RSS

Why Quaid-e-Azam Only?

08 Aug

Recently during one debate a religiously minded member of the group (not this one) referenced Quaid-e-Azam’s State bank speech for the basis of Islam for Pakistan. But that member is not alone in this. I have seen many secular minded people quoting Quaid-e-Azam’s speeches and his life to state that Pakistan should be secular. These arguments are mostly ranging from his chosen speeches, his dress, his choice of language, his food, his pictures with dogs, etc…. The religious ones will totally ignore all other aspects and stick to some of their chosen speeches, our text-books quote his sherwani, when he read Namaz, etc…
And I always end up questioning Why are these people only referencing this one person?
Why is not any one else, who was part of ML, important?
Why dont people quote how the population felt, what were their demands?  If Quaid-e-Azam wanted secular Pakistan, did people wanted Secular Pakistan, did they voted for secular Pakistan. Or people were not thinking in terms of religion but in terms of economics and administration? Did Quaid-e-Azam told them 3 years before independence that it will be secular country?
What was Muslim League promising, a religious state, a secular one, or just a state for Muslims and not of Muslims?
Most importantly Why is not anyone talking about what people want now? Why should I stop demanding something because Quaid-e-Azam did or did not wanted it?

America is similar, they mostly end up having their discussions what their Founding fathers said and why America was created. Abortion Law, same sex marriages, immigration, poor souls get dragged every time. But atleast they quote about 7 people. Even some of them go to extent of including many others of the era as the key people in framing the constitution. Their reasons are discussed, the time, atmosphere and the results are discussed. You hear “What Founding Fathers meant”  when they stated this or that. Most importantly not every idea of every Founding-Father is welcomed today. It is their joint wisdom that is relished.
On the other hand, we have everyone else on back-stage, the lime light is only on one person Quaid-e-Azam. Not that he does not deserve that light, if we have to pick only one person as leaders of modern Muslim world I will pick him; rather I will say everyone will pick him. But we are not nominating someone for the presidency here, many people can share the stage.
I know only one can be hero but there can be many strong supporting roles, instead we have made all the rest as the extras. Their faces are blurred up, their voices are just the background noise representing busy street.
Some how, Our beloved Jinnah has been evolved into alone Samurai, a James bond, a Warrior who can himself defeat the enemy, he only needs the foot-soldiers no commanders.
Being Pakistani, I see the plans and wrong intentions everywhere, just part of nature I think. I suspect we have given him center stage only because postthumously he cannot sue us for mis-representation and so we can manipulate the situation. By having his colleagues up there with him, will make more difficult of misrepresenting the history. By having mood of hundreds of thousands of people represented will make us understand better what people wanted not what few leaders wanted and that might not be what we want to hear.  Why is there deficiency of quotes from the articles and editorials of that time?
I am not against quoting Quaid-e-Azam, I do all the time, I am requesting to quote other people also.
Having Founding Fathers as guidance is good, it works a inertia that keeps society from wiggling around here and there, as the situation changes. It keeps you solid on the ground, but it should not be restricting force. We should take their word as what their meant given the situation and atmosphere of that time, they are direction for future, not as dictation of future.
Why we should not have religious state, if people want it? And why we should not have Secular state if people want it? Are we not Democracy?
Most importantly if we want a mixture of Religious and Secular State, like the society we have, why dont we get it?

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 responses to “Why Quaid-e-Azam Only?

  1. Diya

    August 17, 2009 at 10:41 am

    watever u say?????????????????????
    no comments???????????????????????
    the reason that u have your oun points of view

    BUT?????????????????????????
    I love my Quaid n need only his Quotes
    the reason
    he is the person who gave us Pakistan not other then him
    so whi i read or demand the quotes of those who didnot work for me like that

     
    • mohsenali

      August 22, 2009 at 1:43 am

      I love Quaid also, that’s why I say we should also research and discuss people of that time wanted. In this way it will be difficult of people to misquote or misinterpret his quote.

      Then there are many other people with him or around him, who did lots of things for the Muslims of India. We should research and study them also.

       
  2. irfanfarouqi

    August 20, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    You are right as history is differant .Historian of pakistan misquote every thing.The main example is that PAKISTAN CAME INTOIBEING ON 15TH August but celeberating on 14th Why.And for further information it was mentioned on papers that on 17th August.
    Actually this is the British cleverness that they Split HIndustaan.

     
    • mohsenali

      August 22, 2009 at 1:44 am

      Mr. Irfan, it’s sad to see that people after so many years cannot give Pakistani people enough respect to accept that they wanted a separate country.

      It sad that we shut our eyes from the truth of history and just want to believe that it was simply British cleverness that split Hindustan (by the way the Hindustan we know, was created by them also. There was no Collective, United, one government Hindustan; before British came).

       
    • mohsenali

      August 25, 2009 at 10:30 am

      Thanks Sidhu.
      I have read the Wolpert’s book “Jinnah of Pakistan”. It is regarded as one of the most fine books on Quaid-e-Azam.

       
  3. irfanfarooqi

    December 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    Mr.Mohsin,Before independence there was no pakistani only muslims are living at that time and for information to all muslims that muslims never want seperate country as the struggle of Maulan johar and shaukat but as Britishers make plan like turkey as they appointed kamaal ata turk and creat the govt which they want similarly they use quaid e azam for this purpose.
    Think that how muslims of that time follow a non-muslim leader wearing coat and tie at that time when people put fatwaas on these wearings.
    therefore if now is here Hindustaan may then it should be a seperate super power-

     
    • mohsenali

      December 27, 2009 at 4:42 am

      “that muslims never want seperate country”
      Irfan it might be your point of view but history does not support it.

      Maulana Johar and Shukat’s work was sabotaged during and after the Khalafat Movement, and even during that not all Muslims were supporters of Johar. Whatever there was some what countable support for the Congress, Congress Ministries of 1937 showed Muslims what could happen to them without strong Constitutional support.

      As for ” how muslims of that time follow a non-muslim leader wearing coat and tie ” you forget that leader was Leader of both Muslims and non Muslims even before he joined Muslim League. He had peoples confidence in him much before he 1930s

       
  4. irfanfarooqi

    December 29, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Mr.Mohsin,This is not point of view ,if u see the books other then Pakistan studies or school books u will found the real story-
    Secondly, jinnah was the agent of Britishers ,Actually we are seeing from our window ,if we see from realistic side then u find the real story-

    THINK THAT HOW MUSLIMS FOLLOW NON-MUSLIM COAT AND TIE LEADER-
    MUSLIMS WERE TRAPPED LIKE TURKIES WHER ATATURK COME AS BRITISH AGENT-
    U can also observe that after turkey ony muslim of india had power against them-
    The policy of britishers is now u can see that they are using pakistan as their agent-

    Actually Britishers tell us that we are pakistani thats why we all always discuus pakistan NOT AS MUSLIM-
    WE ALWAYS SAY PAK PAK……………NOT THINK FOR MUSLIMS-

    QUAID WAS JUST LIKE ATATURK BUT WE CANT SAY AS WE HAVE TONGUE OF CHRISTIAN-

     
    • mohsenali

      January 6, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Irfan everyone has their REAL STORY and you are presenting yours.
      Fortunately I have read about Pakistan History other than what is offered in school books. If you say that Quaid was just like Ataturk then Irfan frankly, either you don’t know much about Ataturk and Turkey.
      Secondly, Coat and Tie does not make people Non-Muslims and neither it makes them British Agent.
      Thirdly in any discussion, references play very important part, if you are saying Mr. Jinah was British Agent, I wish you could back it with some references.
      Lastly just saying if someone does not agree with you has the Tongue of Christian, is quite childish. Discussions are based on arguments Irfan Farooqi Sahab.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: