“Nothing can undo Pakistan.” – Quaid-e-Azam, 24 Oct, 1947

Those who believe in Pakistan need no logic and no explanation regarding the ideology of Pakistan and its establishment.

They still need to prepare themselves to explain it to those who do not believe in it.

Sometimes, the questions are easy to satisfy others’ queries.  Not always, as some elements are not meant to be productive as they pretend.  They condition their inner satisfaction to ambiguities, chaos and disruption.

I personally came to face such people in my close surroundings.

1) The demand and making of Pakistan was not rightful?

The question has lost its validity on 14 August, 1947.  Those who recall the critics of Quaid-e-Azam only try to justify either their failure in Pakistan or their exit to foreign countries.

2) Did Quaid-e-Azam want to make Pakistan a secular state or Islamic?

This is also not a valid question as Quaid-e-Azam did not create the theory himself.  He adopted the Two-Nation Theory from Allama Iqbal and worked on it.  One must read and understand Allama Iqbal to find the answer of this question.  The people of Pakistan or politicians cannot change it.

3) Indians and Pakistanis shared same culture and traditions so we are same not different?

Allama Iqbal in his presidential address in Allahabad in 1930 stated:

“Let me tell you frankly that, at the present moment, the Muslims of India are suffering from two evils.  The first is the want of personalities. The second evil from which the Muslims of India are suffering is that the community is fast losing what is called the herd instinct. This [loss] makes it possible for individuals and groups to start independent careers without contributing to the general thought and activity of the community.”

In his presidential address 0n 23rd March, 1940, Quaid-e-Azam said, 

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”

This is natural that when communities live together, they do inspire each other with their living style.  Muslims in India were mostly a convert from the religion of their ancestors.  They did embrace Islam but still being part of the same community, they couldn’t get rid of many rituals and traditions.  They didn’t get a chance to study Islam and understand its teachings.  They mostly relied upon their preachers/maulvis who were invited to resolve matrimonial affairs, such as marriage, divorce, aqeeqah, Bismillah, ameen.  Otherwise their job was to deliver sermon, adhan and teaching Qur’an in mosques or madrasahs.  So people other than that, remained the same as they were before.

So it is not like Hindus and Muslims had the same culture and traditions but Muslims were not aware of the true knowledge of their own religion.  Many Pro-India and moderate Muslims do not  mind it and are inclined more towards Indians than Muslim communities around the world.  As business communities rank financial growth as their first priority, they also avoid to take such issues on serious notes.

4) Why can’t India and Pakistan have friendly ties?

Friendly ties refer to a state of equality and sincerity.  There are so many disputes and grave issues need to be solved before dreaming of friendly terms between the two countries.

UN has failed in convincing India to respect UN Resolution about Kashmiri rights to choose their fate.  There are water disputes and other political issues that need to be resolved.

The idea of trade between two countries and declaring India a favourite nation without concerning how Kashmiris feel about it is a sin for sure.

.

پہلے سوالات تھے کہ پاکستان بننا چاہیے تھا کہ نہیں؟… پاکستان کو سیکیولر ہونا چاہیے کہ نہیں؟…. پاکستانیوں کے ساتھ یہ سب کیوں ہو رہا ہے؟… 

جب انکے سوالات مل گئے تو اب نئے سوالات پیدا ہو گئے… 

بھارت اور پاکستان دوست ہو سکتے ہیں کہ نہیں… ہماری تاریخ ایک ہے… ہماری ثقافت ایک ہے… ہماری روایات ایک ہیں… ہمارا انکا کیا جگھڑا؟… 

کاش اس ملک میں اور اس ملک میں لوگوں کو پڑھنے اور صحیح طرح پڑھنے کی عادت ہوتی… علامہ اقبال اور قائد اعظم تقریبا ہر بات کا جواب دے گئے، کوئی سمجھنا نہ چاہے تو اور بات ہے… اور یہ نہ سمجھنے کی وبا خود کو امن کا داعی سمجھنے والوں، شو بز کے لوگوں اور کاروباری حضرات میں زیادہ پائی جاتی ہے… اور شاید اس میں کوئی بری بات بھی نہیں کیونکہ ان کمیونٹیز میں مالی فائدہ اولین ترجیح ہوتا ہے… اسی لئے وہ اپنا دامن بچاتے ہیں ثقافت اور معاشرت کے فرق کی بحث میں پڑنے سے… 

خیر…. علامہ اقبال کے ١٩٣٠ کے الہ آباد کے خطبۂ صدارت اور قائداعظم کے ٢٣ مارچ ١٩٤٠ کے خطبۂ صدارت پڑھنے سے یہ بات سمجھ آجاتی ہے کہ ہندؤں اور مسلمانوں کے مذہب اور معاشرت میں کتنا فرق ہے… 

بر صغیر میں مسلمان اپنا آبائی مذہب چھوڑ کر مسلمان ضرور ہوگئے تھے… لیکن اپنا ملک، شہر یا گھر بار نہیں چھوڑے تھے… دینی حضرات یا مولویوں کی ضرورت شادی، طلاق، عقیقہ، بسم اللہ، آمین جیسی رسموں کے وقت پڑتی رہی… یا پھر وہ مسجد میں اذان، جمعہ کے خطبے دیتے یا مدرسوں میں قرآن کی تعلیم… اسکے علاوہ گوشت کھانا شروع کر دیا، پانچ ارکان، وغیرہ… باقی زندگی کے رسم و رواج کافی حد تک وہی رہے… اور جاتے بھی تو کہاں جاتے… 

اس لئے یہ مسلمان بادشاہوں، علماء اور عوام کی غفلت اور غیر ذمہ داری تھی کہ انہوں نے خود کو اسلام کے سیاسی، معاشی اور سماجی نظام کی سمجھ بوجھ سے دور رکھا… اور نتیجتا ہندؤں اور انگریزوں کے ہاتھوں سب گنوا بیٹھے… 

اگر مسلمان اور ہندو ایک جیسے ہوتے اور خوش تھے تو اتنی بڑی خونی تاریخ لکھنے کی ضرورت نہ ہوتی…. خود عوام ہی اقبال اور قائد کے خلاف ہو جاتی…. 

.

.