significantly alter the course of history.
Fewer still modify the map of the world.
Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.'
- Stanley Wolpert, professor of history, University of California,
Los Angeles, and author of Jinnah of Pakistan and Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny.
Thought at a Glance
students of the first Muslim school in Bombay, British India, contributed to
Muslims in a major way. The first was a brilliant barrister, Mohammad Ali Jinnah,
the founder of Pakistan nation, also known as Quaid e Azam. The second was Abdullah
Yusuf Ali whose translation of the Quran is the most used English translation
of the Quran in the world.
In 1940 Mohammad Ali Jinnah
was instrumental in getting the Muslim League formally to adopt Dr. Mohammad
Iqbal's vision of a separate state for Muslims. A year later, Jinnah summed
up the implications of this vision of a separate state for Muslims with his
The ideology of the
Muslim League is based on the fundamental principle that the Muslims of India
are an independent nationality and any attempt to get them to merge their
national and political identity and unity will not only be resisted but, in
my opinion, it will be futile for anyone to attempt it. We are determined,
and let there be no mistake about it, to establish the status of an independent
State in this subcontinent. Click here to
A Living Monument of Quaid-e-Azam
Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Father of Nation
Time Line of
Legacy to Pakistan- Lecture by Prof. Stanley Wolpert
Life of Quaid-e-Azam
Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Jinnah: The Founder
What do we mean by Pakistan? - Muhammad
now to recall Quaid's warning to Muslim World - Sharif-ul-Mujahid
Speeches of Jinnah NEW
Address from All India Radio
- 3rd June 1947 NEW
Meeting at Dhaka - 21st March, 1948 NEW
Constituent Assembly - 14th August, 1947
to the Nation - 15th August, 1947
to the people of Australia - 19th February, 1948
Address at Peshawar - 20th April, 1948
of State Bank of Pakistan - 1st July, 1948 [Last Recorded
Speech of Quaid-e-Azam]
Jinnah: A Closer Look
- The Movie is in essence a glowing tribute to a man who hasn't only
left behind him a legacy, a nation of devouts, but is also revered by an age
as one of the greatest statesmen in the history of mankind. The story of a man,
whose unflinching resolve and single minded devotion, resulted in the creation
of a homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent. Read its reviews at Inside Out Jinnah Review
The March of Time
was one of the most famous US weekly newsreel series. In the early 1940's, when
wartime rationing limited international newsreel coverage, The March of Time
sent a crew to India and produced two complete 35mm film newsreels, "India in
Crisis" and "India at War" (May and June 1942). Each ten minute program, which
also depicted a few shots of Jinnah, was seen by millions across the US before
regular cinema programs.
to the Nation Listen to a thought-provoking address of Muhammad Ali Jinnah
over the radio from Lahore, on August 15th, 1947, to a country then only a few
Date/Time Last Modified: 6/3/2004 8:15:31 AM
MUSTUFA JATOI: 6/13/2005 7:31:42 AM
the idea of the Quaid-e-Azam as the prime minister. George Abell, one of Mountbatten's aides, expressed the fear that there might be a civil war since Jinnah's cabinet would be wholly subordinate to the Congress majority in the central legislature while the civil servant VP Menon said that the move might create political complications since it would "place Jinnah in the position of having to adjust his views to those of the Congress".
Even if Gandhi's suggestion is seen as utopian and "unrealistic", as Nehru had said, it nevertheless shows that on the eve of partition, Jinnah did not have the kind of unflattering image as he would later have in India. That image is the result of the communal riots that accompanied the division of the country and in the aftermath of the call for "direct action" given by the Muslim League in August 1946.
Notwithstanding these negative aspects of Jinnah's politics, no student of Indian history can forget his role as the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity", as he was called by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Sarojini Naidu in the 1920s and 1930s. It is evidently this reputation of being the ambassador to which Gandhi was harking back when he wanted him to be the prime minister.
As is obvious, therefore, Jinnah's career in politics can be divided into two halves. The first half saw him in the secular camp, engaged in the task of bringing Hindus and Muslims together. That his belief in secularism never died is evident from the speech on August 11, 1947, to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly which Advani referred to while in Pakistan.
But the second half of Jinnah's political career undoubtedly saw him abandoning secularism for the sake of communal politics, as when he projected the Muslim League as the only party which could save the Indian Muslims from coming under a Hindu raj ushered in by the Congress after independence.
This stance followed the resounding defeat suffered by the League at the hands of the Congress in the 1937 elections which convinced Jinnah and other Muslim leaders that their party had little chance of defeating the seemingly all-powerful Congress in the foreseeable future. It could only do so by whipping up communal sentiments and identifying the Congress as a party only of the Hindus. In arguing his case against the Congress's claim to represent all the communities in India, Jinnah floated his two-nation theory, which portrayed Hindus and Muslims as belonging to two separate "nations".
Arguably, he did not believe in it as ardently as he claimed, for, otherwise, he would not have accepted the Cabinet Mission's plan for a federal India in which the Muslim-majority states of what is today Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been a part of the Union of India. If this plan fell through, the reason is, as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad says in his book "India Wins Freedom", that Nehru said that the Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly unfettered by any agreement. Jinnah used this disclaimer to withdraw his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission plan and call for "direct action".-killed million people.
There were two opportunities, therefore, for avoiding the partition. One was Gandhi's offer to Jinnah to be prime minister. And the other was the Cabinet Mission plan, which had secured the approval of both the Congress and the Muslim League, till Nehru made his fateful observation.
Azhar A. Shah: 8/2/2005 10:37:24 PM
Gandhi's proposal to make Quaid-e-Azam the prime minister was a propaganda ploy. We know hat in a parliamentry form of government, the prime minister has to follow the guidelines set by the majority party. Since Hindus would have enjoyed overwhelming majority in any federal government, the prime minister would have been bound by their decisions and policies. His position would have been no better than the Muslim presidents elected in India who had no real power. Furthermore, what would have happened after the death of Quaid-e-Azam. The Hindu majority would have been free to elect any Hindu as prime Minister and that would have been the end of Muslims in India.
It is true that the Congress won overwhelmingly in the 1937 elections, but the actions of the Congress ministries in Hindu provinces are the catalysrt for the resurgence of Muslim League. When Muslim students in schools were forced to sing "Bande Matram". It created a backlash among the Muslims. (One of the lines in that song says that we worship Mother India, which is anethama to the Muslims as it smacks of polytheism). In addition blatant communal partisanship shown by these ministries was another factor in the renewed popularity of Muslim League.
The cabinet mission plan envisaged that India will be constituted in three zones, and each zone would have the right to OPT OUT of the federation in ten years if they so inclined. Muslim League and Congress accepted this plan with a clear and fundamental understanding that the zones would retain this right, and further no law will be passed by the constituent assembly affecting a minority without the approval of that minority. When Nehru said that the constituent assembly would not be bound by any prior agreements, it essentially scuttled the Cabinet Mission plan. Acceptance of this new interpretation put forth by Nehru would have put Muslims under the rule of Hindu majority for all times.
Quaid-e-Azam ardently believed in the two nation theory. Those of us who lived in India before partition can attest to the amount of prejudice that we Muslims had to face in India. Hindu drinking water, Muslim drinking water, Hindu restaurants, Muslim restaurants were a fact of life on all railway stations in India. Rioting and killing of Muslims on any pretext was also a fact of life, and more often than not, the police actively aided and abetted the rioters in their killing frenzy and after the riots were over, it was the Muslims who were prosecuted.(it is happening in India even today witness the latest riots in Gujarat).
It is true that Quaid-e-Azam at one time worked for Hindu Muslim unity, but the actions of Hindu leaders like Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Nehru and their mindset convinced him of the bleak future awaiting Muslims in an independent India dominated by Hindus.
The direct action call by the Muslim League was meant to be peaceful, but it was the Hindu majority which fanned the hatred and after the incidents in Calcutta and Noakhali, Hindu mobs came out with full force and attacked and slaughtered Muslims in Bihar, where as many as 8000 Muslims were put to death, (see Lt. Gen Tuker in his book "while memory serves").
Mr. Jatoi makes it look like Quaid-e-Azam raised the flag of two nation theory to further his own leadership. I have tried to set the recoed straight.
Azhar A. Shah
manz: 8/6/2005 12:52:51 PM
Visits web sites dedicated to Allama Mashraqi.
Read articles by Mr. Nasim Yousaf
Mir Nawab: 9/18/2005 6:03:46 PM
Why you are blaimimg killing muslims in India? We killed more muslims in Pakistan than in India. On this website, the whole propognanda to rewrite the history by accusing the Indian leaders can not prove the truth. The truth is that we were part of united India and India never invaded Pakistan or any country. We did four times.
Lawrence Joseph: 10/2/2005 6:39:14 PM
Thank you for wonderful site to know about Pakistan. My son married to a woman from Pakistan. I really appreciate for a wonderful site. The only wrong and hatred site is the purposeful wrong history of partition of India. My father was posted at Queta in the Army at the time of partition. He observed brutal killings of innocent people who were migrating to India. Still I can not forget the words he spoke to us; "Killing of humanity". For God's sake, please do not put wrong stories of partition.
afzal mohammed: 10/18/2005 3:53:43 AM
Jinnah was a traitor, we could have avoided partition. We pakistanis always talk about jinnah as if he was some kind of a prophet, but in reality he was a westernised politician who used people and sensitive issue of religion to get pakistan.
Coumarane: 10/28/2005 10:46:51 AM
I read with great interest this site.However many things are not clear.Pakistanis praise Jinnah and I understand it.but do not forget that Jinnah was behind the murders of many hindus because he initiated the direct action day.Many innocents hindus were killed only because they were hindus.
People from pakistan do not know their own history.They do not know that the first inhabitants of this part of the world were hindus and that they were massacred in their owncountry:their only fault,they were hindus.
For more than 10 centuries,muslims ruled India and according the muslims cronickers many hindus were killed.
In Pakistan today no hindu can live freely;In India a muslim can become the ppresident of India.
Pakiastanis have an hidden agenda:to kill all hindus in India.
It is very sad.
Sandeep Kuulshrestha: 12/11/2005 11:42:28 PM
Jinnah was neither a prophet nor a grass root Muslim leader. However, he was indeed a brilliant barrister and an elite constitutionalist. In fact, till 30’s he was very much comfortable in the company of Hindus and Parsis and used to enjoy pork and cigars. Dadabhai Nauroji and Gopal Krishan Gokhle influenced him. In fact it was Gokhle who said that Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, which he indeed was. He (Jinnah) never wanted a big confrontation with the Britishers and was quite okay with the congress being an elitist organisation, fighting for just a home rule. We have to see all this with a neutral perspective. This should not be an issue of hatred between Hindus and Muslims as I see from the comments of few people on this forum. Jinnah was a nationalist in pre-thirties and did what he could to unite Hindus and Muslims. His role model was Kamaal Ataturk (who is in fact the role model of Musharraf as well) and lots of his colleagues in the Muslim League resented it, which is evident in lots of documents. Everything changed when Gandhi entered the Indian independence polity. His simplicity impressed the rural and urban folk alike and appealed to both Hindus and muslins. Like Jinnah, he too was committed to Hindu Muslim unity but his ways and means were completely different. Gandhi’s formula was of civil disobedience, boycott, and strike but through non-violent means while Jinnah’s formula was to be critical of the rulers to the extent that it doesn’t hurt anybody. Jinnah was more inclined towards home rule or a dominion status for a united India while Gandhi’s call was for complete independence. Jinnah opposed the government on lot of issues in the central legislature and argued brilliantly for the cause of India and of his own community, although he was never comfortable to be with the downtrodden section of Muslims. He was weak in Urdu and exceptionally good in English. With the influence of Gandhi, Jinnah had to change his strategy. He demanded the inclusion of 14 points in the future Indian constitution that included 33% reservation for Muslims in the legislature and also in the ministries and simultaneously there were other issues but the congress and particularly Nehru ignored it all together. This fumigated Jinnah and the last effort from his side (as per his perception) to unite the two communities went futile. Jinnah wanted a big role for himself. Before the entry of Gandhi, he was slowly becoming one of the important leaders of India. When Congress humiliated him, his mission became the division of India and he did everything, which was contrary to his earlier belief. He worked hard to preserve Hindu Muslim unity before but now his mission was to tear that apart. When he started mobilizing the Muslims in his favour, Gandhi was worried. Unfortunately, Nehru and his followers in the congress were not taking this seriously but the damage was already done.
Jinnah was so adamant on Pakistan that he didn’t mind people being killed all across India by his direct action call. This is not a sectarian issue because people of both communities were killed and the partition itself was responsible for death/destruction/displacement of over 2 million people. However, when Pakistan was created, Jinnah’s vision was of a south Asian “TURKEY”, on Ataturk’s model, which is reflected from his famous constituent assembly speech. He never wanted Shari at to be imposed in Pakistan and he also got the first national anthem written by Jagannath Azad, a Hindu. For all these actions, fundamentalists dubbed him the “Protector General” of Hindus. Gandhi was facing the similar wrath from Hindu fundamentalists, which resulted in his assassination. Hence, we can conclude and say that everything was circumstantial and it was an ego clash of Jinnah with Congress, a party he nurtured and was fond of at one point of time. If we read the memoirs of the first High Commissioner of India in Pakistan, Jinnah even wanted to come to Bombay and stay in his lavish mansion. He wanted Nehru to make sure that Jinnah House in Bombay be maintained at all times. He wanted a secular Pakistan, but everyone knows what happened after his death. Incapable presidents, innumerable army coups have destroyed the vision of Jinnah. No doubt he was westernized but he was pragmatic and modern in his thinking although he used fundamentalism in reaching his goals. Gandhi was a Mahatama indeed but Jinnah has been the most unique person in world history to achieve a separate country out of sheer determination, whatever means and resources he utilized for that.
Osman Din: 1/29/2006 7:10:00 PM
Thank you so much for providing Jinnah's speeches.
Mian Mustafa Sajjad Hotiana: 4/2/2006 12:50:02 AM
Jinnah was no doubt one of the greatest personalities of India at his time.He was respected by friends and foes alike.His leadership has given us the state of Pakistan and his legacy is as bright as the sun...
Laraib Imtiaz: 4/7/2006 4:28:28 AM
In Pakistan everyone lives freely. What Jinnah has done for us was impossible. Still hundereds of muslims die in India and their religious places are being destroyed (Babri Masjid). Muslim president in India is like giving the dog a bone.
Faraz Shahid: 7/3/2006 12:59:13 PM
Well few people here are using a familiar tone here... They don't even have guts to post their original name..hiding their identity behined rather loacal Pakistani names..Anyway...
India may never re-produced as pure nationalist as Mohammad Ali Jinnah(The Quaid-e-Azam). It was stagnated approach of indian leaders which led him to raise voice for Muslims rights protection... yet it was not a voice of independence but just a voice of birth right of muslims who at the moment were not 1000 years old invaders but just indians....The Voice turned in to the sonic boom of Freedom only when Congress turns in to Hinduress...
His two nation theaory still as true as it was back then("Hindus and Muslims are two entirely different nations by any defination of nation"). Who demolished mosques in Gujrat, Who flatterend the golden temple.. who burnet the churches in christian riots in Maharashtra ...and who is commiting genocide of Muslim and christian minorities in Kasmeer and Asam...
Viewing all that if someone intentially wants to be a ignorant fool...be my guest
Joe: 8/30/2006 9:21:34 AM
I still fail to understand why pakistan was created in first place. Now that it is created, why the hell people from pakistan want to compare themselves with India. They have got their land and they should mind their own business. India muslims, sikhs and other minorities are indain subjects and I am sure that they are far better than minorities in Pakistan whose percentage considerably felled from 12% in 1947 to less than 2% now. There is no comparision between India and Pakistan but jealousy. India is democratic; pakistan is not. India is secular; Pakistan is not. India is innovative with respect for freedom and life; Pakistan does has that unfortunately. I am not trying to show Pakistan low and bad but I am sick and tired of Pakistanis comparing themselves with India. Every country has its own problems. No Democracy is perfect and so US also has problems of poverty and social issues including discrimination. For God sake Pakistan, please give up your obsession with India and use your energy constructively.
© 2004, Human Development
Foundation. All rights reserved.
1350 Remington Road, Suite W, Schaumburg, Il. 60173
Toll Free: (800) 705-1310 | Email: email@example.com