BrassTacks Papers - On The Battle Front of Ideology

Ideology
On the Battlefront of
Edition: 1st, 2012 Authors: Dr. Allama Muhammed Iqbal (R.A) Allama Muhammed Asad (R.A) Syed Zaid Zaman Hamid Title Design : Waqar Ahmed Siddiqui Graphics Designing : Shahzad Masood Roomi PDF version for mass distribution
All Rights are reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced without the prior written premission from Brsstacks.
Pictures used in this publication has been taken from internet and have been used under good faith for fair use.
2012 Brasstacks - All rights reserved
Rawalpindi, Pakistan Landline: +92-51-5509846-7 Mobil: +92-321 -5001370, +92-308-4443457 www.Brasstacks.pk www.Zaidhamid.pk www.brasstacks-media.blogspot.com www.Facebook,com/syedzaidzamanhamid www.youtube.com/user/brasstacksofficial
Email: zaidhamid@zaidhamid.pk www.pringit.com/zaidzamanhamid/
Contents
Islam and Nationalism The Orient Vs. The Occident What Do We Mean by Pakistan On the Question of Ideology On the Question of Mission, Goals and Strategy in Formulation of National Media Policy Lest We Forget Speech of Liaquat Ali Khan
8 18 33 43
54 63 69
1 Islam and Nationalism

Dr. Allama Muhammed Iqbal (R.A)
In my verse
"He preached from the Pulpit that the Muslim nation can exist by devotion to one's country! How ignorant he is about the teachings of the Holy Prophet!" 1
I have used the world "millat" in the sense of "qaum" (nation). No doubt, the word millat has been used to mean law and religion in Arabic, and especially in the Holy Quran, but there exists in modern Arabic, Iranian and Turkish languages considerable evidence to show that the word millat is also used in the sense of nation. In my writings I have generally used the word in the latter sense. But in view of the fact that the meaning of the word millat does not, to any extent, affect the issues under consideration, I, leaving aside the controversy altogether, take it that Maulana Husain Ahmad said that "nations are formed by lands". As a matter of fact, I have nothing to say even against this statement of the Maulana. Objection must, however, be raised when it is contended that in modern times nations are formed by lands and the Indian Muslims are advised to accept this view. Such advice brings before our minds the Western modern conception of nationalism, to one aspect of which it is absolutely essential for a Muslim to take exception. It is a pity that my objection has led the Maulana to think that what I had in mind was to propagate the cause of some political party. Far from it, I have been repudiating the concept of nationalism since the time when it was not well-known in India and the Muslim world. At the very start it had become clear to me from the writings of European authors that the imperialistic designs of Europe were in great need of this effective weaponthe propagation of the European conception of nationalism in Muslim countriesto shatter the religious unity of Islam to pieces. And the plan did succeed during the Great War. It has now reached its climax inasmuch as some of the religious leaders in India lend their support to this conception. Strange, indeed, are the vicissitudes of time. Formerly,
BrassTacks Policy Papers
the half-Westernized educated Muslims were under the spell of Europe: now the curse has descended upon religious leaders. Perhaps modern conceptions of Europe seem attractive to them but alas!
"All the material of the building of Kaaba, won't become new, if the idols 2 to put in it are imported from England!"
I have just said that the Maulana's statement that nations are formed by lands, is not open to objections. This is so because from remote past nations have been associated with countries and countries with nations. We are all Indians and are so called because we live in that part of the world which is known by the name of India. So with the Chinese, the Arabs, the Japanese, the Iranians, etc. the word "country" used in this statement is merely a geographical term and as such, does not clash with Islam. Its boundaries change with time. Till recently those living in Burma were Indians: at present they are Burmese. In this sense every human being loves the land of his birth, and according to his capacity remains prepared to make sacrifices for it. Some unthinking persons support this by the saying:
"Love of one's native country is a part of one's Faith."

which they think is a Tradition of the Prophet, but this is hardly necessary. Love of one's native land is a natural instinct and requires no impressions to nourish it. In the present-day political literature, however, the idea of "nation" is not merely geographical: it is rather a principle of human society and as such, it is a political concept. Since Islam also is a law of human society, the word "country", when used as a political concept, comes into conflict with Islam. No one else knows it better than Maulana Husain Ahmad that in its principles of human association, Islam admits of no modus vivendi and is not prepared to compromise with any other law regulating human society. Indeed it declares that every code of law other than that of Islam, is inadequate and unacceptable. This principle raises some political controversies closely connected with India. For instance, cannot the Muslims live in unity with other nations? Cannot the various nations and communities unite for serving the country's ends and so on and so forth? I must, however, perforce, leave these questions aside because at the moment my object is to criticize only the religious aspect of the Maulana's statement. Besides rational arguments, experience also proves the truth of the above-mentioned claim of Islam. First, if the purpose of human society is to ensure peace and security for the nations and to transform their present social organism into a single social order, then one cannot think of any other social order than that of Islam. This is so because, according to my reading of the Quran, Islam does not aim at the moral reformation of the individual alone; it also aims at a gradual but fundamental revolution in the social life of mankind, which should altogether change its national and racial viewpoint and create in its place a purely human consciousness. The history of religion was national as in the case of Egyptians, Greeks and Iranians. Later on, it became racial as that of the Jews. Christianity taught that religion is an individual and private affair. Religion having become synonymous with private beliefs, Europe began to think that the State alone was responsible for the social life of man. It was Islam and Islam alone which, for the first time, gave the message to mankind that religion was neither national and racial, nor individual and private, but purely human and that its purpose was to
"Mutual love and unity is much better than merely speaking the same language." 3
Any other way will be irreligious and contrary to human dignity. The example of Europe is before the world. When the religious unity of Europe got shattered and the nations of that continent became disunited, Europeans began to search for the basis of national life. Obviously, Christianity could not be such a basis. The Europeans found this basis in the idea of nationality. But what has been the end of their choice? The reformation of Luther, the period of unsound rationalism, and separationindeed warbetween the principles of religion and state. Where did these forces drive Europe to? To irreligiousness, religious scepticism and economic conflicts. Does Maulana Husain Ahmad desire that the experiment should be repeated in Asia? The Maulana thinks that in the present-day world land is the necessary basis of a nation. No doubt, this is the general feeling these days, but it is also evident that this basis is by itself inadequate. There are a number of other forces also which are necessary for the formation of a nation. For instance, indifference towards religion, absorption in the day to day political issues, and so on. Besides, there are also other factor which statesmen think out for themselves as means for maintaining unity and harmony in that nation. The Maulana ignores the fact that if such a nation comprises with different religions and communities, the communities generally die away and the only common factor that remains in the individuals of that nation, is irreligiousness. Not even a layman, let alone religious leaders, who thinks that religion is a necessary factor for human life, desires that such a state of affairs should be brought about in India. So far as the Muslims are concerned, it is a pity that, simple-minded as they are, they are not fully aware of the consequences for this view of nationalism. If some Muslims have fallen into the error that Religion and Nationalism can go hand in hand as a political concept, then I want to give a timely warning to the Muslims that this course will ultimately lead to irreligiousness. And if this does happen, Islam will be reduced to an ethical idea with indifference to its social order as an inevitable consequence. But the mischief latent in Maulana Husain Ahmad's statement demands closer examination. I, therefore, hope that readers will peruse the following lines carefully. Maulana Husain Ahmad is a learned divine: he cannot, therefore, be unaware of the dangerous consequences of the view he has set forth for the followers of Muhammad. Whether he has used the word "qawm" or "millat" is immaterial. To use a word for a party which, according to him consists of the followers of Muhammad and to say that land forms the basis of that party, is very regrettable and unfortunate. It appears from his statement that he is conscious of his mistake, but not to the extent which should lead to its admission or rectification. A purely verbal and philological argument is mere quibbling. And a philological distinction between millat and qaum is no consolation. The distinction may perhaps console those who are unaware of the faith of Islam. Surely, this statement cannot deceive those who are in the know of things.
Islam and Nationalism 10
unite and organize mankind, despite all its natural distinctions. Such a system cannot be built on beliefs alone. And this is the only way in which harmony and concord can be introduced in the sentiments and thoughts of mankind. This harmony is essential for the formation and preservation of a community. How beautifully sings Maulana Roomi:

11
The Maulana has not realized that by offering his interpretation he has put before the Muslims two wrong and dangerous views. First, that the Muslims as a nation can be other than what they are as a millat. Secondly, because as a nation they happen to be Indians, they should, leaving aside their faith, lose their identity in the nationality of other Indians or in "Indianism". It is merely quibbling on the words qaum and millat. Otherwise the view is the same that has been described above and which the major community (Hindus) in this country and its leaders are every day persuading the Indian Muslims to adopt,viz., that religion and politics are entirely separate, and if the Muslims want to live in this country, they must understand religion to be a merely private affair, which should be confined to individuals alone. Politically they should not regard themselves as a separate nation; they should rather lose themselves in the majority. By saying that he has not used the word "millat" in his speech, the Maulana seems to pretend that he regards millat as something higher than nation. "There is", he says, "a world of difference between the two, and if the nation be compared to the earth, millat is like heaven." In actual practice, however, he has left no place for millat by preaching to the eight crore Muslims to lose their identity in the country, and therefore in the majority and to make nation a heaven and to ignore the fact that Islam will thereby be reduced to the status of the earth. By supposing that I was unaware of the difference between the meanings ofqaum and millat and that before writing the verse I had neither examined the Press report of the Maulana's speech nor looked up the Qamus, the Maulana has charged me with ignorance of the Arabic language. I welcome the charge. It would, however, have been better if the Maulana had, if not for me, at least for the sake of the Muslim community, passed beyond the Qamus and referred to the Quran and before placing this dangerous and un-Islamic view before the Muslims, had consulted the Holy Revelation sent by God. I admit that I am neither a learned divine nor a litterateur in Arabic:
"A true lover of Allah has but two words and they are La-Ilah: (there is none worthy of worship but Allah) On the other hand, the jurist of the city has a lot of Arabic vocabulary!" 4
But why was the Maulana content with the Qamus alone? Has not the word"qaum" been used hundreds of times in the Quran? And has not the word"millat" occurred repeatedly in the Quran? What do qaum and millat mean in the Quranic Verses? Is not the word "ummat" also used in addition to these two words to denote the followers of the Prophet? Are these words so divergent in meaning that because of this difference one single nation can have different aspects, so much so that in matters of religion and law, it should observe the divine code, while from the viewpoint of nationality it should follow a system which may be opposed to the religious system? Had the Maulana sought evidence from the Quran, I am confident, the solution of this problem would have automatically suggested itself to him. The philological meaning of the words given by the Maulana is to a great extent correct. "Qaum" literally means "a group of persons excluding women". Philologically, then,
women are not included in qaum. But it is obvious that when the Holy Quran makes mention of the qaum of Musa and the qaum of Ad, women are included in qaum. Millat also means religion and law. But the question is not one of difference between the dictionary meanings of the two words. The real question is this: First, are Muslims collectively a single, united and definite party founded on the Unity of God and the Finality of Prophethood as its basis, or are they a party which owing to the requirements of race, nation and colour can, leaving aside their religious unity, adopt some other social order based upon a different system and law? Secondly, has the Quran ever employed the word "qaum" to denote this idea? Or does it use the words"ummat" or "millat" only? Thirdly, which word does the divine Revelation employ in this connection? Does any Quranic Verse say, "O ye people!" or "O ye faithful! Join the qaum of Muslims or follow it"? Or is the call to follow themillat and to join the ummat? So far as I have been able to understand, wherever the Quran calls upon the people to follow and join the Muslim party, the word "millat" or "ummat" is used. There is no call to follow or join any particular nation. For instance, the Quran says:
"And who is better in religion than he who submits himself entirely to Allah, while doing good (to others), and follows the Faith of Abraham, the upright one?" (4:125)
The call is to obey and to follow millat because millat stands for religion, a law and a programme. As qaum is no law or religion, it was of no use calling upon people to follow and to adhere to it. A group, whether it be a tribe or a race, a band of dacoits or a company of a businessmen, the dweller of a city or the inhabitants of country, as a geographical unit is a mere group either of men or of both men and women. From the viewpoint of divine Revelation and of a Prophet, this group is not yet a guided one. If Revelation to a Prophet appears in this group, it will be the first to be addressed and it is for this reason associated with it, e.g. qaum of Noah, qaum of Moses and qaum of Lot. If, on the contrary, this group instead of following a Prophet, follows a king or a chief, it will be attributable to him also, e.g. the qaum of Ad, the qaum of Pharaoh. If two groups happen to live in one country and if they follow mutually opposed leaders, they can still be associated with both the leaders; for instance, the qaum of Moses lived side by side with the qaum of Pharaoh:
"And the chiefs of Pharoah's people said: wilt thou leave Moses and his people to make mischief in the land?" (7:127)
But wherever the word "qaum" occurs, it is used to mean a group including both the guided and unguided. Those who followed the Prophet, and professed the Unity of God, became part and parcel of the millat of the Prophet and his religion. In plainer language, they became Muslims. It must be remembered that the unbelievers can also have a faith and millat:
"Surely, I have forsaken the religion of a people who do not believe in Allah, and are deniers of the Hereafter!" (12:37)
A qaum can have a millat or a particular way of life. The millat of a qaum, on the other hand, has nowhere been used. This means that, in the Quran God has used the word "millat" and not "qaum" for those persons who, after renouncing different qaums and millats embraced the millat of Abraham. What I have said above means that, so far as I have been able to see, no other word except ummat has been used for Muslims in the Holy Quran. If it is otherwise, I would very much like to know it. Qaum means a party of men, and this party can come into being in a thousand places and in a thousand forms upon the basis of tribe, race, colour, language, land and ethical code. Millat, on the contrary, will carve out of the different parties a new and common party. In other words, millat or ummat embraces nations but cannot be merged in them. Circumstances have forced the present-day ulama to say things and interpret the Quran in a way which could never have been the intention of the Prophet and the Quran. Who does not know that Abraham was the first Prophet in whose revelation the distinctions of nations, races and lands were set aside? Humanity was divided into two classes onlymonotheists and polytheists. Since then there are only two ummats in the world, without a third. The guardians of the Kaaba have today neglected the call of Abraham and Ishmael. Those who have put on the garb of nationalism, do not think of that prayer of the founders of this millat which the two Prophets uttered when lying the foundation of Kaaba:
13
"And when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (Kaaba), they prayed: Our Lord! Accept from us (this humble service of ours). Surely, Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing! Our Lord! and make us both submissive to Thee, and (raise) from our offspring, a nation submissive to Thee!" (2:127-28)
After getting the name of ummat-Muslimah from the Court of God, was there any room left for merging part of the form of our society into some Arabian, Iranian, Afghani, English, Egyptian or Indian nationality? There is only onemillat confronting the Muslim community, that of the non-Muslims taken collectively. The name of the faith which the Muslim community professes is "din-i-qayyim", in which term lies concealed a remarkable Quranic point, namely, that it is this religion alone in which is vested the responsibility of sustaining the present and future life of a group of people which surrenders its individual and social life to its system. In other words, according to the Quran, it is the religion of Islam alone which sustains a nation in its
There is another subtle point which the Muslims must ponder over. If the sentiment of nationalism was so important and valuable, why then did some of the people of his own family, race and land rise up against the Holy Prophet (Gods blessings be upon him)? Why did the Prophet not regard Islam as an all-embracing millat and from the viewpoint of nation or nationalism continue to own and encourage Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab? Indeed, why did he not keep the bond of national affinity with them in the political affairs of Arabia? If Islam stood for complete independence, the Quraish of Mecca had the same ideal before them. It is unfortunate that the Maulana does not consider the fact that the Messenger of God was concerned with the freedom of the upright Faith of Islam and the Muslim community. To ignore the Muslims or to make them subservient to some other social order and then to seek some other kind of freedom was simply meaningless. The Prophet had to wage defensive war against Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab because they could not tolerate Islam flourishing in freedom. Before his call to Prophethood, the nation of Muhammad (peace be upon him) was no doubt a nation and a free one, but as Muhammad's ummat began to be formed, the status of the people as a nation became a secondary one. Those who accepted Muhammad's leadership, became part and parcel of the Muslim or Muhammadan community, irrespective of the fact whether they belonged to his own nation or other nations. Formerly they had been slaves of land and race, but land and race now became their slaves:
"Anyone, who attached himself to his 'country' and 'pedigree', couldn't understand the real spirit of Islam. If a nation could exist only by the love for one's country, Muhammad would not have invited 'Bu-Lahab'5 to the Faith of Islam!"6
It was a very easy course for Muhammad to tell Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl, or the unbelievers of Mecca that they could stick to their idol-worship while he himself would hold fast to the worship of God and that they could together form an Arabian unity by virtue of the factors of race and land common to them both. God forbid, but if he had adopted this course, it would certainly had done him credit as a patriot but not as the last Prophet. The ultimate purpose of the prophetic mission of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) is to create a form of society, the constitution of which follows that divine law which the Prophet Muhammad received from God. In other words, the object purify the nations of the world of the abuses which go by the name of time, place, land, nation, race, genealogy, country, etc., although the differences of nations, tribes, colours and languages are at the same time acknowledged. It is thus to bestow upon man that spiritual idea which at every moment of his life remains in constant contact with Eternity. This is where Muhammad stands and this is the ideal of the Muslim community. How many centuries will it take man to reach these heights, none can say, but there is no doubt that in removing the material differences between the nations of the world and in bringing about harmony among them in spite of their differences of nations, tribes, races, colours and languages, Islam
true cultural or political sense. It is for this reason that the Quran openly declares that any system other than that of Islam must be deprecated and rejected. (3:84)

15
has done something in thirteen hundred years what other religions could not do in three thousand years. Take it from me that the religion of Islam is an imperceptible and unfeelable biologico-psychological activity which is capable of influencing the thoughts and actions of mankind without any missionary effort. To invalidate such an activity by the innovations of present-day political thinkers is to do violence to mankind as well as to the universality of that prophetic mission which gave birth to it. That part of Maulana Hussain Ahmad's statement in which he has asked the editor of the Ehsan to produce an authority in support of the view that themillat of Islam is founded upon human dignity and brotherhood, must surprise many Muslims. To me misfortune, or error too, never comes alone. When a Muslim's mind and heart are overpowered by that idea of nationalism which the Maulana is preaching, then it is inevitable that various kinds of doubts should arise in his mind concerning the foundation of Islam. From nationalism thoughts naturally move towards the idea that mankind has been so sharply divided into nations that it is impossible to bring about unity among them. This second error which arises from nationalism, gives birth to the conception of the relativity of religions, i.e., the religion of a land belongs to that land alone and does not suit the temperaments of other nations. This third error must inevitably lead to irreligiousness and scepticism. This is the psychological analysis of that unfortunate Muslim who becomes a victim of spiritual paralysis. So far as the question of authority is concerned, the whole of the Quran is an authoritative verdict for it. There should be no misunderstanding about the words "dignity of man". In Islamic thought these words mean that higher reality which has been vested in the heart and conscience of man, i.e., his inner structure derives itself from the immutable divine law, and that his dignity depends for its continuance and preservation upon that yearning for the Unity of God which permeates his whole being. The history of man is an infinite process of mutual conflicts, sanguine battles and civil wars. In these circumstances can we have among mankind a constitution, the social life of which is based upon peace and security? The Quran's answer is: Yes, provided man takes for his ideal the propagation of the "Unity of God" in the thoughts and actions of mankind. The search for such an ideal and its maintenance is no miracle of political maneuvering: it is a peculiar greatness of the Holy Prophet that the self-invented distinctions and superiority complexes of the nations of the world are destroyed altogether and there comes into being a community which can be styled:
and to whose thoughts and actions the divine dictate:
A nation submissive to Thee
justly applies.
They are witnesses on the actions of other nations
The truth is that in the mind of Maulana Hussain Ahmad and others who think like him, the conception of nationalism in a way has the same place which the rejection of the Finality of the Holy Prophet has in the minds of Qadianis. The upholders of the idea of nationalism, in other words, say that, in view of the presentday needs, it is necessary for the Muslim community to take up a position in addition to what the divine law has prescribed and defined for them for all time to come, in the same way in which the Qadiani view, by in-
Let me conclude this article by quoting two verses from Khaqani in which he has addressed his contemporary Muslim thinkers, who thought that perfection of knowledge consisted in interpreting the truth of Islam in the light of Greek philosophy. With a little change in meaning these verses aptly describe the present-day Muslim political thinkers:
"The Horse of the Religion of Islam was originally born in Arabia. Now, do not brand him with the Seal of Greece! Similarly, dont place the Table of Decadence 7 in the armpit of a few (Muslim) children, who have just begun their education Notes:
*************************
1. For the Holy Prophet said that Muslims of the whole world regardless of colour, caste and pedigree, were Brethren, and as they were linked by the same Faith, their Country was the whole world! 2. i.e. the Kaaba was built for the worship of One God only, and idols are contrary to its purpose! In other words, the Muslims should be faithful to monotheism and to their own traditions, without being affected by Western culture! 3. i.e. than being people of the same country! 4. Though he could seldom understand the real meaning, and the practical requirements of those words. 5. His real name was Abdul-Uzza and was uncle to the Holy Prophet. 6. For Islam, being a Faith beyond the limits of Time and Space, does not approve the attachment to a particular country or land!
venting a new Prophethood, directs the Qadiani thought into a channel which ultimately leads to the denial of the perfection and consummation of Prophethood in Muhammad. Prima facie nationalism is a political concept, while the Qadiani denial of the Finality of Muhammad is a theological question, but between the two there exists a deep inner relationship which can be clearly demonstrated only when a Muslim historian gifted with acute insight compiles a history of Indian Muslims with particular reference to the religious thought of some of their apparently energetic sects.
7. By the Table of Decadence is meant any foreign culture, or system of education, which may bring inferiority complex and decline to their intellectual capabilities. Iqbal conveys the same idea in his following verse
*************************
17
2 The Orient Vs the Occident

Zaid Hamid
The challenge of Survival and Dominance in the Muslim world With Reflections from the Muslim History, Western Response and Civilizational Conflict Critical Lessons for Pakistani Leadership and the Muslim world What went wrong?
Glimpse of the Past Glory

For centuries the world of Islam has remained in the forefront of human civilization and achievement. Muslims themselves perceived Islam as being synonymous with civilization and beyond its borders were only infidels and uncivilized. For most medieval Muslims, Christendom meant, primarily, the Byzantine Empire, which gradually became smaller and weaker until its final destruction and disappearance at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1453. For Muslims, the remote lands of Europe were seen in almost the same light as the remote lands of Africa as an outer, dark realm of unbelief from which there was nothing to learn and nothing to import except perhaps slaves and some raw material. In the course of the seventh century, Muslim armies advancing from Arabia conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa, which were till then parts of the Christian Empire. In the eight century, from their bases in North Africa, Muslim forces conquered Spain and Portugal and invaded France. In the ninth century, they captured Sicily and even entered the river Tiber and Arab forces sacked Ostia and Rome. This provoked the first Christian counter attack, but the subsequent Crusade campaigns launched to liberate the holy lands ended in failure and destruction of the combined Christian forces. Muslim expeditionary forces were raiding the coasts of England and Iceland bringing back booty and slaves. In Europe, Christians were slightly more successful in dislodging the Muslims. By the end of the 11th century, Sicily was retaken and in 1492, after eight hundred years, the struggle for reconquest ended in victory in Spain, opening the way of Christian invasion into Africa and Asia.
Expansion of Islamic Civilization during the Abssid Khilafat, the greatest civilization humanity has ever seen!
In the east, between 1237 and 1240 CE, the Tatars of the Golden Horde captured Russia. In 1252, the Khan of the Horde and his people were converted to Islam. Russia and much of the Eastern Europe came under the Muslim rule and it was not until the 15th century that the Russians finally freed themselves from the Tatar yoke. In the meantime, a third wave of Muslim attack had begun. The Ottoman Turks captured the ancient Christian city of Constantinople, invaded and colonized the Balkan Peninsula and threatened the very heart of Europe, twice reaching the gates of Vienna. At the peak of the Islamic power, there was only one civilization which was comparable in stature, quality and variety of achievements; that was China. But the Chinese civilization was essentially local, limited to one region. Islam, in contrast created a global, poly-ethnic, multi-racial, international and one may even say, an inter-continental civilization. For centuries, Islam represented the greatest military power on earth. Its armies, at the very same time were invading Europe and Africa, India and China. It was the foremost economic power in the world, trading in the wide range of commodities via most complex, huge and far-flung network of communication routes and trading posts in Asia, Africa and Europe.
It had achieved the highest level in the arts, sciences and technology in annuls of human history, thus inheriting the knowledge and skill from the ME, ancient Greece and Persia. It is difficult to imagine the existence of modern literature, sciences or mathematics without the Muslims. It was in the Islamic Middle East that the Indian numbers were for the first time integrated into the mathematical system, from where they were incorporated into Europe, where the numerals are still called Arabic numerals. To this rich inheritance, the Muslim scholars added a vast treasure of their research, observations and scientific knowledge. In most of the arts and sciences, Europe was a pupil and in a sense dependant on the Muslim world, relying on Arabic versions, even for many unknown Greek works. Then suddenly, the scenario changed. Even before the Renaissance, the Europeans had begun to make some progress in civilized arts and sciences. But incredibly, the whole period of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the subsequent scientific revolution in Europe passed un-noticed in the Muslim lands. When the Muslims did realize that the uncivilized hordes had over taken them, it was too late to stop the inevitable process of massive European counter attack, which continues even to this day.
An observatory in Spain Muslims spearheaded all modern sciences when Europe was in dark ages!
The Present Disgust

What went wrong? For a long time now the Muslims have been looking for answers to a painful and perplexing reality that despite having the divinely guided faith and having ruled the world for so long under its guidance, how did we end up being relegated to the status of the wretched since the last three hundred years. There is a growing sense of urgency, even panic in the ranks of the Muslim thinkers, leaders and elite to find some quick and ideally correct answers, as the downward slide is so precipitous and the situation so hopeless that it seems like another colonization of almost the entire ME and Muslim heartland, is brewing up. The present state of Muslim decadence and ignorance of modern sciences can only be gauged from one ex-
The Orient Vs The Occident 20

21
ample: The total collective exports of all Arab countries in ME, except the fossil fuel exports, are less than the exports of Finland, a country of five million people in Europe. During the course of the 20th century, it became abundantly clear in the ME and in all Muslim lands in Central Asia, Asia and Africa that things all over the Muslim world had gone seriously wrong. By 1920, the greatest Muslim empire, which stretched from Russia to North Africa had collapsed and disintegrated. The victory of the infidel Christians over the divinely guided faith was complete. The world of Islam became poor, weak, unaware and mismanaged. The Christian West was invading the Muslims in every sphere, economic, military, cultural and most painfully even their private lives. The panic-stricken reformers in the Muslim world desperately tried new ideas, ways and solutions to salvage the hopeless situation. Modernizers mainly focused in three areas: Military, Economic and Political. The results achieved were, to say the least, disappointing. Many other remedies have been tried weapons, factories, schools, and parliament nothing seems to work. Sadly and humiliatingly enough, since the last fifty years Muslims stand lowest in the development chain. It is bad enough to be almost servile to the Christian west after having ruled over them for centuries, it is even worse to limp after them blindly. By all standards that matter in the world today military power, economic development, job creation, industrial growth, literacy and educational, scientific growth and research, political freedom and human rights and social justice the once mightiest civilization has indeed fallen low. The creation of Israel has added insult to injury. Being defeated at the hands of mighty Christian powers is one thing, suffering the same fate at the hands of a gang of Jewish thugs is an intolerable humiliation.
Muslim collective humiliation Palestine!
Solutions were tried in political ideologies Secularization, Nationalism, Socialism, Islamization, Liberal Democracy, Dictatorships, Monarchies, Presidential systems; nothing works. Almost all Muslim States are independent today but that has brought no solution to the problems of the Muslims. Their political independence remains tainted with economic and even more dangerously their cultural enslavement, now almost leading up to another wave of military colonization. Afghanistan, Iraq, the entire ME including Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran face direct military colonization. Still, Muslims continue to ask the wrong questions let alone finding the right answers. Instead of asking the fundamental question of soul searching What did we do wrong and how can we make it right the general
thrust is only on imitating the west and finding excuses for blaming others. How can we catch up with the West? Who did this to us? Whom should we blame Christians, US, Jews, British, Western imperialism, Mullahs? Thus only trying to find scapegoats to internal decay and degeneration. The anger is now growing. To a western trained mind, the problems of the Muslim world are in their political structure, lack of freedom and inquiry, oppression of women, education, bad governance and in not adopting liberal democracy. This is simplistic and naive. If Islam is an obstacle to freedom, to science, to economic development then how is it possible that the Muslim societies in the past were pioneers in all of the above, when Muslims were much closer to the original sources of their faith, belief and religious values? The problem is with Muslims NOT with Islam or Islamic values. But if the current state of anger continues to ripen and rise, the term suicide bomber would become a metaphor for the whole Muslim world and there will be no escape from the downward spiral of hate, spite, revenge, self pity, poverty, oppression and possibly culminating into another alien domination possibly of European, American or Asian origin. But within this apparently hopeless situation, there is new hope.
Bitter lessons from History

The Ottoman Empire was the greatest civilization in recent history. It would be appropriate to draw some valuable conclusions from the rise and tragic fall of this great empire before we embark to suggest ways and means for Pakistan and Muslims in general. The Travel Ban Christians had their holy places in the Muslim heartland, whereas the Muslims had no holy places in Christian Europe. After the failure of Crusades and the reconquest of Spain by the Christians, travelers, merchants, diplomats and slaves traveled from Europe to various parts of the Muslim world. The Ottomans were the dominant power in military, economics, administration, sciences and arts. As a matter of policy European nations kept permanent missions in the Muslim heartland to acquire knowledge and sciences and to study the modern civilization of that time.
Muslim scientific heritage translated and studied carefully by the western orientalists laid the foundation for western renaissance and reformation!
Incredibly, Muslims never traveled to the Christian lands. In fact it was considered Haram, or forbidden to do so lest one might lose his faith and purity in the infidel lands. Even the Ottomans did not keep diplomatic missions in European capitals. If something had to be communicated, a delegation would be sent, to carry out the task return back. There was no need for a

23
permanent station. Even if the subjects of Ottomans did travel to Europe; they were mostly Christians and went for minor trade and personal reasons. Since early days the European countries formed Oriental colleges where Arabic, Persian and other Muslim languages were taught and complete chairs were maintained to study Muslim culture, lands, people and their empire. Until recently, there were no occidentalists in the Muslim land.
Every western learning centre had oriental study centers gathering every bit of knowledge from the East and Muslims!
The devastating consequence of these centuries of complacency was that the whole period of Renaissance, Reformation and scientific and industrial revolutions went completely un-noticed in the Muslim ME and Ottoman Empire. Muslim development was reaching the Christian Europe but Muslims were completely ignorant of the scientific developments of Europe. Even the Europeans discouraged any attempts by the Ottomans to gain insight into the emerging strategic sciences like optics and telescopy, clocks and watches, gunnery, rifles and pistols, printing and ship building. The practice still continues in the West today where strategic sciences are denied to Muslim students. Lessons from the Battlefield The better military technology of Europe in preparation of cannons and Muskets soon resulted in severe defeats of the Turks and territorial losses in the Empire. Turks were forced to seek technology, guidance and training from despised infidels who were now getting stronger by the day. Previously, it was unthinkable th at the great Muslim empire would even request a Christian power for military help and acknowledge its superiority in arms and weaponry. More than the territorial losses, the psychological defeat was more devastating and long lasting. Still the real message did not sink home as to why Europe was getting better in technology. The emphasis remained on catching up and trying to copy the technology rather than indigenous research, with more and more requests for assistance from different Christian powers to a level where even instructors for the armed forces of the Empire were invited from Europe. Later, students were sent to European military academies. The officers who returned from European academies were thoroughly programmed into accepting the European supremacy and even brought back danger-
Accepting western superiority - German officers in Ottoman army
ous ideas like secularism, liberal democracy and western morality. Asking for weapons and technology from the Christians was bad enough; the worst blow came when the western culture, dress, symbols, values, bands and etiquette also started to dominate the Muslim empire.
Poorly trained Turkish army turned towards West and lost its own identity and ideology in the process! The process was repeated in every Muslim land!
Even though the Ottoman Empire was still large in military and economic terms, it had lost the psychological war and the fear of the Ottoman armed forces began to dissipate at a rapid pace from the hearts and minds of the world powers, especially in Europe. The phenomenon is painfully true even today, where all Muslim armies look towards the West for weapons, training and strategies and also adopt their culture, values and manners. Consequently, no Muslim army commands respect from the Western powers. The Art of Diplomacy In the early days of the Ottoman Empire, a treaty was a simple matter. The vanquished enemy was called to Istanbul under intimidating environment, dictated the terms and sent back. The communication was always one way from the victor to the vanquished. But as the empire began to soften and Europe grew stronger and bolder, the Turks had to learn the art of diplomacy the harsh way, to minimize the losses of the war through
Fallen from grace coat of arms of Ottoman Empire!
25
negotiations and to seek the best terms after defeat. Even for this, they had to seek guidance and even active support of rival Christian powers. They learned the art of making alliances, exploiting the rivalries within the enemy camps and tried to secure the losses in the battlefield. But their new intellectual masters never taught them the fine art; they had to learn it at a very dear cost to their Empire. The Turks suffered even more losses in negotiations in later stages of their empire than they had lost earlier in the battlefields.
Ottoman Turks - Loosing the wars to West in battlefield and in diplomacy! To this day, diplomacy remains the weakest link in Muslim nations!
Even today, diplomacy remains the weakest aspect of Muslim external policy, often isolating the Muslims in the world than integrating them. The importance of an aggressive foreign policy and fine diplomats cannot be over emphasized here. The Forces of the Market The new Christian powers out flanked the Ottoman Empire through the use of their superior Naval forces and by colonizing new Muslim lands in India, Africa and South East Asia. The effect of these new commercial routes for the Europeans was devastating for the Ottoman Empires revenues, trading abilities and goodwill. Not just that these new colonial powers were entering the Muslim heartlands with impunity, they were also beginning to control the vital trades in sugar, coffee, silk, weapons, spices and even gold. The Turks had only smaller naval fleets for the Mediterranean which were no match for the larger European galleys built to sustain the Atlantic gales. The naval presence of the European nations was so strong that very soon, the British, Dutch, Portuguese and French were competing with one another and bypassing the Otto-
man Empire in all major trade routes of Africa, India and Asia. With the loss in military power and political credibility, the Turks bitterly felt the additional humiliation of losing out their prized trade and financial routes to the emerging Christian powers of Europe.
The Grand Bazaar in Ottoman Turkey in 19th century! Western powers outflanked Ottoman empire using their Navies and controlling global trading routes and water ways! The practice continues even today!
The East India Company which ultimately captured India is the first direct example of a corporate multinational taking over the country of its financial interest under the garb of trading. The practice continues even today. In the modern world also, one cannot over emphasize the importance of capturing strategic markets, creating alternate financial bases, controlling critical trade routes and mixing military prowess with financial power to optimize diplomatic gains. The Western powers brazenly continue to exploit their commercial gains in the Muslim lands in the present times.
Ottoman Gold and silver coins and the first paper Bank Note printed in 1840 under directions from western bankers. Western bankers manipulated the paper currency and Turkey went bankrupt when it abandoned the gold standard and more and more bank notes were printed!

27
Asking the Wrong Question The causes of the decay of the Turkish Empire were not entirely military defeats or failure of foreign policy or even the economic losses. Indeed in spite of being the sick man of Europe, the Empire was able to pull along despite all odds for nearly a century, based on its sheer momentum of military gains and economic strength. The decay underwent a long process of over 250 years, in which the Empire crossed its zenith and slowly started the long painful path of decay till its death in 1920. There were many concerned voices during the historical course, which saw this downward slide and attempted to stall the inevitable. The reformers saw with grave concern the progress and development in Europe after the reformation and scientific revolution and attempted to catch up with the fast moving wagon. But almost all reformers made the mortal error of asking the wrong question Why is it that in the past we were able to catch up with the infidels and now we cannot? In saying so, they had accepted the superiority of the European thought process and restricted themselves only at attempts to catch up with the development. The whole thought process and the resulting strategies, which emerged in the Ottoman Empire, were therefore, basically defective, subservient and submissive to the European thought process. If the question raised had been: How is it that now it is the infidels inventing new devices, when previously only we used to do that? And what are we doing wrong that they are doing right? Then the resulting thought process would have been aggressive, innovative, independent, inquisitive and enlightening. It is one of the great signs of collective decay that thinkers and visionaries lose their penetrating insight and moral virtues before political, economic and military decay becomes visible. Even today, the Muslim societies, thinkers and scientists are content with imitating the western progress and growth, without any sense of urgency or need to initiate independent, incisive inquiry and research into new avenues of knowledge. One cannot even catch up with the adversary by imitating him, let alone over taking and then taking over. The Cultural Invasion - Modernization Vs Westernization Throughout the historical process, the dominant civilizations were known as modern civilizations. Persians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians were modern in their times. Spain was the most modern society under Muslim rule. At its zenith, the Ottoman Empire was the most modern, progressive and dynamic civilization, emulated and envied by the subservient European nations. But as the military, economic and political tide reversed, so did the definition of modernity in the last 300 years. Getting defeated on the battlefield was bad enough; it was horrible to end up being dependent on Europe and unthinkably humiliating to adopt their morals, manners and culture incorporating these into the Muslims personal and family lives. When the Muslims began to interact more with the European Christians through sheer compulsion of military, economic and political inferiority, they were exposed to the western ideas, ethics and culture for the first time. Values and ideas from the western culture was the deadliest seed planted in the Muslim societies which radically transformed not just the thought process of the elite but also the apparent form which had for so long proudly distinguished the Muslims from the rest of the civilizations. Imitating and knowing the Euro-
peans became the fashion and culture of the decaying Empire in all walks of life including military, politics, governance, education, judiciary, commerce and family life.
Modern or western? The conflict of ideology and identity within Muslim lands.
It could have been quite possible to take from the west what was useful for the progress in terms of science and technology and filter out the invasive and pervasive ideas, values and culture so diametrically opposed and lethal for the Muslim social, moral and even political fabric. But that did not happen. With the imitation of the West, the process of mental slavery was complete. It was only a matter of time that the political, military and economic enslavement would also be complete. Even though all Muslim countries are supposedly independent today, they still follow and imitate the west culturally in all walks of life including the language. It is hardly possible to adopt modern tools, technology and sciences without adopting the culture of the dominant civilization. Muslims could not differentiate between modernity and westernization. The Political Choice - Autocracy Vs Consultation The young Ottomans who went to Europe for education, training and trade, came back with additional products the secular, western and often explosive ideas. Few of them were the concepts of liberal democracy, patriotism and nationalism. All these concepts were alien to Muslim history and culture where the Muslim allegiance to the dynastic ruler was based on religious grounds; cutting across the ethnic, linguistic and social divides of the Empire. In Muslim civilizations, the division was never based on nationalistic lines as in Europes nation States nor was it based on patriotic sentiments to land or people. There were no Arabs, Turks, Russians, Africans or Indians in the Empire. All were Muslims and equal citizens irrespective of their nationality and origin. This concept was alien to the Christian States of Europe where patriotism is associated more with nationalistic feelings of the ethnic stocks. The net effect of such dangerous ideas incorporated into the Empire was devastating for the unity of the het-

29
erogeneous communities living under the religious allegiance to the dynasty. The empire begins to disintegrate on nationalistic and ethnic lines. Arabs, Turks, Serbs, Russians, and Armenians all demanded independence with their own nation states, flags, languages and governments. The Arab revolt under Lawrence of Arabia is too painful a reminder of the tragic fallout.
Lawrence of Arabia the spy who broke an empire!
Dozens of countries and territories have been carved out of the Ottoman Empire which was once just one Islamic Empire representing the unity of the entire Muslim nation from Russia to North Africa and even enjoying the moral allegiance from the Indian dynasties. Today, the same concepts of nationalism, patriotism, nation State, flag, country, constitution and political adaptations of democracy or dictatorship, rule and divide the Muslim world with no hope of collective pooling of resources and energies. It would be appropriate to mention here that in the classic Islamic concept, the apparent form of the political government is not important. What is important is that it should be consultative and not autocratic and should be based within the framework of Divine law. There are no restrictions on form or style of the political process. The dangerous ingress of western liberal democracy, which is still being forced down the throats of Muslim societies, as well as the disintegrating concepts of nation States, remain the foremost political challenge for the Muslim thought process. It would be interesting to note the similarities between modern liberal democracy and autocratic dictatorship. In the democratic process, a person makes money in the open market and then uses that money to manipulate the public in order to get elected. In the dictatorial process, a person grabs power first and then manipulates that power to make money. Morally, there is no difference between the two, but the political process is different. Christians acquired their faith from Muslim lands. Christians modified their faith to suit their political ambitions Christianity without compassion. Muslims today are being forced to adopt their politics from the West. Muslims too should adopt the western politics to suit their faith Democracy with religious restrictions.
Painful memory destruction of Islamic Caliphate and creation of Secular Turkey in 1924
Secularism Vs Theocracy Secularism is basically a Christian concept. During the Reformation period, the Church was separated from the State to stop the interference of the clergy in State matters and vice versa. Since, in Christianity, the clergy is a definite and powerful class, often competing with the Monarch, it was necessary to separate the two to avoid conflict and confrontation. In Islam, there is no such class as the clergy and the Caliph also assumes the role of the Supreme religious and spiritual viceroy of God, hence eliminating the conflict of Church and State. But then the question arises that whether an Islamic State is a theocratic State? This question can be answered as both yes and no simultaneously. It is a theocratic State in the sense that the supreme law is Divine and no law contrary to the revealed law can sustain in an Islamic State. It is not a theocracy in the sense that there is no clergy in Islam and no special class of people is required to implement the divine law, which can be applied by Generals, Presidents, Kings, Theologians, Thinkers, Intellectuals or even simple citizens. There have been multiple attempts by the dominant western civilization to separate the religion from the State in Islamic lands. Sadly, the once greatest seat of Islamic civilization, Tur-
Caliph guardian of the divine law and no conflict between church and state

31
key is the only country, which has officially adopted the notion. There have been other attempts under various titles like Arab Socialism, National Socialism and Nationalism but almost all have failed to remove the strong impact of religion on State matters in Islamic lands. The battle continues even today.
Challenges for Pakistan

There is no doubt that Pakistan is the place where the Muslim world is going to make its last stand. All other lands have already been overrun by the advancing Judio-Christian hordes. An epic battle is already underway which would decide the course of the next many hundred years. It could result in the regrouping, re-organization and re-capturing of the lost glory by the Muslims or could throw them into an abyss of another three hundred years of scavenging by the dominant powers of the world. Pakistan has to lead the counter attack it is destined. Traditionally, the thrust of all Muslim thinkers has been towards gaining strength in military, economic and political matters to match the dominant civilizations. We have a problem with this approach and history supports our argument. When the Muslims started their improvised march out of Arabia, the Persians and the Byzantines were the military and economic super powers of the time. By comparison, Muslims were not even a minuscule match to their seemingly infinite strengths. But Muslims took on both the powers simultaneously, effectively defeated them and assumed almost a permanent rule over them, which last till today in terms of faith. The strength of the Muslims was not purely military or economic. They acted in a supportive role to the far greater and overwhelmingly superior force of new ideas, strength of character, humane ideology, equality, and social justice, rule of law, good governance, higher education and spiritual appeal. The Roman and Persian empires had long lost the moral authority to rule and could not sustain the powerful ideological and moral onslaught of the early Muslims backed by some brilliant military strategy. The moral decay starts first, military and economic setbacks follow later. The reverse would be true for any civilization wishing to re-gain its glory correct the moral decay first before expecting any military, economic and political victory. Pakistan today faces a grave moral crisis. If this internal conflict can be resolved, there is nothing stopping Pakistan from taking charge of the entire Muslim world, nay entire humanity, for another amazing phase in our Muslim history. There are multiple reasons for our high expectations:
1. The western civilization, especially American, is fast losing the moral authority in the world in terms of political and social justice, humanity, honesty, dignity, equality and spiritual virtues. It may still be the dominant military and economic power; the internal decay is rapid and more imploding. 2. There are other rival economic and military forces emerging in the world in Europe, Asia and Asia pacific, which would inevitably collide with the dominant American civilization to the possible advantage of the Muslim world. Just as the Persians and Romans had exhausted each other just before the advance of the Muslims. 3. There are strong and visible signs that US is also beginning to lose its economic hold on the world after losing its moral authority. The net deficit of US economy is $14 trillion dollars this year, which was just $100bn in the 90s and increasing fast due to the wars in ME. The size of the US industrial output is now equal to Japan and even less than Europe. Not a very proud achievement considering the size of the population and terrain. 4. The frenzied US military reaction in the world is a direct reaction to the state of panic, which this nation is now feeling due to the fast crumbling economic and moral dominance. The decay of the US civilization has already begun and would be further accelerated in direct proportion to the number of military campaigns it undertakes in the world. Already, new campaigns have been planned in greater Middle East. The economic and ultimately the military conflict with China is inevitable and should be the proverbial last straw to break the back of the US Empire. 5. Despite all impossible odds, Pakistan has emerged as the only Islamic nuclear power, taking the military leadership of the Muslim block by default. It remains the last hope of the Muslim world. 6. With a strategic vision and policy, aggressive diplomacy and strong macro economy in a collective security umbrella, it is possible for Pakistan to deflect the Judio-Christian war against Islam into an East-West conflict, which would align the major regional and Asian powers with the Muslims against the JudeoChristian western civilization of Europe and Americas. But there is no doubt that Pakistan will have to embark on a most ambitious program of military research and modernization, proactive diplomacy, economic growth, good governance and social welfare and justice. Unless the internal society is based on justice and equality, the external policies and national defense would only remain an elusive dream, even perilous for national survival. The challenge is there for the taking in this defining moment in human history. Inshallah, Pakistan will lead the Muslim counter attack to regain the lost glory. *************************
3 What Do We Mean by Pakistan?

Allama Muhammad Asad (R.A)
About Mohammad Asad

This is a rare archival paper on the romantic ideology of Pakistan as understood by our forefathers and the Muslim world of that time. Written almost 63 years ago by Mohammad Asad, the German convert, the paper is an extraordinary representation of the ethos, aspirations, hopes and magnanimity of the Pakistan movement. Here we bring it to light once again for our present generation to know and understand the invaluable significance of Pakistan for those who sacrificed everything in order to create this Medina e Sani. Born as Leopold Weiss in a Jewish family, in 1900, he reverted to Islam in 1926 in Berlin and adopted the Muslim name Mohammad Asad. He travelled extensively in the Middle East of the time and became an active contributor to the Muslim cause, even joining hands with Omar Mukhtar al Sanussi in the Libyan deserts in the fight for freedom from the occupying Italian forces. He is famously known for his two major publications: The Road to Mekkah , a biographical account of his life up to the age of 32, his conversion to Islam from Judaism and his journey to Mekkah; and his magnum opus, The Message of the Quran, a translation of the Holy Quran. In 1932, he visited British India and met Dr Allama Mohammed Iqbal and developed a close association with him. Iqbal persuaded Asad to stay in India and work with the Muslims of India towards the establishment of a separate state for themselves. Asad supported this idea strongly and after the independence and creation of Pakistan in 1947, in recognition of his support for the cause, he was conferred full citizenship by Pakistan and was appointed the Director of Department of Islamic Reconstruction, where he made recommendations on the drafting of Pakistans first Constitution. In 949, Asad joined Pakistans Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Head of the Middle East Division, made efforts to strengthen Pakistans relations with the Muslim states of the
Mid-East. In 1952 Asad was appointed Pakistans Minister Plenipotentiary to the United Nations. Asad later moved to Spain and remained there till his death in 1992. He is buried in the Muslim cemetery of Granada, in the former province of Andalusia, Spain. ************************* I quote myself from the Februrary 1947 number of Arafat (p. 166):
"The Pakistan movement can become the starting-point of a new Islamic development if the Muslims realize - and continue realizing it when Pakistan is achieved - that the real, historic justification of this movement does not consist in our dressing or talking or salaaming differently from the other inhabitants of the country, or in the grievances which we may have against other communities, or even in the desire to provide more economic opportunities and more elbowroom for people who - by sheer force of habit - call themselves 'Muslims'; but that such a justification is to be found only in the Muslims' desire to establish a truly Islamic polity; in other words, to translate the tenets of Islam into terms of practical life.
This, in short, is my conception of Pakistan and I do not think that I am far wrong in assuming that it is the conception of many other Muslims as well. Of many but not all, and not even of most of them. For, by far the larger part of our intelligentsia does not seem to consider Pakistan in this light. To them it means no more and no less than a way of liberating the Muslims of India from Hindu domination, and the establishment of a political structure in which the Muslim community would find its 'place in the sun', in the economic sense.
Islam comes into the picture only in so far as it happens to be the religion of the people concerned - just as Catholicism came into the picture in the Irish struggle for independence because it happened to be the religion of most Irishmen. To put it bluntly, many of our brothers and sisters do not seem to care for the spiritual, Islamic objectives of Pakistan and permit themselves to be carried away by sentiments not far removed from nationalism and this is especially true of many Muslims educated on western lines. They are unable to think other than on the western thought pattern, therefore, they do not believe in their hearts that the world's so-
What Do We Mean by Pakistan 34

35
cial and political problems are capable of being subordinated to purely religious considerations. Hence, their approach to Islam is governed by convention rather than ideology and amounts at best to a faintly 'cultural' interest in their community's historical traditions. Now this is a very poor view of Pakistan, a view, moreover, which does not do justice to the Islamic enthusiasm at present so markedly - if chaotically - displayed by the overwhelming masses of our common people. While majority of our so-called intelligentsia is interested in Islam only in so far as it fits into their struggle for political self-determination, the common people most obviously desire self-determination for the sake of Islam as such. As far as the Muslim masses are concerned, the Pakistan movement is rooted in their instinctive feeling that they are an ideological community and have as such every right to an autonomous political existence. In other words, they feel and know that their communal existence is not - as with other communities - based on racial affinities or on the consciousness of cultural traditions held in common, but only - exclusively - on the fact of their common adherence to the ideology of Islam, therefore, they must justify their communal existence by erecting a socio-political structure in which that ideology -the Shariah -would become the visible expression of their nationhood. This, and not a solution of the all-India problem of Muslim minorities, is the real historic purpose of the Pakistan movement. Insofar as there will always remain non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan as well as Muslim minorities in the rest of India, Pakistan cannot be expected to solve the minorities problem in its entirety. This is precisely a point which we - and our opponents - would do well to understand: The problem of minorities, however important in all considerations of India's political future, is in itself not fundamentally responsible for the Pakistan movement but is rather an incidental accompaniment to the movement's intrinsic objective - the establishment of an Islamic polity in which our ideology could come to practical fruition. Only thus can we understand why the Muslims in, say, Bombay or Madras - who of course cannot expect their provinces to become part of Pakistan, are as much interested in its realization as are the Muslims of the Punjab or of Bengal. They are interested in Pakistan not because they hope to come within its orbit in a territorial sense, but because they feel, as intensely as their brethren in the so-called 'Muslim majority' provinces that the birth of an Islamic polity in Pakistan would vindicate the claim that Islam is a practical proposition and that the Muslims - because of their being Muslims - are a nation unto themselves, irrespective of their geographical location.
In this respect the Pakistan movement is truly unique among all the political mass movements now evident anywhere in the Muslim world. No doubt, in the vast territories that go by this name there are many other lovers of Islam besides us, but nowhere in the modern world, except in the Pakistan movement, has a whole Muslim nation set out on the march towards Islam. Some of those states, like Turkey and (the then Shah's) Iran, are explicitly anti-Islamic in their governmental aims and openly declare that Islam should be eliminated from politics and from the people's social life. But even those Muslim states in which religion is still being valued - in varying degrees - as a spiritual treasure, are 'Islamic' only insofar as Islam is the religion professed by the majority of their inhabitants while their political aims are not really governed by Islamic considerations but rather by what the rulers or ruling classes conceive as 'national' interests in the same sense in which they are conceived in the West. In the Pakistan movement, on the other hand, there undoubtedly exists such a direct connection between the people's attachment to Islam and their political aims. Rather, more than that, the practical success of this movement is exclusively due to our people's passionate, if as yet inarticulate desire to have a state in which the forms and objectives of government would be determined by the ideological imperatives of Islam - a state, that is, in which Islam would not be just a religious and cultural 'label' of the people concerned, but the very goal and purpose of state-formation. Now it goes without saying that an achievement of such an Islamic state - the first in the modern world - would revolutionize the Muslim political thought everywhere, and would probably inspire other Muslim peoples to strive towards similar ends, and so it might become a prelude to an Islamic reorientation in many parts of the world. Thus, the Pakistan movement contains a great promise for an Islamic revival and it offers almost the only hope of such a revival in a world that is rapidly slipping away from the ideals of Islam. But the hope is justified only so long as our leaders, and the masses with them, keep the true objective of Pakistan in view, and do not yield to the temptation to regard their movement as just another of the many 'national' movements so fashionable in the present-day Muslim world. There is an acute danger of the Pakistan movement being deflected form its ideological course by laying too much stress on a 'cultural' nationalism - on a community of interests arising not so much from a common ideology as from the desire to preserve certain cultural traits, social habits and customs and, last but not the least, to safeguard the economic development of a group of people who happen to be 'Muslims' only by virtue of their birth. Nobody can doubt that the cultural traditions and the immediate economic requirements of the Muslim community are extremely important in our planning the Muslim fixture on Islamic lines. But this is just the point: they should never be viewed independently of our ideological goal - the building of our fixture on Islamic lines.

37
It appears, however, that the majority of our intelligentsia are about to commit just this mistake. When they talk of Pakistan, they often convey the impression that the 'actual' interests of the Muslim world could be viewed independently of what is described as the 'purely ideological' interests of Islam; in other words, that it is possible to be a good Pakistani without being primarily interested in Islam as the basic reality in one's own and in the community's life. [However], such an arbitrary division between 'Muslim' and 'Islamic' interests is sheer nonsense. Islam is not just one among several characteristics of Muslim communal existence, but its only historical cause and justification, and to consider Muslim interests as something apart from Islam is like considering a living being as something apart from the fact of its life. It should [therefore] be our leaders' duty to tell their followers that they must become better Muslims today in order to be worthy of Pakistan tomorrow, instead of which they merely assure us that we shall become better Muslims 'as soon as Pakistan is achieved'. This easy assurance will not do. It is self-deceptive in the extreme. If we do not sow the seeds of Islamic life now, when our enthusiasm is at its fighting pitch, there is no earthly reason to expect that we will suddenly be transformed into better Muslims when the struggle is over and our political autonomy secured. I can almost hear some of our leaders say: 'Brother, you are too pessimistic - or perhaps a little bit too apprehensive. Almost every one of us desires a truly Islamic life. Only, it would be impolitic to insist on this ideal right now. In our ranks there are many people who render the most valuable services to our political cause, but - owing to a wring upbringing - do not care too much for religion; and if we stress the religious side of our struggle from the very beginning, those valuable workers might cool down in their zeal, and so be lost to our cause. We do not want to lose them, we cannot afford to lose them and so we are obliged to postpone our work for the people's religious uplift until after we have won a state of our own. At present, we must concentrate all our energies on the short-term objective before us - the freeing of the Muslims from non-Muslim domination - and not dissipate them on purely religious considerations. If we insist, at this stage, too loudly on our long-term objective - the deepening of Islamic consciousness in the Muslims and the creation of a truly Islamic polity - we might not only estrange many of our westernized brothers and sisters from our cause, but also increase the apprehensions of the non-Muslim minorities who live in the area of Pakistan.' The above reasoning is extremely fallacious and intellectually dishonest. As for the apprehensions which our insistence on an Islamic life might cause among the non-Muslim minorities, I should like you to ask yourselves: What is it that makes non-Muslims so bitterly antagonistic to the idea of Pakistan? Obviously, a fear of what they describe as a 'communal raj' and the probability of the Muslimdominated areas being cut off from the rest of India. The question as to whether the Muslims truly intend to live according to the principles of Islam or not leaves the non-Muslims cold. They are afraid of Muslim political preponderance in certain areas, and it does not make prima facie the least difference to them whether
the Muslims are inspired in their endeavors by Islamic or any other considerations. Hence, they will oppose Muslim endeavors in any case, and with all strength at their disposal. With all this, the attitude of our opponents might - though I do not say that it definitely will - be to some extent influenced by the thought that what we Muslims really aim at is justice for all, provided that we succeed in convincing them that we are really moved by moral convictions and not by a wish to exploit non-Muslims for the benefit of Muslims. It is, therefore, our duty to prove to the whole world that we really mean to live up to the standard laid down in these words of the Holy Qur'an: 'You are the best of community that has been sent forth unto mankind: for you enjoin the Right and forbid the Wrong, and have faith in God' (Al-I-'Imran 3:110). Our being a worthy ummah in the sight of God depends on our being prepared to struggle, always and under all circumstances, for the upholding of justice and the abolition of injustice and this should preclude the possibility of a truly Islamic community being unjust to non-Muslims. I can well imagine that a non-Muslim feels apprehensive about his fixture in a state which, in his opinion, would aim at giving economic preference to the Muslim community at the expense of non-Muslims, but he will have less reason to feel such an apprehension if he becomes convinced that the Muslims are determined to ensure justice to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And we cannot convince our opponents of our bona fides unless we prove, firstly, that an Islamic polity connotes justice for all, and secondly, that we Muslims are really serious in our avowals that precisely such polity is our goal - in other words, that we truly believe in the tenets of our religion. It is, therefore, quite erroneous to assume that the fears of non-Muslim minorities could be allayed by our discreetly avoiding, as much a s possible, any direct references to our ultimate, religious objectives. This only creates in them a suspicion of hypocrisy on our part. The real way to allaying or at least alleviating their fears would be our clear exposition, in as great detail as possible, of the ethical ideals towards which we are striving; but even such an exposition will be of no avail unless we are able to show, in our day-to-day life, that those ideals mean more to us than mere slogans. Apart from its probable effect on non-Muslims, an evasive postponement of our 'long-term', Islamic objectives in favor of what some people regard (quite wrongly) as momentarily 'expedient' or 'politic', must have a detrimental effect on our community's moral tenor, and can only result in our greater estrangement from the ways of true Islam. Instead of becoming increasingly aware of the ideal goal before them, the Muslims will again become accustomed to think - as they did for many centuries - in terms of 'expediency' and immediate conveniences, and the Islamic objective of Pakistan will most definitely recede into the realm of theoretical idealism - in exactly the same manner as the true objectives of Christianity have receded among the so-called Christian nations of the West. We do not want that. We want, through Pakistan, to make Islam a reality in our lives. We want Pakistan in order that every one of us should be able to live a truly Islamic life in the widest sense of

39
the word. And it is admittedly impossible for an individual to live in accordance with the scheme propounded by God's Apostle unless the whole society consciously conforms to it and makes the Law of Islam the law of the land. But this kind of Pakistan will never materialize unless we postulate the Law of Islam not merely as an ideal for a vaguely defined future but as the basis, wherever possible, of all our social and personal behavior at this very hour and minute. There is [on the other hand] a definite, though perhaps involuntary, tendency on the part of many of our leaders to ignore the spiritual, Islamic background of our struggle and to justify the Muslims' demand for freedom by stressing their unfortunate experiences with the Hindu majority, as well as to base the Muslims' claim to being a separate nation on the differences between their and the Hindus' social usage and cultural expressions. In short, there is a mounting inclination to consider the fact - for a fact it is - of a separate Muslim nationhood in the conventional, western sense of the word 'nation' instead of considering it in the Islamic sense of ummah or millah? Why should we hesitate to proclaim, loudly and without fear, that our being a nation has nothing to do with the conventional meaning of this word: that we are a nation not merely because our habits, customs and cultural expressions are different from those of the other groups inhabiting the country, but because we mean to shape our life in accordance with a particular ideal of our own? It cannot be often enough repeated that our adherence to the teachings of Islam is the only justification of our communal existence. We are not a racial entity. We are - in spite of the great progress of Urdu as the language of Muslim India - not even a linguistic entity within the strict meaning of this term. We are not, and never can be, a nation in the sense in which the English or the Arabs or the Chinese are nations. But precisely the fact that we are not, and never can be, a nation in the exclusive, conventional sense of the word is the innermost source of our strength: for it makes us realize that we - we alone in the modern world, - can, if we but want it, bring again to life that glorious vision which arose over the sands of Arabian sea nearly fourteen centuries ago: the vision of an ummah of free men and women bound together not by the accidental bonds of race and birth, but by their free, conscious allegiance to a common ideal. If our desire for Pakistan is an outcome of our creative strength and purity; if we attain that clarity of vision which encompasses the goal of our endeavors long before it is achieved; if we learn to love that goal for its own sake - in the conviction that it is supremely good in an absolute sense (or, as I would prefer to phrase it, in God's sight), and not merely because it appears to be economically advantageous to ourselves and our community, then no power on earth could stop Pakistan from being born and from becoming a gateway to an Islamic revival the world over. And if, on the other hand, our cry for self-determination is due to no more than a fear of being dominated by a non-Muslim majority; if our vision of the fixture is merely negative; if it does not encompass the hope of our being free for something, but contents itself with the beggarly hope of our being free from something; if Islam, instead of being a moral obligation and an end in itself, means no more to us than a habit and a cultural label, then - even then - we might achieve some sort of Pakistan by virtue of our numerical strength in this country; but it would be an achievement far short of the tremendous possibilities which God seems to be offering to us. It would be only one 'national state' more in a world split up into numberless national states - perhaps no worse than some of the others, but certainly no better than most, while the subconscious dream of the Muslim masses, and the conscious dream of those who first spoke of Pakistan (long before even this name had

41
been thought of) was the birth of a polity in which the Prophet's Message could fully come into its own as a practical proposition. [What] the common man desires is not merely a state in which Muslims would have greater economic facilities than they have now, but a state in which God's Word would reign supreme. Not that the 'common man' does not care for economic facilities. He cares, rightly, very much for them. But he feels, no less rightly, that an Islamic theocracy would not only give him all the economic justice and opportunity for material development which he now so sadly lacks, but would enhance his human dignity and spiritual security as well. (Most Muslim scholars have tried to differentiate between the Islamic concept of a state based on the principle of Khilafah or vice regency and European medieval religious states based on rule by holy and 'infallible' clergy). To give valid Islamic content, as well as a creative, positive direction to the people's dreams and desires; to prepare them not only politically (in the conventional context of this word) but also spiritually and ideologically for the great goal of Pakistan: this is the supreme task awaiting our leaders. They must not think that to organize the masses and to give voice to our political demands is all that the millah expects them to do. Organization is, no doubt, urgently necessary; political agitation is necessary, but these necessities must be made to serve our ideological goal - and not, as we so often find in these days, allowed to reduce it to secondary rank. To a Muslim who takes Islam seriously, every political endeavor must, in the last resort, derive its sanction from religion, just as religion can never remain aloof from politics for the simple reason that Islam, being concerned not only with our spiritual development but with the manner of our physical, social and economic existence as well, is a 'political' creed in the deepest, morally most compelling sense of this term. In other words, the Islamic, religious aspect of our fight for Pakistan must be made predominant in all the appeals which Muslim leaders make to the Muslim masses. If this demand is neglected, our struggle cannot possibly fulfill its historic mission. The need for the ideological, Islamic leadership on the part of our leaders is the paramount need of the day. That some of them - though by far not all - are really aware of their great responsibility in this respect is evident, for example, from the splendid convocation address which Liaquat Ali Khan, the Quaid-e-Azam's principal lieutenant [later first prime minister of Pakistan], delivered at Aligarh a few months ago. In that address he vividly stressed the fact that our movement derives its ultimate inspiration from the Holy Qur'an, and that, therefore, the Islamic state at which we are aiming should derive its authority from the Shari'ah alone. Muhammad Ali Jinnah [d. 1948] himself has spoken in a similar vein on many occasions. Such pronouncements, coming as they do from the highest levels of Muslim League leadership, go a long way to clarifying the League's aims. Never before have Muslim leaders been endowed with such power to guide the destinies of the millah in the right direction - or in the wrong. It is within their power to decide, here and now, whether the Indian Muslims shall become Muslims in the true sense of the word and, thus, the core and backbone of a resurgent Islam - or just another 'national group' among many other so-called Muslim groups and states where Islam is good enough to be displayed as a cultural label, but not good enough to provide the basis on which to build the community's social, economic and political
existence. The present leaders of the Muslim League, I repeat it deliberately, have it within their power to make such a decision, for the wave of enthusiasm for Pakistan which has swept over the Muslim masses in this country, and which has united them as they have never been united in the past, has endowed those leaders with a prestige - and a power to lead - the likes of which was never enjoyed by the leaders in the past centuries. Because of this, their moral responsibility is all the greater. In short, it is the foremost duty of our political leaders to impress upon the masses that the objective of Pakistan is the establishment of a truly Islamic polity; and that this objective can never be attained unless every fighter of Pakistan - man or woman, great or small - honestly tries to come closer to Islam at every hour and every minute of his or her life that, in a word, only a good Muslim can be a good Pakistani. And this holds good for the leaders themselves as well. They must show in their social behavior that they regard Islam as a serious proposition and not merely as a slogan. To put it plainly 'that they themselves are trying to live up to the demands of Islam. I do not mean to say that all of them are remiss in this respect. There are among them many people to whom Islam is a living inspiration, and to these our homage is due. But, on the other hand, very many of our leaders have Islam only on their lips - and that only when they address a public meeting or make a statement to the press - while their personal behavior and outlook is as devoid of Islam as the behavior and outlook of the average political leader in Europe or America is devoid of Christianity. This must change if our struggle for Pakistan is not to degenerate into a pitiful copy of the 'nationalist' endeavors from which the rest of the Muslim world is suffering. As I have already said, the Muslim masses instinctively realize the Islamic purport of Pakistan, and genuinely desire a state of affairs in which la ilaha ill'Allah would become the starting point of the community's development. But they are inarticulate and confused in their thoughts. They cannot find their way unaided. They must be led. And so, again, we come back to the question of leadership and of its duties. It seems to me that the supreme test of the present-day Muslim leadership will be its ability - or inability - to lead the community not only in the purely political and economic but also in the moral sphere: the ability - or inability - to convince the Muslims that 'God does not change the condition of a people unless they change their inner selves' (Ar-Ra'd 13:11), which means no more and no less than that a community's political and economic status cannot be lastingly improved unless the community as a whole grows in moral stature *************************
4 On the question of ideology!

Zaid Hamid
Democracy or Dictatorship? Religious Extremism or Secular Westernization? Discovering the Third Option for Pakistan!
A latest poll of youth by BrassTacks, incredibly, suggested that almost 85% of youth in Pakistan are now demanding judicial, political and economic systems in the country to be remodelled on the pattern of Khilafate-Rashida (KR), the golden benchmark era of Islam. This is a stunning paradigm shift in the thinking of the modern Pakistani youth who are now rejecting the modern democracy and dictatorships for an alternate home-grown ideological and historical model of governance based on KR. On March 23rd, 2010, Pakistani youth passed a resolution in Lahore to demand that Pakistan be remodelled on the pattern of Khilafat-eRashida and not the democracy or dictatorship. In Pakistan, our society swings between two extremes without any voice of moderation and sanity. Its either democracy or the dictatorship in politics. Its either religious extremism or secular westernization in matters of ideology. Its either capitalism or the communism in spheres of economy. No one ever envisaged a third option in matters of ideology, politics, governance or the economy. Now Pakistani youths are demanding the unthinkable the fascinatingly balanced KR model. Before I get into the details of my argument on the above subject, I would like to categorically make certain statements. Pakistan is an ideological Islamic State where Quran and Sunnah will remain the supreme guiding beacons for lawmaking in all spheres of life. The country was founded in the name of Islam and would always remain an Islamic country. Pakistan is NOT and will never become a secular State. Inshallah. Allama Iqbal is the contemporary visionary guide of ideological and philosophical basis of Pakistan
and the entire Muslim Ummah. His thoughts, ideology and vision have a great role to play in achieving the destiny of Pakistan as well as the entire Ummah. Quaid-e-Azam is the greatest political leader of the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent. Quaide-Azam and the founding fathers of Pakistan never envisioned a secular Pakistan but laid the basis of an enlightened, modern and just Islamic State which would have a great role to play within the Muslim Ummah. ever. Two nations theory remains foundation of creation of Pakistan and would remain strongly valid for-
Khilafat-e-Rashida model of governance is NOT an outdated, medieval, dogmatic, narrow or sectarian ideology of extremism nor does it represent liberal westernization of Pakistani society in the name of modernization. KR is ideally envisioned to represent the true ethos of Islam with tolerant face and benevolent values as desired in Islamic doctrine and philosophy and as practiced in totality in the early golden era and in part throughout the Muslim history. Now I come to the details of my argument and would heavily rely upon a policy speech by Dr. Mahathir Muhammad for his precious inputs to supplement our core argument. Much of the content below has been drawn from it. In the last 200 years, in the period of downfall of the Muslim civilization, the only new ideas, which have come our way, have all come from the rich West. Our faith has been assailed with such ideas and ideologies as Secularism, Liberalism, Republicanism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and a lot of others. If we care to examine all these so-called perfect solutions to the woes of humanity, we will find that eventually they all
On the Question of Ideology 44

45
proved to be failures, that the very people who conceive and espouse them would lose their faith and enthusiasm and that finally such solutions would be discarded as harmful. But while they are charmed by these ideas they would not hesitate to force them upon the world, by every means at their disposal. We have no part in the formulation of these ideas, nor with the periodical reinterpretation and enlargement of their application. Being unable to reject the logic and due to universal acceptance of these ideas, we are forced to try and justify them according to Islam. Quite naturally we will fail because our religion insists on justice and morality and not the absolute freedom leading to immorality now being advocated by the West. We must therefore consciously reject such ideologies. Islam is faced with this ideological challenge and the challenges of more new ideas, which will come out of the West. The capacity of Islam to emerge victorious in the ideological war is undermined by our own insistence and emphasis on form rather than substance. For example, we stress the manner with which trials should be carried out and the punishment meted rather than the justice that Islam promotes. We talk about the need for Muslims to be strong in defense of themselves but we neglect the study of the sciences needed to enable us to produce modern weapons ourselves. Instead we only stress religious studies and religious piety in order to gain merit in the next world. In the process, we neglect the injunction of Islam to always be quipped to defend ourselves and to instill fear in the hearts of the enemy. It is because we misinterpret or wrongly emphasize the teachings of Islam and stress form instead of substance, that we Muslims find ourselves unable to meet the challenges of the Industrial Age and now the Information Age. We should have learnt the lessons from our failure to participate in the Industrial revolution and should prepare ourselves to participate in the Information revolution, but we have not. Yet we Muslims are no less capable of acquiring knowledge, of innovations and inventions, spewing new ideas. We are as capable of governing, developing and strengthening our countries as good as anyone else can be. We know what we need to do. Indeed our religion gives us all the necessary guidance. If today we lag behind, disdained and oppressed by others it is because we have actually forsaken the true teachings of our religion and returned to our pre-Islamic ways, feuding with each other, closing our minds to modern knowledge and ignoring reality, deceiving ourselves that we are better than others when we are not. If we are to face the challenges of the 21st Century, the first thing we must do is to put our own houses in order. We have to administer our countries well, promoting stability and economic growth, using the wealth we generate to build needed infrastructures and to equip ourselves with all the skills of the Information Age and of the Industrial Age as well. We must always be at the cutting edge of technology. To do all this we need to be rational. It is understandable that we should feel frustrated and angry while watching everywhere Muslims are being oppressed. They are frequently massacred, their countries forced to accept hostile foreign dominance which render them just nominally independent. We are helpless to defend ourselves or our Muslim brothers anywhere. We see them being shot and killed virtually before our eyes and there is nothing we can do about it. After 9/11, Islam and not the terrorism is biggest issue for the West. Islam has been burnt, bruised, branded and abused under the garb of war against terrorism in every part of the world including the Muslim world.
It is not just the extremists who are angry, even the most moderate and docile Muslims are feeling threatened under the aggressive drive against Islam and Muslims globally. Their anger is universal but its expression is different for extremists and moderate Muslims. Just because moderate Muslims are not sending suicide bombers does not mean they are not hurt or angry. They are just silent or cribbing but are indeed very angry. We appeal for justice to those who talk incessantly of justice and we see them ignoring us. We see those powerful nations committing horrendous crimes against humanity and Muslims only to blame us as terrorists. We look at , Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq and our own humiliation at the hands of dominant powers. Human rights, justice, and fair play we find to be only meaningless words and our anger overflows. In frustration we resort to violence. But our frustration only worsens because we gain nothing from this, only more oppression. We become frustrated with our own countries and our governments. Why cannot they do something about the oppression and humiliation of the Muslims? We vent our anger against our governments by more acts of violence and terrorism, this time directed at our own governments and leaders. Again we gain nothing but only succeed in weakening ourselves further. After years of indiscriminate acts of terrorism, what do we have to show for the sacrifices we made? Nothing. We have only brought more oppression and more painful retaliations against us. We have not advanced our cause one iota. We and our own governments and countries have become weaker. We want quick fixes but there are no quick solutions to our problems. And most of us refuse to believe in the truth of this, in the reality of our failures. We just do not seem able to learn. If we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, we should pause now and take stock. And having done that calmly and dispassionately we should then set out to plan for our future; not the next year, not the next decade, but the whole century and more for that is how long it will take to achieve any degree of success. First of all we must go back to the true teachings of Islam, to the Quran and the Hadith. These teachings had obviously converted the ignorant desert Arabs into brave and talented people who in less than 100 years, were able to build a huge empire extending from Spain in the West to China in the East- the greatest civilization the world had ever seen. If Islam could do these for the Jahiliah, the ignorant ones, there is no reason why it cannot do the same for us now. The truth is that we have deviated from the teachings of Islam; we have at times rejected it in practical terms. We have grossly abused it. Thus, we are told to be brothers and to fight only those not of the faith who make us their enemies, we now fight jihads against fellow Muslims, declaring them to be infidels when we know they are not. We should be preaching love and brotherhood of fellow Muslims but the learned ones, the

47
political ulamas are very fond of preaching hatred of other Muslims who do not accept their teachings and politics and urging holy wars against them, while ignoring completely the non-Muslim enemies who are oppressing Muslims. Indeed by what they preach and do, they are actually helping the enemies of Islam. We are enjoined by Islam to be fair and just in the administration of our laws. But we care not for justice and fairness as long as we uphold the process of judgment. In some instances, we advocate punishing the victim rather than the criminal. After 1400 years, we have still not codified Islamic laws, leaving it to the judge to refer instances of similar crimes in the past to pass judgment and sentence. For most of the Muslim countries, the due process of law has not been institutionalized, even though Muslim jurists abound in Muslim societies. We are enjoined by the Quran to prepare the means to defend Islam and the Muslim Ummah. We are told to maintain warhorses, swords etc. That may have put fear in the hearts of the foes of the Muslims in the time of the Prophet but it will not work today. We need guns and tanks, fighter planes and battleships etc. But we are not truly capable of producing these weapons. We may be licensed to produce them but by and large we have to buy them, sometimes from the very people who are our foes. If we are really to put fear in their hearts and to be able to defend ourselves then we must have the capability to devise and produce these arms ourselves, upgrading them to keep pace or to be ahead of the rest of the world. To do this we must acquire the necessary scientific and technical knowledge, industrial skills and capacity and management know-how. But we do not possess these skills because we are not encouraged by our religious leaders to acquire such knowledge. They urge us to study religion instead, as this is believed to gain us merit in the hereafter. That we fail to protect the Muslims as enjoined by the Quran actually commit a mortal sin does not seem to bother these people. If we go back to the true teachings of Islam on the need to be able to defend ourselves, we cannot but agree on the need to acquire knowledge of the sciences and the technologies, which will enable us to design and produce the weapons for our protection. Indeed if we follow the teachings of Islam we must acquire knowledge in all fields to ensure the well being of Muslims and the safety of their countries. We should actually be formulating and improving on all the sciences and skills required for a modern Islamic state where the Ummah is protected and where they are free of poverty, have adequate food, are able to provide clothes for themselves, live in decent dwellings, are respected and even looked upon by the rest of the world. Good governments are not beyond us, Muslims. We need a professional civil service, a professional police force and a professional defense force. They can all be trained and installed with right spirit and the proper sense of duty to the nation. Rules and regulations, rewards and punishment can be devised to ensure that there is minimal corruption or abuse. Systems of monitoring performances can be put in place in order to maximize the achievements of the government. Under a good honest leader, be he a king or a Prime minister or a President or a military ruler, helped by able
advisers and experts, a country can be developed to a high level. It can become stable, peaceful, wealthy and fully able to deal with all kind of challenges, both ideological and material. It can become sophisticated in every way, able to compete in every field. Being a Muslim country will not prevent this from being achieved. We are not going to be able to do this overnight. It will take time, a lot of time, but it is possible. There is nothing inherent in Islam or in the Muslims to prevent them from achieving this. Islam enjoins upon us to be patient and this is what we need to be right now. Even if we strive towards establishing stable and peaceful Muslim countries, we should be preparing ourselves to deal with the challenges that will come our way. We are now already in the Information Age. It is going to transform our lives completely. We have to accept that there is no way we can isolate and insulate ourselves. We are going to be assailed by information, both good and bad, and that, which can undermine our faith. We will have to strengthen our Islamic moral strength not by appealing to blind faith but by reason and logic. Certainly, we must not try to ignore what is happening around us. We must know that what is bad will weaken and destroy us but what is good will give us strength and success and knowing this we must resolve to reject what is bad and extol and practice what is good as enjoined upon us by Islam. Mastery of the sciences and the technologies should be easy if we are not prevented from learning them or harassed by the theologians. I am sure that given the opportunity Muslim scholars will once again dominate the world. They will not only master the extant knowledge but will develop new knowledge. Best of all, their faith will bring morality into the application of the knowledge that they will acquire. Muslims must eschew aggressiveness and thoughtless violence. As good Muslims we must seek peace and seek to live in peace with the rest of the world. I am absolutely sure that the oppression of the Muslims will cease once the Muslims and their countries are as well developed as the best developed countries in the world are. We must of course be capable of defending ourselves with our own weapons but they should never be used for blatant aggression but instead play a role together with other countries in the maintenance of peace in the world. Today many Muslim countries are very rich but they are not categorized as developed. The reason is clear. They do not have the industrial and commercial capacities of the developed countries. On the other hand there are many Muslim countries, which are extremely poor. They have mostly to depend on the charity of the non-Muslims. Few Muslim countries have foreign aid programs even for Muslim countries. But should the Muslim countries only help poor Muslim countries after becoming successful in establishing good governments and developing themselves? No, rather as the non-Muslims help Muslim countries, we should be prepared to help all poor countries.

49
In a world that is so extremely rich, there really should not be any poor country. We can blame the people of these countries for their own poverty but blaming them will not make them rich. The rich of the world, Muslims or non-Muslims, must help the poor to enrich them. This is entirely possible. We should not be proselytizing but we must correct their wrong impressions of Islam as being an anachronism given to violent and irrational behaviors. It is the duty of Muslims to give Islam a good image even if it gains us nothing. But I believe, it will benefit us a lot as we seek to play a role in world affairs in the 21st Century. Muslims must make up for the mistakes of the past, which left Islam in disrepute. We should not seek to be accepted just as partners in the building of a better world rather we should prove that it is our right, as Muslims, and that our countries have as much capacity to influence the direction of the world progress as anyone else possibly can possess. We are being forced to accept a globalised world. So far it is an idea crystallized and interpreted by the West. But it is not necessary that their interpretation is right or final. We the Muslim countries must have a say, a big say, in the shaping of this globalised world. But we must base our stand on the logic of our interpretation rather than merely saying that it is based on our faith. Muslims may accept the injunctions of the religion without question but others will not. We must put up our ideas and proposals based on logic and reasoning and on the maximum good that it can bring to the maximum number of people. This should not be too difficult because globalization as it is presently defined will benefit only the rich few. Indeed the richest will be benefited the most and the poorest will get even poorer. Our proposals must be more equitable and fair, aiming at nothing less than the enriching of all peoples of the world, irrespective of race, religion or geographical location. This is the role that Muslim nations and especially Pakistan can play in the 21st Century. While striving to establish good relation among Muslim countries, while striving for and adopting good governance and developing their nations, having discarded the senseless expression of anger and frustrations, the Muslim nations must help contribute towards world peace and prosperity by adopting a rational clear-headed policy in their relation with each other and with the rest of the world. The Muslims and Muslim countries must once again play the role that they played when they built the great Muslim civilization. After achieving this or even while striving to achieve this, its most likely that many of the problems in the relations between Muslim and nonMuslim countries will be resolved. The challenges of the 21st century will be many and varied. But these challenges can be met and, if not overcome, at least can be somewhat blunted if the Muslims face them with rationality and resoluteness. Through this process, the role of the Muslim countries will be defined and recognized. The 21st Century must be made the century for the world where everyone, including the Muslims and their countries will prosper and take their proper place as equal partners. Our role is not to be dominated but to be equal partners in a richer equitable world that is more rational. Inshallah.
The Two Visions of Iqbal

Allama Iqbal simply did not operate on intellectual plane alone. He was blessed with a unique balance of various paradoxical ideas. He combined modern thought process with traditional wisdom backed by intense spiritual enlightenment which enabled him to emerge as the most profound dreamer and visionary of the 20th century, still inspiring the entire Ummah from central Asia to North Africa. It is time we once again refer back
to him to respond to the challenges faced by Pakistan and Ummah. But before that, we need to ponder on his visions and ideals and the mission he aspired for. Iqbal envisaged Pakistans role in two steps: 1. The short term vision was creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India to make it a model Islamic state to act as a base to achieve the larger and long term second vision. 2. The second and long term dream of Iqbal was the reformation, renaissance and recapturing the lost glory of the Ummah. He envisioned a united Muslim world, powerful, educated, progressive and mod-
erate, playing a decisive role in global affairs for the betterment of entire humanity. Pakistan was to be the base area to initiate this massive reversal of fortunes after centuries of retreat and defeats of the Muslim world.
There should be one Muslim world for the defence of their spiritual and ideological centre of gravity (Haramain). From the shores of Nile to the planes of Central Asia. Iqbal. The visionary people will create new centres of Islamic civilization I am not looking towards Kufa and Baghdad for guidance and leadership The Role of Quaid-e-Azam
Iqbal.
Quaid-e-Azam was handpicked by Iqbal to fulfil his first dream. Quaid was not a visionary per se but was a brilliant executor of Iqbals vision, with leadership qualities fit for the mammoth task of carving out a Muslim

51
base area under the resistance of hostile forces of British Empire and Hindu conspirators. Iqbals choice was stunningly correct. But the physical role of Quaid-e-Azam ended soon after the creation of Pakistan. He shared and was inspired by Iqbal on the future of Pakistan but did not have time to complete it. The geographic boundaries of Pakistan were created but spiritual, ideological and visionary goals need some time to complete.
Pakistans unfinished destiny

Under the vision of Iqbal, it is the destiny of Pakistan to become the leader of the Muslim world to unite the Ummah, lead the charge to reformation and progress and reclaim the lost glory of the Ummah to play decisive role in the affairs of the modern world today. Seems like an impossible task but destined nevertheless. Great nations have great dreams and greater perseverance to achieve the impossible. Our nation needs hope, it needs self respect and dignity more than anything else. All else would automatically follow. Secular and liberal western extremism and radical thinking cannot be fought with religious extremism. Without arming ourselves with enlightened and benevolent ideological principles of Quran and Sunnah as explained by Iqbal, the hold of the radicals both secular and religious -- cannot be broken, nor can the moral authority be achieved domestically and globally within the Ummah. Defining and projecting the ideological parameters in all aspects of national and international life is neither extremism nor a path of confrontation but truly a path of moderation within the country and a strategy of benevolent defiance and honourable co-existence with other countries and civilizations. Under the spearhead and encompassing envelope of ideological vision and parameters drawn from the Khilafat-e-Rashida, would emerge our defence strategy, economic goals, foreign policy, governance methodologies and social welfare and social justice programs, all flowing from the fountainhead of ideological pillar of Khilafat-e-Rashida and having their own set of goals and visions to be achieved. The following four points represent the vision to become the guiding beacon for all national policies and strategies for future. This is the greater, finer and magnanimous interpretation of Iqbal and Islam in modern time which will make sense to even the most severe critics. Pakistan as a leader of the Muslim world taking charge of all the global Muslim issues. Pakistan as the powerful Islamic nuclear power with solid homeland defence.
Pakistan as an Islamic welfare State modelled on the pattern of Khilafat-e- Rashida with emphasis on social justice, social welfare and equitable distribution of wealth. Maintaining and defending its Islamic ideology and character while rejecting the extremisms of all kinds either religious or secular liberalist. Pakistan acting as a bridge between various civilizations between Islam and West, Islam and China.
Dealing with dominant and power nations on the basis of honourable co-existence based on Sura Kafirun. It is also time to protect and project our core Islamic values and identity. Without Islamic ideology and identity, there is and will be no Pakistan. Our ideological frontiers must be guarded just like our geographical boundaries and nuclear assets with similar jealousy and responsibility. Islam is a complete and supreme ideology and does not need to borrow its morality, economy and politics from the West or the East for completion. We in Pakistan do not wish to adopt the morals, values, culture and faith of other civilizations despite loud noises by some liberal thinkers. We only need to protect, cultivate and project our own values based on our own universal faith. For example, which model for emancipation of women do the extremists of both camps want us to follow, The American model, the western model, the Indian model or the Taliban model? Shall we make our women abused, humiliated and sexually exploited object of fun of the West and Bollywood or shall we make them as suppressed and restricted as the women of Taliban? In short we reject all of these models as none of these is balanced. We would rather want to implement the model given to us by our faith, values and ideology as practiced in early days of Khilafat-e- Rashida. I agree that we have to go a long way but it is Muslims who have to be blamed not Islam for the weaknesses. We definitely do not need to amalgamate Islam with other ideologies to make it perfect. Yes, we do need to revive the institution of Ijtihad to meet the challenges of the present times and environments but that remains within the permissible boundaries of Quran and Sunnah. If Islam suppresses women then how it can be explained that Islam is the fastest growing religion in America with western women being the maximum number of converts towards Islam leaving behind their liberated western values and culture? What peace and serenity is that modern westerners are finding in the Islam which our own liberals are finding hard to digest or explain? The declaration of divinely given moderate Policy of honourable co-existence between civilizations: Sura-Kafiroon is a brief Surah in Quran. This six verse Surah is the most incredible and concise declaration of foreign policy of an Islamic state for mutual honourable co-existence within the community of nations in the world. It says literally:
Please announce to all those who do not deliberately accept Islam as their code of life. I will not worship what you worship nor would you worship what I worship. Nor will I ever worship what you worship nor would you ever worship what I worship. You follow your code of life; I follow my code of life
Interpretation for modern times as policy of dignified co-existence for all nations based on true principles of Islam: The Islamic civilization in general and the Islamic State in particular would like to make a policy statement to all other contemporary civilizations and nations states co-existing in the world from various religious and cultural divide who do not share Islam as their code of life and article of faith. The Islamic State announce that Islam and Muslims do not wish to adopt the faith, values, culture, policies,

53
morals, manners, laws and etiquettes of non-Muslim civilizations and countries. We also acknowledge that all non-Muslim civilizations and countries would also not adopt the faith, values, culture, morals, values and laws of the Islamic civilization and Islamic countries. We also wish to pronounce in no uncertain terms that this declaration of policy is for all times to come and is an irrevocable, non-negotiable statement and Muslims and Islamic civilization would never adopt the value systems of other civilizations and countries. We also fully respect and acknowledge the right of all other existing civilizations that they too have all the right to follow their own set of values and articles of faith for all times to come without any compulsion to follow the code of life of Islamic civilization and Islamic state. Islamic civilization and Islamic state acknowledge the right of all other existing civilizations and countries to honourably co-exist and follow their own set of faith, values and ideology. Islamic State also expect all other civilizations to reciprocate the same spirit and accept the right of Islamic civilization to follow, implement and practice its own set of values and laws in the domain of its influence. All sides would respect and tolerate each other and would abstain from coercion, blackmail, influence, and threat to other civilization to impose its own version of faith, values and code of life on the others. Muslims and Islamic countries would live in peace and would expect others to live in peace too but would resist and counter with full force all attempts by any other existing civilization or faith to impose its version of code of life on Islamic countries or civilizations. Our final advice to all civilizations would be to live and let live with dignity, honour, respect and mutual sharing and assistance. This will guarantee global peace and progress for all humanity as one large diverse community of humanity. And in the end to quote from Iqbal once again:
Makkah has sent a message to Geneva, What is better? United nations or United Humanity?
Iqbal Within the community of nations and within Pakistan, Khilafat e Rashida model of governance is the manifest destiny which awaits us, Inshallah. *************************
Note: To support our central theme of this policy paper, we have heavily relied upon a speech and concepts by Dr. Mahathir Muhammad. Our special thanks to him for his precious input.
5 On the Question of Mission, Goals and

Strategy in Formulation of National Media Policy
Zaid Hamid
Making a media policy is far more complex than dos and donts of administrative nature or forming legal contracts for private channels.
There are two major aspects of a National Media policy. 1. The Philosophical Vision, Mission statement, Goals and Objectives to be achieved. 2. The BrassTacks the actual details involving technical, human, administrative, legal and financial aspects of the policy to achieve the defined Vision and Goals. This paper only deals with the first aspect the Philosophical part of the Media policy. Once this aspect is accurately defined, all energies can then be channelized to achieve this objective through the deployment of the second aspect of the media policy. The vision and goals decided must be protected by a comprehensive media strategy, which defines the parameters of journalism, rules for electronic media, methods of monitoring and surveillance of fifth columnists under the garb of journalism, as well as media force projection capabilities, ensuring much more than just issuing licences for tens of uncontrolled channels which act as enemy artillery on our social, moral, religious and national defences. This is war and we must respond on war footings. There is no such thing as freedom of expression, unbiased media or free media. Lets not get too carried away blindly with the notion. Not even in US, UK or the so-called best democracies, have anything like that. Either strong State control for national security is exercised on media, or there is strong self- regulation by the national media, which collaborates with the national security and development strategy. FOX, CNN, BBC, ZEE TV, Door Darshan, Star Plus etc, all follow the macro agenda of their governments and are either directly controlled by the mega cartels, having vested interests and influence in their countrys policy formula-

55
tions or are ideologically motivated to promote their strategic vision. Bollywood, in India, is acting as an extension of Indian foreign policy, with the strong political and sexually explicit movies they are churning out, while keeping Pakistani audiences, particularly youth, in focus. The compromised and incompetent governments media policy ensured that these movies end up in Pakistani theatres. Pakistani media managers and information ministry remains ridiculously complacent in this regard as well. While making an apologetic attempt to project to the world that media is free in Pakistan, the government unabatedly allowed vulgarity and ideologically poisonous views to be strongly promoted in the country, which are actually worse than the Indian artillery and nukes pointed at us. Can we allow these amoral values to be promoted in the country in the name of freedom of expression? Lets draw the line and do not be fooled by the twisted notion, which we have accepted hook, line and sinker without questioning. Also, the media cannot be above the law nor have the authority to operate outside the ambit of national legal, social and moral limits. Freedom of expression has its limits and they must be understood, written, applied and enforced in any media policy, which the country wishes to deploy. It has to be forcefully asserted that without Islamic ideology and identity, there is and will be no Pakistan. Our ideological frontiers must be guarded as jealously and responsibly as our geographical and nuclear assets. Anyone not guarding these frontiers would not be sincere to this nation and the country. We must never allow Allama Iqbal to be sidelined, degraded or bypassed by the media as it launches direct attacks on his thoughts, visions and role for Pakistan and Ummah. He is the most dangerous man for the anti-Islamic forces due to his revolutionary and inspiring beliefs, therefore, he is the topmost priority for the enemies to be destroyed. Iqbal must be jealously guarded, lovingly projected and patronised as his views and beliefs fit the new role for Pakistan as the world leader of the Muslim world.
Know thy enemy ... The Colony and the Colonials

At this point it would be very appropriate to learn from history and refer to the British attempts of colonizing Indian sub-continent and their application of psychological warfare, information war, education strategies and literature in creating a colonised society. The process remains equally relevant even today and must be understudied when we formulate our own media policy. As has been noted by numerous scholars of British rule in India, the physical presence of the British in India was not significant. Yet, for almost two centuries, the British were able to rule two-third of the subcontinent directly, and exercise considerable leverage over the Princely States that accounted for the remaining one-third. While the strategy of divide and conquer was used most effectively, an important aspect of British rule in India was the psychological indoctrination of an elite layer within the Indian society, who were artfully tutored into becoming model British subjects.
This English-educated layer of Indian society was craftily encouraged in absorbing such values and notions about themselves and their land of birth, that would be conducive to the British occupation of India, and furthering British goals of looting India's physical wealth and exploiting its labour. In 1835, Thomas Macaulay articulated the goals of British colonial imperialism most succinctly:
"We must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect."
Thomas Macaulay
As the architect of Colonial Britain's Educational Policy in India, Thomas Macaulay was to set the standards for what educated Indians were going to learn about themselves, their civilization, and their view of Britain and the world around them. An arch-racist, Thomas Macaulay had nothing but scornful disdain for Indian history and civilization. In his infamous minute of 1835, he wrote that he had
"never found one among them (speaking of Orientalists, an opposing political faction) who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. It is, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England".
All manner of conscious (and subconscious) British (and European) agents would henceforth embark on a journey to rape and conquer the Indian mind. Within a matter of years, J.N Farquhar (a contemporary of Macaulay) was to write:
"The new educational policy of the Government, created, during these years, the modern educated class of India. These are men who think and speak in English habitually, who are proud of their
On the Question of Mission 56
citizenship in the British Empire, who are devoted to English literature, and whose intellectual life has been almost entirely formed by the thought of the West, large numbers of them enter government services, while the rest practice law, medicine or teaching, or take to journalism or business."
Macaulay's stratagem could not have yielded greater dividends. Charles E. Trevelyan, brother-in-law of Macaulay, stated:
"Familiarly acquainted with us by means of our literature, the Indian youth almost cease to regard us as foreigners. They speak of "great" men with the same enthusiasm as we do. Educated in the same way, interested in the same objects, engaged in the same pursuits with ourselves, they become more English than Hindoos, just as the Roman provincial became more Romans than Gaul or Italians.."
That this was no benign process, but intimately related to advancing British colonial goals, was expressed quite candidly by Charles Trevelyan in his testimony before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Government of Indian Territories on 23rd June, 1853:
57
"..... the effect of training in European learning is to give an entirely new turn to the native mind. The young men educated in this way cease to strive after independence according to the original Native model, and aim at improving the institutions of the country according to the English model, with the ultimate result of establishing constitutional self-government. They cease to regard us as enemies and usurpers, and they look upon us as friends and patrons, and powerful beneficent persons, under whose protection the regeneration of their country will gradually be worked out. ....."
Much of the indoctrination of the Indian mind actually took place outside the formal classrooms and through the sale of British literature to the English-educated Indian, who developed a voracious appetite for the British novel and British writings on a host of popular subjects. In a speech before the Edinburgh Philosophical Society in 1846, Thomas Babington (1800-1859), shortly to become Baron Macaulay, offered a toast:
"To the literature of Britain . . . which has exercised an influence wider than that of our commerce and mightier than that of our arms . . .before the light of which impious and cruel superstitions are fast taking flight on the Banks of the Ganges!"
However, the British were not content to influence Indian thinking just through books written in the English language. Realizing the danger of Indians discovering their real heritage through the medium of Sanskrit, Christian missionaries such as William Carey anticipated the need for British educators to learn Sanskrit and transcribe and interpret Sanskrit texts in a manner compatible with colonial aims. That Carey's aims were thoroughly duplicitous, is underscored in this quote cited by Richard Fox Young:
"To gain the ear of those who are thus deceived, it is necessary for them to believe that the speaker has a superior knowledge of the subject. In these circumstances, a knowledge of Sanskrit is valuable. As the person thus misled, perhaps a Brahman, deems this a most important part of knowledge, if the advocate of truth be deficient therein, he labours against the hill; presumption is altogether against him."
Elaborating on the phenomenon of cultural colonization, Priya Joshi (Culture and Consumption: Fiction, the Reading Public, and the British Novel in Colonial India) writes:
"Often, the implementation of a new education system leaves those who are colonized, with a lack of identity and a limited sense of their past. The indigenous history and customs, once practiced and observed, slowly slip away. The colonized become hybrids of two vastly different cultural systems. Colonial education creates a blurring that makes it difficult to differentiate between the new, enforced ideas of the colonizers and the formerly accepted native practices." The Impact of Language on National Character and Ideology
Perhaps the greatest damage done to Pakistan in the last few years is that Pakistan is fast tracking its way to lose its language and subsequently its identity. Urdu is obviously not on the priority list of the present rulers who now want to introduce English from class 1, against all basic laws and norms of basic education, local culture, availability of resources and teachers and capacity of the target student body. In a population where children are even unfamiliar with Urdu due to local ethnic cultures and local languages, now English will be introduced as a subject, overburdening the rural children who are already struggling with Urdu. In private schools, Urdu is a non-entity anyway, having given way to broken and poor English long time ago. Already from road signs to most basic routine State and private business, Urdu has been abandoned entirely or replaced with Roman Urdu or English words written in Urdu script symbolic of a disintegrating civilization. It is a devastating state of affairs that an entire Muslim civilization is on its way out, just as 800 years old Turkish history was lost to new Turkish generations when Mustafa Kamal destroyed classical Turkish to be replaced with Romanized Turkish. At the present rate of decimation of Urdu in Pakistan, we fear that in next five years, the damage would be irreparable. Here it would be appropriate if we turn the pages of history to see what has gone by already to predict what will happen in the future if we maintain our present course. It can be seen that the debate on educational policy, medium and the long- term political and social implication is not new and has been raging since the times of East India Company and the British Empire. This is what our founding fathers stressed upon in order to create an identity for us:
The all India Muslim League calls upon all the Urdu speaking people of India to make every possible endeavour to safeguard the interests of their language, in every field of activity, with which the Central and Provincial government were concerned, and where ever the Urdu language is the language of the area, its unhampered use and development should be upheld, and where it is not a predominant language, adequate arrangement should be made for teaching it as an optional subject, and
in all government offices, courts, legislature, railways, and postal departments provisions should be made for its use. Efforts should also be made to make Urdu the universal language of India
All India Muslim League 25th session, 15-8-1937.
We will speak and write Urdu, educate our children in Urdu, never call our language by any other name except Urdu
Liaqat Ali Khan 9-4-1939, Educational conference at Aligargh. What the Colonial Masters had planned for the natives via the education policy:
59
Endeavours should be made to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect
Macaulay 1835, Education Commission of India
The great objective of the British government ought to be the promotion of European literature and science among the natives of India and that all the funds appropriated to education would best be employed on English education alone
Committee of Public Instruction, 1835, under Macaulay Consequently, the question arises that how is language critically associated with identity, imperialism, mental slavery, cultural invasion and national unity? A question, which our myopic leaders, interested only in false notion of economic growth, do not understand but the British colonizers did:
All language is ideological in the sense that it encodes certain conception of life. As such, language always wields ideological, often covert power
Connolly 1983, page 139-50
The battle for identity of Central Asia, whether it was to be Islamic and Turkic or Marxist and Soviet, was also fought partly through language policies and corpus planning. Soviets changed the Arabic based script of the Central Asia languages to Latin in the 1920sand then to Cyrillic in the late 30s to cut them off from their Muslim past Today with their autonomy, these States give their languages symbolic status as a measure of their national identity
Shorish 1984
Rashid 1994
Ben Yahudas dream of preserving the Jewish identity through the revival of Hebrew made him the father of nationalistic language planning in Israel.
Fellman 1974
Linguistic imperialism is also central to social imperialism, which relates to the transmission of the normal and behaviour of a modal social structure, and these are embedded in language. This occurs whenever a socializing influence is exerted
Phillipson 1992: 54
Language is an important tool of Imperialism, defined as the domination of one collectively over another
Galtung 1980:107
The (language controversy) began in 1780 and in a sense has never ended. It was not only an educational matter but was indeed connected with the political domination of India by the British
Spear 1938
The abolition of the exclusive privileges which the Persian language has in the courts and affairs of the court will form the crowning stroke which will shake Hinduism and Mohammedanism to their centre and firmly establish our language, our learning and ultimately our religion in India
Letter of William Bentinck 9th April 1834 -- Philips 1977, 1239 While the British colonial masters westernized the natives, their own government understood the need to learn and understand local languages by the rulers themselves, for better communication between the rulers and the ruled. A strict policy to learn local languages especially Urdu, Persian and Hindi, was adopted by the Imperial British officers:
So seriously these examinations taken that the suggestions of the Commander in Chief, Sir Fredrick Roberts, that army officers should be allowed to write Hindi in Roman rather than in Devanagri letters, was not accepted by the secretary of the board of examiners.
Letters no 2523, 27-August-1886, India office library, London Even history forgets the nations who do not jealously guard their identity. Enemies always attack the identity of any people to cause their final and total annihilation. The most unfortunate aspect is that the battle to annihilate Muslim identity and culture from India, which had started after the battle of Plassey, in 1757, continues even today.

61
The British first decimated Arabic and Persian from India to break away the connection of Indian Muslims from the Arab and the Persian- speaking world. Then they began destroying Urdu as well, but could not finish the job; it was obligingly taken up by Pakistans westernized elite, as well as the Education and Information Ministries.
The National Media Policy, Philosophical Outlines:

Objective Mission Statement To create and deploy a proactive, visionary and strong media policy to propel Pakistan into the 21st century, creating and galvanizing a unified and ideologically proud nation -- with a glorious history and uniquely dignified divine code of life -- with strong transnational associations within the Ummah. The policy should be protective of ideological and geographical boundaries of the State, Government and Nation, as well as a powerful information and psychological warfare weapon, to act as an extension of national security doctrine, rising up to the challenges faced by the nation in the internal, external and global arenas Minimum recommended Goals of the Media Policy 1. To set the limits, terms and framework for responsible and mature media, acting as an extension of national security doctrine working within the ambit of law, respecting the social, moral and religious values of the State, nation and Ummah and challenging the attempts by the enemies to attack so as to redefine Pakistans ideological, moral, social and national values. Azad media but not Awara Media! To project the concept of mature, responsible and value friendly media which would assist in reprogramming the national and international psyche about human, moral and Islamic values in the modern times. 2. To create a nation knowledgeable and proud of its history, heritage, ideology and values and galvanized to take up the challenges of 21st century. 3. To give voice to global Muslim and Human issues for balanced and alternate viewpoint from the perspective of Pakistan and Muslim world today. 4. To project Pakistan as leader of the Muslim world and as the model ideological Islamic Welfare State. 5. To project Pakistan as the bridge between the civilizations based on Sura Kafirun and also to block the efforts of extremists to create a clash of civilizations to destroy the Islamic Ummah. 6. To project Pakistan as the technology and military leader of the Muslim world and as the only nuclear and missile power, representing the Islamic block. 7. To counter the attempts by foreign hostile media to encircle Pakistan and to prevent the foreign powers and States from exploiting the national laws and media in order to deploy the Pakistani media to advance foreign hostile agenda. 8. Urdu language to be jealously guarded, protected, promoted. Any media policy, which can keep the above parameters in close perspective and respond to the above men-
tioned challenges in a dignified manner, would be a sound investment into national security and would serve the nation and State very well. It is a do-able job. Once the vision guidelines are incorporated, the next step would be to devise laws, vehicles and tools to achieve the defined objectives. That is the easier part, once the vision is clear and the goal is sharp and focussed. *************************
6 Lest we Forget
What lies at the heart of an invincible civilization and courses through its veins as the ultimate life force is the undaunting belief in its sense of being through its ideology. Hence the annihilation of a civilization depends on the initial disparagement and the subsequent dissolution of its ideology. The sanctity and the significance of the Ideology of Pakistan cannot be stressed enough. Subversive as well as blatant attempts have gained momentum in recent years in order to discredit and malign the very foundations of this belief. Now more than ever, our survival as a United Muslim Nation depends upon an unflinching commitment to not only uphold but also safeguard our ideology against all external as well as internal assaultscome what may! In pursuit of this objective, BrassTacks Security Review presents a series of excerpts from diverse sources that will enable us all to re-establish, rekindle and rejuvenate our faith in the essential genesis of this Pak Sarzameen and recognize the indisputable magnificence of her Ideology.
1)- Quaid e Azam interview with Reuters correspondent Duncan Hooper, 25th October 1947 , published by Oxford publishers, " We must try to stop any effort or attempt which is intended to bring about a forced union of the two dominions (india and pak). The methods advocated for the achievement of this end are I. Bring about a revolt of Muslims against Muslim League and Govt. of Pakistan. II. Making the leaders of Pakistan realize the folly of 2 nation theory, and change their ways, and force them once again to join the union and thereby create a single india by war."
further Quaid e Azam says, " As for two nation theory , its not a theory but a fact." then he quotes Prof. Dr. Gadgil that India is a hindu state.
2)
Excerpt from a speech by Liaquat Ali Khan , US, 1950 Pakistan stands firm. It stands firm because the Muslims who form the majority of its eighty million people have an ideology of their own which we call the Islamic way of life.
Lest We Forget 64
This is not a new ideology. It is a body of faith, tradition and belief, which has been a part of mans heritage for over thirteen hundred years. We believe that this ideology when applied to statecraft and the conduct of human affairs is bound to promote human welfare. Let me tell you in a few simple and clear words what it is. There is first the belief in God and His supreme sovereignty. This does not mean either theocracy or medievalism. We do not believe in priesthood or in the caste system. We consider the first to be unnecessary, for God is as close to one human being as to another. We consider the second to be an abomination, for all men are equal.
Individual effort and enterprise is the law of life with us as well as the belief that each man or woman is entitled to the fruits of his or her honest endeavor. The pivot of our economic doctrine is the right of private ownership but our laws and institutions have behind them the aim of reducing inequalities of wealth. We do not have to present this ideology to our people as a new manifesto. The principles I have stated are part and parcel of Islam and when we say that we want to follow the Islamc way of life what we mean is that we could not possibly do otherwise."

65
3) The Inspiration behind a Jewish PMs Defense Strategy

In 1973 the war between Arabs and Israel was about to start. Meanwhile an American Senator visited Israel on a special mission. He was chief of the Senate Arms Committee. A meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was arranged immediately. Golda Meir welcomed him into her home, like any common housewife welcoming a family guest. She took him to the kitchen. While seating him at the kitchen dining table, she went over to prepare tea for the guest. As she waited for the water to boil, she came over and sat on a chair near the dining table. She opened the discussion regarding fighter planes, missiles, and guns. During the course of negotiation, she got the aroma of the brew. She prepared two cups of tea, and offered one cup to the Senator, and another to an American guard who was standing at the gate. On returning, she came back and resumed her conversation with the Senator. After some discussion they settled the arms deal. In the meantime, she stood up, collected all the cups, and turned to the senator and said, "I agree with this, you can send your secretary to mine for a written deal." It should be kept in mind that Israel at that point in time was facing a serious economic crisis, but the huge arms deal was settled by Meir with the greatest of ease. It was quite astonishing that earlier, the Israeli cabinet had rejected the same deal, because they thought it would be very costly and the whole nation would have to make do with a single meal a day for years to come. Meir knew about their stand and stated, "Your doubts are well founded, but if we win this war and defeat the Arabs, history will remember us as the victors, and once a community is known as the victor, it forgets how many eggs they ate and how many times they had food. Whether there was jam, honey, butter on the table, and how many holes they had in their shoes. Or whether the sheaths of their swords were new or old! A conqueror is a conqueror." Based on Meir's solid logic, the Israeli cabinet approved the deal. Later it was proved that the decision taken by Meir was right, and the whole world witnessed the Jews knocking on the doors of the Arabs with this artillery. A war took place, and the Arabs faced a shameful defeat because of the prerogative taken by an old lady. After a gap of one decade after the war, a reporter from the Washington Post interviewed Meir, asking "Was the logic you had in your mind for the arms a spur of the moment decision or you already had an advance strategy?" Meir's reply was very surprising.
When I read this account, it occurred to me how many people in the world would have known about the worst economic condition of the Islamic state? But everyone recognizes them as conquerors of half the world. So I decided that I would buy arms at any cost; even if we would have to starve or to live in camps instead of buildings, but we would prove ourselves as the victors."
Meir revealed this secret, but requested the interviewer to keep it "off the record", and refrain from publishing it, because if she had referred to Prophet Mohammed(P.B.U.H), the Jews would have revolted against her and the position of the Muslims would have strengthened.
When Golda Meir died, the interviewer had given up journalism by that time. Meanwhile another correspondent was interviewing 20 famous American journalists. In connection with this, he met the journalist who had interviewed Meir as a representative of the Washington Post. In this interview, he recounted the story of Meir that drew on the life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). He said he was not ashamed to tell the story. He added,
"After this incident I studied the history of Islam, and was astonished to know about the savoir-faire of Arabs. Because I learnt that Tariq bin Ziyad conquered Spain through Gibraltar, while more than half of his army did not own a complete suit of
Lest We Forget 66
"I acquired this logic from the Prophet (of the Muslims) Mohammed (peace be upon him). When I was a student, my favorite topic was comparative study of religions. During those days I studied the life of Mohammed (PBUH). One author stated that when Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) passed away, there was not enough money to buy oil for a lamp, his wife (Ayesha Siddiqua [Raziallah-u-ta'ala unha]) mortgaged his battle shield to buy oil, yet there were nine swords hung on the wall of his house.
clothes. They subsisted for 72 hours at a stretch on water and dried bread.
It was then that the interviewer agreed with Meir's view that history counts victory; it does not count the eggs, jams and butter on the table. When the interview with Meir was published, the whole world learned of this entire story. This astonishing incident is history's wake-up call for the Muslims of the world. It teaches them a lesson; it reveals how 14 centuries ago, a shepherd, clad in a cloak and worn-out shoes became the leader of the world, and conquered four continents.
Source: Lesson from the History by Irshad Haqqani http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/11826
67
4) Ideology of Pakistan ( StoryofPakistan.com)

The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but also two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confined to the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years, they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different. As early as in the beginning of the 11th century, Al-Biruni observed that Hindus differed from the Muslims in all matters and habits. He further elaborated his argument by writing that the Hindus considered Muslims "Mlachha", or impure. And they forbid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any other bond of relationship. They even avoid sitting, eating and drinking with them, because they feel "polluted". The speech made by Quaid-i-Azam at Minto Park, Lahore on March 23, 1940 was very similar to Al-Biruni's thesis in theme and tone. In this speech, he stated that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, with different social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor eat together, and indeed belong to two different civilizations whose very foundations are based on conflicting ideas and concepts. Their outlook on life and of life is different. He emphasized that in spite of the passage of about 1,000 years the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not attain the level of cordiality. The only difference between the writing of Al-Biruni and the speech of Quaid-i-Azam was that Al-Biruni made calculated predictions, while Quaid-i-Azam had history behind him to support his argument.
The Ideology of Pakistan has its roots deep in history. The history of South Asia is largely a history of rivalry and conflict between the Hindus and Muslims of the region. Both communities have been living together in the same area since the early 8th century, since the advent of Islam in India. Yet, the two have failed to develop harmonious relations. In the beginning, one could find the Muslims and Hindus struggling for supremacy in the battlefield. Starting with the war between Muhammad bin Qasim and Raja Dahir in 712, armed conflicts between Hindus and Muslims run in thousands. Clashes between Mahmud of Ghazni and Jaypal, Muhammad Ghuri and Prithvi Raj, Babur and Rana Sanga and Aurangzeb and Shivaji are cases in point. When the Hindus of South Asia failed to establish Hindu Padshahi through force, they opted for back door conspiracies. Bhakti Movement with the desire to merge Islam and Hinduism was one of the biggest attacks on the ideology of the Muslims of the region. Akbar's diversion from the main stream Islamic ideology was one of the Hindus' greatest success stories. However, due to the immediate counterattack by Mujaddid Alf Sani and his pupils, this era proved to be a short one. Muslims once again proved their separate identity during the regimes of Jehangir, Shah Jehan and particularly Aurangzeb. The attempts to bring the two communities close could not succeed because the differences between the two are fundamental and have no meeting point. At the root of the problem lies the difference between the two religions. So long as the two people want to lead their lives according to their respective faith, they cannot be one.
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A129
*************************
Lest We Forget 68
7 Speech of Liaquat Ali Khan
On the Objectives Resolution, March 9, 1949
"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful; WHEREAS sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limit prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan; WHEREIN the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people; WHEREIN the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed; WHEREIN the Muslim shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna; WHEREIN adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures; WHEREBY the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed; WHEREIN shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
WHEREIN adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; WHEREIN the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured; WHEREIN the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded; So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honoured place amongst the nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity." Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the House that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-I-Azam, gave expression to his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms. Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this subcontinent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today. It is universally recognized that the source of these evils is that humanity has not been able to keep pace with its material development, that the Frankenstein Monster which human genius has produced in the form of scientific inventions, now threatens to destroy not only the fabric of human society but its material environment as well, the very habitat in which it dwells. It is universally recognized that if man had not chosen to ignore the spiritual values of life and if his faith in God had not been weakened, this scientific development would not have endangered his very existence. It is God-consciousness alone which can save humanity, which means that all power that humanity possesses must be used in accordance with ethical standards which have been laid down by inspired teachers known to us as the great Prophets of different religions. We, as Pakistanis, are not ashamed of the fact that we are overwhelmingly Muslims and we believe that it is by adhering to our faith and ideals that we can make a genuine contribution to the welfare of the world. Therefore, Sir, you would notice that the Preamble of the Resolution deals with a frank and unequivocal recognition of the fact that all authority must be subservient to God. It is quite true that this is in direct contradiction to the Machiavellian ideas regarding a polity where spiritual and ethical values should play no part in the governance of the people and, therefore, it is also perhaps a little out of fashion to remind ourselves of the fact that the State should be an instrument of beneficence and not of evil. But we, the people of Pakistan, have the courage to believe firmly that all authority should be exercised in accordance with the standards laid down by Islam so that it may not be misused. All authority is a sacred trust, entrusted to us by God for the purpose of being exercised in the service of man, so that it does not become an agency for tyranny or selfishness. I would, however, point out that this is not a resuscitation of the dead theory of Divine Right of Kings or rulers, because, in accordance with the spirit of Islam, the Preamble fully recognizes the truth that authority has been delegated to the people, and to none else, and that it is for the people to decide who will exercise that authority. For this reason it has been made clear in the Resolution that the State shall exercise all its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. This is the very essence of democracy, because the people
Speech of Liaquat Ali Khan 70

71
have been recognized as the recipients of all authority and it is in them that the power to wield it has been vested. Sir, I just now said that the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy. It is true that in its literal sense, theocracy means the Government of God; in this sense, however, it is patent that the entire universe is a theocracy, for is there any corner in the entire creation where His authority does not exist? But in the technical sense, theocracy has come to mean a Government by ordained priests, who wield authority as being specially appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that such an idea is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, therefore, the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam. If there are any who still use the word theocracy in the same breath as the polity of Pakistan, they are either labouring under a grave misapprehension, or indulging in mischievous propaganda. You would notice, Sir, that the Objectives Resolution lays emphasis on the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, and further defines them by saying that these principles should be observed in the constitution as they have been enunciated by Islam. It has been necessary to qualify these terms because they are generally used in a loose sense. For instance, the Western Powers and Soviet Russia alike claim that their systems are based upon democracy, and, yet, it is common knowledge that their polities are inherently different. It has, therefore, been found necessary to define these terms further in order to give them a well-understood meaning. When we use the word democracy in the Islamic sense, it pervades all aspects of our life; it relates to our system of Government and to our society with equal validity, because one of the greatest contributions of Islam has been the idea of the equality of all men. Islam recognizes no distinctions based upon race, colour or birth. Even in the days of its decadence, Islamic society has been remarkably free from the prejudices which vitiated human relations in many other parts of the world. Similarly, we have a great record in tolerance, for under no system of Government, even in the Middle Ages, have the minorities received the same consideration and freedom as they did in Muslim countries. When Christian dissentients and Muslims were being tortured and driven out of their homes, when they were being hunted as animals and burnt as criminals - even criminals have never been burnt in Islamic society - Islam provided a haven for all who were persecuted and who fled from tyranny. It is a well-known fact of history that, when anti-Semitism turned the Jews out of many a European country, it was the Ottoman Empire which gave them shelter. The greatest proof of the tolerance of Muslim peoples lies in the fact that there is no Muslim country where strong minorities do not exist, and where they have not been able to preserve their religion and culture. Most of all, in this sub-continent of India, where the Muslims wielded unlimited authority, the rights of nonMuslims were cherished and protected. I may point out, Sir, that it was under Muslim patronage that many an indigenous language developed in India. My friends, from Bengal would remember that it was under the encouragement of Muslim rulers that the first translations of the Hindu scriptures were made from Sanskrit into Bengali. It is this tolerance which is envisaged by Islam, wherein a minority does not live on sufferance, but is respected and given every opportunity to develop its own thought and culture, so that it may contribute to the greater glory of the entire nation. In the matter of social justice as well, Sir, I would point out that Islam has a distinct contribution to make. Islam envisages a society in which social justice means neither charity nor regimentation. Islamic social justice is based upon fundamental laws and concepts which guarantee to man a life free from want and rich in freedom. It is for this reason that the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice have been further defined by giving to them a meaning which, in our view, is deeper and wider than the usual connotation of these words.
The next clause of the Resolution lays down that Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna. It is quite obvious that no non-Muslim should have any objection if the Muslims are enabled to order their lives in accordance with the dictates of their religion. You would also notice, Sir, that the State is not to play the part of a neutral observer, wherein the Muslims may be merely free to profess and practise their religion, because such an attitude on the part of the State would be the very negation of the ideals which prompted the demand of Pakistan, and it is these ideals which should be the corner-stone of the State which we want to build. The State will create such conditions as are conductive to the building up of a truly Islamic society, which means that the State will have to play a positive part in this effort. You would remember, Sir, that the Quaid-I-Azam and other leaders of the Muslim League always made unequivocal declarations that the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based upon the fact that the Muslims had a way of life and a code of conduct. They also reiterated the fact that Islam is not merely a relationship between the individual and his God, which should not, in any way, affect the working of the State. Indeed, Islam lays down specific directions for social behaviour, and seeks to guide society in its attitude towards the problems which confront it from day to day. Islam is not just a matter of private beliefs and conduct. It expects its followers to build up a society for the purpose of good life - as the Greeks would have called it, with this difference, that Islamic "good-life" is essentially based upon spiritual values. For the purpose of emphasizing these values and to give them validity, it will be necessary for the State to direct and guide the activities of the Muslims in such a manner as to bring about a new social order based upon the essential principles of Islam, including the principles of democracy, freedom, tolerance and social justice. These I mention merely by way of illustration; because they do not exhaust the teachings of Islam as embodied in the Quran and the Sunna. There can be no Muslim who does not believe that the word of God and the life of the Prophet are the basic sources of his inspiration. In these there is no difference of opinion amongst the Muslims and there is no sect in Islam which does not believe in their validity. Therefore, there should be no misconception in the mind of any sect which may be in a minority in Pakistan about the intentions of the State. The State will seek to create an Islamic society free from dissensions, but this does not mean that it would curb the freedom of any section of the Muslims in the matter of their beliefs. No sect, whether the majority or a minority, will be permitted to dictate to the others and, in their own internal matters and sectional beliefs, all sects shall be given the fullest possible latitude and freedom. Actually we hope that the various sects will act in accordance with the desire of the Prophet who said that the differences of opinion amongst his followers are a blessing. It is for us to make our differences a source of strength to Islam and Pakistan, not to exploit them for narrow interests which will weaken both Pakistan and Islam. Differences of opinion very often lead to cogent thinking and progress, but this happens only when they are not permitted to obscure our vision of the real goal, which is the service of Islam and the furtherance of its objects. It is, therefore, clear that this clause seeks to give the Muslims the opportunity that they have been seeking, throughout these long decades of decadence and subjection, of finding freedom to set up a polity, which may prove to be a laboratory for the purpose of demonstrating to the world that Islam is not only a progressive force in the world, but it also provides remedies for many of the ills from which humanity has been suffering. In our desire to build up an Islamic society we have not ignored the rights of the non-Muslims. Indeed, it would have been un-Islamic to do so, and we would have been guilty of transgressing the dictates of our religion if we had tried to impinge upon the freedom of the minorities. In no way will they be hindered from

73
professing or protecting their religion or developing their cultures. The history of the development of Islamic culture itself shows that cultures of the minorities, who lived under the protection of Muslim States and Empires contributed to the richness of the heritage which the Muslims built up for themselves. I assure the minorities that we are fully conscious of the fact that if the minorities are able to make a contribution to the sum total of human knowledge and thought, it will redound to the credit of Pakistan and will enrich the life of the nation. Therefore, the minorities may look forward, not only to a period of the fullest freedom, but also to an understanding and appreciation on the part of the majority which has always been such a marked characteristic of Muslims throughout history. Sir, the Resolution envisages a federal form of government because such is the dictate of geography. It would be idle to think of a unitary form of Government when the two parts of our country are separated by more than a thousand miles. I, however, hope that the Constituent Assembly will make every effort to integrate the units closer and forge such ties as would make us a well-integrated nation. I have always advocated the suppression of provincial feelings, but I want to make it clear that I am not an advocate of dull uniformity. I believe that all the areas and units, which form Pakistan, should contribute to the richness of our national life. I do, however, want to make it clear that nothing should be permitted which, in any sense, tends to weaken national unity, and provision should be made for bringing about a closer relationship amongst the various sections of our population than exists today. For this purpose the Constituent Assembly will have to think anew as to what will be the best method for the distribution of subjects between the Centre and the units, and how the units should be defined in our new setup. Mr. President, it has become fashionable to guarantee certain fundamental rights, but I assure you that it is not our intention to give these rights with one hand and take them away with the other. I have said enough to show that we want to build up a truly liberal Government where the greatest amount of freedom will be given to all its members. Everyone will be equal before the law, but this does not mean that his personal law will not be protected. We believe in the equality of status and justice. It is our firm belief and we have said this from many a platform that Pakistan does not stand for vested interests or the wealthy classes. It is our intention to build up an economy on the basic principles of Islam which seeks a better distribution of wealth and the removal of want. Poverty and backwardness - all that stands in the way of the achievement of his fullest stature by man - must be eradicated from Pakistan. At present our masses are poor and illiterate. We must raise their standards of life, and free them from the shackles of poverty and ignorance. So far as political rights are concerned, everyone will have a voice in the determination of the policy pursued by the Government and in electing those who will run the State, so that they may do so in the interests of the people. We believe that no shackles can be put on thought and, therefore, we do not intend to hinder any person from the expression of his views. Nor do we intend to deprive anyone of his right of forming associations for all lawful and moral purposes. In short, we want to base our polity upon freedom, progress and social justice. We want to do away with social distinctions, but we want to achieve this without causing suffering or putting fetters upon the human mind and lawful inclinations. Sir, there are a large number of interests for which the minorities legitimately desire protection. This protection the Resolution seeks to provide. The backward and depressed classes are our special charge. We are fully conscious of the fact that they do not find themselves in their present plight for any fault of their own. It is also true that we are not responsible by any means for their present position. But now that they are our citizens, it will be our special effort to bring them up to the level of other citizens, so that they may bear the
responsibilities imposed by their being citizens of a free and progressive State, and share them with others who have been more fortunate than themselves. We know that so long as any sections amongst our people are backward, they will be a drag upon society and, therefore, for the purpose of building up our State we must necessarily took to the interests of these sections. Mr. President, in the end we firmly believe that by laying the foundations of our constitution on the principles enunciated in this Resolution, we shall be able to put Pakistan on the path of progress, and the day is not far distant when Pakistan will become a country of which its citizens, without distinction of class or creed, will be proud. I am confident that our people have great potentialities. Through their unparalleled sacrifices and commendable sense of discipline, displayed at the time of a grave disaster and crisis, they have earned the admiration of the world. Such a people, I am sure, not only deserves to live, but is destined to make a contribution to the welfare and progress of humanity. It is essential that it should keep alive its spirit of sacrifice, and its adherence to its noble ideals, and Destiny itself will lead it to its place of glory in the affairs of the world, and make it immortal in the annals of humanity. Sir, this people has traditions of great achievement to its credit; its history is replete with deeds of glory; in every sphere of life it has contributed its full measure of achievement; its heroism adorns the pages of military chronicles; its administrators created traditions which have withstood the ravages of time; in creative art, its poverty, architecture and sense of beauty have won their tribute of appreciation; in the matter of spiritual greatness it has few parallels. It is this people which is again on the march, and, given the necessary opportunities, it will surpass its previous record of glorious achievement. This Objectives Resolution is the first step in the direction of the creation of an environment which will again awaken the spirit of the nation. We, whom Destiny has chosen to play a part, howsoever humble and insignificant, in this great drama of national resurrection, are overwhelmed with the magnitude of the opportunities which are before us. Let us use these opportunities with wisdom and foresight, and I have not the least doubt that these humble efforts will bear fruit far in excess of our wildest expectations, through the help of a Providence which has brought Pakistan into existence. It is not every day that great nations come into their own; it is not every day that peoples stand on the threshold of renaissance; it is not every day that Destiny beckons the down-trodden and the subjugated to rise and greet the dawn of a great future. It is the narrow streak of light heralding the brilliance of the full day, that we salute in the form of this Resolution. *************************

BrassTacks Papers - On The Battle Front of Ideology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BrassTacks Papers - On The Battle Front of Ideology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ideology

2012 Brasstacks - All rights reserved

Email: zaidhamid@zaidhamid.pk www.pringit.com/zaidzamanhamid/

1 Islam and Nationalism

BrassTacks Policy Papers

"Love of one's native country is a part of one's Faith."

Islam and Nationalism 10

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Islam and Nationalism 12

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Islam and Nationalism 14

BrassTacks Policy Papers

and to whose thoughts and actions the divine dictate:

A nation submissive to Thee

They are witnesses on the actions of other nations

Islam and Nationalism 16

BrassTacks Policy Papers

2 The Orient Vs the Occident

Glimpse of the Past Glory

The Present Disgust

The Orient Vs The Occident 20

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Muslim collective humiliation Palestine!

Bitter lessons from History

The Orient Vs The Occident 22

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Accepting western superiority - German officers in Ottoman army

The Orient Vs The Occident 24

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Fallen from grace coat of arms of Ottoman Empire!

The Orient Vs The Occident 26

BrassTacks Policy Papers

The Orient Vs The Occident 28

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Lawrence of Arabia the spy who broke an empire!

The Orient Vs The Occident 30

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Challenges for Pakistan

The Orient Vs The Occident 32

3 What Do We Mean by Pakistan?

About Mohammad Asad

What Do We Mean by Pakistan 34

BrassTacks Policy Papers

What Do We Mean by Pakistan 36

BrassTacks Policy Papers

What Do We Mean by Pakistan 38

BrassTacks Policy Papers

BrassTacks Policy Papers

What Do We Mean by Pakistan 42

4 On the question of ideology!

On the Question of Ideology 44

BrassTacks Policy Papers

On the Question of Ideology 46

BrassTacks Policy Papers

On the Question of Ideology 48

BrassTacks Policy Papers

The Two Visions of Iqbal

On the Question of Ideology 50

BrassTacks Policy Papers

Pakistans unfinished destiny

On the Question of Ideology 52

BrassTacks Policy Papers

5 On the Question of Mission, Goals and