NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUST

NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUSTAiwan-i-Karkunan-i-Tehreek-i-Pakistan, Madar-i-Millat Park,

100-Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore. Ph.: 99201213-99201214 Fax: 99202930Email: trust@nazariapak.info Web: www.nazariapak.info

Published by

Printed at: Nazaria-i-Pakistan Printers, 10-Multan Road, Lahore. Ph: 042-37466975

Nazaria-i-Pakistan's publications have a very definite

object. It is hoped that they will contribute to a fuller

knowledge of ideological foundations and great cultural

heritage of Pakistan. Further, a deeper understanding of

lofty ideas and achievements of Allama Muhammad

Iqbal and Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah may

help to a revival of the true spirit of democracy which

was the hallmark of the great Pakistan Movement. The

Foundation believes that it is through an authentic

presentation of thoughts and actions of the Founders of

the Nation that the underlying problems and aspirations

of Pakistan can be appreciated and the nation can be

taken to material and spiritual heights.

Propagate and project the ideology of Pakistan;

Preserve the spirit, memory and record of the Pakistan Movement;

Trace, record and honour the contributions and sacrifices made for the establishment of Pakistan.

Contribute to the endeavours to establish in Pakistan the promised social order based on Islam.

Promote national unity and fight against all forms of disunity and exploitation; and

Work as a national, autonomous ideological and democratic body to promote the aims and objects set out in the Objectives Resolution as enshrined in the Constitution.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Objectives of The Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust

1- Quaid-i-Azam

Muhammad Ali Jinnah 7

as a Lawyer

2- Jinnah's Pakistan:

Islamic or Secular? 22

3- “Quaid-i-Azam wanted Islamic,

not Secular State” 34

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a Lawyer

Edgar Snow, the well known American author, noted that even if one only appraised Jinnah as a barrister, it would be to acknowledge that he had won the most monumental judgment in the history of the bar. He had recognized in the romantic ideal of Pakistan, a case that could be fought and won. Lord Denning, the Master of Rolls, in fact, Master of Rulings, had recalled with pleasure the fact that the Quaid-i-Azam, the Founder of Pakistan, had been a member of Lincoln’s Inn. President Bill Clinton during his visit to Pakistan in the year 2000 at the lunch given in his honour by the Chief Executive remarked that Mr. Jinnah was the greatest constitutional lawyer of the common wealth. Jinnah’s outstanding career as a Counsel is beyond any cavil or controversy whatsoever. In a Broadcast from B.B.C, Sir Stafford Cripps spoke of him as “a most accomplished lawyer outstanding amongst Indian Lawyers and a fine constitutionalist.”

In about 1892, the General Manager of Graham Trading Co., Karachi, an Englishman, who was a great friend of Jinnahbhai Poonja, offered to admit his son, Mohammad Ali, in the Head Office of the Company in London, as an apprentice for three years, where he could learn practical business administration to enable him to join his father’s firm on return from London. Around January, 1893, Jinnah sailed for England. It seems that within three months of apprenticeship of the British Business Company, Jinnah decided to study law. Jinnah himself recalled that as a young boy, when he saw for the first time a barrister robed in gown, wig collars and bands, he desired to be a barrister. Jinnah passed the usual preliminary examination to enable him to start his study of Law and then joined Lincoln’s Inn.

8

While addressing the Karachi Bar Association on the occasion of the birth of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on January 25, 1948, Jinnah disclosed the reason for joining Lincoln’s Inn, because there, in the main Hall, in the huge fresco, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was included among the Law Givers of the world.

Mr. Jinnah was enrolled on 24th August 1896 as an Advocate (O.S.) of the Bombay High Court. Through the kind offices of an old friend, he was admitted to the Chambers of John M. Macpherson, the Acting Advocate-General of Bombay. Besides being an erudite lawyer, Macpherson was a great Gentleman, with an extremely fine presence and a soothing voice. He was very kind to Jinnah. Jinnah was also for sometime in the Chambers of Sir George Lowndes, who afterwards became the Law Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, and later a member of the Privy Council. Lowndes had a very clear and lucid mind, and an extremely forceful and impressive manner of advocacy. Macpherson and Lowndes left lasting impact on Jinnah’s personality. In 1900, came the first opportunity, when Mr. P.H. Dastoor, the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, left his post on leave. To secure some financial support and to gain experience, Mr. Jinnah decided to apply for the temporary vacancy. Through the efforts of Macpherson, the Advocate-General, Mr. Jinnah was appointed as the Presidency Magistrate in May, 1900. From the cases dealt with and decided by Mr. Jinnah, it is apparent that he was an able, judicious and balanced magistrate, with a special care for legal detail. Mr. Jinnah officiated as Presidency Magistrate for a total of six months. On the expiry of this period, Sir Charles offered him a permanent appointment on a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. Mr. Jinnah politely declined the offer, wryly adding that his ambition was to earn Rs. 1,500 a day. Eventually, Mr. Jinnah succeeded in earning Rs. 1500/- a day which was a huge amount in those days.

9

Sensational cases apart, Mr. Jinnah had built up a solid, substantial and lucrative practice within a few years after his return to Bombay. He was the most versatile of advocates, practicing with equal success before civil and criminal courts, original and appellate sides of the High Courts, and last but not the least, before the highest tribunal of the Commonwealth, the Privy Council. Mr. Jinnah was a triple combination, Carson’s ‘cross-examination’, Marshall Hall’s “Marshalling of facts’ and Simon’s ‘subtlety of law’. The CAUCUS CASE:

In 1907, the general elections to the Bombay Municipal Corporation were to take place. At that time, one of the constituencies was that of the Justices of Peace for the town and island of Bombay. They had to return 16 members. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta was consistently returned for many years by that constituency. Pherozeshah had by his services both inside and outside the Corporation acquired a commanding position in the deliberations of the Corporation. Some European members as well as the then Municipal Commissioner, Mr. Sheppard, formed a clique which was in those called the ‘caucus’ to defeat Pherozeshah at the polls. Harrison, the Accountant-General, Gell, the Police Commissioner and Lovat Fraser, the then Editor of The Times of India took a leading and active part in the campaign.

The poll was taken in the Municipal Hall on February 21, 1907 at a meeting of the Justices when the Municipal Commissioner, Sheppard presided. The result was declared the next day and 16 ‘caucus’ ticket candidates succeeded and Pherozeshah Mehta stood seventeenth. Public indignation on the declaration of the result was very great. The 16th person who got in, was Suleman Abdul Waheed of Ladha Ibrahim and Co., who had contracts with the Municpal Act, disqualified from being a councilor. A petition was presented to the Chief Election Judge to declare that he was disqualified from being a

10

Councillor and that Sir Pherozeshah Mehta who stood 17th got automatically elected to the Corporation. Mr. Jinnah represented Sir Pherozeshah Mehta.

Mr. Jinnah’s cross-examination of witnesses specially of Lovat Fraser, Editor of The Times of India was devastating. Mr. Jinnah urged that:-

“Mr. Haji Noormahomed gave his vote to Sir Pherozeshah on the first occasion, and exhausted his right of voting. On the second occasion when he voted for all the 16 candidates he acted contrary to law. A second illegal act could not destroy the legality of the first. The Counsel cited the case of Quaid vs. Avery in support of his argument. Mr. Jinnah’s contentions were accepted by the learned judge and Sir Pherozeshah was declared as duly elected to the Corporation. By getting the verdict in favour of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Mr. Jinnah was recognized as one of the leading lawyers. Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Case:

When Bal Gangadhar Tilak, prominent Indian National Leader, was convicted for sedition, Mr. Jinnah appeared in the Appeal before the Division Bench of Bombay High Court and drew a distinction between disaffection and disapprobation. The sentence was set aside. Mr. Jinnah’s legal acumen was acknowledged all over India. An attractive and illustrated book THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT 1878-2003 was published by the august Court through its heritage Committee consisting of eminent judges and leading lawyers. In its introduction—Hall of Justice—it is stated: “In 1914, Tilak was prosecuted again on charges of sedition. This time, his legal counsel was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a renowned lawyer of the Bombay Bar and a leader in the Indian National Congress. Jinnah was convinced that Tilak had been prosecuted for his strong views about Home Rule and independence for India and defended him so adroitly that Tilak was acquitted by the High Court.”

11

Some Leading Cases:

In the suit of Haji Bibi concerning Agha Khan, which is considered the longest suit in Bombay’s legal history, Mr. Jinnah represented Shamsuddin, one of the contesting defendants. The magnitude of the case may be gathered from the fact that voluminous evidence on commission was taken at various places all over the world, and as many as 128 issues were raised therein.

In the well-known defamation case of B.G. Horniman, Jinnah’s masterly handling led to the conviction of the editor, printer and publisher of the paper, Briton. Where Oscar Wilde had failed in somewhat similar case, Horniman succeeded due to Jinnah’s skill.

In the Bowla Murder case, which arose out of the infatuation of the Maharajah of Indore of Mumtaz, the then Beauty Queen of India, in which, at one stage, the well-known British criminal lawyer, Marshall Hall, was being brought in, Mr. Jinnah appeared for the main accused, and at least saved him from the gallows.

In the Jitekar Trust Suit, Mr. Jinnah dealt with the doctrines of Hanafi and Shafae Law. In Ranchood Narain and Ajoba and a number of other suits, Mr. Jinnah analysed certain aspects of Hindu Law and its different schools, in considerable detail.

In 1921, Mr. Jinnah appeared for the petitioners to obtain a mandamus certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash various resolutions of the Bombay Corporation. This being the first case of its kind, the Court was reluctant to issue the writ.

In the case of the assassination of the author of Rangila Rasool, the assailant, Ilam Din, had been sentenced to death. In the appeal, Jinnah, representing him, pleaded that provocation coupled with the youth of the accused were good grounds for not inflicting the death penalty. The British judges, however, did not allow weight to these submissions; and the young man

12

was executed. But since then Lahore has rarely seen such a procession of mourners as accompanied his funeral.

In Salim Khatoon versus Arshadur Rehman, Mr. Jinnah faced Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru before the Hyderabad High Court.

In the suit of the Raja of Nanpara, Jinnah appeared for the plaintiff; and with his usual skill and ability, obtained a favorable decree that was upheld by the privy Council. Mr. Jinnah represented the Editor of the Bombay Chronicle in a case of contempt of court.

He defended Pir Pagaro in the trial court as well as in the appeal. In the Bhopal Waqf case, Chowdhry Naimtullah, a distinguished counsel gave a scholarly argument. But Jinnah’s legal objection prevailed. Some Anecdotes:

“Mr. Jinnah”, angrily shouted Justice Martin, “your are not addressing a third class magistrate”. Rapier-like flashed the counter-thrust: “There isn’t a third class counsel before your Lordship.” (Jachim Alva, Men and Supermen of India, p. 130). Jinnah and Setalved were appearing for opposite parties before the judge on the original side in the High Court. At about five O’clock in the evening, the learned Judge suggested to the Counsel to continue their arguments, as he was prepared to sit up to seven O’clock, in order to conclude the case. Jinnah retorted that since the Court time was 5:00 p.m., thereafter His Lordship would be sitting alone, as he as well as Sir Setalvad had previous professional engagements. Both Counsels then left punctually as the hour struck.

In 1941, Jinnah appeared before the Sindh Chief Court for the appellants in the case of Bishamberdas and Co. versus Sachoomal. Thousands thronged to the Court to hear him or at least to see him. The Court room was jampacked and the corridors were full when Chief Justice Davis and Justice Weston entered. Seeing the huge crowd, Davis, CJ, asked the

13

Court Clerk to clear and close the doors of the Court-room. Jinnah got up and smilingly said that the doors of justice must always remain open. The Judges agreed to the suggestion provided the crowd remained quiet. Mr. Jinnah said to those present to remain quiet. The day’s proceedings were then concluded smoothly. Some Opinion on his Performance

Frank Moraes, the distinguished journalist and famous author, saw Mr. Jinnah in action in Court. He wrote: “Watch him in the court room as he argues a case. Few Lawyers command a more attractive audience. No man is more adroit in presenting his case. If to achieve the maximum result with minimum effort is the hall-mark of artistry, Mr. Jinnah is an artist in his craft. He likes to get down to the bare bones of a brief; in stating the essentials of a case, his manner is masterly. The Court room acquires an atmosphere as he speaks, junior’s crane their necks forward to follow every movement of the tall, well-groomed figure; senior counsels listen closely; the Judge is all attention. Mr. Jinnah’s voice has small volume. Its tone is low, but within its limited range, it is surprisingly elastic. One moment it purrs persuasively, an interruption and its rasps” (The Times of India, September 10, 1939).

Joachim Alva, late Editor of the Forum, observed: “One place will long cherish Jinnah’s memory; there it remains imperishable. Courage and sheer impudence have won him fame in the Law Courts. His hypnotic influence spreads his fame all over. His terrific encounters with the Judges and the bombshells he throws in the courts are well-known. As an Advocate, he possesses gifts which cast a spell on the Courts, the Judges, the Juries, the Solicitors, and Clients, all alike. As a Counsel, he has ever held his head erect, unruffled by the worst circumstances. He has been our boldest Advocate, no Judge dare bully him. He will not brook any insult. Jinnah’s ready tongue and brilliant advocacy have worked off all judicial

14

storms and won him all round admiration. Clients and Solicitors prize Jinnah’s services for his matchless grit and courage to stand up for the causes he represents. Certain Judges, notorious for their calculated insults to the junior practitioners, hold their tongue when face to face with Jinnah. Jinnah has preserved his position at the Bar intact and unsullied. Toading or the remotest connection that excites suspicion is foreign to his nature. In short, he is the embodiment of the highest standards of the Bar. The compliment paid him that he is ‘the Lord Simon of the Indian Bar’ does not awkwardly sit on him.” (Joachim Alva, Leaders of India, p. 79)

On the occasion of the Centenary of Bombay High Court, K.M. Munshi, a prominent lawyer said: “M.A. Jinnah was another eminent Indian Lawyer of this period. Tall and impeccably dressed, he stood in a class by himself. His advocacy was characterized by strong commonsense, great courage and forthright approach. A man of great integrity, he would never stoop to trickery, though he could be devastating if a Judge or an opponent was inclined to be offensive. Once a firm of solicitors, on behalf of their clients, had asked him to put some question in the Legislative Assembly, of which he was a member, and wanted to enlist his enthusiastic support by offering a sort of bribe in shape of a brief for opinion marked 100 guineas, a colossal figure for such a brief in those days. He grew wild with rage and flung the brief out of chamber. Once while attending a Conference with Strangman, he found the latter offensive. Immediately he walked out of the Chamber and for years, never spoke to Strangman, nor addressed him as ‘my learned friend’ (High Court of Bombay: 1862-1962, p. 99)

Let me refer to the case of B. Das & Co. (Appellant) vs. Broach Electric Supply and Development Corporation Ltd. (Respondent). The Appeal was against the judgment of the single judge of the High Court, who was persuaded by Mr. Thamas Strangman to set-aside an award for the reasons that

15

the letter marked without prejudice was tendered to the Arbitrator who read it but rejected it in evidence. The Solicitors engaged Mr. Jinnah for appellants, who argued the appeal before Marten C.J. and Crump, J. Mr. Strangman strongly defended the order but was over-ruled by the Bench. The learned judges held: “In our opinion this finding of the learned judge cannot be sustained. Even if it was a case of a judge in Court, documents are often tendered to the Court on which the Court has to decide whether they are admissible or inadmissible. If then one was to hold that in every case in which a judge rejects as evidence any document handed up to him, it follows that his mind must have been prejudiced by what he read and that consequently his judgment cannot stand, the result would be really absurd. The appeal must be allowed, and the notice of motion dismissed with costs.” [AIR 1928 Bombay 55(1)]

In his book, Famous Judges, Lawyers and Cases of Bombay, P.B. Vachha writes. “Muhammad Ali Jinnah is in a sense the most celebrated member of the Bombay Bar. For he is the only man who, after extensive and eminent practice at the Bar for a number of years, ultimately passed into general history. He was very clear headed and he drove home his points both on law and facts with a lucid and persistent eloquence. He appeared in a number of important suits and appeals on the civil side, as well as in great criminal cases, including the famous Bawla Murder Case.” (P.B. Vachha, Famous Judge, Lawyers and Cases of Bombay, p.150)

Jinnah’s mastery in the forensic field is apparent from the fact that one of his devils, M.C. Chagla, rose to be the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, the first Indian to hold that office. In an article in the Bombay Law Journal, in 1927, Chagla observes: “Jinnah was a pure artist in the manner and method of his presentation. Even the most complex facts became simple and obvious when he waved his wand over them. He could be ferociously aggressive and

16

almost boyishly persuasive, as and when the occasion arose, and what particularly helped in his advocacy was the absolute clear head that he possessed and on which he justly prided himself. He had common sense, that most uncommon of qualities, in an uncommon degree.” (Chagla in Bombay Law Journal, 1927). More recently, Chagla, reaffirming this view in his memoirs, wrote: “He had a very striking personality, and the presentation of a case as he handled it was a piece of art. He was a superb advocate. He was also a first-rate cross-examiner. What impressed me most was the lucidity of his thought and expression. There were no obscure spots or ambiguities about what Jinnah had to tell the court. He was straight and forthright and always left a string impression whether his case was intrinsically good or bad. I owe a great deal to him, because I learned in his chambers not only the art of advocacy, but how to maintain the highest traditions of the legal profession. Jinnah was absolutely impeccable in his professional etiquette.” (M.C. Chagla, Roses in December, pp.54-55).

Mr. M.H. Seervai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra and author of Constitutional Law paid tribute to Mr. Jinnah in a centenary meeting in 1976 and recalled: “The cases conducted by Mr. Jinnah in a masterly and effective way. For 44 years in the High Courts, he observed that Mr. Jinnah was the one of the greatest lawyers whom our courts have produced. Let me mention one other case in which a tribute to Jinnah’s power of cross-examination came from one of the most eminent lawyers of Palestine and one of the most distinguished lawyers whom I have met. Mr. Jinnah was engaged in a case, which came from Aden relating to the Estate of a man called Bunnin Mehssa. The Estate was worth ten crore Rupees (quite a large sum in those days). Against Jinnah’s client appeared as a witness a Palestine lawyer called Dr. Eliash. Well, you can understand Mr. Jinnah’s difficult task when I tell you that against the top expert on Palestine and a man of immense capacity, Mr. Jinnah had the assistance of a jewish butcher who had to tell him what the

17

Hebrew text meant. I happened to be sitting next to Dr. Eliash because my leader was on that side, and he said to me “Mr. Jinnah has difficult task but I am greatly impressed with his cross-examination”. To have obtained that tribute from a man who seemed to be an unrivaled authority in Hebrew law, was a tribute well worth having.” Judges on Jinnah:

Jinnah’s forensic ability also earned judicial approbation. His exposition evoked admiration from judges and juries alike; and the judgments of cases in which he appeared are replete with appreciation of the skill and ability with which he conducted these cases. Professor Raza of St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, who was empanelled on various juries, portrayed him as the ‘magician with the monocle’. The professor recalled a murder case, wherein, while dissecting the evidence tendered by the prosecution, Mr. Jinnah at short intervals would pause and pose the question, “Is this the man?” when the jury retired, each one asked the other, “Is this man?” All of them had no hesitation in answering that this was not the man, and they returned a unanimous verdict of ‘Not Guilty’.

Even a hostile judge had to compliment Jinnah when the Jury, contrary to His Lordship’s directions, decided to acquit the accused in the famous Allo Rape Case at Surat.

Justice Beamon, in Pestonji versus Billimoria, reaffirmed that heard cases notoriously make bad law. In that suit, the legatee had claimed the sum assigned to him in the deceased’s Will. The defendant trustee contended that it appeared from the Will that this was not an ordinary bequest, but was intended to be no more than the satisfaction of the debt owed by the testator. Sir Jamshed Kanga wanted to lead evidence in support of this contention; but Jinnah objected on technical legal grounds. After discussing various arguments raised by both counsels, His Lordship upheld the objection and observed:

18

“When the case came on for trail, the first question raised was whether the defendant was entitled to lay before the Court evidence of facts alleged to have been in the testator’s mind, and, therefore, necessary to be known to the Court before it could truly apply the language used by the testator in the second clause of the Will. This was, of course, strenuously opposed by Mr. Jinnah for the plaintiff, who, like most Counsels of experience, is always most insistent on a legal technicality and most ingenious, and I may say persuasive, in proportion as he feels that if his ground fails him his case is lost. Nevertheless, after giving the matter my most anxious consideration during the whole of his argument, and the exhaustive and able reply to it by Mr. Kanga, I am still unable to free myself from the logical compulsion of the technicality upon which Mr. Jinnah has taken his stand.” (XII B.L.R. 863).

Justice Martin, in the case of Tata Industries Bank Ltd., acknowledged thus; “I have had the advantage of a very useful argument from Mr. Jinnah, in the couse of which, I believe, he had drawn my attention to all the points that can be said in favour of this client” (XXV BLB 1296).

In the instructive case of Tricum Das Mills, the doctrine of Indoor Management and complicated questions of Company Law were involved. In his exhaustive judgement, Justice davar stated that “in this case some very interesting and important questions of law arise for consideration.” Dealing with Jinnah’s submissions, the learned judge commented that “Mr. Jinnah had throughout the hearing expended much labour and argued with great skill and conspicuous lucidity.” In the end, while decreeling the suit in favour of Mr. Jinnah’s client, the learned judge could not refrain from observing that “the plaintiff must feel much indebted to the exertions of Mr. Jinnah who conducted his case, for this result of the suit.” (VI BLR 983). The same learned judge, in the case of the Advocate-General versus Fardoonji, wherein issues involved related to the doctrine of Cypress and the power of the Court to vary and alter

19

the decree already passed, noted that “Mr. Jinnah had argued the question of the powers of the court with great care and much elaboration and cited several authorities in support of his contentions (VIII BLR 922).

Justice Chandravarkar, in the case of Bibi Khaver Sultan, wherein the validity of a gift under Mohammedan Law came up for consideration, and His Highness the Aga Khan was examined as a witness, observed that’ Mr. Jinnah conducted the plaintiff’s case with considerable skill and ability.” The same learned judge, in the suit of Raghirji Vizpal, a case of pledge and lien, complimented Jinnah “for having conducted the case with his usual ability”.

In the famous case of the Raja of Nanpara, at Lucknow, leading lawyers of India appeared against Jinnah. The learned judge of the Oudh Chief Court, whose decision was upheld by their Lordships of the Privy Council, observed; “I must also express my sense of great indebtedness to Mr. Jinnah for his extremely able arguments, which were of great assistance to me in the decision of several difficult points of both fact and law involved in the case.” (1928 AIR Oudh 155).

Their Lordships of the Privy Council very sparingly complimented any Counsel in their judgments and decisions. Lord Thankerton, in the reported judgment of the Privy Council in Abdul Majid Khan versus Sarawati Bai, made this special mention: “The arguments of the appellant were dealt with fully and clearly by Mr. Jinnah.” (AIR 1934 PC p.4).

Patrick Spens, the last Chief Justice of undivided India, paid a tribute to “the tallness of the man, the immaculate manner in which he was turned out. Refering to Jinnah’s Practice before the Privy Council, Lord Spens said: “I think the Privy Council is the most critical. It is a friendly court, but is tremendously critical, and no one who had first class brains, a great power of advocacy, and above all great tact and politeness, would have made in so short a time such a fine practice as Mr. Jinnah did before the Privy Council.”

20

(Address to the Pakistan Society, London, 8 January 1960). ALL INDIA REPORTER:

By way of summing up, one might recall the glowing tribute paid to Jinnah by the premier Legal journal of India: The All India Reporter. “Although Mr. Jinnah’s career as a political leader and as the representative of the successful Muslim Movement for separation in India overshadows all other aspects of his life, a legal journal like this has to take note of the fact that he was a lawyer of outstanding eminence and in his death our country has lost one of its greatest lawyers. As a brilliant advocate, he had few rivals. He was also universally recognized as a man of unimpeachable integrity, and honoured by the friend and foe alike for his incorruptibility. Mr. Jinnah’s name will live in history as the greatest protagonist of the two nation theory in India and the creator of Pakistan.” (AIR 1948 Journal p.41). Mr. Justice Davar:

From the beginning Mr. Jinnah was for Independence of Judiciary. This is borne out by the following incident. After justice Davar had sentenced Tilak to six years rigorous imprisonment, the Government conferred knighthood upon Davar, and the Bar Association to the High Court of Bombay wanted to give him a dinner. A circular went round asking those who wanted to join the dinner to sign it. When the circular came to Jinnah, he wrote a scathing note to the effect that the Bar should be ashamed to wanted give a dinner to a judge who had obtained a knighthood by doing what the Government wanted, and by sending a great patriot to jail with a savage sentence. It seems that Justice Davar came to know about this, and sent for Jinnah in his chambers. He asked Jinnah how he thought Davar had treated Jinnah in his Court. Jinnah replied that the had always been very well treated. Davar asked

21

Jinnah next whether he had any grievance against him. Jinnah said he had none. Davar then asked: “Why did you write a note like this against me?” Jinnah replied that he wrote it because he thought it was the truth; and however well Davar might have treated him, he could not suppress his strong feeling about the manner in which he had tried Tilak’s case. All this goes to demonstrate the great regard which Jinnah had for Tilak, and also the courage and the spirit of nationalism which Jinnah displayed as a young man (M.C. Chagla, Roses in December, p.14). GLOWING TRIBUTE:

Let me conclude by referring the tribute paid by Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir, former Chief Justice of Pakistan on 23rd March, 1976 in the Seminar at the University of Punjab, Lahore: “I have appeared with or against or heard as a judge some of the greatest lawyers of England and India – Lawyers like Mr. Pritt Q.C., Mr. Diplock Q.C. (now the Tri Hon’ble Lord Diplock P.C.), soft-spoken Bhulabhai Desai, aggressive K.M. Munshi, another top lawyer of Bombay, Sir Tej Bahadur Supru pronouncing Arabic Sighas in a Wakf case, Mr. Hasan Imam, many bald and grey headed veterans of the Lahore Bar. But in my long experience I have never noticed that masterly analysis, classification and presentation of facts and the lucidity and subtlety of argument which I heard in a few Bombay cases argued by Mr. Jinnah.”

22

JINNAH’S PAKISTAN: ISLAMIC OR SECULAR?

An Interview with

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada

If Jinnah progressively matured in Islam, did he really envision Pakistan as a state which shall be guided by Islam? Half a century ago, those; who were actually engaged in the battle for ‘free Islam in free India’ (that is how demand of Pakistan was articulated at the mass level) had no such doubts because if they had, they would not have been fighting for it. Yet after Pakistan became a reality, there has been an assiduous attempt to sow confusion about the raison d’etre of the new country. Some like to argue that as Muslims were disadvantaged in British India where the Hindus had an in-built majority, they asked for a separate state so that they could have their own cake and eat it. And be merry!

In other words their Pakistan was supposed to be a state where ‘Muslim’ feudals, as against the Hindus, would lord over the ‘Muslim masses’, but insofar as the state order was concerned it would be no different from any other secular, socialist, liberal or capitalist from of government. But Jinnah always spoke of Muslims and Hindus as two independent nations by virtue of their culture, their religion, their way of life and he did not put forward the economic arrangement in order to justify the demand for Pakistan. Where does then such confusion come from?

There is really no cause for confusion Pirzada asserts. ‘Wherever else it may lie, there is no confusion insofar as the Quaid is concerned. We find to the contrary the Quaid defining gradually and systematically his views about the polity of the new state.

The Quaid said that Pakistan will be a modern state, but it will not be a Western-type of government and it will not be a

23

theocracy either. He told Muslim students in Hydrabad Deccan in August 1941 that sovereignty in Islam did not lie either with any king, parliament, person or institution, as the limits of state authority were laid down in the Qur’an. He could not be more specific because he maintained that it was for the future constituent assembly to lay down the precise shape of the political system.

There were of course enthusiastics like Dr. Abdul Hamid Qazi, the Bombay Muslim League leader, who wanted the League to declare then and there that the government in Pakistan shall be based on the model of Khilafat-e-Rashidah, the Right-guided Caliphate.

A few others were probably less categorical. Raja Sahib of Mahmoodabad was telling us in Muslim Students Federation that the only authoritative book was the Holy Qur’an and the only and the only authentic translation of the Book was by Pickthall. The Quaid could see where it might lead to. He told Raja Sahib firmly. I regret I cannot be a party to such talk. We must concentrate on our main goal, and I think it is better if you arranged to stay elsewhere.” The Raja moved out of the Jinnah House.

The Pakistan idea was being attacked from two allied quarters: the so-called nationalist Muslims, who were politically secular and supported the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress, and the Congress itself. The ‘nationalist’ Muslims said that a Western-educated modern person like Jinnah did not have the credentials to make Pakistan a Muslim state. But their principles, the congressites wanted to fault Pakistan on the opposite count. They accused Jinnah of being a ‘communalist’ and a ‘fanatic’(the words were the 1940’s equivalent of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’. Jinnah later joked with a British journalist: “Had I not been a ‘fanatic’, I would have never been able to win Pakistan.” The Congressites said Pakistan would be a theocratic Islamic state and it would oppress its non-Muslim minorities.

24

The Quaid, explains Pirzada, ‘had, there , to speak to two different audience: Muslims who could have been influenced by “nationalist” propaganda and non-Muslims who were affected by Congress propaganda that Pakistan was going to be a “theocratic” state that would deny rights to its minorities. He addressed himself to both constituencies without, but, he never compromised on the Islamic character of Pakistan. He told the Delhi session of the Muslim League council in 1943 that any controversy whether the future government of Pakistan would or would not be based on Islam was simply begging the question, since there could be no doubt as to what the Muslims would do when they had achieved Pakistan.

When the All India States Muslim League president, Bahadur Khan [he had renounced the title ‘Nawab Yar Jang’ given by the late Nizam of Hyderabad and was now a plain Bahadur Khan], stood up at the Karachi session of the Muslim League in December 1943 and asked point blank: “I ask you Quaid-i-Azam, whether, or not Pakistan was going to be founded on the Qur’an?” The Quaid thumped his fist on the table and declared, “Certainly, it will be based on the Qur’an.”

The Quaid gave a written assurance to Pathan spiritual leader, Pir Sahib of Manki Shareef (d. 1960), that Pakistan shall be an Islamic state. The Pir joined Muslim League along with thousands of his followers. His support in the ensuing referendum proved decisive for the inclusion of the Frontier province in Pakistan.

Later the Quaid spoke about not just the Qur’an, but also the Sunnah and the Shari’ah (in his speeches in Ahmadabad and in Sylhet). He told the Hindus in sylhet that they should not be afraid of Pakistan because Islam was known for its tolerance and for its respect for the rights of other religions. He could have instead said that their fears were unfounded as Pakistan was going to be a secular state.

Jinnah did, however, make it a point to reiterate his assurance to minorities on 11th August, 1947 after he was

25

elected president of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. He declared that the first duty of the state was to protect the life, property and religious beliefs of its people. He said he wanted the angularities of majority and minority to dissolve one day when ‘Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state’. But it is also a speech which is used to argue that (1) Jinnah had jettisoned his cardinal Two Nation Theory that Hindus and Muslims were two distinct and different nations and (2) he now stood for a secular state in which ‘Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims. In other words Pakistan having been achieved, it should be the end of the Two Nation Theory as well as of the idea of a distinctive Muslim or Islamic state?

No, not at all! The 11th August speech has to be seen in its context, along with all the other pronouncements the Quaid had made before and after this date. Pirzada dismisses as nonsense the very idea that Jinnah could have suddenly gone back on all that he had stood for during the battle for Pakistan.

The doubters should refer to the Quaid’s 14th August speech immediately after he had taken over as Governor General of Pakistan. The British viceroy, Lord Mountbatten (d. 1979) who was there to transfer power on behalf of the British government, had commended to the Quaid the example of the supposedly ‘secular’ Mughal Emperor Akbar (d. 1605). But the Quaid did not let the remark pass and relied: “The tolerance and goodwill that the great Emperor Akbar showed to all non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates backs thirteen hundred years ago when our Prophet of Islam [all blessings of Allah be on him] not only by words but by deeds treated Jews and Christians after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles which should be followed

26

and practiced.” Quaid-i-Azam’s riposte to Mountbatten’s advice to practice secularism could not have been more lucid.

‘What the Quaid had said on 11th August only meant that Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Parsis etc. were going to be one in their citizenship and in their rights and obligations. The speech has been examined by two eminent jurists of Pakistan, both were chief justices of the supreme court. Justice Muhammad Munir and Justice S.A Rahman. They both held that the Quaid believed in an Islamic state and that the 11th August speech was intended to assure minorities of their status and it did not compromise his vision of Pakistan because the assurance itself was based on the teachings of Islam. Justice Munir was a secularist.

Pakistan’s ideological foundation had also been defined in two different judgements by the supreme court of Pakistan and both ruled that Islam was the raison d-etre and fundamental law of Pakistan. Such view was taken by Chief Justice Hamudur-Rahman in his majority judgement as well as by Justice Gul Muhammad who wrote a minority judgement in the case Federation of Pakistan versus Wali Khan etc. in 1976.

Pirzada recalls an interview that the former Punjab chief minister Sir Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana (d. 1975), had given after the establishment of Pakistan, to the Canadian-Pakistani scholar Khalid Bin Sayeed. Khizr did not believe in the Two Nation Theory and he told Khalid Bin Sayeed that he had once tried to reason with Jinnah that they all belonged to one Indian nation because most Muslims were converts and all their ancestors were Hindus. “That’s true”, said Jinnah and added “but nationhood was a matter of faith.”

It’s interesting that Sir Khizr’s nephew, Sardar Shaukat Hayat who had left Muslim League in the early years of Pakistan, has come out with a book of his own memories claiming that Jinnah wanted a secular order in Pakistan. However, for all his attempt to recall history, he has not been able to recall what he had himself said not that long ago.

27

Pirzada remembers Shaukat Hayat’s own piece in a collection of articles about Quaid-i-Azam compiled in a book by Jamiluddin. “There Shaukat Hayat mentions the Quaid saying to him that he wanted Pakistan to play an important role in the Third World and that he had before him the example of the government of Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him).” We know, adds Pirzada, ‘the Quaid had studied the life of Second Caliph (may God be pleased with him) and he was very much inspired by his example.

Again it is now alleged that at the last meeting of All India Muslim League Council, held probably in December 1947 at Khaliqdina Hall in Karachi, Jinnah had refuted the commonly-held view that Pakistan meant La Ilaha Illallah …. That was indeed a popular slogan raised during struggle for Pakistan and it meant, in other words, Islam was sine qua non of Pakistan. Pirzada attended the Khaliqdina Hall meeting as an observer. I was present there and I have covered the proceedings of this meeting in my two-volume Foundations of Pakistan. Nothing like this happened in such statement or observation as reported by the press the next day or subsequently. I recently checked again with Maulana Jamal Mian Farangimahli who confirmed to me the version given in the Foundations of Pakistan (Vol II) was correct.

The Quaid was quite sensitive on the question of secularism and Pirzada recalls the visit to India of a group of Turkish journalists who had told Indian newspapers that in Turkey religion was a personal matter and the state had nothing to do with religion. And that’s why Turkey had proclaimed itself a secular republic. The Indian press jumped at the statement as a good piece of argument against Pakistan.

But when they came to see the Quaid he confronted them with a published statement of Kemal Ataturk which he had made shortly before his death wherein he had expressed his strong opposition to the British plan to partition Palestine between Jews and Arabs and declared he would fight the plan

28

in the same way as Salahuddin. Ataturk also explained that the reason he had adopted secularism as state ideology was that Turkey was weak at that time, but now it had become a powerful country – or words to that effect. The Quaid saw Ataturk on the side of Pakistan and the Turkish journalist had to agree with him.

Forty-Eight years after a bitterly fought and hard won independence, Pakistan is today facing the twin crisis of meaning and existence: to be or not to be. And 47 years after his death, the leader of the Pakistan government, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, seems to have become almost a stranger in the very country which owes itself almost totally to his leadership.

And whatever he stood for some recycled Pakistani secularists would like the Quaid to be seen as an ‘enigma’ which they could then help to unravel. Jinnah’s detractors and adversaries though had no such doubts as to what he actually meant when he told the Frontier Muslim League Conference, Peshawar, 21 November 1945: “Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws”. So could he have been a different person to different people – dubious.

Dubious? In fact, the Quaid was the only politician who was totally transparent. He was a man of conviction, a very consistent person, like an open book. Even his worst enemies would admit that he was never a hypocrite.” Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada is outraged by such insinuation.

Pirzada watched Jinnah as secretary of Bombay Provincial Muslim Students Federation and more closely as his honorary secretary (1941-43). He has since written several books on Pakistan and Jinnah including, Foundations of Pakistan, Evolution of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Pakistan (1989). After independence Pirzada served as Pakistan’s attorney general (1965-66 and 1968-71), foreign

29

minister (1966-68), minister of law (1979-84) and as secretary general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (1985-88).

As secretary, Pirzada’s work was to assist Jinnah with research and reference. “The Quaid guided me through the various sections of his library and asked me to familiarize myself with the books and be ready to provide him with any references which he might need from time to time. The library had a very good documentation on the Congress leaders, especially Mahatma Gandhi, even the Hindu Mahasabha, and the British of course. It also had a rich collection of books on politics, the library had good section on Islam: The Holy Qur’an, its translations and Tafsirs, Islamic law and Islamic history, especially the history of the Rashidun Caliphs; and general works on Islam.”

“I found in his bedroom a very beautifully printed copy of the Holy Qur’an, properly wrapped up in a juzudan (a special cloth covering for the Holy Book) and kept high on a shelf. The library too had a number of copies of the Holy Qur’an some were hand written and of course, the two famous translations, by Pickthall and by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. His reverence for the Holy Qur’an was deep and genuine.

Prizada mentions an example. The Muslim League treasurer Raja Sahib of Mahmoodabad (d. 1973) had been staying at Jinnah House. He had gone out somewhere and it so happened that when he returned, Quaid-i-Azam saw him alighting from the car and walking towards the main door of the house. A leather case containing a copy of the Holy Qur’an was hanging over one shoulder, and he had a lighted cigarette in his other hand. The Quaid was shocked. “What’s this”, he said, “you have the Holy Qur’an hanging over one shoulder and a cigarette in the other hand?” Raja Sahib extinguished the cigarette immediately, and I am sure, he never ever did so again.

30

But some people enjoy collecting a big library, in order simply to decorate their study and to impress others. No, the Quaid made full use of his library. He would know exactly what he required and where those books were to be found in his library. His speeches and statements were not only well-argued but also fully backed by facts.

And his interest in Islamic teachings was not for reference purposes only. I remember the Quaid reading the first volume of the English translation of Maulana Shibli Nu’mani’s (d. 1914) Al-Farooq, the life of the second caliph, ‘Umar Farooq (May God be pleased with him) and then asking me to get him a copy of the second volume. I said there was no English translation so far of the second volume. He then asked me to prepare for him a brief summary in English from the Urdu edition. I did.

Jinnah did not issue many press statements. He never spoke off the cuff or received any politician, scholar or even journalist without having briefed himself. Therefore, whether it was the visit of the Cripps Mission (Sir Stafford Cripps (d. 1952), he was chancellor of the exchequer in the Attlee government), Professor Reginald Coupland’s or any other official or unofficial mission, we had to work very hard to provide the Quaid the references he asked for. Before Coupland came to see him, he asked me to collect from my college, St Xavier’s library, all books on Swiss constitution. He studied them for about three days and on the fourth day he dictated a three-page note that showed his total grasp of the subject. Coupland was admittedly impressed.

About a month before the Delhi meeting of All India Muslim League Council in November 1942, the Quaid asked Pirzada, to look into the speeches and writings of Mr. Gandhi where he look pride that he was a Hindu. I found some references from his library as well as a more direct one from my own personal collection of (Gandhi’s) Young India. There the Mahatma claimed that he was a Hindu. “From the top to the

31

toe”; he believed in Dharma etc. These showed him in his true colour.

What, if any, were Jinnah’s private thoughts about Gandhi, thoughts which he would not express in the public? The Quaid was very frank and open in his views and he was not given to double-speak. He respected Gandhi as an astute politician, and used to say jokingly that he was the only Indian politician who knew how to create problems for Muslims. But probably the only person who could read Gandhi’s true mind was the Quaid himself. He was always able to anticipate his moves and to get at their real thrust. He would never be conned by the Mahatma’s sweet and supple words.

Pirzada recalls an interesting errand. The Quaid asked me to take a letter of his to… a Muslim member in the Viceroy’s executive council. He told me the code word which would allow me to get past the guard and he calculated that leaving his place about 6.45 p.m., I would get there around 7.30 p.m. and should be back between 8.30. p.m. and 8.45 p.m. The minister was supposed to hand me an envelope in exchange.

I got there on time but as I approached the minister’s railway saloon at Victoria Terminus, I saw the silhouette of a famous Indian film actress. She was without her sari. I there, retraced my steps and waited until I felt that she had moved out of the compartment.

I went in (her sari was lying in a corner) and handed over the Quaid’s letter. The minister gave me his envelope. It was glued alright but not sealed, so I asked him to sign it along the flaps. It was late and I couldn’t find a taxi. By the time I returned it was 10.30 p.m. The Quaid was furious. “I did not expect this from you” The delay had made him think that I had possibly tried to look into the envelope.

It took me some time to explain why I had been delayed. He then remembered and took out a news clipping from the previous day’s Evening News which carried a news

32

item about Miss…. Having been given a government licence for… and he then went on to observe, “Wine, Women and Wealth have always destroyed Muslims”. We never saw him drink while I was working with him.

The Quaid never made any claims to being a great Muslim. On the contrary he strictly avoided giving any such impression. Yahya Bakhtiar (later attorney general in Z A Bhutto’s government) wanted to take his picture but as he was reading a book of Hadith at the time, the Quaid stopped him from doing so. Probably those who rake up such controversy seek to justify their own habits, but they should better refer to the Quaid’s remarks about “Wine, Women and Wealth” However, in trying to understand Quaid-i-Azam, one must also try to understand the fact of evolution in his thoughts and in his personality.

Jinnah of 1916 was not the same as the Jinnah of 1937 much less the Quaid of 1945 or 1947. Reminded that he had been a member of Indian National Congress, he had replied that he had once been in a primary school too. He was clean and upright, yet he never claimed any moral high ground for himself. People wrote to him he should grow a beard or that he should go for Hajj etc. and he always told them he was not a religious leader and they treat him merely as their lawyer. He never tried to be someone he was not.

However, it seems he had soon begun to move from his situation of being an intellectually detached lawyer to that of an involved member of his nation and eventually its leader as well.

Pirzada thinks he had started to become “one of them” in the 1930s. His ideas had started to crystalline during his sojourn in London, 1930-33, and his subsequent experience of observing the Indian National Congress in power (1937-42) in seven provinces went to confirm those ideas. He now sought not only the revival of Muslim League, but also revitalization of his nation’s Islamic spirit.

33

The Quaid always used to say that the reason he had chosen the Lincoln’s Inn to do bar-at-law was that out of the four Inns of Court, that he could join, the plaque on Lincoln Inn’s entrance had the name of the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah on Him) among the law-givers of humanity.

I do not know about his life style prior to 1937, but when I joined the Quaid in 1941, there were valets, cooks and other servants who were working with him since at least 1936. One was naturally curious to know about the life of his leader, but as far as I could find out his life was simple, and except for mutton, beef, chicken or fish, nothing came to his kitchen. Even the Quaid’s Goanese Catholic stenographer, Lobo, had been told not to bring anything like ham or bacon for his lunch.

How then do we understand Jinnah’s conversion to Islam, that is in the ideological sense? He did not either have the background or the upbringing for this conversion.

It is not the conversion of a secular person to Islam according to Pirzada, ‘because he had always believed in Islam. What happened can better be seen as the gradual maturing of the Quaid’s Muslim personality.

It was not a political conversion. The Quaid had also been greatly influenced by three persons: Maulana Shaukat Ali (d. 1938), Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani (d. 1949) and Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung (the all India States Muslim League president. d. 1944). He used to consult them regularly and whenever Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani came to Bombay, he made it a point to call on the Quaid and both discussed various matters concerning Islam, Muslims and the demand for Pakistan. Quaid-i-Azam was a person who could act only from conviction and not out of expediency. He meant what he said and said what he meant.

M. H. Faruqi Courtesy: Impact International,

August 1995.

34

QUAID-I-AZAM WANTED ISLAMIC,

NOT SECULAR STATE

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a dynamic leader and had the charisma of Churchill, dignity of de Gaulle, greatness of Allama Iqbal and rationality of Roosevelt. The landmarks in the political life of Quaid-e-Azam are: from Lucknow Pact to Lahore Resolution and from fourteen points to fourteenth August 1947.

Two great leaders, Gokhale and Tilak highly appreciated the role of Mr Jinnah. Gokhale described him as “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”. Tilak extended his full support to Mr Jinnah at Lucknow.

It is well known that a farewell meeting was organized by a section of reactionary group for Lord Willingdon, the Governor of Bombay. When Mr and Mrs Jinnah, alongwith their followers entered the hall and occupied front seats to lodge strong protest, the police, in a highhanded manner, escorted them out of the hall. The citizens of Bombay condemned the police action and hailed Mr Jinnah as the un-crowned king of Bombay. About 65, 000 admirers of Mr Jinnah donated one rupee each which culminated in the construction of Peoples Jinnah Hall to commemorate the great event. Mrs Annie Basant inaugurated the historic Hall.

On l3th April 1919, Brigadier Dyer ordered shooting of peaceful people who had gathered in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. Hundreds were killed and thousands were wounded. In British India, meetings for protests were banned. Mr Jinnah rushed to Hyderabad to conduct a case and organized a meeting. However, the Political Agent to the Viceroy asked the State Authorities to ban Mr Jinnah’s entry in Hyderabad. Mr Jinnah alongwith Mr CR Das and other leading lawyers wanted

35

to go to Lahore to defend the political leaders but the Governor of the Punjab banned their entry in the province. It may be added that ban on Mr Jinnah’s entry into Hyderabad continued in force for ten years.

When the ban on the meetings in British India was lifted, a huge meeting was organized in Bombay on 13th April 1920, under the chairmanship of Mr Jinnah. The great poet Dr. Rabindaranath Tagore sent a moving message. Mahatma Gandhi moved the Resolution of condemnation. Mr Jinnah said that the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh would move even the stones and described Dyer as a butcher.

In the meantime, the new Governor of Bombay George Lloyed approached the Viceroy for externment of Mr Jinnah and Mr Gandhi to Burma but the Secretary of State Mr Montagu intervened. The correspondence between the Governor and the Viceroy speaks volumes about their anti Jinnah attitude.

It is unnecessary to refer to session of the Congress in December 1920 when Mr Jinnah opposed Gandhiji’s proposal for non-cooperation. Gandhiji later acknowledged that it was a Himalayan miscalculation on his part. Mr Jinnah attended the Congress session at Ahmadabad in 1921, when Maulana Hasrat Mohani moved the resolution about Independence of India which was opposed by Mahatma Gandhi. It may be mentioned that at the Muslim League Session Mr Abbas Tayyabji, Chairman of the Reception Committee, irresponsibly suggested dissolution of the Muslim League. Fortunately, nobody agreed. Mr Jinnah organized the Muslim League Session in Lahore in May 1924 and then in Bombay in December 1924. This impressed his critics. Maulana Muhammad Ali was convinced so much that he “garlanded Mr. Jinnah at the conclusion of proceedings, embraced him and kissed him on both cheeks amidst loud outbursts of applauses from the audience”. (Daily Gazette 31/12/1924)

36

I will now deal with two points. (1) The Islamic Ideology and (2) the Quaid-i-Azam’s speech on 11th August, 1947. ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY

It has been suggested by certain quarters that reference to Islamic Ideology was first made in Yahya’s Legal Frame Work Order of 1970. The fact is: Islamic Ideology was emphasized by the Quaid-i-Azam on 12th June 1945 in his message to the Muslim Student Federation Conference in Peshawar.

“I have often made it clear that if the Musalmans wish to live as honourable and free people, there is only one course open to them, to fight for Pakistan, to live for Pakistan and, if necessary, to die for the achievement of Pakistan. There is no royal road for any nation but there is one and only course open to us, to organize our nation and it is only your own dint of arduous and sustained determined efforts that we can create the strength and the support of our people to not only achieve our freedom and independence but be able to maintain it and live according to Islamic ideals and principles. Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but Islamic ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and a treasure, which, we hope, others will share with us.” (QAP, F. 1020/6-7; also Star of India 19.6.1945) SPEECH OF 11th AUGUST, 1947

Reference may also be made to the speech of Quaid-i-Azam on 11th August, 1947 wherein he said:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State”.

37

The power was transferred by the British Government to its Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 14th August, 1947. The Viceroy Lord Mountbatten in his statement referred to the liberal policy followed by Emperor Akbar. Quaid-i-Azam’s response was spontaneous:

“The tolerance and goodwill that great Emperor Akbar showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and belief. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles which should be followed and practised”.

According to Professor Akbar S Ahmed, the two speeches of the Quaid must be read together. JUSTICE MUNIR’S COMMENTS

Mr Justice Muhammad Munir, former Chief Justice of Pakistan in his book “From Jinnah to Zia” has observed that Quaid-i-Azam’s speech of 11th August, 1947 indicated that he visualized Pakistan to be a Secular State. However, in the well prepared address in the seminar held under the auspicious of the Punjab University Lahore on 23rd March 1976, Justice Munir said:

“But to some, the most puzzling enigma that has presented itself and left them guessing is his speech as President of the Constituent Assembly on 11th August, 1947, just three days before Pakistan came into being. This was a considered speech and undoubtedly was in the nature of an announcement to his countrymen and the world what the future constitution of Pakistan would be. Two or three facts have to be mentioned so as to enable you to comprehend its full implications. The boundary award had not yet been announced, not even signed. The indiscriminate killings, except those of

38

Rawalpindi and Calcutta, had not yet commenced nor the vast cross-migration of 6 to 8 million people. He expected that a substantial number of minorities will remain citizens of Pakistan.

“The speech was intended to allay the fears of minorities. That such fear did exist will appear from an incident I may mention. A representative of Lever Brothers asked for an interview with me and I wondered what business an industrialist could have with a judge. During the interview he told me that he had come to me to ask only one question. I asked him what that question was and he informed me that his concern was thinking of investing in Pakistan a large amount of capital but only if the judiciary of Pakistan will retain its present form and powers and judicial power will not pass on to the Qazis. I told him that he knew nothing about the Qazis of Islam who were specimen of fearlessness, independence, and integrity but that if he wanted further assurance, I asked him to read this speech of the Quaid-i-Azam.

“It is quite clear from this speech that the Quaid spoke with conviction and from his heart. This speech was loudly and repeatedly cheered during its delivery. There is a tendency to suppress or ignore this historic statement. But twist it how you will, suppress or ignore it as you like, future historians will not omit to notice it or to explain its true purport. The question however still remains whether this speech was a volte-face or a contradiction of his two-nation theory which was the main plank in the demand for Pakistan or whether that theory was just a convenient, expedient and temporary means for the attainment of a homeland for the Muslim majority regions. By taking that view we will be attributing hypocrisy, insincerity and dishonesty to the father of Pakistan and I cannot possibly conceive of any such thing. He was a man of scrupulous honour and mental integrity. He was not thoroughly conversant with the intricacies of Islamic doctrines but he was fully aware of the broad principles of Islam - Islamic democracy, equality,

39

tolerance, freedom of religion, subject to law and conscience, justice between man and a man, particularly social justice. More than once he had said that these concepts were not borrowed from the west but had been revealed some 1,400 years earlier in a divine message to the Holy Prophet and were actually practised during the first half century of Islam. I, therefore, believe that the speech of 11th August, 1947 was not a contradiction or repudiation of two-nation theory, it was just an enunciation of the principles by which a society, in which the Muslims were in a majority and the Government of the territory was in their hands, would be governed”.

The above views of Justice Munir are more persuasive and cogent then his subsequent opinion in the book “From Jinnah to Zia”. QUAID-I-AZAM’S REAFFIRMATION

Let me refer to Quaid-i-Azam’s own views. In an interview with Reuter’s Correspondent Mr Duncan Hooper on October 25, 1947, Quaid said:

“As for the two-nation theory, it is not a theory but a fact. The division of India is based on that fact. Minorities belonging to different faiths living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of the respective States by virtue of their belonging to a particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opinion speech to the Constituent Assembly, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights and privileges that any other community gets. Pakistan shall pursue that policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan”.

It may be mentioned that in the famous Gandhi-Jinnah talks, held in September 1944, the Quaid had clarified the position about the minorities.

40

Gandhiji was recorded as under: “Jinnah drew a very alluring picture of the Government of Pakistan. It would be a perfect democracy. I asked him what would happen to the other minorities in Pakistan: Sikhs, Christians, etc. He said they would be part of Pakistan. I asked him if he meant joint electorates. He said, yes, he would like them to be part of the whole. (The collected works of Mahatama Gandhi Volume - 78 P. 96). Let me conclude that Quaid-i-Azam was always clear, consistent and candid.