J
C
P

Copyright © 2018 Khurram Ali Shafique
The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
This is a work of non-fiction, presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – so help us God.
All rights reserved. Printed in the United Kingdom and the
United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher and/or the author, except in the case of reviewers who may quote brief passages in a review.
Jinnah: The Case For Pakistan http://www.marghdeen.com www.facebook.com/Khurram.Ali.Shafique
UK/US edition
ISBN: 978-1-9164516-0-5
UK/US edition published by
Libredux Publishing, Nottingham http://www.libredux.com

A ccording to the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Indian subcontinent was freed from foreign rule by the Muslims of the region, and not by Gandhi or his associates.
This claim was supported by four arguments. They were:
 India had never been a single country, and the myth of its unity was one of the two pillars of British imperialism.
 Western democracy, i.e. party-system based on the principle of majority, was the second pillar of British imperialism.
 By demolishing both pillars of imperialism, the Muslims sought to liberate the entire subcontinent.
 Gandhi, Congress and the ‘caste Hindu’ leadership wanted to keep the British in India, and their claim that they were fighting for independence was false.
One can accept these arguments of Jinnah or reject them, but nobody can deny the fact that he presented these arguments.
Unfortunately, the sources upon whom we have relied most for our information have not only failed to inform us about this fact but have also quite often misrepresented Jinnah by replacing these arguments with something else and attributing it to him.
Scholars who have been guilty of this bad practice include, among others, Dr. I. H. Qureshi, Stanley Wolpert, Ayesha Jalal and Aitzaz Ahsan.
These and other common sources have also failed to make us aware of Jinnah’s view that Pakistan was not an end in itself, but a means for achieving absolute freedom from want and fear, and a society based on Islamic social justice.
The French thinker Ernest Renan, quoted by Iqbal in the
Allahabad Address, defined ‘nation’ as a composite of two characteristics: having achieved something together in the past, and wanting to achieve still more together. Seen in light of
3

Jinnah’s statements, the two defining characteristics of the
Pakistani nation (and for the Muslims of the entire subcontinent) cannot be anything except that we are the people who (a) through our collective effort and with the help of God, liberated this entire region from bondage and slavery; and (b) want to develop a society where poverty and injustice should be unimaginable.
In this small book, it will be established beyond a shadow of doubt that this indeed is our identity according to Jinnah, and that it has been stolen from us by the intelligentsia.
No attempt will be made here to convince the reader that this identity must be retained. That is a matter of choice. Also, no attempt will be made to convince the reader that the arguments presented by Jinnah were correct. That is quite a different matter and cannot be taken up until it is first ascertained that he indeed presented these arguments.
Therefore, this book will focus on only two points: (a) what
Jinnah said; and (b) how he has been misrepresented by our corrupt sources of information.
With this opening statement, I now present the case for
Pakistan just as it was pleaded in the 1940s by one of the ablest lawyers of those times.
Khurram Ali Shafique
Westminster, UK
13 July 2018
4

One-India Fallacy .........................................................................7
Malignant Democracy ................................................................14
Mortal Empire, Immortal League ...............................................20
Aristocratic Radicalism ..............................................................30
New destinies .............................................................................37
5

Jinnah, Cairo, December 19, 1946 1
B ritish imperialism, according to Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad
Ali Jinnah, was supported by two pillars. They were, (a) the false idea that India was a single country; and (b) Western democracy.
It might be interesting to note that his argument was in line with what he considered to be the nobler aspirations of the
British people themselves. He quoted the Victorian statesman
John Bright on more than one occasion, and reiterated the ‘great ideal’ of British Commonwealth in his toast to King George VI on the eve of independence on 13 August 1947.
This aspect, although extremely important, is beside the point of the present chapter. So, let’s begin by understanding why he believed the unity of India to be a false idea, and a pillar of
British imperialism. He said:
1 Khurshid Ahmad Khan Yusufi (1996), Speeches, Statements & Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, p.2495. The work consists of four volumes but pages are numbered continuously.
7

8 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
The one thing which keeps the British in India is the false idea of a United India, as preached by Gandhi. A united
India, I repeat, is a British creation – a myth, and a very dangerous myth, which will cause endless strife. As long as that strife exists, the British have an excuse for remaining. For once in a way, ‘divide and rule’ does not apply.
1
This claim, i.e. the One-India fallacy was a means of British domination and British rule, was repeated by him clearly and emphatically over a number of years. The following is just a small sample from his public statements:
 ‘United India means that so far as the people are concerned they have no voice and it is the rulers who will rule by manoeuvring. It is that system which the British government in India is following and desires to continue.’
(Bombay, 24 January 1943) 2
 ‘The British conception of the geographical unity of India is that British occupation and hold over India should continue indefinitely.’ (Aligarh, 9 March 1944) 3
 ‘The British aim at some system of Government by means of which they may remain on the top. We know that this
United India can never be free, although many young men are easily allured by the picture of a United India, having a national government of its own. It’s an impossibility.’
(Lahore, 31 March, 1944) 4
1 Beverley Nichols, Verdict on India, p.193
2 Yusufi, op. cit., p.1669
3 Ibid ., p.1847
4 Ibid ., p.1877

One-India Fallacy 9
 ‘In their secret dispatches, statements and documents they
[i.e. the British] have made it clear since India Bill was introduced [in 1858] and when the Crown assumed the
Government of India, that when they say United India, they mean perpetuation [of] British Imperialist domination. They have kept us on that line for nearly a century.’ (Bombay, 14 October 1944) 1
 ‘British statesmen … put up the plea of a united India because they knew that it is the only way by means of which they can prolong and continue their lordship over the entire subcontinent of India.’ (Ahmedabad, 15 January
1945) 2
 ‘… and the so-called one India is only a means of British domination and British rule that preaches the maintaining of peace and social order.’ (Cairo, 19 December 1946) 3
 ‘Let me tell you who brought this idea into our head. It is the British. What does it matter to Britain if India is divided or not divided? Why should the British bother?
Why are they encouraging hopes against hopes [of a united India] and offer a few passages for the leadership of the country? Britain is going, it has to go away. But why should they go about talking of a united India? Because they know it better than Indians do. Therein lies their
[British] salvation. Because so long as it is insisted that
India is one, they know that there will be nothing but destruction and bloodshed. This has been the idea of
1 Ibid ., p.1954
2 Ibid ., p.1978
3 Ibid ., p.2495

10 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
Britain and while leaving the country the British are inspiring the armed camp.’ (Bombay, 27 March 1947) 1
 ‘Indeed, if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago.’ (Karachi, 11 August 1947 – the famous speech in the constituent assembly of Pakistan) 2
This argument of Jinnah was obviously not favoured by that group of self-seeking bureaucrats who eventually usurped power in the country founded by him and dissolved the constituent assembly in October 1954. Muhammad Munir, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, gave a long-winded ruling in their favour in May
1955. The ruling was based on the plea that the British Crown had not transferred sovereignty to Pakistan in 1947. Therefore, the norms of territories ‘settled or ceded or conquered’ were still applicable in the land.
3
Thus it was denied that ‘agreed consent’ is the basis of all government – the principle on the basis of which Jinnah had argued that India had never been a country in the past.
In The Struggle for Pakistan, first published in 1967, Dr Ishtiaq
Husain Qureshi followed the premise that India, ‘with minor exceptions’, had been brought under a central rule by the Muslim rulers, and ‘Thus Europeans and Indians themselves got used to the idea of India being in fact or potentially a single political unit.’ 4
The readers were not informed that this premise is a negation of the Pakistan Resolution of March 1940, and was originally put
1 Ibid ., p.2535
2 Ibid ., p.2604
3 PLD 1955 FC 240; retrieved on 27 May 2018 from https://pakistanconstitutionlaw.com/p-l-d-1955-fc-240
4 Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi (2013), The Struggle for Pakistan, p.2

One-India Fallacy 11 forward by the Congress leader Rajagopalacharya in one of the earliest refutations of that resolution. Rajagopalacharya had said,
‘Indeed, not even Tippu Sultan or Hyder Ali or Aurangzeb or
Akbar … imagined that India was anything but one and indivisible.’
To this, Jinnah had replied, ‘Yes, naturally they did so as conquerors and parental rulers. Is this the kind of government
Mr. Rajagopalacharya does still envisage?’ 1
We can see that the argument presented by Rajagopalacharya against Pakistan, refuted by Jinnah so vehemently, happens to be the premise of The Struggle for Pakistan, and the same is perpetuated through the four volumes of A Short History of
Pakistan. Both works are widely used as standard references in public universities in Pakistan.
Consequently, we have come to believe that India was a single country in which the Hindus and the Muslims were two separate nations. This, in fact was the point of view of the Hindu
Mahasabha, the self-proclaimed enemy of Islam.
Jinnah’s point of view, as we have seen, was that India was not a single country, and the Hindus and the Muslims were two nations having majorities in different countries , and therefore it was unfair to put those countries together without the consent of those nations.
The Urdu book Pakistan Naguzeer Thha [ Pakistan Was
Inevitable ] by Syed Hasan Riaz (1967 / 1970) is a treasure-trove of rare insights from a veteran of the Pakistan Movement, but on the specific issue of the One-India fallacy, this otherwise valuable book is quite similar to the books produced by Qureshi.
Jinnah of Pakistan by the American author Stanley Wolpert, first published in 1984, is often treated as gospel on the subject.
Regarding the memorable speech delivered by Jinnah in
Pakistan’s constituent assembly on 11 August 1947, the author
1 Yusufi, op. cit., p.1194

12 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN starts with some factual mistakes, which can be skipped for now, as they are not directly relevant to the present topic. Then he quotes Jinnah to the effect that the strife between the Hindus and the Muslims had been ‘the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago.’
Quoting these lines, the author interjects with the following unfounded comment:
What a remarkable reversal it was, as though he had been transformed overnight once again into the old
‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’ that Sarojini Naidu loved.
1
In truth, this was no reversal at all. Jinnah had repeatedly explained that even in the days when he was called ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’, he had believed that the Muslims were a separate entity.
2
Wolpert also does not mention (though it is evident from the transcript of the session) that Jinnah was giving a rebuttal to a member of the Congress party, who had said just a few moments earlier, ‘Frankly, Sir, we are not very happy. We are unhappy because of this division of India.’ 3 In reply, Jinnah could have only reaffirmed his long-held stance, well-known at that time, that the fallacy of one India itself was the cause of the strife between the Hindus and the Muslims, ‘ and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago’.
Wolpert has completely reversed the meaning with the aid of a sentimental screenplay.
In 1985 was published The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the
Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal. It
1 Stanley Wolpert (1984), Jinnah of Pakistan , p.338
2 Yusufi, op. cit., p.1157, etc.
3 CAP Debates , Vol. I, pp.1-13

One-India Fallacy 13 is seen as a highly influential academic work.
1 Unlike the other authors discussed here, who did not say that they were presenting Jinnah’s own point of view, Jalal sets out with this specific claim in the ‘Introduction’:
The Congress, whether its manoeuvrings at the centre or its politics in the provinces, will be seen primarily from
Jinnah’s angle of vision … British policies and initiatives
… will also be viewed from the perspective of Jinnah and the League.
2
In spite of this claim, she fails to mention in that entire book –
310 pages – Jinnah’s argument that the idea of one India was a means of British domination and British rule.
Nor is this mentioned in The Indus Saga and the Making of
Pakistan by Aitzaz Ahsan, which came out in 1996, and which has also gone through several editions.
Thus the sources upon which we have relied most frequently for information about Jinnah and the making of Pakistan did not only fail to mention his first basic argument, but often replaced it with something else.
1 Ali Usman Qasmi, ‘Jinnah did not want Partition: Ayesha Jalal’ in Herald, June
2015
2 Ayesha Jalal (1994), The Sole Spokesman, p.5

Jinnah, Time and Tide (London), February 1940 1
A s already mentioned, Jinnah believed that Western democracy was the second pillar of British imperialism (by
Western democracy, he meant the form of constitution ‘under which the government of the country is entrusted to one or other political party in accordance with the turn of the elections’ 2 ).
The alternatives that he offered, although extremely important, are outside the topic of this chapter. We shall therefore restrict to only one aspect of his criticism of Western democracy, i.e. how it served the imperialist interests in India.
He argued, firstly that the electoral process in India, staring from 1920, had benefited two classes: (a) ‘reactionary’ (pro-
British) and conservative individuals who were utterly selfish and opposed to progress; and (b) equally selfish ‘careerists’, ready and willing to serve the former without any scruples.
3
1 Yusufi, Speeches, Statements & Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, p.1148
2 ; See, Yusufi, op. cit., p.1145
3 Stated in the election manifesto issued by the central parliamentary board of the All-India Muslim League in June 1936; Mitra, The Indian Annual Register
January-June 1936 , pp.299-301. Subsequently repeated by Jinnah on a number of occasions till the end of his life.
14

Malignant Democracy 15
Western democracy in India, therefore, meant nothing more than a Mughal empire ruled by white men. Here are a few of the statements of Jinnah to this effect:
 ‘The government which has been in this subcontinent for
150 to 160 years … is a democratic system imposed on the Mughal system. Its sanction is the British bayonets, and not the sanction of the people.’ 1
 Mr. Amery [Secretary of State for India] has made a discovery of a historical nature and has been studying the pattern of Akbar’s government for the post-war reconstruction of India. The British government in India, too, is constituted like Akbar’s government … The present
Executive Council of the Viceroy is on the same pattern as that of Akbar’s. There are Muslims, Hindus, Parsis and the
Sikhs, all nominated by the Viceroy to do his job.’ 2
 ‘The British statesmen know that the so-called democracy and the parliamentary system of government is nothing but a farce in this country.’ 3
Secondly, he said that just like the One-India fallacy, Western democracy was also causing strife between the Hindus and the
Muslims. By giving the Hindus a domination over unwilling
Muslims, the two nations were pitted against one another and the foreign rulers took full advantage of that. Here is a tiny sample of his unequivocal statements to this effect:
 ‘This sort of game of dividing the two great sister communities by such methods has been the historical misfortune of India with the result that we are now saddled with a foreign domination and further efforts by
1 November 9, 1942; Yusufi, op. cit.
, p.1634
2 January 24, 1943; Ibid., p.1669-1670
3 Madras, 14 April 1941; Ibid., p.1385

16 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN the Congress in that same direction to divide and rule
Muslims will only lead to an indefinite stay of that domination.’ (Bombay, 19 April 1937) 1
 ‘The leadership of Hindu India has, I regret to say, been fooled. They have been bamboozled by the policy and diplomacy of the British Government who are dangling in front of them a united all-India constitution and democracy – the two carrots before donkeys! The British
Government know – and I say to the Hindu leadership, you have lost the last shred of statesmanship if you do not realize yet that the British Government know it – that
Muslim India will never submit to an all-India constitution and one central government.’ (Presidential Address at the
28 th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League,
Madras, April 14, 1941) 2
 ‘The British policy in this subcontinent has been for nearly 100 years based on their conviction that the
Muslims and Hindus will never agree and if by some means or other they enter into an agreement by their influence or pressure then it will be nothing but a cockpit of feud beneath the umbrella of a United India with the
Englishman on the top. Therefor the Britisher, with his far-sighted vision, has followed a policy and taken us on this line of a united democratic India – I don’t think they have given it up yet – the line of a United India and a democratic supremacy parliamentary system of government. The Britisher know that if we are kept on that line and are allowed to frame a constitution as a democratically united India we would never come to an
1 Ibid., p.491
2 Ibid., p.1384-1385

Malignant Democracy 17 agreement without their arbitration; it is the only way to prolong the lease of their supremacy.’ (Presidential
Address at the 30 th Annual Session of the All-India
Muslim League, Delhi, April 24, 1943) 1
 ‘The British said – and mind you, I don’t take everything they say to be correct – they said: “In resisting the
Congress we are really protecting you and safeguarding your interests, because if we were to surrender to the demands of the Congress it would be at your risk and sacrifice.” But the Mussalmans say, “We don’t believe that you love us so much.” We know it suits them and they are taking the fullest advantage of the situation, because if there is any agreement between Hindus and
Muslims then they know the net result of that would be parting with power … They say they are ready and willing and in fact are dying to part with power … Having declared the Congress as an outlaw, what do the British say to others? They say: ‘How can we ignore Congress?’
In that case, don’t you see that not only is nobody going to believe you, but by your own admission, you are proclaiming that your anxiety, your desire, your ardent desire to move in the direction of handing over power provisionally, has been successfully held up by a rebel organization – the Congress … Is this an honest attitude?’
(Presidential Address at the 30 th Annual Session of the
All-India Muslim League, Delhi, April 24, 1943) 2
 ‘The British Government … say one thing at one time and another thing at another time. But the result is that they tell Mussalmans that “we are not against Pakistan, but it is
1 Ibid., pp.1710-1711
2 Ibid., p.1710, 1714-1715

18 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN the Hindus who are against it.” They tell the Hindus, “we are not against Akhand Hindustan, but it is the
Mussalmans who are against it.” They are, it seems, only in favour of one thing – to see how their own Raj should continue.’ (Presidential Address at the 31 th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League, Karachi, December 24,
1943) 1
 ‘But the trouble is that if I go to grapple with John Bull
[the British] the Hindus come to his rescue, and when the
Hindus go to corner him to force their demands which are detrimental to us we cannot join them.’ (Aligarh, 9 March
1944) 2
 ‘Such a government as may be composed of Hindus and
Muslims will be artificial and … If decisions will be taken as regards legislation and administration by poll-box, this will be disastrous, for they will not stand the shock of test and trial, and will in no time divide acre and acre the opinion of the two nations put artificially together in one government dominating the whole subcontinent of India.’
(Cairo, 19 December 1946) 3
Understandably, he was severely criticized by the Congress and its allies as an enemy of democracy. Then, a few months after his death, the Congress Party in Pakistan was struck with collective amnesia and, to suit certain interests of its own, it began chanting that Jinnah had been a champion of Western democracy.
4
This infant theory was perpetuated through the Munir Report , published in Pakistan in 1954 by the regime that had usurped
1 Ibid., p.1808
2 Ibid., p.1848
3 Ibid., p.2495
4 See, e.g. CAP Debates Vol. V No. 5, p.91

Malignant Democracy 19 power.
1 The report’s main author, Justice Munir, apparently failed to find even a single quote from Jinnah to support the proposition. The only quote which he produced as evidence was a fabrication, as has now been shown conclusively by the
Pakistani-British author Saleena Karim in her book, Secular
Jinnah and Pakistan: What the Nation Does Not Know .
2 Here was perjury being committed by the bench.
In her book, Karim has listed more than ninety publications where this fabricated quote has been reproduced or mentioned.
This gigantic list, according to her, ‘is a tiny selection of writings out of what probably number thousands.’ 3 In many of these writings, the false quote appears as ‘evidence’, quite often the only evidence, that Jinnah favoured Western democracy.
The myth has been accepted like an unquestionable dogma, especially by the academia. It has also appeared in such political documents as the Charter of Democracy signed by the leading politicians of Pakistan in 2006. The signatories tried to seek authentication for their predominantly Western conception of democracy by referring to ‘the democrat par excellence, Father of the Nation Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah.’ 4
1 The official title was Report of the Court of Inquiry Constituted under Punjab
Act II of 1954 to Enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. Hereafter called the ‘Munir Report’.
2 Karim, Secular Jinnah & Pakistan , pp.37-52
3 Ibid., p.387-395
4 Retrieved on 24 May 2018 from https://www.dawn.com/news/192460

Jinnah, Bombay, 9 August 1942 1
T he third, and the most crucial point in Jinnah’s argument was that by demanding the partition of India on an equitable basis, the Indian Muslims – through their ‘national organization’
All-India Muslim League – demolished both pillars of British imperialism.
2
Jinnah said very clearly that except for the Partition, the
British might linger on. The following is just a sample of his statements to this effect:
 ‘Our ideal presupposes Indian freedom and independence; and we shall achieve India’s independence far more quickly by agreeing to the underlined principles of the
Lahore resolution than by any other method … Mr.
Gandhi understands or ought to understand that to wrangle over the imaginary one and united India can only result in
1 Yusufi, Speeches, Statements & Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, p.1599
2 Ibid., p.1346
20

Mortal Empire, Immortal League 21 our submission to foreign rule.’ (Hubli, Matheran, 25 May
1940) 1
 ‘Our demand is not from Hindus because the Hindus never took the whole of India. It was the Muslims who took India and ruled for 700 years. It was the British who took India from the Mussalmans. So, we are not asking the
Hindus to give us anything. Our demand is made to the
British, who are in possession.’ (Lahore, 2 March 1942) 2
 ‘I can say without fear of contradiction that the Muslim
League stands more firmly for the freedom and independence of this country than any other party.’ (Delhi,
23 March 1942) 3
 ‘… Pakistan is the only solution for getting our freedom.
When I say our freedom, I mean freedom of Hindus and
Mussalmans, who really constitute the two major nations in this country.’ (Ootacamund, 2 June 1942) 4
 ‘I ask any intelligent man if he would only apply his mind for one second, can you achieve Pakistan without the independence of India? When we say Pakistan, we mean, not our independence only, but the independence of
Hindus also.’ (Karachi, December 24, 1943) 5
 ‘Pakistan, the Quaid-e-Azam remarked, was not the product of the conduct or mis-conduct of Hindus.’
(Aligarh, 8 March 1944) 6
1 Ibid., p.1206
2
3
Ibid.
, p.1332
4
Ibid., p.1541
Ibid.
, p.1424
5 Ibid.
, p.1809
6 Ibid.
, p.1840

22 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
 ‘While agreeing with those who blame the British
Government for not parting with power, Mr. Jinnah, however, said, “but we have to get this power, in spite of the British.”’ (Lahore, 31 March 1944) 1
 ‘… the only way, the only honest way, for Great Britain is to divide and quit.’ (Karachi, December 24, 1943) 2
 ‘British die-hard ruling class will be more opposed than anybody else to Pakistan materializing, because in my judgement, that is the only way of getting freedom in the quickest and surest way. They know it.’ (Bombay, 14
October 1944) 3
 ‘I believe and I am convinced that the quickest and shortest route to India’s freedom and the liberty of all the peoples of India lies in our agreeing to the establishment of Pakistan. One day, perhaps, you will realize that the real opposition and obstacle to my ideal will appear far more strenuously from our rulers than from our sister communities.’ (Ahmedabad, 13 January 1945) 4
 ‘We are fighting for Pakistan, we are fighting for freedom of every man on this subcontinent. It was Hindu Congress which was withholding freedom of all of us by obsession.’
(Peshawar, 27 November 1945) 5
 ‘Any honest man must admit that the Muslim India’s fight for Pakistan is not directed against Hindus. From whom we can take Pakistan. Not from Hindus. They are
1 Ibid.
, p.1877
2 Ibid.
, p.1814
3 Ibid.
, p.1954
4 Ibid.
, p.1974. Repeated 15 January 1945; Ibid.
, p.1976-1977
5 Ibid.
, p.2124

Mortal Empire, Immortal League 23 themselves slaves. It has to be wrested from the unwilling hands of those who are now dominating over us. It does not only mean freedom of Muslims but it also means freedom for all.’ (Lahore, 7 January 1946) 1
When independence was finally won, he reiterated that the independence of the entire subcontinent had been achieved due to the efforts of the Muslim League:
 In his toast to King George VI on 13 August 1947, the evening before the transfer of power, he said that there had never been any doubt that the British intended to transfer power to the Indians ‘but there remained always the question of how and when.’ This question got settled only after His Majesty’s Government conceded that ‘the only solution to India’s constitutional problem was to divide it into Pakistan and Hindustan.’ 2
 In his broadcast on the morning of independence, he said that the day marked ‘the fulfilment of the destiny of the
Muslim nation’ and ‘the end of a poignant phase in our national history.’ The Muslims of India had shown to the world that ‘their cause is just and righteous which cannot be denied.’ 3
To say that the League brought down British imperialism is surely not as far-fetched as some of the propositions offered by
Dr I. H. Qureshi, Stanley Wolpert, Ayesha Jalal and others, which we have been accepting so unquestioningly.
Our real apprehensions come, not so much from any habit of objectivity (as if we are entitled to such a claim), but rather from
1 Ibid.
, p.2160
2 Yusufi, op. cit., pp.2607-2608
3 Ibid., p.2610-2611

24 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN the fact that we have long been told that Jinnah himself did not take the League seriously. Lies, pure and white, have been used.
Most of us must have heard that Jinnah reportedly once said, ‘I have got only bad coins in my pocket.’ ( ‘Khhotay sikkay’ in the popularized Urdu version).
In truth, he said the opposite. On 27 October 1937, while addressing a public meeting in Patna, he said, ‘The majority of the Muslims have no confidence in those Muslims who are willing to sign the pledge to work out the policy of the
Congress.’ On this basis, he went on to say about the Congress itself:
They know full well that these are not real coins, these are counterfeit coins, spurious coins. They do not command the confidence of the Muslim public, – the majority of the
Muslims have no confidence in them.
1
Hence, he said that the Congress had ‘counterfeit coins, spurious coins.’ By implication, his coins, i.e. the members of the Muslim
League, were ‘real coins’. We have been tricked into thinking that he admitted that the ‘counterfeit coins’ were in his pocket.
We are also told that Jinnah said, ‘I’ll tell you who made
Pakistan: myself, my secretary and his typewriter.’
In truth, again, he said the opposite. It is on record that ‘in a gathering of high European and American officials’ in Aligarh on 8 March 1944, he was asked as to who was the author of
Pakistan. His reply was, ‘Every Mussalman.’ 2
1 Ibid.
, p.665
2 Ibid.
, p.1841

Mortal Empire, Immortal League 25
Regarding the typewriter itself, on 22 February 1940, at the
Anglo-Arabic College, Delhi, he said, ‘the British Government with their shrewdness have already recognized that the Muslim
League is the only authoritative and representative organization of Muslim India.’ Then he lamented that the League did not have sufficient resources:
Referring again to the meagre resources of the League,
Mr. Jinnah said that his place on Aurangzeb Road [New
Delhi], as a private residence, might be considered enviable, but where was the secretariat or the army? His entire equipment was confined to an attaché-case, a typewriter, and a personal assistant.
The report informs us that on this precise point ‘he made it clear that he did not have a defeatist mentality or that he had not the fullest faith in his people. With all the difficulties with which they were faced he still believed that the Muslims were more politically-minded than any other community.’ 1
Further elucidation of this anecdote can be found in the mythbreaking book, Liaquat Ali Khan: His Life and Work by Dr
Muhammad Reza Kazimi (although the author seems to be mistaken about the date of the incident).
2
Chaudhry Rahmat Ali was presented as a hero in The Struggle for Pakistan by Dr I. H. Qureshi.
3 The readers were not informed that Rahmat Ali was a self-proclaimed enemy of the Muslim
League, who called Jinnah a bigger traitor than Mir Jafar and referred to him as ‘Quisling-i-Azam Jinnah’.
4 It was also not
1 Ibid.
, p.1142-1144. but seems to be mistaken about the year.
2 Muhammad Raza Kazimi (2003), Liaquat Ali Khan: His Life and Work, p.322
3 Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p.110, etc.
4 Chaudhry Rahmat Ali (n.d.), Pakistan The Fatherland of the Pak Nation
(Third Edition), pp.345, 354, etc.

26 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN mentioned that after the birth of Pakistan, Rahmat Ali attempted to launch a movement for dissolving the new-born state.
1
In truth, Jinnah had clarified at an early stage that although
Rahmat Ali might have coined the word ‘Pakistan’, he had nothing to do with the struggle carried out by the Muslims for the creation of an independent state.
2 It was Jinnah’s lifelong stance that all Muslims should come under the banner of the
Muslim League (and contrary to the false perception, he insisted on this even after the birth of Pakistan).
3
Even as far back as 1928, Jinnah refused to attend the All-Parties
Muslim Conference and insisted that ‘everybody should rally round the All-India Muslim League.’ Two further telegrams about his refusal to attend that session were read out in the session itself, and much was said about the matter during the proceedings.
4
In spite of this well-documented fact, Stanley Wolpert opens a chapter in his Jinnah of Pakistan with the following lines:
On New Year’s Day of 1929 he entered the All-Parties
Muslim Conference … Shafi was there with his Punjabi cohort when Jinnah walked into the silken pandal pitched on the parade ground of the Red Fort … Jinnah entered late, and sat alone. He was as yet undecided … Was this really his home? Were these truly his people?
5
1 K. K. Aziz (1987), Rahmat Ali A Biography, p.300, etc.
2 Yusufi, op. cit., pp.1721-1722
3 See, e.g., Ibid., pp.2719-2720, 2726-2727
4 Hafizur Rahman, Report of the All-India Muslim Conference held at Delhi on
31 st December, 1928, and 1 st January, 1929, pp.17, 19, 25, 33, 36, Appendix H, pp.x-xiii
5 Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan , p.104

Mortal Empire, Immortal League 27
May we ask what standard of truth is this? In contradiction to fact, this fiction is imposed on the reader without reference to any source – the uncredited source, obviously, is the false imagination of Wolpert.
That Jinnah claimed to be the sole representative of the Indian
Muslims is implied in the very title of Ayesha Jalal’s book, The
Sole Spokesman – Jinnah, Muslim League and the demand for
Pakistan. In the book, the point is repeated no less than nine times. Except on possibly two of these occasions, it appears as what Jinnah himself ‘claimed’ or insisted upon. The following are all nine occurrences in the order of appearance:
‘Jinnah had claimed to be the sole spokesman of all Indian
Muslims’; ‘Jinnah sought to be recognized as the sole spokesman of the Muslims on the all-India stage’; ‘his claim to be the sole spokesman for Muslims’; ‘his continued insistence after 1940 that he, as the president of the A.I.M.L., should be recognised as the sole spokesman of all Indian Muslims’; ‘to get the government to accept him as the sole spokesman of Muslim India’; ‘his claim to be the sole spokesman of all Muslims’; ‘becoming the sole spokesman’; ‘his claim to be the sole spokesman of the
Indian Muslims’; ‘As the sole spokesman of Muslim
India, Jinnah demanded…’ 1
In truth, again, Jinnah had always claimed the opposite. He had stated quite clearly that the sole representative of the Indian
Muslims was the Muslim League. He repeatedly said things like the following:
It is now the voice of the League, the voice of the people, it is now the authority of the Millat that you have to bow
1 Jalal, The Sole Spokesman, p.xv, 4, 50, 60, 61, 130, 136, 171, 251

28 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN to, though you may be the tallest poppy in the Muslim world.
1
Importantly, he criticized the Congress for following a ‘dictator’ in the person of Gandhi, 2 and boasted that ‘there is no place for an adviser’ in the Muslim League.
3
Hence, what he actually said was that the Congress was a
‘Fascist Grand Council’ because it had a sole spokesman, while the League, because it did not have a sole spokesman, was ‘the voice of the people’ and ‘the authority of the Millat.’
Just as in the case of the counterfeit coins, an allegation which Jinnah raised against the Congress, i.e. it had a sole spokesman, has been wrongly attributed to him as a confession about his party.
The truth is that Jinnah told his people, repeatedly and emphatically, that he was insignificant as compared to his organization. One of the numerous examples is the following excerpt from his presidential address at the historical session of the League at Lahore in March 1940:
For it will be remembered that up to the time of the declaration of war [the Second World War], the Viceroy never thought of me, but of Gandhi and Gandhi alone. I have been the leader of an important party in the
Legislature for a considerable time … Yet, the Viceroy never thought of me. Therefore, when I got this invitation from the Viceroy along with Mr. Gandhi, I wondered within myself why I was now suddenly promoted and then
I concluded that the answer was the ‘All-India Muslim
1 Yusufi, op. cit., p.1691
2 Ibid ., p. 1159, etc.
3 Ibid., p.2018

Mortal Empire, Immortal League 29
League’ whose President I happen to be … My point is that I want you to realize the value, the importance, the significance of organizing ourselves … Men may come and men may go, but the League will live forever.
1
This line of thinking is reflected throughout his statements over the years.
Therefore, nobody should ask us to stipulate that on the morning of independence, he was thinking that it was not the
League that had defeated imperialism and liberated the whole of the subcontinent. If not the League, who else?
1 Ibid., p.1168

Jinnah, Central Legislative Assembly, 19 November 1940 1
G andhi, the Indian National Congress, the Hindu
Mahasabha, the All-India Hindu League, the Liberal
Federation and some other little bodies were ‘one and the same,’ according to Jinnah. He called them the high caste Hindu leadership and the Fascist Grand Council.
2
Iqbal had already stated earlier that by clinging to ‘the idea of a unitary Indian nation’, the Hindu community will have to accept for itself ‘the permanent position of an agent of British imperialism in the East.’ 3 Jinnah stated unequivocally that
Gandhi and his associates were striving to keep the British in
India, contrary to what they claimed. The following is a small sample:
 ‘Mr. Gandhi understands or ought to understand that to wrangle over the imaginary one and united India can only
1 Yusufi, Speeches, Statements & Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, p.1270, 1279
2 See, for instance, Ibid., p.1388, 1527, etc.
3 Latif Ahmad Sherwani (1995), Speeches, Writings and Statements of Iqbal, pp.289-290
30

Aristocratic Radicalism 31 result in our submission to foreign rule.’ (Hubli,
Matheran, 25 May 1940) 1
 ‘That is where I am at variance with the Congress. They do not want the independence of India … What they want is, under the over-lordship of Britain, power and patronage to dominate the Muslims and rest of minorities … The fact is that the Congress wants domination of India under the shelter of British bayonets.’ (Central Legislative
Assembly, 19 November 1940) 2
 ‘I am unable to accept that the Hindus and the Congress are fighting for the independence or freedom of the people of the country … We know why they have launched the civil disobedience movement. The British government know why. It is to coerce the British Government to recognize the Congress as the only authoritative and representative organization of the people of India. The
Congress says: “Come to settlement with us. We are your friends; we desire to maintain your supremacy in this country. Come to terms with us and ignore the
Mussalmans and other minorities.”’(Delhi, 30 November
1940) 3
 ‘Mr. Jinnah said that the Congress had been deceiving
Muslim youth by saying that it was fighting for the freedom of the country … The Congress fraud had now been exposed by the Muslim League.’ (Cawnpore, 30
March 1941) 4
1 Yusufi, op. cit.
, p.1206
2 Ibid.
, p.1270, 1279
3 Ibid.
, p.1281
4 Ibid.
, p.1375

32 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
 ‘He [Gandhi] does not mean to achieve India’s independence. He and Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru are both indulging in slogans and catchwords.’ (Bombay, 22 June
1942) 1
 ‘Mr. Jinnah reiterated that the Muslim League was for immediate Independence but the Congress stood in the way.’ (Reported in The Eastern Times, 20 August 1942) 2
 ‘They [the high caste Hindu leaders] wanted the British in this country, though that was not their official policy.’
(Bombay, 24 January 1943) 3
 ‘It is the Congress which is mainly responsible for holding up India’s progress … they are postponing the progress and the freedom of this subcontinent.’ (Quetta, 3 July
1943) 4
 ‘If British Government announced its intention of setting up Pakistan and Hindustan, Congress and Hindus would accept it within three months. In other words the
Government would have called the Congress bluff.’ (New
Delhi, 29 February 1944) 5
 ‘… the desire of the Hindus to dominate over the Muslims and make them slaves in a united India … was a dream, and once that dream was abandoned, the Hindu and the
Muslim nations together could achieve freedom for both at the quickest possible time.’ (Karachi, 25 October 1945) 6
1 Ibid.
, p.1574
2 Ibid.
, p.1602
3 Ibid.
, p.1668
4 Ibid.
, p.1752
5 Ibid.
, p.1838
6 Ibid.
, p.2085

Aristocratic Radicalism 33
 ‘It was Hindu Congress which was withholding freedom of all of us by obsession.’ (Peshawar, 27 November
1945) 1
 ‘It is only the Caste Hindu Fascist Congress and their few individual henchmen of other communities, who want to be installed in power and authority of the Government of
India to dominate and rule over the Mussalmans and other minority communities of India with the aid of British bayonets.’ (Bombay, 18 August 1946) 2
When Gandhi launched the ‘Quit India’ Movement in 1942, asking the British to leave, Jinnah said that the Muslims would not mind if the British left at once. The Muslims could get
Pakistan afterwards. The reason why they were opposed to
Gandhi’s movement was that they feared that the British might appease Gandhi by promising that there would be no Pakistan, and then continue to rule happily ever after with the full blessings of Gandhi and his friends.
‘If they can persuade the British Government to withdraw,’ said Jinnah, ‘the Muslim League would welcome it.’ 3 Here are a few more statements, out of many available, on this specific point:
 ‘I refuse to believe that Mr. Gandhi thinks for a moment that the British would withdraw immediately at his request
… Mr. Gandhi … is launching a movement whose only and only object is by hook or by crook to bring about a situation which will destroy the Pakistan scheme.’
(Bombay, 30 July 1942) 4
 ‘Thereafter, Mr. Gandhi hit upon an extraordinary formula which was that the British must withdraw. I shall be very
1 Ibid.
, p.2124
2
3
4
Ibid.
, p.2383
Bombay, 22 June 1942; Ibid.
, p.1574
Ibid.
, p.1593-1594

34 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN glad if they do it tomorrow. We shall settle our affairs alright.’ (Jullundur, 15 November 1942) 1
 ‘The Muslims have no objection to the British withdrawing from India today.’ (Bombay, 30 July 1942) 2
The purpose of this chapter is only to establish that Jinnah said, repeatedly, that Gandhi and his associates did not want the independence of India. I hope that this purpose has been achieved.
In passing it might be mentioned that some of the other allegations he raised against Gandhi and his associates seems to be related directly to the reasons why, and how, we have come to forget his original case and replaced it with a counterfeit.
Firstly, as Jinnah pointed out on numerous occasions, Gandhi had persistently failed for more than twenty years to deliver what he had promised.
This might have set a bad precedent and the countries of
South Asia are now plagued with political parties that are not judged by their ability to deliver, and thrive on (a) displays of street power by disrupting civic life; and (b) loyalty to sacrosanct leaders whom they follow devotedly, whether or not they keep their promises.
It seems that in spite of our very high regard for Jinnah, we have been consciously or unconsciously perceiving him in this light, since we do not have any other conception of leadership.
Secondly, Jinnah accused Gandhi and his associates of cognitive incoherence. They twisted and turned the words, their own and those of others, until words began to mean the opposite of what was originally conveyed.
This, again, seems to be a legacy of Gandhi which persists in the politics of the region to this date. Also, we have seen
1 Ibid.
, p.1645
2 Ibid.
, p.1594

Aristocratic Radicalism 35 examples of this mentality in some of the academic works analysed here.
Thirdly, Jinnah accused the Congress of converting democracy into a variant of fascism. Alternatively, we can say
‘aristocratic radicalism’.
The term is usually linked with the German thinker
Nietzsche.
1 Yet it might come in handy for describing the modern caste system that seems to have replaced the ancient one in South Asia, including Pakistan.
It seems that we, the educated ones, have mostly developed the same attitude – we have become aristocratically radical. We fail to see Jinnah and his associates the way they wanted us to see them, because they were free from this aristocratic radicalism, and were possibly the last defence of humanity against this evil.
Fourthly, Nehru began to use socialism as a political slogan in the mid-1930s. Iqbal wrote to Jinnah, ‘The issue between social democracy and Brahmanism is not dissimilar to the one between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Whether the fate of socialism will be the same as the fate of Buddhism in India I cannot say.’ 2
We have now seen that the so-called socialism of Nehru actually resulted in the birth of a new type of capitalism in India, just as implied in Iqbal’s statement. Similar things happened later in Pakistan and Bangladesh (and the Urdu novelist Ibn-e-
Safi was sharp enough to notice).
3 Still, some of us are possibly so besotted by this Brahmanized socialism that it prevents us from seeing Jinnah in his own light. A classic example is The
Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan by Aitzaz Ahsan.
1 Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1934), The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in
Islam, p.184
2
3
M. A. Jinnah ( n.d.
), Iqbal to Jinnah, p.19
Khurram Ali Shafique (2011), Psycho Mansion (Urdu) , pp.96-101

36 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
Lastly, in the light of what Jinnah has told us, it seems that the thing which is now called Muslim extremism, Islamic militancy or Muslim terrorism is actually a farewell present given to us by the saintly Gandhi.
In June 1947, the provincial Congress of NWFP (now KPK), led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (‘the Frontier Gandhi’), adopted a resolution for establishing a Pathan state
(‘Pakhtoonistan’). The same resolution also demanded a government according to ‘Shariah’ and ‘the laws of the Quran’.
This was done with the blessings of Gandhi.
Jinnah issued a long statement in reply, which probably deserves our special attention today. Among other things, he said:
More than 13 centuries have gone by and in spite of bad weather and fair that the Mussalmans had to pass through we have not only been proud of our great and Holy Book the Quran, but we have adhered to all fundamentals all these ages; and now suddenly this cry has been raised insinuating that the Pakistan constituent assembly, composed of an overwhelming majority of Muslims, cannot be trusted.
1
‘We have adhered to all fundamentals all these ages.’ This testimony of Jinnah on the relationship between the Quran and the
Muslim masses in general (fully corroborated by Iqbal as well 2 ).
Quite possibly, this is the greatest barrier between us and those who were with Jinnah. Today, whether we are liberal or whether we are conservative, we tend to think that the Muslim society in general has not adhered to, or does not adhere to, all fundamentals of the Quran. Thus we negate the very basis on which Jinnah had claimed that the Muslims are a nation.
1 Yusufi, op. cit., p.2581
2 See, e.g., Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p.170

Jinnah, 30 th Annual Session of the Muslim League, Delhi, 1943 1
I t is an irrefutable fact that the immediate uplift of the masses was emphasized by Jinnah as the foremost goal in almost all his public addresses from 1936 onward, quite often forbidding any other pursuit until the achievement of this goal.
The following is just a tiny selection, confined to speeches delivered on the most important occasions only:
 ‘To the Mussalmans of India in every province, in every district, in every tahsil, in every town, I say, your foremost duty is to formulate a constructive and ameliorative programme of work of the people’s welfare, and to devise ways and means of social, economic, and political uplift of the Mussalmans.’ (25 th Annual Session of the League,
Lucknow, 1937) 2
 ‘We have, under the present conditions, to organize our people, to build up the Muslim masses for a better world and for their immediate uplift, social and economic, and
1 Yusufi, Speeches, Statements & Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, p.1720
2 Ibid., p.656
37

38 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN we have to formulate plans of a constructive and ameliorative character, which would give them immediate relief from poverty and wretchedness from which they are suffering more than any other section of the people in
India.’ (Special Session of the League, Calcutta, 1938) 1
 ‘I say that the Muslim League is not going to be an ally of anyone, but would be the ally even of the devil if need be in the interests of Muslims.’ (26 th Annual Session of the
League, Patna, 1938) 2
 ‘What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly and sincerely for your people, you will never realize your aim
… I think that the masses are wide awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of
Islam, organize the people economically, socially, educationally and politically …’ (27 th Annual Session of the League, Lahore, 1940) 3
 ‘What next? … Think of the future and devise another fiveyear plan. This could be no other than how best and how quickly to build up the departments of national life of
Muslim India [educational, social, economic and political].
(28 th Annual Session of the League, Madras, 1941) 4
 ‘At Madras we defined our policy, we defined our ideology, we defined our programme, and … I appeal to
1 Ibid., p.791-792
2 Ibid., p.915
3 Ibid., p.1184
4 Ibid., p.1382

New Destinies 39 everyone of you that you should make some beginning in one direction or other with regard to the programme and the policy that we have laid down.’ (29 th Annual Session of the League, Allahabad, 1942) 1
 ‘There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of
Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day! If that is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it.’ (30 th Annual Session of the League, Delhi, 1943) 2
 ‘First, you must undertake, in real earnest, a constructive programme for the uplift of our people, educationally, socially, economically and politically.’ (31 th Annual
Session of the League, Karachi, 1943) 3
 ‘… we should wholly and solely concentrate on the wellbeing of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor.’ (Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11 August, 1947) 4
 ‘The creation of the new State has placed a tremendous responsibility on the citizens of Pakistan. It gives them an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how can a nation, containing many elements, live in peace and amity and work for the betterment of all its citizens, irrespective of caste or creed.’ (First broadcast after independence, 15
August 1947) 5
 ‘It should be our aim not only to remove want and fear of all types, but also to secure liberty, fraternity and equality
1 Ibid., p.1549
2 Ibid., p.1720
3 Ibid., p.1801
4 Ibid., p.2603
5 Ibid., p.2610

40 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN as enjoined upon us by Islam.’ (Address to KMC, 25
August 1947) 1
 ‘The establishment of Pakistan … was means to an end and not the end in itself. The idea was that we should have a State where we could live and breathe as free men, and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture, and where principles of Islamic social justice could have a free play.’ (Address to the Officers, 11
October 1947) 2
 ‘… the State exists not for life but for good life.’ (Message on Eid-ul-Azha, 24 October 1947) 3
 ‘You are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of Mussalmans when you say that Pakistan should be based on [the] sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism – no other ‘ism’ – which emphasise equality and brotherhood of man.’ (Public Address,
Chittagong, 26 March 1948) 4
 ‘The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice.’ (Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the
State Bank of Pakistan Karachi, 1 July 1948) 5
1 Ibid., p.2615-2616
2 Ibid., p.2623-2624
3 Ibid., p.2629
4 Ibid., p.2733. The source omits the disclaimer ‘no other “ism”’, but it can be heard clearly in the audio recording of the speech.
5 Ibid., p.2787

New Destinies 41
Thus it cannot be denied that Jinnah defined the goal of Pakistan as ‘freedom from fear and want’, or a society based on ‘Islamic social justice’.
The term ‘Islamic social justice’ was also incorporated into the Objectives Resolution adopted by the constituent assembly in
March 1949. The mover of the resolution, Prime Minister
Liaquat Ali Khan, explained the idea as ‘neither charity nor regimentation’ but rather ‘based upon fundamental laws and concepts which guarantee to man a life free from want and rich in freedom.’ 1
On another occasion, Liaquat said that Islamic social justice meant ‘to create such economic conditions that should you go out into the streets to distribute alms, there should be no one so wretched, so needy and so poor, as to look at you expectantly.
We do not believe in levelling down people as to kill all initiative. We believe in levelling up people so that the humblest amongst us should be happy and contented.’ 2
The other term used by Jinnah, ‘Islamic socialism’, was explained by Liaquat to mean that ‘every person in his land has equal rights to be provided with food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical facilities.’ 3
On 29 September 1954, when the constituent assembly was considering changing the name of the state to ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar explained the reason by saying, ‘We propose to run our country on the basis of Islamic socialism; therefore, let us say “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.
That is the whole story behind it. There is no other legal implication of the name.’ 4
1 M. Rafique Afzal (1987), Speeches and Statements of Quaid-i-Millat Liaquat
Ali Khan , p.228, 232
2 Ibid., p.402
3 Ibid., p.267
4 CAP Debates Vol. XVI No. 31, p.558

42 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
In my book Waheed Murad: His Life and Our Times, I have shown that this vision has continued to live in the hearts of the masses, although unknown to the intelligentsia, and:
One of the most touching references occurs in Bhaiya
(1966), an Urdu movie from East Pakistan [now
Bangladesh] which featured Waheed in the lead role.
In her moment of distress, the heroine (played by a
Bengali talent) stands in front of a photograph of the
Quaid and recalls him saying that he would rather not have a Pakistan where the poor continued to be exploited.
She then addresses his picture and says, ‘We have not forgotten your message, Quaid. It has been forgotten by those wealthy ones, who think that the country is their private property. They shatter our peace and comfort for the sake of their own pleasure. They destroy us, Oh my benefactor ... Today I rise against them ... so that I may prove that our Quaid is right. His word is true’. The movie was released in the same year when Mujib presented his
Six Points.
1
In the meanwhile, the session of the constituent assembly in
September 1954, in which Nishtar explained the meaning of
‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, had unfortunately turned out to be the last session of that assembly. The assembly was dissolved soon afterward by those who had usurped power in the land.
In the Munir Report published a little earlier, it had been stated that according to Jinnah the ideal to which Pakistan ‘was to devote all its energies’ was that every citizen should have
‘equal rights, privileges and obligations, irrespective of colour,
1 Khurram Ali Shafique (2015), Waheed Murad: His Life and Our Times, pp.142-143

New Destinies 43 caste, creed or community.’ 1 It was not mentioned that he had insisted on the immediate uplift of the masses.
In The Struggle for Pakistan, Dr Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi stated that the purpose of Pakistan was to ‘help in the enrichment of human thought.’ 2
In Pakistan Naguzeer Thha [ Pakistan Was Inevitable ], Syed
Hasan Riaz wrote that if Jinnah ever used the phrase ‘Islamic socialism’, it should be discarded as a mistake because Islam does not believe in economic equality.
3
The works of Stanley Wolpert, Ayesha Jalal and Aitzaz
Ahsan, already discussed in some of the previous chapters, need not detain us here. The general attitude of these authors is that appeals to eradicate poverty ‘were irrelevant to Jinnah’s predicament.’ 4
Thus our most important sources of information since 1954 have been failing to mention the original goal of Pakistan as stated by Jinnah. Many of them have further misinformed us by suggesting that he gave us some other goal. To borrow words from him, ‘Not only they have somehow or the other made you miss the bus, but they have put you on the wrong bus.’ 5
*
And now, the closing statement. Hopefully, it has been proven here that:
1.
I T IS A FACT that Jinnah stated quite clearly that India had never been a single country and the false idea of its unity was the first of the two pillars of British imperialism.
1 Munir Report, p.203
2 Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p.14
3 Syed Hasan Riaz (1992), Pakistan Naguzeer Thha (Urdu), p.575-576
4 Jalal, The Sole Spokesman, pp.42-43
5 Jinnah said this about the British rulers; Yusufi, op. cit., p.1711

44 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
2.
I T IS ALSO A FACT that he said that Western democracy had generally failed in the world, and in India it was serving as the second pillar of British imperialism.
3.
I T IS ALSO A FACT that he claimed that by demolishing both pillars of imperialism, All-India Muslim League was attempting to liberate the entire subcontinent.
4.
I T IS ALSO A FACT that he seriously accused Gandhi,
Nehru, the Indian National Congress and their associates of wanting to keep the British in India, contrary to their much hyped claims.
5.
Lastly, IT IS ALSO A FACT that he said repeatedly and persistently that Pakistan is not an end in itself. It is means for achieving Islamic social justice, or a society completely free from ‘want and fear’.
Hopefully, the following have also been proven conclusively:
1.
I NSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING Jinnah’s argument against the One-India fallacy, scholars like I. H. Qureshi, Stanley
Wolpert and Ayesha Jalal have been impressing upon us that Jinnah believed India to be a single country.
By establishing a ‘Two-Nations Theory’ on this foundation, the scholars lifted the Hindu Mahasabha version of that theory and wrongly attributed it to Jinnah, whose own idea of Two-Nations presupposed that India had never been a single country in its entire history.
2.
I NSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING that he was a relentless critic of Western democracy, academics have been projecting him as a champion of this form of government, without producing even a single quote from him to this effect (if we discount the fabricated quote invented by a perjuring judge).

New Destinies 45
3.
I NSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING that he claimed that his organization was fighting imperialism in order to liberate the entire subcontinent, the academics have been attributing false claims to him and have thrown us in the completely opposite direction.
4.
I NSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING that he seriously accused
Gandhi and his associates of striving to keep the British in
India, scholars have again thrown us in the completely opposite direction.
5.
I NSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING that he had urged upon us to devote ourselves for the immediate uplift of the masses through Islamic social justice, we have been made to believe that such concerns had nothing to do with the purpose of Pakistan, and were far from the mind of Jinnah.
Does it matter today that we should know the arguments presented by Jinnah?
This question is outside the scope of this book. However, the evidence already presented here should make it quite obvious that to say that India was ever a single country, even five thousand years ago or five hundred years ago, is to say that federations can be formed without the consent of the federating units, or that boundaries can be defined without consulting the people residing inside them. There is a stark similarity between this idea and the various trends of thought that are sometimes believed to have caused two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century.
Jinnah’s argument that countries can only be formed with the agreed consent of their citizens (Argument No.1 in this book) is evidently quite similar to the premise now accepted by the countries of Europe, and which has helped them achieve a united and peaceful European Union in spite of having killed millions of one another not so long ago.

46 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
The first argument of Jinnah can therefore become the starting point for the countries of Asia and Africa to embark on a much-needed discussion.
His criticism of Gandhi and the caste Hindu leadership
(Argument No.4) is also important for the same reason. The canonization of Gandhi throughout the world, including the countries of Asia and Africa, is quite obviously contributing to the perpetuation of those ideas that might have caused two world wars in the previous century, and are possibly leading the developing world to the brink of the Third World War now.
In Pakistan, there is a lot of chest-thumping about the collapse of political systems. It is therefore important for an educated Pakistani to know that the Father of the Nation considered Western democracy itself to be the disease that corrupts the body politics (Argument No.2). We also need to learn about the cure he prescribed for this disease – and we have not even heard about that cure so far, let alone try it out to see if it works.
Regarding Arguments No.3 and 5, we only need to remember how Ernest Renan defined nation in his famous paper, ‘What Is a
Nation?’ (from which Iqbal also quoted in the Allahabad
Address ).
‘A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle,’ said Renan, ‘Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form.’
The most important part of the rich legacy of the Muslims of
South Asia, according to Jinnah, is that through our collective effort and with the help of God, we liberated this entire region from bondage and slavery.

New Destinies 47
This is the crux of Argument No.3 as presented by Jinnah, and whether somebody agrees or disagrees, nobody can deny that this is what he wanted us to believe.
By obviating this argument, the self-styled defenders of Islam as well as the self-proclaimed secularists have together robbed the poor ordinary Muslim in the streets of South Asia of the greatest pride he or she could have had.
By the same token we also have deprived ourselves of the first pre-requisite of a nation as understood by Iqbal and Renan, i.e. the memory of having achieved something together. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that from the point of view of
Jinnah, the greatest achievement of our recent past – as
Pakistanis, as Bangladeshis and as the Indian Muslims – is that regardless of whatever differences we may now have amongst us, we together liberated this region from bondage and slavery; and we did this great and amazing work without help from the more privileged Hindu community of the region.
Argument No.5 fulfils the second pre-requisite of a nation, i.e. the willingness to still achieve something together.
According to Jinnah, the reason the existing provinces of
Pakistan came together, the goal pursued by the vast population of Muslim Bengal with remarkable unity, and the cause supported so selflessly by those Muslims who later stayed behind in India was the immediate uplift of the masses.
Therefore, the five arguments of Jinnah presented in this book are not only historically significant but also currently relevant.
As long as Pakistan claims Jinnah as its founder, it has no choice except to define its existence by two things: (a) it is a country founded by the same Muslim nation of the subcontinent that also liberated the rest of the region from bondage; and (b) the immediate purpose of its existence is to achieve a society not only free from poverty but also free from fear; once this immediate goal is achieved – as it is achievable within a few years by the standards of Jinnah – the country should show to the rest of the world how absolute freedom from want and fear is achieved.

48 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN
No other society in our times has achieved it. The second part in particular, i.e. freedom from fear, appears to be beyond the ability of the so-called advanced nations of the world, who are crying out louder than anybody else about their perceived and real fears.
Our knowledge that Jinnah presented these five arguments should become the starting point for a fresh effort to re-learn our entire history, independent of the universities and the academies of the world.
This knowledge should serve as a platform on which we should unite for achieving the goal assigned to us by him – a society absolutely free from want and fear. Should we choose to achieve this goal, we might hear a voice reaching us from across the tunnel of Time:
There is the magic power in your own hands. Take your vital decisions – they may be grave and momentous and far-reaching in their consequences. Think hundred times before you take any decision, but once a decision is taken, stand by it as one man. Be true and loyal, and I feel confident that success is with you.
1
1 Presidential address to the annual session of the League, Lucknow 1937;
Yusufi, op. cit., p.657

50 J INNAH : THE C ASE FOR P AKISTAN