Azam
By Nabiha Gul
It was close to the end of the 19th century and the world was experiencing several political upheavals when the struggle for independence from British Raj gained
momentum in the subcontinent. Among other leaders, Muhammad Ali Jinnah vigorously advocated the rights of the people of the subcontinent and four decades later he became the founder of Pakistan?the Quaid-i-Azam. Hailing from a rich mercantile family, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the eight children to Jinnah Bhai Poonja (Poonja Jinnah). There are multiple factors that influenced Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political upbringing. It was only when he went to England for higher studies that he became familiar to Western ideas of liberalism and gradually spreading movements on the basis of nationalism. He also had an opportunity to closely observe the changing political and social scenarios in Europe based on democratic values.
Upon his return from England, Muhammad Ali Jinnah sensed the wave of change in the politics of the subcontinent where the independence movement had taken its roots. On his part, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a clear political thought based on the ideals of democracy: equality, civil rights, minorities’ rights, representative government, independent judiciary, political reforms and women’s empowerment. He had begun advocating the rights of the people of the subcontinent by joining the Indian National Congress. He was a strong advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity. However, soon after realising that the agenda of the Congress clashed with his own political principles, he quit the Congress and joined the All India Muslim League. It was the platform of the Muslim League that drew the Muslims of the subcontinent together; especially there was a proactive participation of Muslim women in the movement for a separate independent land. An important aspect of Jinnah’s political thought was ‘nationalism’, and in case of the subcontinent, Muslims were recognised as one of the two nations, and All India Muslim League brought them together on the basis of commonality of the religion. For long, the Muslims in the subcontinent had been keeping their distinct identity and were seeking equal representation in political and social affairs in the region. Jinnah furthered the agenda of the Muslim intellectuals and political thinkers to secure equal rights for Muslims under the banner of the Muslim League.
Jinnah, then, expressed his political thought and vision for a future separate homeland for Muslims determinedly. On several occasions his words reflected his political vision as he always stood by his own political principles. On the historical occasion of March 23, 1940 he declared:
“Muslims are a nation by any definition. We wish our people the fullest spiritual, cultural, economic and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is the 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 up for the government of such a state.”
With his determination and resolve, Jinnah undisputedly became the great leader of the Muslims. Gradually, he was implanting the ideals of democracy into the Pakistan Movement as he stressed upon equal rights for all on many occasions and participation of Muslim women in the movement.
In his message on Pakistan Day, March 23, 1943, Jinnah stated:
“I particularly appeal to our intelligentsia and Muslim students to come forward and rise to the occasion. You have performed wonders in the past. You are still capable of repeating the history. You are not lacking in the great qualities and virtues in comparison with the other nations. Only you have to be fully conscious of that fact and to act with courage, faith and unity.”
It was Jinnah’s political vision that Muslim League had founded women’s wing to facilitate women’s participation in the Pakistan Movement. He believed in the empowerment of women and wanted them to work alongside men for the creation of a separate land. Addressing a gathering of students at the Islamia College for Women on March 25, 1940, Jinnah expressed his belief in the strength of women:
“I have always maintained that no nation can ever be worthy of its existence that cannot take its women along with men. No struggle can ever succeed without women participating side by side with men. There are two powers in the world; one is the sword and the other is the pen. There is a great competition and rivalry between the two. There is a third power stronger than both, that of the women.”
A careful analysis of Jinnah’s political career reveals that though his entry into politics was a matter of circumstances, he carried his political career with a purpose. From Muhammad Ali Jinnah he travelled through a difficult path and had a rough journey to become the Quaid-e-Azam. A firm believer of Unity, Faith, and Discipline, the Quaid-e-Azam left the nation with a thought provoking message:
“My message to you all is of hope, courage and confidence. Let us mobilise all our resources in a systematic and organised way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great nation.”
—Nabiha Gul is Cooperative Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi.
“There is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan.”
(Speech at a mammoth rally at the University Stadium, Lahore on October 30, 1947)
Jinnah’s Pakistan: an integrated nation
By Muttahir Ahmed Khan
Truly speaking, if Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had been present amongst us today he would have been extremely grief-stricken to see his
nation falling prey to the fatal diseases of disunity, disharmony and disintegration. The whole voyage of the great leader’s struggle for a separate homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent was based on the pivot of Muslim unity and oneness as a nation, without any thought of ethnic, lingual or sectarian discrimination. Addressing a public meeting at Dacca on March 21, 1948, Mr Jinnah clearly warned: “Let me warn you in the clearest terms of the dangers that still face Pakistan. Having failed to prevent the establishment of Pakistan and thwarted and frustrated by their failure, the enemies of Pakistan have now turned their attention to disrupt the State by creating a split amongst the Muslims of Pakistan. These attempts have taken the shape principally of encouraging provincialism. As long as you do not throw off this poison (of provincialism) from our body politic, you will never be able to weld yourself, mould yourself, galvanise yourself into a real, true nation. What we want is not to talk about Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Pathan and so on. They are, of course, units. But I ask you: have you forgotten the lesson that was taught to us thirteen hundred years ago? If I may point out, you are all outsiders here. Who were the original inhabitants of Bengal? Not those who are now living here. So what is the use of saying, ‘We are Bengalis or Sindhis or Pathans or Punjabis.’ No, we are Muslims.”
He further said, “While, however, one must love one’s town and work for its welfare-indeed because of it-one must love better one’s country and work more devotedly for it. Local attachments have their value but what is the value and strength of a ‘part’ except within the ‘whole’.” Had we paid heed to his warnings and advice we would not have got entangled into provincial politics that have brought forth further ethno-lingual divisions within the provinces. Even a cursory glance at our contemporary socio-political scene and morals can lay bare the bitter fact that we are undergoing a severe and critical phase of our national history that is fully tarnished with ethno-lingual prejudices, socio-economic classification and sectarian divides. Words like “All the Muslims are united as one nation under the banner of Islam and Allah” seem to be only mythical references and fabulous ideas. On the one hand, due to our diabolical political maneuverings, we are suffering from the plague of provincialism, regional politics, ethno-lingual hostilities and are being hit in the chest by the mighty blows of sectarian violence and religious extremism, on the other.
The situation in the province of Baluchistan, in regard to secessionism, is very grave although it is not adequately highlighted by the media and the press. The grievances of the Baluchis are not new and can be traced to the pre-partition period. Addressing the people of Quetta in 1948, the Quaid expressed his concern about the province, saying, “As you all know I am especially interested in Baluchistan because it is my special responsibility. I want to see it play as full a part in the affairs of Pakistan as any other province, but it will take time to remove the symptoms of long neglect. In order that this time may not be a minute longer than necessary, I earnestly request you to co-operate with me, to give me your selfless support and not to make my task difficult.” Unfortunately, the father of the nation could not have enough time to materialise his desire and the issues began to grow bigger and bigger with every passing year due to successive incompetent and selfish rulers.
Since the death of the Quaid, our pseudo-intellectuals and half-baked scholars, impelled by political and theocratic miscreants, have been trying to fallaciously prove the Quaid either a theocrat or a totally non-religious and secular figure by creating two mutually diverging extremes of their own. Our great father was a man of wisdom, intellect, prudence and deep insight and, therefore, could not be believed to possess any extreme approach regarding humanity and nation building.
The Eid message, he delivered in September 1945, is a vivid path to lead us to his balanced approach and moderate views and removes all doubts about his association with and understanding of the religion. He said, “Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (PBUH) has enjoined on us that every Musalman should posses a copy of the Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collectively and individually.”
We must endeavour to understand the very essence of our nation state conceived by the Quaid. So far as our father’s concept of constitutional development is concerned, he expressed his views saying, “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. 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.” (Broadcasted address of Jinnah to the people of the United States, in February 1948).
caption
Quaid-i-Azam meeting supporters at Quetta Railway Station in 1945
QUAID-I-AZAM AS GOVERNOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN
Dr M Yakub Mughul
The Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was one of the greatest leaders of the modern age. He not only led his people to independence but
founded a separate homeland, where they could mould their lives in accordance with the traditions of Islam and cultivate their culture and civilisation. This was a far greater achievement of the Quaid than any other national liberation leader. Other leaders struggled for independence within states already in existence whereas the Quaid alone sought a separate homeland where none had existed. This he achieved almost single-handedly and constitutionally and in the teeth of opposition.
Pakistan’s emergence was not just the emergence of a new State. It was created on the basis of Islamic ideology. Had Pakistan not been created, the Muslims would have been under the subjugation of militant Hindu majority in the united India and would have lost their identity in the Hindu majority.
The Quaid-i-Azam, in his presidential address, at the special Pakistan Session of Punjab Muslim Students’ Federation on 2nd March 1941 said:
“We are a nation. And a nation must have a territory. What is the use of merely saying that we are a nation? Nation does not live in the air. It lives on the land, it must govern land, and it must have territorial state and that is what you want to get.”
The Quaid-i-Azam at the All India Muslim League session at Lahore on 23rd March 1940 discussed this point and said:
“I may explain that the Musalmans, wherever they are in a minority, cannot improve their position under a united India or under one Central government. Whatever happens, they would remain a minority, by coming in the way of the division of India they do not and cannot improve their own position. On the other hand, they can by their attitude of obstruction, bring the Muslim homeland and 60,000,000 of the Musalmans under one government, where they would remain no more than a minority in perpetuity”.
On 14th August 1947, with the efforts of the Quaid-i-Azam and his associates, Pakistan emerged as an independent Muslim State and on 15th August Quaid-i-Azam was sworn in as its first Governor General.
His nomination to the exhaled position of Governor-General was an event of great rejoicing for the Muslims of India which created tremendous impact on the national and international situation. In fact, it was the recognition of his sincere services for the cause of Pakistan.
His elevation from the Quaid-i-Azam to Governor-General of Pakistan enhanced his personal, political and official reputation amongst his great contemporaries. His contribution as Governor-General should be visualised in the background of extraordinary conditions created by the partition of India. His mere presence as the Head of State was enough to create a psychological impact on the Muslims of Pakistan who were inspired by his leadership and dynamic personality.
The Constituent Assembly resolved that Mohammad Ali Jinnah, President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and Governor-General designate of Pakistan be addressed as “Quaid-i-Azam” Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of Pakistan in all official Acts, documents, letters and correspondence from 15th August 1947.”
The Quaid appointed Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, his lieutenant in the political struggle and General Secretary of All India Muslim League, as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. In the first cabinet the Quaid nominated political stewards like Abdul Rab Nishtar from NNWFP, who was placed in charge of the Ministry of Communications, Fazlur Rahman, a leading politician from East Pakistan was given the Ministry of Education and Information, I I Chundrigar, a lawyer who had distinguished at Delhi, was given the Ministry of Commerce, Ghazanfar Ali Khan from the Punjab, agriculture and health. Ghulam Muhammad, though no Leaguer, was given the portfolio of Finance on account of his expertise in finance. Outside the cabinet, Sir Zafarullah Khan became Foreign Minister, who had an outstanding record of judicial service, was also deputed to represent Pakistan at the United Nations.
Jogendra Nath Mandal, a scheduled caste leader from East Pakistan, was given the Ministry of Law, Labour and Construction in the Federeal Government.
Above them all stood the towering and magnetic personality of the Quaid, the Founder of Pakistan and Father of the nation.
The Quaid-i-Azam, Governor-General of Pakistan in a message to the nation said on Friday 15th August 1947:
“Pakistan is a land of great potential resources. But to build it up into a country worthy of the Muslim nation we shall require every ounce of energy that we possess and I am confident that it will come from all whole-heatedly.”
The Quaid after resuming charge of the Governor-General of Pakistan became the powerful head of State because he was at the same time Quaid-i-Azam, the Great Leader, the Creator of Pakistan and Father of the Nation. He appointed members of the cabinet and presided over its meetings. Pakistan at the time of independence needed its Founder as its Governor-General. Moreover, the Cabinet by a resolution had also authorised him to exercise all these powers on its behalf. He could overrule the Cabinet. He had, again by a Cabinet resolution, direct access to all the Secretaries and all the files. He also took the portfolio of the ministry of refugees in his hands in order to solve their problems on top priority basis.
When Pakistan came into being, the Quaid-i-Azam was sick and exhausted physically, but in-spite of that he devoted his energies and worked day and night for the newly-created country - Pakistan, so that it should stand on sound footing.
As Governor-General of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam was confronted with the onerous task of organising the newly-born State a new and afresh from top to bottom.
The Quaid-i-Azam was fully conscious that partition would leave minorities in both states, but in one Muslims would be dominant and in the other Hindus.
It was the division of the Punjab that did the greatest harm to Pakistan. Three rich tehsils of Gurdaspur district with a Muslim majority were handed over to India, thus allowing India access to Kashmir, which had not yet decided whether to accede to India or Pakistan. The Kashmir problem, which is now called the unfinished agenda of partition, became a constant cause of concern for Quaid-i-Azam.
About 12 million Muslims were uprooted from their homes in India and were compelled to migrate to Pakistan to seek refuge and re-settlement. The refugees coming from India created many new problems for the government of Pakistan which were amicably solved. On the administration side, the offices were without staff and furniture, railway stations were badly damaged and other innumerable rehabilitation problems were afoot. Above all, the resources were limited but very soon new resources were discovered, taped and exploited to cope with all the problems.
Jinnah’s position as Governor-General of Pakistan was unique. He could not obviously fit into the traditional pattern of a ceremonial Head of the State. As the Founder of Pakistan, he occupied a position reserved only for the Father of Nation. He was no doubt above any office which the country could offer him.
Stanley Wolpert commenting on the achievements and great historical role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the great Quaid and Founder of Pakistan, remarked:
“Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a Nation-State. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Hailed as a ‘Great Leader’ (Quaid-i-Azam) of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, Jinnah virtually conjured that country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will.”
The Quaid-i-Azam was an indefatigable political leader. It was due to his honest and sincere approach that he was able to carve out the sovereign State of Pakistan, despite so many obstacles and impediments.
The Quaid-i-Azam will be remembered in history as one of few world leaders who combined in themselves many lofty traits such as statesmanship, courage, sense of responsibility, integrity, forwardness, and dedication for the cause. He was a great parliamentarian, his logic unassailable. He was un-purchasable and had always the courage to say what he considered was in the interest of the Muslims of the sub-continent.
“Democracy is in the blood of the Mussalmans, who look upon complete equality of manhood (sic). I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Mussalmans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.”
The Quaid had quite a different view about democracy which was to be introduced in Pakistan. He explained this concept of democracy in his speech made at Sibi Durbar on 14th February 1948, in the following words:
“I have had one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam.”
“Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us “our decision in the affairs of the State shall be guided by discussions and consultations”.
Explaining the reason for the establishment of Pakistan, the Quaid said:
“The establishment of Pakistan was the means to an end and not an end in itself. The idea was that we shall have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play....”
The Quaid visualised a Pakistan with a popular government which would be free of the clutches of landlords and capitalists. In his Presidential address delivered extempore at the 13th session of All-India Muslim League, Delhi, on 24th April 1943, he declared:
“I have no doubt in my mind that large bodies of us visualize Pakistan as people’s government..... But I am sure that democracy is in our blood. It is in our marrows. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold. It has got frozen and your arteries have not been functioning. But, thank God, the blood is circulating again, thanks to the Muslim League’s efforts.”
“You go anywhere to the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day! If that is the idea of Pakistan I would not have it.....”
Quaid-i-Azam was a frail old man with the spirit of a lion. He hid the debilitating weakness caused by severely advanced tuberculosis. In spite of his illness he worked hard to give broad based principles for good governance, rule of law and making Pakistan a Modern Welfare State.
The Quaid believed that it is the duty of the State to see that it is there is none without food and clothes and every individual is at least provided with basic necessities of life. He worked for twenty hours a day almost until the end. Then, broken in body but steadfast in spirit, he expired on Sept 11, 1948.
In fact, the Quaid will always be remembered as a Great Leader, first Governor General and Founder of Pakistan, without him, Pakistan would have not been created.
—The writer is a former Director: Quaid-i-Azam Academy, Karachi
caption
Sir Abdul Rashid Chief Justice of Pakistan administers the oath of Governor General to the Quaid-i-Azam
“We should have a State
in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”
Address to Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers of Pakistan Government, Karachi, October 11, 1947
Quaid-i-Azam house museum
The softer side
By Uzma Batool
While crossing Shahrah-e- Faisal and Fatima Jinnah road, one comes across a strikingly elegant yellow/red stone building in the middle of a vast
open piece of land which is popularly known as Flag Staff House or Quaid-i-Azam museum. This flag staff house belongs to father of the nation Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
His achievement as the founder of Pakistan, dominates everything else he did in his long and crowded public life spanning some 42 years. Yet, by any standard, his was an eventful life, his personality multidimensional and achievements in other fields were many, if not equally great. His taste and sense of style made him one of the most well-dressed and sophisticated men in the world. While giving a careful look to the interior of this building, each room seems to be a shrine to those relics which the Quaid-i-Azam used during his life time and it clearly
speaks about his personal life, interesting in its own right.
By looking at this house one may understand his fine taste for homes and his tang for extravagant décor is one to be reckoned for, till date. Spread on three rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the first, attached were eighteen outhouses, four garages three guard rooms and a kitchen. By looking at the rooms, one may notice that there was an excessive use of wood including wooden flooring, staircases and wooden ceiling. Not only that, but the study rooms had cupboards, shelves and screens that were completely made of wood giving it a very classic and pleasing-to- the-eye look at the same time.
After the creation of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam personal belongings were shifted to flag Staff House, from New Delhi. That’s why each room is decorated with the relics which the Quaid-i-Azam used during his lifetime. A finally carved Cigarette box with insignia of MAJ, a camphorwood box, reading table, chairs, sofa sets, table lamps, some stationary items, a miniature portrait of Ratti Jinnah, wife of Quaid-i-Azam and even his monocles all have been preserved in their original form. A mere thought that these relics were once in use by our founding father will give you goose bumps.
There were eighteen outhouses in Flag staff House including an Annexe which originally consisted of four small rooms with a verandah provided access to the main rooms. These outhouses have been now converted
into reserves, offices and library etc while the Annexe has been converted into auditorium-cum-exhibition hall for debates, educational lectures, and audio-visual shows etc.
The outhouses give a very posh and grand look to overall look of the house in general. One thing that a keen observer will not however ignore is the splendid view that these outhouses give together with gardens that are spread across the house. Garden from the porch is one breathtaking view one can possibly imagine. These gardens in front and in the back have been redesigned to serve the requirements of museum visitors. A number of lights are illuminated for security and also for use on special occasions.
Hence, it is true that the Quaid-i-Azam, as enigmatic his persona was, he preferred living in homes that were not only exclusive but intricately designed and managed too.
Quaid through the years
1876: Mohammad Ali Jinnah was born on December 25, 1876.
1882: At the age of six he started learning Gugrati at home and got elementary education in primary school.
1883: Admitted to Sind Madrasatul Islam, Karachi.
1885: He began his proper primary education.
1886: His parents migrated from Karachi to Bombay where he was admitted to a primary school. He was very fond of horse riding at this young age.
1887: He completed his primary education and was admitted to Christian Missionary High School, Karachi.
1892: He got married to Emi Bai. He went to England to study law. He stayed at 35 Rasl Road Kingston.
1894: His wife Emi Bai died. After some months his beloved mother also passed away.
1895: At the age of 18, he became the first youngest person to become barrister.
1897: He became the advocate of High Court in Bombay and began his practice. He was the first Muslim to become barrister in the High Court.
1900: Elected as magistrate.
1902: His beloved father, Jinnah Ponja, passed away. At this time he was earning 2000 rupees per month.
1905: He was working as private secretary for Dada Bhai Nuroji.
1906: In the annual conference in Dacca All India Muslim League was formed. He read about this in a newspaper.
1907: Became the vice president of Indian Muslim Association.
1909: He was nominated for the Supreme Legislative Council elections. In these elections for the first time separate rights of election for the Muslims were acknowledged.
1915: The Quaid became the member of All India Muslim League. On February 13, he addressed the Muslim Students Union in Bombay.
1916: Lucknow Pact was formed in which he addressed the Muslims to get united. His daughter Dina Jinnah was born.
1926: 18th meeting of Muslim League took place in Delhi. In this meeting, besides other politicians Alama Iqbal also participated.
1927: The Quaid boycotted the Simon Commission because it was of no use to the Muslims.
1929: His second wife, Rutten Bai passed away. Nehru Report was rejected as it had no benefit for the Muslims living in Hindustan. The Quaid presented his Fourteen Points. The Quaid and Ghandi met in a meeting and exchanged views for the future of Hindustan.
1930: Round table conference was held in London and the Quaid represented the Muslims in Hindustan.
1937: Allama Iqbal wrote a letter to the Quaid in which he gave a hint for a separate homeland for the Muslims of Hindustan.
1940: March 23, 1940— annual meeting of Muslim League was held in Lahore where the Quaid addressed a large number of Muslims and said, “In all those areas where the Muslim community is in majority should be united to one separate sovereign independent state. Where Muslims are in minority all necessary steps should be taken to protect their religion, life, culture, economy and rights.” In this meeting the word “separate nation” was used which later changed to Pakistan. Ghandi and Raj Gopal strongly contradicted the views of the Quaid.
1941: In an address to Punjab Muslim Students Federation he asked the students to get together to have a separate nation, and said separate nation required land to live. He conveyed the same message to the students of Aligarh Muslim University.
1942: In an address to All India Muslim Students Federation he once again emphasised on LAND, and asked the students to “work, work and only work”.
Quaid Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah celebrated his 64th birthday.
1943: A person named Rafiq Sabar attacked the Quaid in an attempt to murder him. Luckily the Quaid managed to escape this attack.
1945: In an address to Muslim community in Peshawar he said, “We don’t have any friend, we don’t trust English and Hindu people, we have to fight against both of them even if they get together”. He also said, “A Muslim believes in one God, one book and one Prophet; therefore I ask the Muslims to get together under one flag of the Muslim League”.
1946: In Simla Conference he asked the opposition leader to accept Pakistan which he said was the only solution of Hindustan.
1947: August 14— at night independence was announced and the Quaid took oath as first Governor General of Pakistan. First Council of Ministers was formed with only seven ministers in it. Liaquat Ali Khan became the first Prime Minister of Pakistan.
1948: In an address to the students of Islamia College Peshawar he said, “Demand of Pakistan was not only piece of land but to have such an experimental room where we can live with our will and according to Islam”.
March 21: the Quaid said Urdu will be the national language of Pakistan.
September 11: Due to sheer hard work Quaid’s health deteriorated. He breathed his last at 10.25 pm in Karachi. (May his soul rest in peace)
