What's new

25 December - Quaid-e-Azam's birthday!

Look at that man, respected and immaculately dressed. Has a certain charisma about him, someone to look up to and respect.

Now we have Nawaz Shariff who wears a terrible trampy black shalwar. Sad, when a country should have progressed, Pakistan has regressed.
 
Happy Birthday QeA, gave us the most precious gift of a homeland.
 
Happy Quaid Day to all.
I pray that our country becomes the Pakistan of Quaid.
May his soul rest in peace.
I love Quaid-e-Azam.
 
Happy birthday to my Quaid Muhammad Ali Jinnah,
The greatest and most honest leader Pakistan had.
May Allah grant him special place in jannat
 
25 December Quaid e Azam(ra)'s Birthday

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1387989438.969808.jpg

Sorry Quaid, our govt hasnt had the time to catch who did this or to even rebuild your residency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hazrat Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Rahmatullah Alaihi
 
RA? Didn't know the great leader was a research assistant too. You really do learn something new everyday.
 
Im not gonna derail this thread to those few who belong to the 'we want Pakistan to be secular' brigade
 
25 December Quaid e Azam(ra)'s Birthday

Mohsin said:
Im not gonna derail this thread to those few who belong to the 'we want Pakistan to be secular' brigade
Click to expand...

True followers of Jinnah, and unabashedly proud.
 
Nostalgic said:
Ever since he converted to Deobandism in the 80s, gave up alcohol and denounced his other decadent liberal habits, Jinnah stopped celebrating his birthday. It's a haram Western tradition.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing since this is sarcastic... since you think.....



Nostalgic said:
True followers of Jinnah, and unabashedly proud.
Click to expand...

...but sadly you are Mistaken.


Jinnah wanted a state where other religions were accepted but never did he intend for the separation of church and state.


Anyway, a great leader he was. Very intelligent and bright person. May God forgive his sins.
 
If only Pakistan had followed the path that the Quaid had set, Pakistan would be a very different country today.

Happy birthday, Sir.
 
Happy Birthday Quaid-e-Azam!

Happy Birthday Quaid! Today is the 139th birth anniversary of Jinnah

The-real-Caliph-of-Islam.jpg


jinnah-with-cigar.jpg


tumblr_mkhhjs92831rybhd2o1_500.jpg
 
Last edited:
Happy Birthday sir, smashed an Indian medium pacer for 24 runs in an over during a league game 2 days ago, I dedicate that over to you.
 
Happy birthday to the great statesman of his day.... Pakistan is still an unfulfilled vision/dream/desire.... It will be fulfilled one day, thats for sure...
 
Happy birthday Baba-e-Qaum. We all need to remember his following message to us by Heart.
My message to you all is of hope, courage and confidence. Let us mobilize all our resources in a systematic and organized way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great Nation.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Eid-ul-Azha Message to the Nation (24 October 1947).
Click to expand...
 
Strike Rate said:
Happy Birthday Quaid! Today is the 139th birth anniversary of Jinnah

https://alaiwah.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jinnah-with-cigar.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]
Love this picture! The epitome of a boss!

Happy Birthday, big man! ( not going by his physique ;) )
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Happy Birthday to JInnah JI.

Personally i may have lots to say against his doings but he's the best Pakistan's had.
 
Happy birthday to QeA, very slowly but surely we will be the nation he dreamed that we should be.
 
Belated Happy Birthday. We are eternally indebted to you for your services and gift. May Allah elevate your status in Jannah.
 
Happy birthday Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Happy birthday to Muhammad Ali Jinnah sahib. What would you say to him if he were alive today? I would apologise for not helping to make the Pakistan he wanted.
 
To be quite frank, I think he would be bemused.

Jinnah only came to support the creation of Pakistan in the last decade of his life, and it was just as much Bangladesh as what is now Pakistan.

He had spent his life fighting for the independence of All India and of course his descendants the Wadia family are pillars of the Mumbai establishment.

He would see a country which has managed to lose half its land and population and is backward and religious while he was neither.

I don't think he would want his name associated with the country.
 
I remember the storm of controversy when General Zia wanted to censor Wolpert's biography of Jinnah.

It just didn't suit the desired narrative for people to know that he drank Scotch, ate bacon for breakfast and couldn't read or write Urdu. The fact that such habits are now viewed as unacceptable highlights the fact that the country now is not the same as the one he created.

Jinnah's Pakistan was the one I referred to in my thread three weeks ago about the 1959-60 Test in Dacca. Where the elite were more fluent in English than any other language.

Not a nation where Urdu was the main language and not a nation where non-Islamic habits disqualified you from office.
 
Junaids said:
To be quite frank, I think he would be bemused.

Jinnah only came to support the creation of Pakistan in the last decade of his life, and it was just as much Bangladesh as what is now Pakistan.

He had spent his life fighting for the independence of All India and of course his descendants the Wadia family are pillars of the Mumbai establishment.

He would see a country which has managed to lose half its land and population and is backward and religious while he was neither.

I don't think he would want his name associated with the country.
Click to expand...

Interesting Post.

Agree with the Bold.
 
Junaids said:
To be quite frank, I think he would be bemused.

Jinnah only came to support the creation of Pakistan in the last decade of his life, and it was just as much Bangladesh as what is now Pakistan.

He had spent his life fighting for the independence of All India and of course his descendants the Wadia family are pillars of the Mumbai establishment.

He would see a country which has managed to lose half its land and population and is backward and religious while he was neither.

I don't think he would want his name associated with the country.
Click to expand...

He is the one who used the religion card and kept his message sufficiently ambiguous to keep both (progressive and fundamentalist) camps happy. (Pakistani intellectuals are still decoding his speeches regarding what kind of system he wanted)

I am certain he would understand the current situation of country as no one is more responsible than him for this mess.
 
Black Zero said:
He is the one who used the religion card and kept his message sufficiently ambiguous to keep both (progressive and fundamentalist) camps happy. (Pakistani intellectuals are still decoding his speeches regarding what kind of system he wanted)

I am certain he would understand the current situation of country as no one is more responsible than him for this mess.
Click to expand...
What a brilliant post!

I had never heard of Jinnah until I was 13, and in close succession General Zia tried to censor the un-Islamic details in his biography and then the movie Gandhi came out.

So he has always fascinated me.

Your post rings true: the outbreak of WW2 seemed to stimulate plain opportunism, seeking to partition India to invent a country that he could control. It's hard to identify any other reason for the timing of his sudden conversion from All India Nationalist to a man seeking partition.

What you call "the religion card" seems to have morphed from his pretext for partition into the nation's identity. But it could not have been further from HIS identity.
 
The Quaid is not responsible for the mess Pak is today. Seems as if most PP's regret the creation of Pakistan to say the least. He cant be blamed for the Mullah brigade taking over after he passed on when initially most of them didn't even want a Pakistan on earth. Fighting for a Pakistan for the last ten years of his life doesn't mean he didn't want it as badly as a dying man wants life. None of us have sacrificed anything for Pakistan so can understand the ungrateful attitude of many of the above posters. If the Quaid were alive he would undo the Mullah culture that has been forced on us in the name of Islam by uneducated and backward people. Yes he played the religion card that is not to say he wanted Mullah culture in Pakistan. Turkey was always a country he admired more then any other.
 
Last edited:
PakLFC said:
The Quaid is not responsible for the mess Pak is today. Seems as if most PP's regret the creation of Pakistan to say the least. He cant be blamed for the Mullah brigade taking over after he passed on when initially most of them didn't even want a Pakistan on earth. Fighting for a Pakistan for the last ten years of his life doesn't mean he didn't want it as badly as a dying man wants life. None of us have sacrificed anything for Pakistan so can understand the ungrateful attitude of many of the above posters. If the Quaid were alive he would undo the Mullah culture that has been forced on us in the name of Islam by uneducated and backward people. Yes he played the religion card that is not to say he wanted Mullah culture in Pakistan. Turkey was always a country he admired more then any other.
Click to expand...
This is a very fine post.

I agree with you about the Islamicisation of the country.

But remember, I'm not Pakistani. I'm just a person with a keen interest in history whose Dad (in Dacca) became a Pakistan resident at partition.

I drink alcohol. I like bacon. I can't read or write Urdu.

So I'm not insulting Jinnah when I observe that he shared those habits with me. I think it's perfectly normal and acceptable.

Even when I comment on his sudden conversion in 1940 to wanting Partition I'm not criticising him. He gave my country, the UK, the unconditional support and loyalty in 1940 when we stood alone in WW2 ( France had surrendered and the USA and USSR were still neutral) that Nehru and Gandhi did not.

So as an Englishman I am grateful to Jinnah and to the future Pakistan and Bangladesh for the support that what is now India did not give us.
 
Junaids said:
To be quite frank, I think he would be bemused.

Jinnah only came to support the creation of Pakistan in the last decade of his life, and it was just as much Bangladesh as what is now Pakistan.

He had spent his life fighting for the independence of All India and of course his descendants the Wadia family are pillars of the Mumbai establishment.

He would see a country which has managed to lose half its land and population and is backward and religious while he was neither.

I don't think he would want his name associated with the country.
Click to expand...

East Pakistan was never half our land. I feel like Pakistan is more united today than it has been in 70 years.
 
Thank you Quaid for this beautiful country.

We are sorry we keep electing its biggest enemies.
 
PakLFC said:
The Quaid is not responsible for the mess Pak is today. Seems as if most PP's regret the creation of Pakistan to say the least. He cant be blamed for the Mullah brigade taking over after he passed on when initially most of them didn't even want a Pakistan on earth. Fighting for a Pakistan for the last ten years of his life doesn't mean he didn't want it as badly as a dying man wants life. None of us have sacrificed anything for Pakistan so can understand the ungrateful attitude of many of the above posters. If the Quaid were alive he would undo the Mullah culture that has been forced on us in the name of Islam by uneducated and backward people. Yes he played the religion card that is not to say he wanted Mullah culture in Pakistan. Turkey was always a country he admired more then any other.
Click to expand...

All credit to him for creating Pakistan.
But he achieved this by tricking both camps and this is a fact.

Muslims of India, on average, were more backward, and if he used religion card to get those backward votes. I think it's a justifiable politically but then he will need to burden the responsibility of the design flaw in his creation.

I rate him well above, nehro, gandhi, Khamenei and Mao. But he was still a human and like all he also had blinds pots.
Anyway happy birthday to him and to Nawaz sharif.
 
Pakistanian said:
East Pakistan was never half our land. I feel like Pakistan is more united today than it has been in 70 years.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, but I think it misses the point of this thread.

In the 1970 Pakistan general election the Awami League won more than twice as many votes as the next closest party - the PPP - but the (West) Pakistani establishment imprisoned the winners and refused to let them take power and restore the nation along the path set by Jinnah.

The country may now be "united" but only because more than half the population has become a different country. Yet - and this is key to this thread - as late as 1965, East Pakistan voted convincingly for Fatima Jinnah rather than Ayub Khan.

Fatima Jinnah who then died suspiciously in Karachi 2 years later, and who was refused a post-mortem.

The destruction of the original Pakistan, Jinnah's Pakistan, was in my view not necessary. The rump Pakistan which remains may be more "unified", but it is not the country for which Jinnah and his sister fought.
 
Junaids said:
Fair comment, but I think it misses the point of this thread.

In the 1970 Pakistan general election the Awami League won more than twice as many votes as the next closest party - the PPP - but the (West) Pakistani establishment imprisoned the winners and refused to let them take power and restore the nation along the path set by Jinnah.

The country may now be "united" but only because more than half the population has become a different country. Yet - and this is key to this thread - as late as 1965, East Pakistan voted convincingly for Fatima Jinnah rather than Ayub Khan.

Fatima Jinnah who then died suspiciously in Karachi 2 years later, and who was refused a post-mortem.

The destruction of the original Pakistan, Jinnah's Pakistan, was in my view not necessary. The rump Pakistan which remains may be more "unified", but it is not the country for which Jinnah and his sister fought.
Click to expand...

You have a superficial understanding of how and why Jinnah took the decision for Pakistan. Actually, Iqbal and several others are the real architects of Pakistan, Jinnah was the man who made it a reality in the end, mostly because he outlived most of them.

You make it seem that Jinnah was all the way for one India till 1940, which is not the case. He had abandoned that thought many decades prior, in fact he had left for England and was persuaded to come back and lead the Muslim league. The Agha Khan I believe was one such individual who went to persuade him. You have sort of taken his early life, missed out the events in the middle and joined it with the latter half and drew conclusions from that.

In the end Jinnah realised that India is a myth and it's continued propagation as one entity serves the interest of Hindus and spells disaster for muslims..... Muslims of course were incredibly backward at the time, rarely anyone educated, living in areas with little or no heavy industry or development. The only realistic profession for them was to join the British army. I am of course talking of the area that now makes Pakistan. And without Jinnah's vision, most of the people of this area would now be like the 9 million slum dwellers of Mumbai, vast majority of whom are Indian Muslims.

Whether Jinnah ate pork or drank alcohol is irrelevant, for what he did for muslims surpasses any indiscretions he may have carried out in his personal life. The greatest irony is that the so called orthodox Islamic parties were his biggest nemesis aside from the congress as they too wanted to keep British India under one roof.

My personal belief is that Hitler, Japan and the duplicity of Nehru and Gandhi via Subhash Chandra Bose is what prompted the British to give in to the demands of Pakistan as Muslims from current day Pakistan had fought for the British in vast numbers. If I look back in my own family/clan history, it's hard to find any family which did not have at least one man fight in WW2.

For those who don't know, Bose was the militant wingman of Nehru and Gandhi who collaborated with Nazi Germany and Japanese to take over India from the British. He is revered as a great leader in India today..... commonly known as Netaji.
 
Jinnah hum sharminda hain

Nawaz aur Zardari abhi bhi zinda hain
 
Junaids said:
To be quite frank, I think he would be bemused.

Jinnah only came to support the creation of Pakistan in the last decade of his life, and it was just as much Bangladesh as what is now Pakistan.

He had spent his life fighting for the independence of All India and of course his descendants the Wadia family are pillars of the Mumbai establishment.

He would see a country which has managed to lose half its land and population and is backward and religious while he was neither.

I don't think he would want his name associated with the country.
Click to expand...

Junaids said:
I remember the storm of controversy when General Zia wanted to censor Wolpert's biography of Jinnah.

It just didn't suit the desired narrative for people to know that he drank Scotch, ate bacon for breakfast and couldn't read or write Urdu. The fact that such habits are now viewed as unacceptable highlights the fact that the country now is not the same as the one he created.

Jinnah's Pakistan was the one I referred to in my thread three weeks ago about the 1959-60 Test in Dacca. Where the elite were more fluent in English than any other language.

Not a nation where Urdu was the main language and not a nation where non-Islamic habits disqualified you from office.
Click to expand...


Whatever Jinnah did in his personal life is his matter. It does not mean he wanted people of Pakistan to follow him in those things. He is and he was our leader and fought for us and gave us a seperate homeland for which we are thankful. If he drank alcohol or ate bacon no problem. He was not our spiritual, religious or holy figure. What matters us is Pakistan movement and his role in it.

Jinnah did not know that He would die soon and his closest ideological colleague and successor will be murdered shortly and Pakistan will be hijacked by those who opposed Pakistan's creation and later stood up for Mullaeeat & Mullah-ism.
 
My maternal side is Kashmiri. We thank heavens that Pakistan was created.

Thank you Quaid-E-Azam. I'm grateful for being Pakistani everyday and the Kashmiri people are with me on this too 💚🇵🇰
 
Eagle_Eye said:
You have a superficial understanding of how and why Jinnah took the decision for Pakistan. Actually, Iqbal and several others are the real architects of Pakistan, Jinnah was the man who made it a reality in the end, mostly because he outlived most of them.

You make it seem that Jinnah was all the way for one India till 1940, which is not the case. He had abandoned that thought many decades prior, in fact he had left for England and was persuaded to come back and lead the Muslim league. The Agha Khan I believe was one such individual who went to persuade him. You have sort of taken his early life, missed out the events in the middle and joined it with the latter half and drew conclusions from that.

In the end Jinnah realised that India is a myth and it's continued propagation as one entity serves the interest of Hindus and spells disaster for muslims..... Muslims of course were incredibly backward at the time, rarely anyone educated, living in areas with little or no heavy industry or development. The only realistic profession for them was to join the British army. I am of course talking of the area that now makes Pakistan. And without Jinnah's vision, most of the people of this area would now be like the 9 million slum dwellers of Mumbai, vast majority of whom are Indian Muslims.

Whether Jinnah ate pork or drank alcohol is irrelevant, for what he did for muslims surpasses any indiscretions he may have carried out in his personal life. The greatest irony is that the so called orthodox Islamic parties were his biggest nemesis aside from the congress as they too wanted to keep British India under one roof.

My personal belief is that Hitler, Japan and the duplicity of Nehru and Gandhi via Subhash Chandra Bose is what prompted the British to give in to the demands of Pakistan as Muslims from current day Pakistan had fought for the British in vast numbers. If I look back in my own family/clan history, it's hard to find any family which did not have at least one man fight in WW2.

For those who don't know, Bose was the militant wingman of Nehru and Gandhi who collaborated with Nazi Germany and Japanese to take over India from the British. He is revered as a great leader in India today..... commonly known as Netaji.
Click to expand...

What a load of preconceived notions and stereotypes.

So in short, Nehru, Gandhi, Patel and Bose were duplicitous and cunning men while Jinnah saved all the muslims from the big bad hindus of India who till date revere those who formed alliances with the Nazi Germany and the imperial japanese to fight against the benevolent British.

I agree with you in one thing though. United India and Pakistan would've been the biggest disaster and it's because of posts like these. We would've made the middle east look peaceful in comparison. When you have two sets of communities who constantly demonize each other living together with preconceived cliches and stereotypes, the inevitable polarization would've resulted in a huge disaster. Thankfully it is not so and we have both countries going in their own separate ways by their own separate visions.
 
Happy Birthday to Babbar Sher.

C0d1PuNXgAAZews.jpg

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Birthday wishes to Pakistan PM Mr. Nawaz Sharif. I pray for his long and healthy life.</p>— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/812837696783552513">December 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Atal Bihari Vajpayee was also born on Dec 25.
 
Junaids said:
Jinnah only came to support the creation of Pakistan in the last decade of his life, and it was just as much Bangladesh as what is now Pakistan.
Click to expand...
Just to add to that - while many Congress politicians had no problem with simply taking over the old unitary colonial state, Jinnah argued that the whole basis of the nation had to be renegotiated in order to safeguard the rights of all minorities.

Congress refused to concede the idea of a unitary centre and rejected 1946 Cabinet Mission plan for a federal Indian Union, a scheme which Jinnah had endorsed.

That was the straw that broke the camel's back and Pakistan became a reality.
 
While few would dispute that Jinnah was crucial to the making of Pakistan, in understanding the creation of Pakistan, one still needs to look beyond the Quaid.

Because the Muslim League succeeded in some measure in creating Pakistan, there is a tendency to view its demands as being of an exceptional nature. Yet, when viewed both in its regional and international contexts, the sense of foreboding that the Muslim minority felt and articulated was a far more generalized sentiment. The sense of unease crystallised with the introduction of electoral politics, where numbers mattered.

As a case study, one can look at the Frontier province. Because of its strategic location, a popularly elected section of provincial government was introduced in the settled districts only in 1932, much later than most other provinces. Legislative politics in the 1930s revolved to a great extent around the apprehension of minorities. Hindus and Sikhs feared that the dominant position they had in government employment would be challenged. The minorities also feared that the Education department would now discriminate against them in grants-in-aid. But, as historian Stephen Rittenberg has shown, the issue that evoked the greatest controversy was an administrative circular, which made Urdu or English the mandatory language of instruction from the third grade in government aided girls’ schools. This measure had been proposed by English officers to standardise the province’s educational system. It was already in force for boys schools. It did not bar Hindi or Gurmukhi as being taught as second language and the Frontier Muslims were in the same position in that Pashtu or Hindko could not be the primarily mode of instruction either.

Yet, for the Hindus and Sikhs, it became a symbolic matter of utmost importance. One Frontier Hindu, wrote to the government:

“These memoranda forecast the fate of Hindu and Sikh minorities in that Province when full Provincial Autonomy will be introduced under the new Government of India act.”

A Hindi-Gurmukhi Defence committee was formed. Minority members of the provincial legislature boycotted the legislature in in 1935 and explained in a letter:

“We feel that this circular constitutes a grave menace and a direct challenge to our religion and culture.”

One can point to other examples in the Frontier. Even during Khan Sahib’s Frontier Congress led ministry in the years 1937-39, in the aftermath of the granting of limited self-government, disenchantment was expressed with some of the legislation that was enacted. Dr C.C. Ghosh, a founding member of the Frontier Congress, complained to V.D Savarkar, that Hindu support for the organisation had only served to “place them under Muslim majority…Congress (Red Shirt) attitude during the Congress Ministry days towards the minorities were most tyrannous.”

What is interesting, is how much this rhetoric, and what could be perceived as an over-sensitive response from the Hindu and Sikh minorities, mirrored much of the behavior and sentiments of many Muslims in the provinces where they were minorities.

The Frontier’s experience was not unique. Recent scholarship has pointed out that the idea of partition found widespread support amongst Hindus in both Bengal and Punjab.

Nor should we ignore that many Dalits expressed similar concerns that other minorities did. They too foresaw, in the words of Faisal Devji, the “risk of being submerged within some larger community in a subordinate way, thus illustrating how fragile the categories of majority and minority really were, and how generalized the fears of being swamped by larger numbers. In some sense, then, the Muslim League’s intermittent criticism of these categories, and attempts to avoid them altogether, had a certain political truth about it.”

In the very different context of the north-east of British India in the hill areas of what is now Nagaland, the ‘Naga community’ expressed similar concerns. In 1929, members of the Naga club handed over a memorandum to the British commission. Marcus Franke is his excellent work on the hill areas, summarized the concerns in the memorandum:

“Their population was small, compared to those in the plains and a however designed representation on their side would have no weight at all. Their languages were completely different from those of the plains and they had not the slightest social affinities with either Hindus or Muslims…These statements were followed by fear of becoming dominated socially, culturally, politically and economically by the Assamese and Indians, if the Nagas were included under the reforms.”

It was “the realisation—filled with consternation—that their future could lie with the plainsmen who were superior to them in every way, especially in numbers. The fear they might be culturally and economically overpowered by those who despised them,” that led to the people of Naga preferring either autonomy or for the British to remain.

Seen in this light, Muslim separatism becomes less exceptional. The fear of majoritarianism, the sense of exclusion from the dominant culture and what this might mean in a country or indeed province ruled by the weight of numbers was an issue for many.

Such concerns were not specific to British India. The introduction of elective principle in Ceylon, for example, sparked concerns amongst the minority Tamil community. Governor Clifford noted in 1926:

“recently the differences between the Sinhalese— especially the low country Sinhalese— and the Tamils on the Council have shown signs of becoming accentuated; the latter suspecting the former of designs to dominate the whole political situation by sheer weight of numbers”

The introduction of universal suffrage in 1931 only enlarged such concerns. In response, out of the five seats in the Tamil majority Northern province, in four elections to the first State Council in 1931 were boycotted.

Nor should we restrict this apprehension to a purely regional context. Aamir Mufti has linked the development of Muslim separatism to the history of the Jewish ‘question’ in Europe. He argued that minoritisation was inherent in the ‘nationalising’ of people, with the Jewish case being an exemplary instance. He perceptively notes how nationalism has historically been quite disruptive:



"nationalism has historically been a great disrupter of social and cultural relations, that its reconstitution of societies and populations in terms of distinct narratives of collective life always implies setting forth an entire dynamic of inclusion and exclusion within the very social formation that it claims as uniquely its own and with which it declares itself identical. Thus the great ‘‘accomplishment,’’ we might say, of nationalism as a distinctly modern form of political and cultural identity is not that it is a great settling of peoples—‘‘this place for this people.’’ Rather, its distinguishing mark historically has been precisely that it makes large numbers of people eminently unsettled. More simply put, whenever a population is minoritized—a process inherent in the nationalization of peoples and cultural practices—it is also rendered potentially movable."

In linking Pakistan to a much larger story that transcends South Asia, we should also note the collapse of the world order with the onset of World War 2. As Faisal Devji writes, “ideas of multinational federations, autonomous zones and partnerships in empire…were common in the period following the First World War, with its mandates and minority protections guaranteed by the League of Nations.” But the “the collapse of all these arrangements after 1939” had “forced upon men like Jinnah the realization that however regrettable, such schemes were no longer tenable.” What had happened was a “rapid unraveling of an international order that had been intended to guarantee the independence of nation states as well as the minorities within them.”

Of course Muslim separatism had distinctive features, but seen in its regional and international context, it appears far less exceptional. Unlike many others, the Muslims who supported the demand for Pakistan succeeded in carving a separate state. But the focus on the eventual outcome can obscure the similar sentiments that were felt by many groups.
 
Happy birthday, Muhammad Ali Jinnah !!
Just curious, is this day celebrated as a national holiday in Pakistan?
 
25th December 1876 : The father of the nation - Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is born

 
*Sees ISPR watermark on the video. Quietly leaves.*

On topic, the nation Mr. Jinnah created died in 1949 when Liaqat Ali Khan sold the principles of the Quaid down the river with the objectives resolution. There are only two people who are deserving contenders for the title of father of this nation, in its current form: Gen. Zia ul Haq and one Ab'ul a'la Maududi. This country has absolutely no relation to the country Mr. Jinnah created in 1947 and Liaqat Ali Khan murdered in 1949.
 
Quaid hum sharminda hain

Nawaz aur Zardari abhi bhi zinda hain
 
DW44 said:
*Sees ISPR watermark on the video. Quietly leaves.*

On topic, the nation Mr. Jinnah created died in 1949 when Liaqat Ali Khan sold the principles of the Quaid down the river with the objectives resolution. There are only two people who are deserving contenders for the title of father of this nation, in its current form: Gen. Zia ul Haq and one Ab'ul a'la Maududi. This country has absolutely no relation to the country Mr. Jinnah created in 1947 and Liaqat Ali Khan murdered in 1949.
Click to expand...

Spot on.Pakistan died the day when Objective Resolution was passed.If Jinnah had lived a little longer,Pakistan would not have become what it is today.
 
syed abbas said:
Spot on.Pakistan died the day when Objective Resolution was passed.If Jinnah had lived a little longer,Pakistan would not have become what it is today.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered the same that if Jinnah was alive what track would Pakistan have taken ? Would Pakistan still have been an Islamic republic or more of a secular one ? Would it have been the same as today or one that is more stronger and richer than China ? Would Pakistan still have gone through various military coups or one that had a stable leaders to lead the country in the right direction the same as Turkey.
 
A day to be thankful for and something for us to think about.
 
Happy Birthday Quaid

Hopefully today is one of those days when you don't weep for our nation :(
 
Snak3eye5 said:
I have always wondered the same that if Jinnah was alive what track would Pakistan have taken ? Would Pakistan still have been an Islamic republic or more of a secular one ? Would it have been the same as today or one that is more stronger and richer than China ? Would Pakistan still have gone through various military coups or one that had a stable leaders to lead the country in the right direction the same as Turkey.
Click to expand...

Every country eg Israel, India, Turkey had their leaders with them after independence and it did them a lot of good. His death and then death of LAK left a massive hold literally within 5 years of our separation.
 
Speaking of Maududi and Jinnah, NFP penned a brilliant piece on the role both men played around the time of Pakistan's independence. Pretty informative piece that contains a lot that isn't taught in our history books:

History, like still water, runs deep. When one dives into it one is likely to realise that there is nothing placid about it. There is no foreseeable bottom and, the deeper one goes, the more likely you are to encounter strange creatures that you had no idea even existed.

Many such creatures can be fascinating to some, making them feel wiser about what lies beneath the still surface of history. But some may be apprehensive to dive deeper so as not to disturb the serene stillness of the surface of history that they are most comfortable with.

Take, for instance, the decades-long and unending debate in Pakistan on what kind of country its founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted. On the one hand, you have the religious and centre-right parties insisting that Jinnah had conceived Pakistan as an ‘Islamic Republic’, and it was only natural that such a republic should evolve into becoming an ‘Islamic state.’

On the other hand are the ‘moderate’ and ‘liberal’ intelligentsia who counter this argument by suggesting that Jinnah had imagined Pakistan as a country where a former minority in India would become a majority. But according to them, Jinnah wanted the new majority to be driven by a modern, progressive and democratic interpretation of their faith that would eschew the notion of theocracy because non-Muslims in the new country were to be treated as equal citizens.

Both sides dive into history only to stop and fish out material that they believe would best serve their version of what Jinnah wanted. They wave speeches and quotes of the man in an unending display of one-upmanship. And yet, if one allows oneself to dive even deeper, one is often faced with some puzzling quotes by him.

Such as this one from a speech Jinnah made on April 23, 1943: “I think you will bear me out that when we passed the 1940 Lahore Resolution we had not used the word ‘Pakistan.’ Who gave us this word? The Hindus fathered this word on us …’

What was Mr Jinnah talking about? Dive deeper and you will be able to conclude that Jinnah was explaining the Muslims’ insistence for a separate homeland as a reaction to the idea of an exclusive Hindu domain first aired by Hindu nationalists in the late 19th century and/or almost 60 years before the Lahore Resolution!

This is how: The late 19th century Hindu nationalist, Nabagopal Mitra, and early 20th century men such as Bhai Paramanand, Lal Rajpat Rai, MS Golwalker and V. Savarkar, all described the Hindus of India as a “national race” which would perish if the non-Hindu inhabitants of the region are not “purified” (i.e. converted to Hinduism). They also explained the Hindus and Muslims of India as two separate races. All this was being propagated through books and op-ed articles years before Jinnah and his men finally demanded a separate Muslim country.

In his 1943 speech, Jinnah was simply pointing out the fact that it was the Hindu nationalists who were hell-bent on pushing the Muslims of India to form their own enclave. This, thus, puts to rest the idea that Jinnah’s politics were ‘communal’. The communal notions had first emanated from the other side.

Interestingly, it was an anti-Jinnah Indian historian Dr Shamsul Islam, who exhibited how Jinnah’s politics began being shaped as a reaction to anti-Muslim politics first aired by Hindu nationalists. Dr Islam has reproduced speeches, articles and pamphlets of Hindu nationalists (in this context) in his book Revisiting the Legacy of Allah Bakhsh.

So does this mean that, as a reaction, Jinnah was advocating an “Islamic Republic”? Not quite. For this, one should dive deeper to investigate how certain well-respected Islamic scholars such as the prolific Abul Ala Maududi described Jinnah and his Pakistan Movement.

It’s a well-known fact that a number of clerics and Islamic scholars associated with outfits such as Jamiat-i-Ulema Islam-Hind and Majlis-i-Ahrar and those within the Indian National Congress had staunchly opposed Jinnah. But most interesting is how Maududi Sahib saw him because he (Maududi) became a Pakistani.

Professor Ali Usman Qasmi in his essay on Maududi in “Muslims against the Muslim League” quotes an article that Maududi wrote in the December 1939 issue of Tafhim-ul-Quran. In it Maududi writes: “the whole world knows that he [Jinnah] does not even know the basics of Islam…”

In the February 1946 issue of the same journal, Maududi wrote that the ulema joining Jinnah’s Muslim League will suffer the same fate as the ulema in Turkey did at the hands of the secular Turkish nationalist Kamal Ataturk. Maududi wrote that this was because the fate of the Pakistan Movement “lay in the hands of those who believed in a secular mode of politics and state.”

So, after Pakistan’s creation, when most pro-Maududi elements began to suggest that Jinnah wanted an “Islamic State,” were they also suggesting that a giant scholar such as Maududi was wrong in his assessment of Jinnah and the Muslim League? Poet, playwright and journalist, Safdar Mir, asked the same question in one of his pieces in the January-February 1968 issue of the progressive Urdu bi-monthly Nusrat.

Without really answering this, admirers and followers of Maududi often point out that he accepted the idea of Pakistan and migrated to the new country.

But Professor Qasmi in his essay writes that though Maududi migrated to Pakistan, he continued to be critical of Jinnah.

For example, he criticised Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech to the Constituent Assembly in which Jinnah explained that the new country would be pluralistic and where the state will have nothing to do with a citizen’s faith. Alluding to the speech, Maududi wrote (in Tafhim-ul-Quran) that the founders of Pakistan were confused and contradictory, talking about Islam through a secular lens and having Western lifestyles. A long feature on Maududi in the September 1949 issue of Tafhim-ul-Quran claimed that when Maududi was put under house arrest, the founder and leaders of Pakistan had “planned to form a secular state”. The same feature alludes that it was Maududi who stopped that from happening.

Maududi only fully entered the country’s politics after Jinnah’s demise and after the passage of the March 1949 Objectives Resolution which resolved to evolve Pakistan as an Islamic Republic. Critics of the Resolution see the document as a ‘political stunt’ by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to appease the religious parties, while others have called it a betrayal of Jinnah’s vision of a pluralistic Muslim-majority country. They claim that it would never have been authored had Jinnah not passed away so soon after the creation of Pakistan. The historical evidence displayed in this piece tends to point towards a similar deduction.
Click to expand...
Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1378535
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We salute our Quaid who founded Pakistan bec of his brilliant legal mind that successfully confronted the imperial power; & bec of his steely determination, will power in the face of<br>all adversity incl fatal illness & a legendary honesty that even his opponents acknowledged. <a href="https://t.co/Vb4KXbDdwA">pic.twitter.com/Vb4KXbDdwA</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/945241673172443136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Happy birthday to our leader and inspiration for millions and millions - Quaid e Azam. I pray that each and every one of us Pakistanis will make this country stronger and better <a href="https://t.co/Omiv6bk2Fu">pic.twitter.com/Omiv6bk2Fu</a></p>— Wahab Riaz (@WahabViki) <a href="https://twitter.com/WahabViki/status/944994987405664258?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Happy birthday 2 the man who gave us our freedom, identity n existence.. our Quaid... no man can compare. May Allah alwayz protect the nation that our Quaid built 4 us.. Ameen <a href="https://t.co/wVgMF75amd">pic.twitter.com/wVgMF75amd</a></p>— Ahmad Shahzad (@iamAhmadshahzad) <a href="https://twitter.com/iamAhmadshahzad/status/945090803185209344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">HAPPY QUAID DAY to all PAKISTAN ���� , PAKISTAN zindabad</p>— Mohammad Hafeez (@MHafeez22) <a href="https://twitter.com/MHafeez22/status/945028713934151680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty there’s nothing worthwhile that u can not achieve” Mohammad Ali Jinnah. We owe it to our succeeding generations to work for prosperity&stability of our country that was envisioned by Quaid <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MyHeroJinnah?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MyHeroJinnah</a> !! <a href="https://t.co/o9sSbCzEEd">pic.twitter.com/o9sSbCzEEd</a></p>— Shahid Afridi (@SAfridiOfficial) <a href="https://twitter.com/SAfridiOfficial/status/945200198749442049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The man behind Pakistan, Quaid-e-azam our hero! We our indebt to him & what he has done so much for us, I can't even put into words. 25th Dec is just not a holiday it's a reminder for us to realize what needs to be done for this gr8 country <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeSaluteQuaideAzam?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WeSaluteQuaideAzam</a> <a href="https://t.co/denH7gMbP8">pic.twitter.com/denH7gMbP8</a></p>— Shoaib Akhtar (@shoaib100mph) <a href="https://twitter.com/shoaib100mph/status/944953244798930945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Won Quaid-e-Azam trophy on Quaid-e-Azam day. What a way to celebrate our Quaid's birthday. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/QuaidEAzam?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#QuaidEAzam</a></p>— Azhar Ali (@AzharAli_) <a href="https://twitter.com/AzharAli_/status/945209995297218560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
We lacked leaders after Quaid e Azam, most Muslim league party members were fedual lords or nawabs. Popular Muslim leaders like Bacha Khan and G. M. Syed were sidelined in Pakistan politics after independence . India had well organized congress party with numerous leaders in it unlike Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
On topic, the nation Mr. Jinnah created died in 1949 when Liaqat Ali Khan sold the principles of the Quaid down the river with the objectives resolution.
Click to expand...

Maududi only fully entered the country’s politics after Jinnah’s demise and after the passage of the March 1949 Objectives Resolution which resolved to evolve Pakistan as an Islamic Republic. Critics of the Resolution see the document as a ‘political stunt’ by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to appease the religious parties, while others have called it a betrayal of Jinnah’s vision of a pluralistic Muslim-majority country. They claim that it would never have been authored had Jinnah not passed away so soon after the creation of Pakistan. The historical evidence displayed in this piece tends to point towards a similar deduction.
Click to expand...

There are a number of interesting points that emerge from the debates around the Objectives Resolution. For those not aware, we should first state that the purpose of the Resolution (which was adopted in March 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan) was to provide the guidelines for the constitution; to enunciate the goals. Despite the turbulent constitutional history of Pakistan, the Objectives Resolution has proven to be a resilient document, retained throughout Pakistan’s history.

Here is an excerpt from some of the lines of the Resolution:

“Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and [whereas] the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limit prescribed by Him is a scared trust… Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah; Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.”

It is interesting to read some of the speeches in the Constituent Assembly debating the Resolution. Here I will refer only to two.

Bhupendra Kumar Datta was a member of the Congress Party and his views reflected those of the non-Muslims in the Assembly. Datta doubted that the Resolution would have been presented in its “present shape” had “the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam” been alive. Datta was critical of the intermingling of politics and religion explicit in the Resolution. There was a danger that in the end “as the State and State policies are concerned, you cripple reason, curb criticism.” He also argued that the ambiguous wording [‘authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people’] could potentially lead to the “deification of the State.” It left open the possibility that a “political adventurer…may find a chance to impose his will and authority on the State…To the people of our State he may justify his claim on the clause in it that refers to the delegation of the Almighty’s authority to the State through its people. He has only to forge a further link and get it delegated through the State to himself and declare that he is the Ruler of Pakistan, anointed by his Maker.” He also pointed to the “vagueness and generality” of the language which could in future lead to very different interpretations, potentially more rigid ones from “different authorities and specialists.”

Liaquat Ali Khan’s speech moving the Resolution, is quite revealing in how its espoused an understanding from the point of view of ‘Islamic modernism’. Modernists tended to emphasise the spirit of Islam, the ethical ideals of Islam, that Islam freed from the more rigid interpretations of the ulama had much to teach the world and that it was and is axiomatic that a 'true' Muslim state would ensure the security and welfare of its minorities. All of these themes were present in his speech. Liaquat in his speech referred to the “spirit of Islam,” “spiritual values,” that “Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today.” He also stated very clearly that “Islam does not recognise either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and therefore the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam.”

Some points I find interesting in this: Pakistan may not have had the intellectual heavyweights that India possessed at the time, but reading some of the debates, I tend to agree with the scholar Matthew Nelson who observed: “With respect to parliamentary practice and the role of religious vigilantes, Pakistan cannot be described as a model for other parts of the Muslim world. However, Pakistani constitutional debates are often quite nuanced and sophisticated.”

Secondly, it is clear that the Resolution in fact never did resolve anything concretely, for various groups (the ulama, the Islamists led by Maududi, and the modernists) had very different understandings of what ‘Islamic principles’ would mean in practice.

Thirdly, we are left with the question how best to characterise the position of Liaquat and the Muslim League elite. One approach would be to accept Ayesha Jalal’s argument, from her work the Struggle for Pakistan, that this was merely “An early indication of the lip service paid to religion for purposes of political expediency.” However, I think Jalal underestimates the religious commitment of modernists. Closer to the mark, is Farzana Shaikh (in her book Making Sense of Pakistan): “most [western-educate elite] also found it hard to discard the memory of the closing years of empire, which had been dominated by visions of an Islamically informed constitutional order, which they equated with a state governed by Islam, even if what they meant was obscured by the lack of consensus over Islam. What is also clear is that for the vast majority of this first generation of leaders, the Islamic basis of the Pakistani state was to be reflected not so much in legal injunctions embodied in the constitution of the state, but in the affirmation of Islamic ethical and social concerns.” In the end Sheikh states, “The real dividing line between these separate camps [religious establishment vs western educated elite] lay then not in their differences over the desirability of an Islamically informed constitutional order but in their understanding of what that order entailed.”

Fourthly, many look at it now as providing an opening for those religious groups to advance less tolerant understandings of what Pakistan stood for (as Datta had in fact predicted may happen), but at the time to the modernists it must have seemed a somewhat successful attempt in warding off the religious right and avoiding any reference to classical jurisprudence within the Resolution. Indeed, the riots in 1952 by religious groups may be interpreted as a cynical effort to make their presence felt again. In spite of their efforts though, the Constitution of 1956 in fact was largely in accord with modernist orientations. The ulama sought a special role for themselves in judging that no legislation “repugnant” to Islam be passed. But the constitution provided no such role. Quoting the legal scholar Dieter Conrad, Matthew Nelson states Pakistan’s first Constituent Assembly took a momentous decision in respect to “‘the power of interpretation” regarding Islamic law and that, as Conrad wrote “this decision has remained the common basic structure [for every] constitution” thereafter. “The power to ... bring all legislation in accordance with “the injunctions of Islam”, Conrad wrote “was vested in parliament as the final interpreting authority.” “The general disposition" of the state was “to treat Islamic principles as a matter [for] the future’”and “to entrust their realization to the ... political responsibility of the legislature.”

So whilst the Objectives Resolution was vague and even in some respects incoherent, I think it would be questionable to suggest that it was with its passing that Pakistan turned further to the right or that it opened the floodgates for the religious groups to advance their claims. The state in fact caved in to religious groups later, first under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s, more than a decade after the Objectives Resolution had been passed.
 
Happy Birthday to Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah

The Visionary Leader ....

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
The leader we got, the leader we never deserved, the leader whose nation never became the nation he wanted it to become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
[EXCLUSIVE] "I copied Mohammad Asif's action and idolized Jasprit Bumrah": Ali Shafique
Replies
7
Views
697
BouncerGuy
B
FearlessRoar
Caption this: What Shan Masood is telling to Inzamam Ul Haq
Replies
37
Views
1K
gazza619
gazza619
MenInG
POTW: Markhor
Replies
7
Views
278
ExpressPacer
ExpressPacer
FearlessRoar
[PICTURES] 18-member Test squad announced for Australia tour
4 5 6
Replies
414
Views
13K
shamaan
S
FearlessRoar
  • Poll
PCB to introduce Champions events in 2024-25 domestic season
Replies
75
Views
2K
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Back
Top