Over the course of the last several years, my news feed on the birth anniversary of Jinnah, has always been full of discussion on what the legacy of Quaid-e-Azam is. There are arguments from both the left and the right. For some Jinnah wanted a secular state and those behind the Objectives Resolution have hijacked his vision and the Pakistan state has only kept going in the wrong direction since, particularly during the Zia era. Others argue that the whole point of partition would be defeated if Pakistan was secular, and point to other sayings of Jinnah which could be interpreted to mean he didn't necessarily oppose an Islamic state either. Some in this side of the debate go to the extremes to suggest that the movement to paint Jinnah as a secularist is nothing short of a grand conspiracy to turn Pakistan into a secular state.
As such I am by default skeptical of any grand conspiracy theories especially as many in Pakistan associate everything with them, but my own take on the debate is that I don't really know what Jinnah wanted and may be, he didn't really know either because its not really clear. He said different things at different points in his life and you could sit down and interpret those things to mean a whole lot of different things. Some evidences from both sides of the debate are equally valid, so I really don't want to open up at that hornet's nest here. May be Jinnah did want a secular state, or may he didn't, may be at one point he thought a secular state would be best, but later he realized it would not work out and changed his mind. I don't think either side of the evidences are conclusive.
It would be really nice if there wasn't so much confusion. In fact its almost tragic that in 60 years since independence we haven't even been unable to form a unified national discourse on the kind of state the founder wanted us to become which is no surprise we aren't any kind of state to write home about. That's why I think we should move on. Jinnah played an important role in founding the state, but we shouldn't have to stick to his vision if that's not what we want to be today or if it isn't what is morally correct.
Although I understand and appreciate everything Jinnah did for Pakistan, there's one man from Pakistan's history that inspires me way more than Jinnah and that's Iqbal. This post is actually about him, not Jinnah. To be specific, its about how his legacy compares to that which the liberals claims to be Jinnah's legacy.
For starters, Iqbal's vision is much less ambiguous compared to Jinnah's; he wanted Muslims to peruse an Islamic revival of their community, wrote of the dangers of blind nationalism (noting where it led Europe to), and wrote volumes upon volumes in Urdu and Persian why westernization wasn't going to take Muslims back to their glory days. He spoke passionately of a Muslim identity and of the supremacy and timelessness of Islamic Laws. He was not apologetic but he acknowledged where Muslims had gone wrong, but he didn't spare the West from any blame where they deserved it.
The most recurrent theme of his poetry is Islam and it is very difficult if not outright impossible to suggest that he was a secularist. Contrast this with the never ending debate about Jinnah which continues to polarize people in Pakistan today (Ansar Abbasi and co. on one hand and Nadeem Paracha and co. on the other hand). In this sense Iqbal's ideas are diametrically opposed to how the liberals of today in Pakistan interpret Jinnah's legacy to be.
Although Iqbal's poetry has been a integral part of Pakistani popular culture (inspiring everyone from the likes of classical singers in Tani Sani to sufi rock artists in Junoon) there are a fair share of Pakistani liberals for whom Iqbal isn't even a considered worthy of being a national hero. In February this year Pervez Hoodbhoy, for example, wrote in an opinion ed in the Tribune that Iqbal's "prescriptions for reconstructing society cannot help us in digging ourselves out of a hole", arguing that Pakistan was much better looking into the legacy of Sir Syed for its revival, who for him was "modernist".
I don't know to what extent Jinnah was influenced by Iqbal, but it was Iqbal who brought him back to India and it was Iqbal who first suggested that idea of Pakistan. I personally find it difficult that he would have been swayed into action by someone who he would be ideologically in disagreement with. If we should bother finding out what Jinnah's legacy is, we should also bother with what Iqbal believed. Although Iqbal and his poetry are well known amongst the masses most people do not know that Iqbal was skeptical of (although not completely opposed to) democracy, laid emphasis on spirituality and was staunchly opposed to blind westernization; he said that we should search for our renaissance from within our own unique religious, spiritual and cultural traditions (that's why he's not liked by those who want to put forward the idea that Jinnah was secular).
Personally, I am big fan of Iqbal. I will forever be grateful to the people who made me realize the worth of Iqbal's poetry. His work isn't just a literary masterpiece, but a timeless and remarkably accurate critique of the state of Muslims in the world everywhere, not just in Pakistan. I was reading the translations of some of his Persian works today and I suddenly found my self wishing I knew farsi. My Urdu, to my shame, isn't much home to write about either, so I wish had I had a better grasp of the language so I'd be able to appreciate and understand his work more. I'd like to end with these brilliant verses Iqbal wrote on the state of those Muslims who are blinded by their love of the west. I don't know who Iqbal had in mind when he wrote this, but it seems so true to this day for people like Hoodbhoy and their ilk (many of whom seem to write for the Tribune):
Tera wajood sarapa tajal-e-farang
ke to wahan ke imarat garon ke hai tameer
magar ye paiker-e-khaki khudi se hai khali
Faqat nayam hai to zar nagaro be shamsheer
As such I am by default skeptical of any grand conspiracy theories especially as many in Pakistan associate everything with them, but my own take on the debate is that I don't really know what Jinnah wanted and may be, he didn't really know either because its not really clear. He said different things at different points in his life and you could sit down and interpret those things to mean a whole lot of different things. Some evidences from both sides of the debate are equally valid, so I really don't want to open up at that hornet's nest here. May be Jinnah did want a secular state, or may he didn't, may be at one point he thought a secular state would be best, but later he realized it would not work out and changed his mind. I don't think either side of the evidences are conclusive.
It would be really nice if there wasn't so much confusion. In fact its almost tragic that in 60 years since independence we haven't even been unable to form a unified national discourse on the kind of state the founder wanted us to become which is no surprise we aren't any kind of state to write home about. That's why I think we should move on. Jinnah played an important role in founding the state, but we shouldn't have to stick to his vision if that's not what we want to be today or if it isn't what is morally correct.
Although I understand and appreciate everything Jinnah did for Pakistan, there's one man from Pakistan's history that inspires me way more than Jinnah and that's Iqbal. This post is actually about him, not Jinnah. To be specific, its about how his legacy compares to that which the liberals claims to be Jinnah's legacy.
For starters, Iqbal's vision is much less ambiguous compared to Jinnah's; he wanted Muslims to peruse an Islamic revival of their community, wrote of the dangers of blind nationalism (noting where it led Europe to), and wrote volumes upon volumes in Urdu and Persian why westernization wasn't going to take Muslims back to their glory days. He spoke passionately of a Muslim identity and of the supremacy and timelessness of Islamic Laws. He was not apologetic but he acknowledged where Muslims had gone wrong, but he didn't spare the West from any blame where they deserved it.
The most recurrent theme of his poetry is Islam and it is very difficult if not outright impossible to suggest that he was a secularist. Contrast this with the never ending debate about Jinnah which continues to polarize people in Pakistan today (Ansar Abbasi and co. on one hand and Nadeem Paracha and co. on the other hand). In this sense Iqbal's ideas are diametrically opposed to how the liberals of today in Pakistan interpret Jinnah's legacy to be.
Although Iqbal's poetry has been a integral part of Pakistani popular culture (inspiring everyone from the likes of classical singers in Tani Sani to sufi rock artists in Junoon) there are a fair share of Pakistani liberals for whom Iqbal isn't even a considered worthy of being a national hero. In February this year Pervez Hoodbhoy, for example, wrote in an opinion ed in the Tribune that Iqbal's "prescriptions for reconstructing society cannot help us in digging ourselves out of a hole", arguing that Pakistan was much better looking into the legacy of Sir Syed for its revival, who for him was "modernist".
I don't know to what extent Jinnah was influenced by Iqbal, but it was Iqbal who brought him back to India and it was Iqbal who first suggested that idea of Pakistan. I personally find it difficult that he would have been swayed into action by someone who he would be ideologically in disagreement with. If we should bother finding out what Jinnah's legacy is, we should also bother with what Iqbal believed. Although Iqbal and his poetry are well known amongst the masses most people do not know that Iqbal was skeptical of (although not completely opposed to) democracy, laid emphasis on spirituality and was staunchly opposed to blind westernization; he said that we should search for our renaissance from within our own unique religious, spiritual and cultural traditions (that's why he's not liked by those who want to put forward the idea that Jinnah was secular).
Personally, I am big fan of Iqbal. I will forever be grateful to the people who made me realize the worth of Iqbal's poetry. His work isn't just a literary masterpiece, but a timeless and remarkably accurate critique of the state of Muslims in the world everywhere, not just in Pakistan. I was reading the translations of some of his Persian works today and I suddenly found my self wishing I knew farsi. My Urdu, to my shame, isn't much home to write about either, so I wish had I had a better grasp of the language so I'd be able to appreciate and understand his work more. I'd like to end with these brilliant verses Iqbal wrote on the state of those Muslims who are blinded by their love of the west. I don't know who Iqbal had in mind when he wrote this, but it seems so true to this day for people like Hoodbhoy and their ilk (many of whom seem to write for the Tribune):
Tera wajood sarapa tajal-e-farang
ke to wahan ke imarat garon ke hai tameer
magar ye paiker-e-khaki khudi se hai khali
Faqat nayam hai to zar nagaro be shamsheer
No comments:
Post a Comment