Jinnah: True Leader of Islamic World
English Essay on "Jinnah: True Leader of Islamic World"
The place of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in history is extricable tied up with the place of Pakistan itself, but even after one has reached a conclusion about the place of Pakistan itself in the history of man, question still remains as to whether the Quaid-i-Azam was the expected or proper exponent of the expression of the Pakistan Movement. Some outside observers have persistently questioned this and have drawn attention to the apparent contradiction between Jinnah’s ideas and personality on the one hand and the inherent implication of a the Pakistan Movement on the other hand. They profess to see anomalies arid contradiction is between this modern individuals and medieval notions of a religious state; between his political ides in the early part of his life and his later commitment to Pakistan and so on.
Before these matters can be properly evaluated, some understanding must exist about the place of Pakistan itself in history, and although at first sight the Pakistan movement appears to be a movement towards disintegration of a larger political unity, namely British India, in an age which needs larger political and economic forms of’ associations, and although Pakistan represents the reliance of remembering one’s religion and ones religious identity and values in an age which has tried to shut out religion from political life, the fact remains that the Pakistan movement was a rejection of a narrow nationalism based on a common race or language or birthplace and it placed the ideas that men believe in as being more worthy of their loyalty, particularly w hen the idea (as in the case of Islam) contains a conviction about the oneness of the human race and that all human beings are born equal and are entitled by right to equality of treatment.
We can observe an increasing rejection of the narrow racial nation-state idea of the past, even in it original homeland of Europe, which is now trying desperately to achieve some from he European unity after the disastrous nationalistic wars o he past, particularly in 1914 and 1939. Clearly, however, such larger forms of unity are’ only likely to be truly successful when there is a stronger idea capable of overcoming the narrower doctrines of linguistic-cum-racial affinity. Such a larger idea is the concept of Muslim brotherhood. The prospects for unity, whether w€ consider Europe or the Middle East, are therefore, likely to be much greater when a common idea transcend narrow national boundaries. Such an idea is inherent in the Pakistan movement and represents a new trend in history in which states are held together by a common ideological commitment and this idea, as embodies in Pakistan, has an essential role to play in the growing movement for greater cooperation between countries of the Muslim world and the instrument through which this state of Pakistan came into being was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Although it was only at a later stage in his life that he rejected the possibility of working with Hindus within one political framework, the dramatic evolution in his thinking on this matter is similar to the change in thinking that is characteristic of many great men possessed throughout their lives an unchanging static political philosophy, Churchill began as a liberal and ended as a conservative. De Gualle in earlier life was a champion of France’s imperial mission and yet the later played a major role in persuading the French to abandon the fantasy of a French Algeria.educationsight.blogspot.com Ataturk began his career as an officer loyalty servant the Ottoman Sultan and yet, late, he led the movement against the Sultan and abolished the institution of an Ottoman Sultanate itself. and the situation was similar with Gamal Abdel Nasser. Joseph Stalin began his life in a theological seminary. Only to become in late years, the embodiment of a movement against Christianity itself. Conversely, in the lives of the great religious leaders there comes a point of which the great transformation to belief has taken place. Yet, it is equally true that in the earlier period of a great man’s life, it is possible to detect qualities which later lead to the great change. In the case of Jinnah’ two things should be noticed about his earlier life. The first is that even when he was in favour of working towards Indian independence in an association with Hindus, he did so as a Muslim conscious of the necessity of ensuring the rights of Muslims. It was only when he realised that these rights of Muslims could not be protected in a united India, in the face of the permanent Hindu majority, which showed no signs of exhibiting generosity, or even justice, to the numerically smaller Muslim community, only then did he adopt the idea of a separate Muslim state. The point should never be lost sight of, that both before and after this change in objectives, he was consistent in being of all ties concerned with what was in the best interests of the Muslims. The other quality that is consistently clear throughout his life was his merciless intellectual honesty which was incapable of self-deception or deception of others and was able to unerringly uncover the deceptions of other people.
This led him, inevitable, to certain conclusions which he then steadfastly adhered to, however, much they might appear contrary to the fashionable or to the current purely secular political philosophy of the age. The result was that he used phrases such as the “Muslim nation in India” which on the surface might appear to be a combination of conflicting political philosophies. But such a phrase was, in fact, the only intelligible way of expressing, in the political language that was in current usage, the nature of the Pakistan idea. “Nation” in this context was not some purely secular, semi-racial or linguistic association of people but was a denominator that brought people together regardless of whether such a nation was in conformity with the experience of previous nation-states. When he said that the Muslims were a “nation”, the word “nation” was more closely related in meaning to the Muslim concept of Ummrah than to the concept of “nation” found in Western political text-books. Yet, at the same time, when he described the Muslims of the Subcontinent (as distinct from all the Muslims of the world) as a inconsistent with the concept of Muslim unity. In fact, this was a practical political expression of the idea that Muslim unity and the future of the Muslim world rested for the foreseeable future upon a multiplicity of Muslim states working together (in the words of Iqbal) as a “living family or republics.”
In the early decades of this century what may well be the last battle for a traditional-type Muslim unity based on the total denial of all regional variations was fought. In other words, two, opposing ideas were debated throughout the Muslim world. The first traditional idea asserted that there should only be one universal, unitary Muslim state although this concept had sown itself since medieval tie to be a cloak under which one individual wrought to build up an imperial dictatorship dominating all other groups. The second idea maintained, however, that the first task that awaited the Muslims was to deal with their local problems in their particular area of the world, achieve true independence, put their own house in order and then increasingly come together in a co-operative, fraternal association of equals. It is this acceptable and it is indeed the basis for greater world Islamic co-operation was based.
Thus Jinnah in leading the Pakistan movement was fully in harmony with this victorious trend, namely that where Muslims are in a majority, they should separate and form their own states and, thereafter, the separate Muslim states should work together (voluntarily and prudently) to achieve greater unity through experience and based on consent rather than force. The result has been, of course, that criticism has been directed against the Pakistan movement from two totally different directions. The first type of criticism questions how such a movement could be in the best interests of the Muslims who chose to remain behind or were left behind in Hindu India and the second criticism wants to know how a Muslim movement like the Pakistan movement could stop of the frontiers of Pakistan and recognize the existence .of other separate Muslim states at all.
With regard to the first criticism, this hard choice has been made before the others. Ataturk, for example, concentrated this energies on achieving what was possible, namely the salvation of the Turks in Asia Minor and a strip of Eastern Europe and he refused (unlike Enver Pasha) to be drawn into quixotic adventures for the sake of the Turkish-speaking peoples of Central Asia. It was clearly a case of rescuing some or losing all in the attempt-to rescue all. Similarly, Kamal Ataturk refused to be drawn into attempts to reoccupy parts of Eastern Europe simply because there were Muslim Turkish minority pockets over there. Much the same considerations apply to the question of the residual Muslims of the Subcontinent. With regard to the second criticism which argued that if the Pakistan movement was genuinely Muslim, it should not stop at the frontiers of Pakistan, the important point so that it is for the Muslims of any two regions to voluntarily come together and it is not for the Muslims of any one region to demand of another region that they must abandon their separate identity. All that the Muslims of one region can do for the cause of greater Muslim unity into work slowly patiently, steadfastly, and under stingingly towards greater association by consent with the Muslims of the other states. Thus the political ideas of Jinnah, like those of Ataturk, Naseer, Boumedienne or King Faisal, represent the increasingly obvious solution of strengthening regional Muslim-majority areas, within the framework of viable states without forgetting the need, at the appropriate tie and is suitable conditions, for working towards greater overall Muslim only. Yet it may be asked, how can the undeniable contemporary quality of Jinnah’s political ideas be reconciled with our ancestral religion. This criticism betray a curious misunderstanding about Islam. If the principles of Islam are eternal then they are equally relevant and applicable to every age. They were modern in the twentieth century; and they will be modern in the twenty-second century however much the actual application of three eternal principles may differ according to the requirements of any particular age or place.
Whenever Jinnah spoke about Islam he spoke about its eternal principles; of fraternity, equality, social justice and tolerance. In doing so her performed a highly necessary service because prior to his time the socio-political and even moral implications of Islam were often lost by emphasising empty forms or mere rituals devoid of actual practice. When he appeared, attired in the clothes of his century, he served as a constant reminder that traditional garments cannot be a substitute for possessing authentic Muslim conviction and that and that an authentic commitment to the eternal principle of Islam did not require to be dressed up in superficial and merely external window dressing. Men must be judged by what they say and do not, by how they are dressed or the lyrical quality of their speech or whether they are clean-shaven or not.
Perhaps nowhere is the truly Muslim quality of Jinnah more apparent in his personal character. Integrity is the word that automatically comes to mind in describing it. Integrity cover many, many things -- moral integrity, intellectual integrity, integrity in dealing with one’s fellow human beings, financial integrity all this Jinnah possessed in abundant measures. It was this which largely explains the loyalty he evoked from the Muslims of the Subcontinent a an authentic, exponent of Muslim aspirations in spite of the fact that he did not wear clerical garb and, in fact, was subject to criticism and opposition by some who, by their dress and appearance, claimed to be more Muslim in a superficial way of judging these things.
It is because of this integrity and straight-forwardness that the Muslim masses were satisfied as to his niya, i.e., the sincerity, purity and honesty of his intentions. This illustrates an interesting and highly .significant aspect of Muslim psychology where their political leaders are concerned, namely that they are hostile, suspicious of and un-reconciled to, a leader, however, successfully he may. temporarily appear to be, when they ‘suspect or doubt the sincerity of the person’s niya they will support him through any kind of adversity or setback and even when he makes mistakes. This is, of course,. closely related to the central idea of what sort of character a man should possess, which is to be found from the earliest days of Islam, running like a golden threat throughout Islamic history, namely, that above all a man must be amin or worthy of being given a trust and upright, i.e., all that is contained in the phrase “integrity of character”. The respect and loyalty that Jinnah evoked in his lifetime and which suffuses his memory now are because of this: that, as a man of integrity and real character, he symbolised the enduring Muslim ideal about what the purpose of God was in placing man upon earth and unless this realisation is made, no true awakening and progress car’ ever be achieved.
In accomplishing the task he had taken upon himself on the morrow of Pakistan’s birth, Jinnah, to quote Symonds “had worked himself to death, but had contributed more than any other man to Pakistan’s survival.” He died on September 11, 1948. To quote Lord Pethick Lawrence Secretary of State for India (1945-47), who had headed the Cabinet Mission in 1946, “Gandhi died by the hands of’ an assassin, Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan.”
Before these matters can be properly evaluated, some understanding must exist about the place of Pakistan itself in history, and although at first sight the Pakistan movement appears to be a movement towards disintegration of a larger political unity, namely British India, in an age which needs larger political and economic forms of’ associations, and although Pakistan represents the reliance of remembering one’s religion and ones religious identity and values in an age which has tried to shut out religion from political life, the fact remains that the Pakistan movement was a rejection of a narrow nationalism based on a common race or language or birthplace and it placed the ideas that men believe in as being more worthy of their loyalty, particularly w hen the idea (as in the case of Islam) contains a conviction about the oneness of the human race and that all human beings are born equal and are entitled by right to equality of treatment.
We can observe an increasing rejection of the narrow racial nation-state idea of the past, even in it original homeland of Europe, which is now trying desperately to achieve some from he European unity after the disastrous nationalistic wars o he past, particularly in 1914 and 1939. Clearly, however, such larger forms of unity are’ only likely to be truly successful when there is a stronger idea capable of overcoming the narrower doctrines of linguistic-cum-racial affinity. Such a larger idea is the concept of Muslim brotherhood. The prospects for unity, whether w€ consider Europe or the Middle East, are therefore, likely to be much greater when a common idea transcend narrow national boundaries. Such an idea is inherent in the Pakistan movement and represents a new trend in history in which states are held together by a common ideological commitment and this idea, as embodies in Pakistan, has an essential role to play in the growing movement for greater cooperation between countries of the Muslim world and the instrument through which this state of Pakistan came into being was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Although it was only at a later stage in his life that he rejected the possibility of working with Hindus within one political framework, the dramatic evolution in his thinking on this matter is similar to the change in thinking that is characteristic of many great men possessed throughout their lives an unchanging static political philosophy, Churchill began as a liberal and ended as a conservative. De Gualle in earlier life was a champion of France’s imperial mission and yet the later played a major role in persuading the French to abandon the fantasy of a French Algeria.educationsight.blogspot.com Ataturk began his career as an officer loyalty servant the Ottoman Sultan and yet, late, he led the movement against the Sultan and abolished the institution of an Ottoman Sultanate itself. and the situation was similar with Gamal Abdel Nasser. Joseph Stalin began his life in a theological seminary. Only to become in late years, the embodiment of a movement against Christianity itself. Conversely, in the lives of the great religious leaders there comes a point of which the great transformation to belief has taken place. Yet, it is equally true that in the earlier period of a great man’s life, it is possible to detect qualities which later lead to the great change. In the case of Jinnah’ two things should be noticed about his earlier life. The first is that even when he was in favour of working towards Indian independence in an association with Hindus, he did so as a Muslim conscious of the necessity of ensuring the rights of Muslims. It was only when he realised that these rights of Muslims could not be protected in a united India, in the face of the permanent Hindu majority, which showed no signs of exhibiting generosity, or even justice, to the numerically smaller Muslim community, only then did he adopt the idea of a separate Muslim state. The point should never be lost sight of, that both before and after this change in objectives, he was consistent in being of all ties concerned with what was in the best interests of the Muslims. The other quality that is consistently clear throughout his life was his merciless intellectual honesty which was incapable of self-deception or deception of others and was able to unerringly uncover the deceptions of other people.
This led him, inevitable, to certain conclusions which he then steadfastly adhered to, however, much they might appear contrary to the fashionable or to the current purely secular political philosophy of the age. The result was that he used phrases such as the “Muslim nation in India” which on the surface might appear to be a combination of conflicting political philosophies. But such a phrase was, in fact, the only intelligible way of expressing, in the political language that was in current usage, the nature of the Pakistan idea. “Nation” in this context was not some purely secular, semi-racial or linguistic association of people but was a denominator that brought people together regardless of whether such a nation was in conformity with the experience of previous nation-states. When he said that the Muslims were a “nation”, the word “nation” was more closely related in meaning to the Muslim concept of Ummrah than to the concept of “nation” found in Western political text-books. Yet, at the same time, when he described the Muslims of the Subcontinent (as distinct from all the Muslims of the world) as a inconsistent with the concept of Muslim unity. In fact, this was a practical political expression of the idea that Muslim unity and the future of the Muslim world rested for the foreseeable future upon a multiplicity of Muslim states working together (in the words of Iqbal) as a “living family or republics.”
In the early decades of this century what may well be the last battle for a traditional-type Muslim unity based on the total denial of all regional variations was fought. In other words, two, opposing ideas were debated throughout the Muslim world. The first traditional idea asserted that there should only be one universal, unitary Muslim state although this concept had sown itself since medieval tie to be a cloak under which one individual wrought to build up an imperial dictatorship dominating all other groups. The second idea maintained, however, that the first task that awaited the Muslims was to deal with their local problems in their particular area of the world, achieve true independence, put their own house in order and then increasingly come together in a co-operative, fraternal association of equals. It is this acceptable and it is indeed the basis for greater world Islamic co-operation was based.
Thus Jinnah in leading the Pakistan movement was fully in harmony with this victorious trend, namely that where Muslims are in a majority, they should separate and form their own states and, thereafter, the separate Muslim states should work together (voluntarily and prudently) to achieve greater unity through experience and based on consent rather than force. The result has been, of course, that criticism has been directed against the Pakistan movement from two totally different directions. The first type of criticism questions how such a movement could be in the best interests of the Muslims who chose to remain behind or were left behind in Hindu India and the second criticism wants to know how a Muslim movement like the Pakistan movement could stop of the frontiers of Pakistan and recognize the existence .of other separate Muslim states at all.
With regard to the first criticism, this hard choice has been made before the others. Ataturk, for example, concentrated this energies on achieving what was possible, namely the salvation of the Turks in Asia Minor and a strip of Eastern Europe and he refused (unlike Enver Pasha) to be drawn into quixotic adventures for the sake of the Turkish-speaking peoples of Central Asia. It was clearly a case of rescuing some or losing all in the attempt-to rescue all. Similarly, Kamal Ataturk refused to be drawn into attempts to reoccupy parts of Eastern Europe simply because there were Muslim Turkish minority pockets over there. Much the same considerations apply to the question of the residual Muslims of the Subcontinent. With regard to the second criticism which argued that if the Pakistan movement was genuinely Muslim, it should not stop at the frontiers of Pakistan, the important point so that it is for the Muslims of any two regions to voluntarily come together and it is not for the Muslims of any one region to demand of another region that they must abandon their separate identity. All that the Muslims of one region can do for the cause of greater Muslim unity into work slowly patiently, steadfastly, and under stingingly towards greater association by consent with the Muslims of the other states. Thus the political ideas of Jinnah, like those of Ataturk, Naseer, Boumedienne or King Faisal, represent the increasingly obvious solution of strengthening regional Muslim-majority areas, within the framework of viable states without forgetting the need, at the appropriate tie and is suitable conditions, for working towards greater overall Muslim only. Yet it may be asked, how can the undeniable contemporary quality of Jinnah’s political ideas be reconciled with our ancestral religion. This criticism betray a curious misunderstanding about Islam. If the principles of Islam are eternal then they are equally relevant and applicable to every age. They were modern in the twentieth century; and they will be modern in the twenty-second century however much the actual application of three eternal principles may differ according to the requirements of any particular age or place.
Whenever Jinnah spoke about Islam he spoke about its eternal principles; of fraternity, equality, social justice and tolerance. In doing so her performed a highly necessary service because prior to his time the socio-political and even moral implications of Islam were often lost by emphasising empty forms or mere rituals devoid of actual practice. When he appeared, attired in the clothes of his century, he served as a constant reminder that traditional garments cannot be a substitute for possessing authentic Muslim conviction and that and that an authentic commitment to the eternal principle of Islam did not require to be dressed up in superficial and merely external window dressing. Men must be judged by what they say and do not, by how they are dressed or the lyrical quality of their speech or whether they are clean-shaven or not.
Perhaps nowhere is the truly Muslim quality of Jinnah more apparent in his personal character. Integrity is the word that automatically comes to mind in describing it. Integrity cover many, many things -- moral integrity, intellectual integrity, integrity in dealing with one’s fellow human beings, financial integrity all this Jinnah possessed in abundant measures. It was this which largely explains the loyalty he evoked from the Muslims of the Subcontinent a an authentic, exponent of Muslim aspirations in spite of the fact that he did not wear clerical garb and, in fact, was subject to criticism and opposition by some who, by their dress and appearance, claimed to be more Muslim in a superficial way of judging these things.
It is because of this integrity and straight-forwardness that the Muslim masses were satisfied as to his niya, i.e., the sincerity, purity and honesty of his intentions. This illustrates an interesting and highly .significant aspect of Muslim psychology where their political leaders are concerned, namely that they are hostile, suspicious of and un-reconciled to, a leader, however, successfully he may. temporarily appear to be, when they ‘suspect or doubt the sincerity of the person’s niya they will support him through any kind of adversity or setback and even when he makes mistakes. This is, of course,. closely related to the central idea of what sort of character a man should possess, which is to be found from the earliest days of Islam, running like a golden threat throughout Islamic history, namely, that above all a man must be amin or worthy of being given a trust and upright, i.e., all that is contained in the phrase “integrity of character”. The respect and loyalty that Jinnah evoked in his lifetime and which suffuses his memory now are because of this: that, as a man of integrity and real character, he symbolised the enduring Muslim ideal about what the purpose of God was in placing man upon earth and unless this realisation is made, no true awakening and progress car’ ever be achieved.
In accomplishing the task he had taken upon himself on the morrow of Pakistan’s birth, Jinnah, to quote Symonds “had worked himself to death, but had contributed more than any other man to Pakistan’s survival.” He died on September 11, 1948. To quote Lord Pethick Lawrence Secretary of State for India (1945-47), who had headed the Cabinet Mission in 1946, “Gandhi died by the hands of’ an assassin, Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan.”
No comments:
Post a Comment