NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUST

Published by

NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUST
Aiwan-i-Karkunan-i-Tehreek-i-Pakistan, Madar-i-Millat Park,
100-Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore. Ph.: 99201213-99201214 Fax: 99202930
Email: trust@nazariapak.info Web: www.nazariapak.info
Printed at: Nazaria-i-Pakistan Printers,
10-Multan Road, Lahore. Ph: 042-37466975
Nazaria-i-Pakistan's publications have a very definite
object. It is hoped that they will contribute to a fuller
knowledge of ideological foundations and great cultural
heritage of Pakistan. Further, a deeper understanding of
lofty ideas and achievements of Allama Muhammad
Iqbal and Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah may
help to a revival of the true spirit of democracy which
was the hallmark of the great Pakistan Movement. The
Foundation believes that it is through an authentic
presentation of thoughts and actions of the Founders of
the Nation that the underlying problems and aspirations
of Pakistan can be appreciated and the nation can be
taken to material and spiritual heights.
 Objectives of
The Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust

1 Propagate and project the ideology of Pakistan;

2 Preserve the spirit, memory and record of the

Pakistan Movement;

3 Trace, record and honour the contributions and

sacrifices made for the establishment of
Pakistan.

4 Contribute to the endeavours to establish in

Pakistan the promised social order based on
Islam.

5 Promote national unity and fight against all

forms of disunity and exploitation; and

6 Work as a national, autonomous ideological

and democratic body to promote the aims and
objects set out in the Objectives Resolution as
enshrined in the Constitution.
1- Quaid-i-Azam
Muhammad Ali Jinnah 7
as a Lawyer

2- Jinnah's Pakistan:
Islamic or Secular? 22

3- “Quaid-i-Azam wanted Islamic,

not Secular State” 34
 Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a
Lawyer

Edgar Snow, the well known American author, noted

that even if one only appraised Jinnah as a barrister, it would be
to acknowledge that he had won the most monumental
judgment in the history of the bar. He had recognized in the
romantic ideal of Pakistan, a case that could be fought and won.
Lord Denning, the Master of Rolls, in fact, Master of Rulings,
had recalled with pleasure the fact that the Quaid-i-Azam, the
Founder of Pakistan, had been a member of Lincoln’s Inn.
President Bill Clinton during his visit to Pakistan in the year
2000 at the lunch given in his honour by the Chief Executive
remarked that Mr. Jinnah was the greatest constitutional lawyer
of the common wealth. Jinnah’s outstanding career as a
Counsel is beyond any cavil or controversy whatsoever. In a
Broadcast from B.B.C, Sir Stafford Cripps spoke of him as “a
most accomplished lawyer outstanding amongst Indian
Lawyers and a fine constitutionalist.”
In about 1892, the General Manager of Graham Trading
Co., Karachi, an Englishman, who was a great friend of
Jinnahbhai Poonja, offered to admit his son, Mohammad Ali, in
the Head Office of the Company in London, as an apprentice
for three years, where he could learn practical business
administration to enable him to join his father’s firm on return
from London. Around January, 1893, Jinnah sailed for
England. It seems that within three months of apprenticeship of
the British Business Company, Jinnah decided to study law.
Jinnah himself recalled that as a young boy, when he saw for
the first time a barrister robed in gown, wig collars and bands,
he desired to be a barrister. Jinnah passed the usual preliminary
examination to enable him to start his study of Law and then
joined Lincoln’s Inn.
 8

While addressing the Karachi Bar Association on the

occasion of the birth of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) on January 25, 1948, Jinnah disclosed the reason for
joining Lincoln’s Inn, because there, in the main Hall, in the
huge fresco, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was included among the
Law Givers of the world.
Mr. Jinnah was enrolled on 24th August 1896 as an
Advocate (O.S.) of the Bombay High Court. Through the kind
offices of an old friend, he was admitted to the Chambers of
John M. Macpherson, the Acting Advocate-General of
Bombay. Besides being an erudite lawyer, Macpherson was a
great Gentleman, with an extremely fine presence and a
soothing voice. He was very kind to Jinnah. Jinnah was also for
sometime in the Chambers of Sir George Lowndes, who
afterwards became the Law Member of the Viceroy’s
Executive Council, and later a member of the Privy Council.
Lowndes had a very clear and lucid mind, and an extremely
forceful and impressive manner of advocacy. Macpherson and
Lowndes left lasting impact on Jinnah’s personality. In 1900,
came the first opportunity, when Mr. P.H. Dastoor, the
Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, left his post on leave. To
secure some financial support and to gain experience, Mr.
Jinnah decided to apply for the temporary vacancy. Through
the efforts of Macpherson, the Advocate-General, Mr. Jinnah
was appointed as the Presidency Magistrate in May, 1900.
From the cases dealt with and decided by Mr. Jinnah, it is
apparent that he was an able, judicious and balanced
magistrate, with a special care for legal detail. Mr. Jinnah
officiated as Presidency Magistrate for a total of six months.
On the expiry of this period, Sir Charles offered him a
permanent appointment on a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. Mr.
Jinnah politely declined the offer, wryly adding that his
ambition was to earn Rs. 1,500 a day. Eventually, Mr. Jinnah
succeeded in earning Rs. 1500/- a day which was a huge
amount in those days.
 9

Sensational cases apart, Mr. Jinnah had built up a solid,

substantial and lucrative practice within a few years after his
return to Bombay. He was the most versatile of advocates,
practicing with equal success before civil and criminal courts,
original and appellate sides of the High Courts, and last but not
the least, before the highest tribunal of the Commonwealth, the
Privy Council. Mr. Jinnah was a triple combination, Carson’s
‘cross-examination’, Marshall Hall’s “Marshalling of facts’ and
Simon’s ‘subtlety of law’.

The CAUCUS CASE:

In 1907, the general elections to the Bombay Municipal
Corporation were to take place. At that time, one of the
constituencies was that of the Justices of Peace for the town
and island of Bombay. They had to return 16 members. Sir
Pherozeshah Mehta was consistently returned for many years
by that constituency. Pherozeshah had by his services both
inside and outside the Corporation acquired a commanding
position in the deliberations of the Corporation. Some
European members as well as the then Municipal
Commissioner, Mr. Sheppard, formed a clique which was in
those called the ‘caucus’ to defeat Pherozeshah at the polls.
Harrison, the Accountant-General, Gell, the Police
Commissioner and Lovat Fraser, the then Editor of The Times
of India took a leading and active part in the campaign.
The poll was taken in the Municipal Hall on February
21, 1907 at a meeting of the Justices when the Municipal
Commissioner, Sheppard presided. The result was declared the
next day and 16 ‘caucus’ ticket candidates succeeded and
Pherozeshah Mehta stood seventeenth. Public indignation on
the declaration of the result was very great. The 16th person
who got in, was Suleman Abdul Waheed of Ladha Ibrahim and
Co., who had contracts with the Municpal Act, disqualified
from being a councilor. A petition was presented to the Chief
Election Judge to declare that he was disqualified from being a
 10

Councillor and that Sir Pherozeshah Mehta who stood 17th got
automatically elected to the Corporation. Mr. Jinnah
represented Sir Pherozeshah Mehta.
Mr. Jinnah’s cross-examination of witnesses specially
of Lovat Fraser, Editor of The Times of India was devastating.
Mr. Jinnah urged that:-
“Mr. Haji Noormahomed gave his vote to Sir
Pherozeshah on the first occasion, and exhausted his right of
voting. On the second occasion when he voted for all the 16
candidates he acted contrary to law. A second illegal act could
not destroy the legality of the first. The Counsel cited the case
of Quaid vs. Avery in support of his argument. Mr. Jinnah’s
contentions were accepted by the learned judge and Sir
Pherozeshah was declared as duly elected to the Corporation.
By getting the verdict in favour of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Mr.
Jinnah was recognized as one of the leading lawyers.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Case:

When Bal Gangadhar Tilak, prominent Indian National
Leader, was convicted for sedition, Mr. Jinnah appeared in the
Appeal before the Division Bench of Bombay High Court and
drew a distinction between disaffection and disapprobation.
The sentence was set aside. Mr. Jinnah’s legal acumen was
acknowledged all over India. An attractive and illustrated book
THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT 1878-2003 was published by
the august Court through its heritage Committee consisting of
eminent judges and leading lawyers. In its introduction—Hall
of Justice—it is stated: “In 1914, Tilak was prosecuted again on
charges of sedition. This time, his legal counsel was
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a renowned lawyer of the Bombay Bar
and a leader in the Indian National Congress. Jinnah was
convinced that Tilak had been prosecuted for his strong views
about Home Rule and independence for India and defended
him so adroitly that Tilak was acquitted by the High Court.”
 11

Some Leading Cases:

In the suit of Haji Bibi concerning Agha Khan, which is
considered the longest suit in Bombay’s legal history, Mr.
Jinnah represented Shamsuddin, one of the contesting
defendants. The magnitude of the case may be gathered from
the fact that voluminous evidence on commission was taken at
various places all over the world, and as many as 128 issues
were raised therein.
In the well-known defamation case of B.G. Horniman,
Jinnah’s masterly handling led to the conviction of the editor,
printer and publisher of the paper, Briton. Where Oscar Wilde
had failed in somewhat similar case, Horniman succeeded due
to Jinnah’s skill.
In the Bowla Murder case, which arose out of the
infatuation of the Maharajah of Indore of Mumtaz, the then
Beauty Queen of India, in which, at one stage, the well-known
British criminal lawyer, Marshall Hall, was being brought in,
Mr. Jinnah appeared for the main accused, and at least saved
him from the gallows.
In the Jitekar Trust Suit, Mr. Jinnah dealt with the
doctrines of Hanafi and Shafae Law. In Ranchood Narain and
Ajoba and a number of other suits, Mr. Jinnah analysed certain
aspects of Hindu Law and its different schools, in considerable
detail.
In 1921, Mr. Jinnah appeared for the petitioners to
obtain a mandamus certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash
various resolutions of the Bombay Corporation. This being the
first case of its kind, the Court was reluctant to issue the writ.
In the case of the assassination of the author of Rangila
Rasool, the assailant, Ilam Din, had been sentenced to death. In
the appeal, Jinnah, representing him, pleaded that provocation
coupled with the youth of the accused were good grounds for
not inflicting the death penalty. The British judges, however,
did not allow weight to these submissions; and the young man
 12

was executed. But since then Lahore has rarely seen such a
procession of mourners as accompanied his funeral.
In Salim Khatoon versus Arshadur Rehman, Mr. Jinnah
faced Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru before the Hyderabad High Court.
In the suit of the Raja of Nanpara, Jinnah appeared for
the plaintiff; and with his usual skill and ability, obtained a
favorable decree that was upheld by the privy Council. Mr.
Jinnah represented the Editor of the Bombay Chronicle in a
case of contempt of court.
He defended Pir Pagaro in the trial court as well as in
the appeal. In the Bhopal Waqf case, Chowdhry Naimtullah, a
distinguished counsel gave a scholarly argument. But Jinnah’s
legal objection prevailed.

Some Anecdotes:
“Mr. Jinnah”, angrily shouted Justice Martin, “your are
not addressing a third class magistrate”. Rapier-like flashed the
counter-thrust: “There isn’t a third class counsel before your
Lordship.” (Jachim Alva, Men and Supermen of India, p. 130).
Jinnah and Setalved were appearing for opposite parties before
the judge on the original side in the High Court. At about five
O’clock in the evening, the learned Judge suggested to the
Counsel to continue their arguments, as he was prepared to sit
up to seven O’clock, in order to conclude the case. Jinnah
retorted that since the Court time was 5:00 p.m., thereafter His
Lordship would be sitting alone, as he as well as Sir Setalvad
had previous professional engagements. Both Counsels then
left punctually as the hour struck.
In 1941, Jinnah appeared before the Sindh Chief Court
for the appellants in the case of Bishamberdas and Co. versus
Sachoomal. Thousands thronged to the Court to hear him or at
least to see him. The Court room was jampacked and the
corridors were full when Chief Justice Davis and Justice
Weston entered. Seeing the huge crowd, Davis, CJ, asked the
 13

Court Clerk to clear and close the doors of the Court-room.

Jinnah got up and smilingly said that the doors of justice must
always remain open. The Judges agreed to the suggestion
provided the crowd remained quiet. Mr. Jinnah said to those
present to remain quiet. The day’s proceedings were then
concluded smoothly.

Some Opinion on his Performance

Frank Moraes, the distinguished journalist and famous
author, saw Mr. Jinnah in action in Court. He wrote: “Watch
him in the court room as he argues a case. Few Lawyers
command a more attractive audience. No man is more adroit in
presenting his case. If to achieve the maximum result with
minimum effort is the hall-mark of artistry, Mr. Jinnah is an
artist in his craft. He likes to get down to the bare bones of a
brief; in stating the essentials of a case, his manner is masterly.
The Court room acquires an atmosphere as he speaks, junior’s
crane their necks forward to follow every movement of the tall,
well-groomed figure; senior counsels listen closely; the Judge
is all attention. Mr. Jinnah’s voice has small volume. Its tone is
low, but within its limited range, it is surprisingly elastic. One
moment it purrs persuasively, an interruption and its rasps”
(The Times of India, September 10, 1939).
Joachim Alva, late Editor of the Forum, observed: “One
place will long cherish Jinnah’s memory; there it remains
imperishable. Courage and sheer impudence have won him
fame in the Law Courts. His hypnotic influence spreads his
fame all over. His terrific encounters with the Judges and the
bombshells he throws in the courts are well-known. As an
Advocate, he possesses gifts which cast a spell on the Courts,
the Judges, the Juries, the Solicitors, and Clients, all alike. As a
Counsel, he has ever held his head erect, unruffled by the worst
circumstances. He has been our boldest Advocate, no Judge
dare bully him. He will not brook any insult. Jinnah’s ready
tongue and brilliant advocacy have worked off all judicial
 14

storms and won him all round admiration. Clients and

Solicitors prize Jinnah’s services for his matchless grit and
courage to stand up for the causes he represents. Certain
Judges, notorious for their calculated insults to the junior
practitioners, hold their tongue when face to face with Jinnah.
Jinnah has preserved his position at the Bar intact and
unsullied. Toading or the remotest connection that excites
suspicion is foreign to his nature. In short, he is the
embodiment of the highest standards of the Bar. The
compliment paid him that he is ‘the Lord Simon of the Indian
Bar’ does not awkwardly sit on him.” (Joachim Alva, Leaders
of India, p. 79)
On the occasion of the Centenary of Bombay High
Court, K.M. Munshi, a prominent lawyer said: “M.A. Jinnah
was another eminent Indian Lawyer of this period. Tall and
impeccably dressed, he stood in a class by himself. His
advocacy was characterized by strong commonsense, great
courage and forthright approach. A man of great integrity, he
would never stoop to trickery, though he could be devastating if
a Judge or an opponent was inclined to be offensive. Once a
firm of solicitors, on behalf of their clients, had asked him to
put some question in the Legislative Assembly, of which he
was a member, and wanted to enlist his enthusiastic support by
offering a sort of bribe in shape of a brief for opinion marked
100 guineas, a colossal figure for such a brief in those days. He
grew wild with rage and flung the brief out of chamber. Once
while attending a Conference with Strangman, he found the
latter offensive. Immediately he walked out of the Chamber and
for years, never spoke to Strangman, nor addressed him as ‘my
learned friend’ (High Court of Bombay: 1862-1962, p. 99)
Let me refer to the case of B. Das & Co. (Appellant) vs.
Broach Electric Supply and Development Corporation Ltd.
(Respondent). The Appeal was against the judgment of the
single judge of the High Court, who was persuaded by Mr.
Thamas Strangman to set-aside an award for the reasons that
 15

the letter marked without prejudice was tendered to the

Arbitrator who read it but rejected it in evidence. The Solicitors
engaged Mr. Jinnah for appellants, who argued the appeal
before Marten C.J. and Crump, J. Mr. Strangman strongly
defended the order but was over-ruled by the Bench. The
learned judges held: “In our opinion this finding of the learned
judge cannot be sustained. Even if it was a case of a judge in
Court, documents are often tendered to the Court on which the
Court has to decide whether they are admissible or
inadmissible. If then one was to hold that in every case in
which a judge rejects as evidence any document handed up to
him, it follows that his mind must have been prejudiced by
what he read and that consequently his judgment cannot stand,
the result would be really absurd. The appeal must be allowed,
and the notice of motion dismissed with costs.” [AIR 1928
Bombay 55(1)]
In his book, Famous Judges, Lawyers and Cases of
Bombay, P.B. Vachha writes. “Muhammad Ali Jinnah is in a
sense the most celebrated member of the Bombay Bar. For he is
the only man who, after extensive and eminent practice at the
Bar for a number of years, ultimately passed into general
history. He was very clear headed and he drove home his points
both on law and facts with a lucid and persistent eloquence. He
appeared in a number of important suits and appeals on the
civil side, as well as in great criminal cases, including the
famous Bawla Murder Case.” (P.B. Vachha, Famous Judge,
Lawyers and Cases of Bombay, p.150)
Jinnah’s mastery in the forensic field is apparent from
the fact that one of his devils, M.C. Chagla, rose to be the
Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, the first Indian to
hold that office. In an article in the Bombay Law Journal, in
1927, Chagla observes: “Jinnah was a pure artist in the
manner and method of his presentation. Even the most
complex facts became simple and obvious when he waved his
wand over them. He could be ferociously aggressive and
 16

almost boyishly persuasive, as and when the occasion arose,

and what particularly helped in his advocacy was the absolute
clear head that he possessed and on which he justly prided
himself. He had common sense, that most uncommon of
qualities, in an uncommon degree.” (Chagla in Bombay Law
Journal, 1927). More recently, Chagla, reaffirming this view
in his memoirs, wrote: “He had a very striking personality,
and the presentation of a case as he handled it was a piece of
art. He was a superb advocate. He was also a first-rate cross-
examiner. What impressed me most was the lucidity of his
thought and expression. There were no obscure spots or
ambiguities about what Jinnah had to tell the court. He was
straight and forthright and always left a string impression
whether his case was intrinsically good or bad. I owe a great
deal to him, because I learned in his chambers not only the art
of advocacy, but how to maintain the highest traditions of the
legal profession. Jinnah was absolutely impeccable in his
professional etiquette.” (M.C. Chagla, Roses in December,
pp.54-55).
Mr. M.H. Seervai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra
and author of Constitutional Law paid tribute to Mr. Jinnah in a
centenary meeting in 1976 and recalled: “The cases conducted
by Mr. Jinnah in a masterly and effective way. For 44 years in
the High Courts, he observed that Mr. Jinnah was the one of the
greatest lawyers whom our courts have produced. Let me
mention one other case in which a tribute to Jinnah’s power of
cross-examination came from one of the most eminent lawyers
of Palestine and one of the most distinguished lawyers whom I
have met. Mr. Jinnah was engaged in a case, which came from
Aden relating to the Estate of a man called Bunnin Mehssa. The
Estate was worth ten crore Rupees (quite a large sum in those
days). Against Jinnah’s client appeared as a witness a Palestine
lawyer called Dr. Eliash. Well, you can understand Mr.
Jinnah’s difficult task when I tell you that against the top expert
on Palestine and a man of immense capacity, Mr. Jinnah had
the assistance of a jewish butcher who had to tell him what the
 17

Hebrew text meant. I happened to be sitting next to Dr. Eliash

because my leader was on that side, and he said to me “Mr.
Jinnah has difficult task but I am greatly impressed with his
cross-examination”. To have obtained that tribute from a man
who seemed to be an unrivaled authority in Hebrew law, was a
tribute well worth having.”

Judges on Jinnah:
Jinnah’s forensic ability also earned judicial
approbation. His exposition evoked admiration from judges and
juries alike; and the judgments of cases in which he appeared
are replete with appreciation of the skill and ability with which
he conducted these cases. Professor Raza of St. Xavier’s
College, Bombay, who was empanelled on various juries,
portrayed him as the ‘magician with the monocle’. The
professor recalled a murder case, wherein, while dissecting the
evidence tendered by the prosecution, Mr. Jinnah at short
intervals would pause and pose the question, “Is this the man?”
when the jury retired, each one asked the other, “Is this man?”
All of them had no hesitation in answering that this was not the
man, and they returned a unanimous verdict of ‘Not Guilty’.
Even a hostile judge had to compliment Jinnah when
the Jury, contrary to His Lordship’s directions, decided to
acquit the accused in the famous Allo Rape Case at Surat.
Justice Beamon, in Pestonji versus Billimoria,
reaffirmed that heard cases notoriously make bad law. In that
suit, the legatee had claimed the sum assigned to him in the
deceased’s Will. The defendant trustee contended that it
appeared from the Will that this was not an ordinary bequest,
but was intended to be no more than the satisfaction of the debt
owed by the testator. Sir Jamshed Kanga wanted to lead
evidence in support of this contention; but Jinnah objected on
technical legal grounds. After discussing various arguments
raised by both counsels, His Lordship upheld the objection and
observed:
 18

“When the case came on for trail, the first question

raised was whether the defendant was entitled to lay before the
Court evidence of facts alleged to have been in the testator’s
mind, and, therefore, necessary to be known to the Court before
it could truly apply the language used by the testator in the
second clause of the Will. This was, of course, strenuously
opposed by Mr. Jinnah for the plaintiff, who, like most
Counsels of experience, is always most insistent on a legal
technicality and most ingenious, and I may say persuasive, in
proportion as he feels that if his ground fails him his case is
lost. Nevertheless, after giving the matter my most anxious
consideration during the whole of his argument, and the
exhaustive and able reply to it by Mr. Kanga, I am still unable
to free myself from the logical compulsion of the technicality
upon which Mr. Jinnah has taken his stand.” (XII B.L.R. 863).
Justice Martin, in the case of Tata Industries Bank Ltd.,
acknowledged thus; “I have had the advantage of a very useful
argument from Mr. Jinnah, in the couse of which, I believe, he
had drawn my attention to all the points that can be said in
favour of this client” (XXV BLB 1296).
In the instructive case of Tricum Das Mills, the doctrine
of Indoor Management and complicated questions of Company
Law were involved. In his exhaustive judgement, Justice davar
stated that “in this case some very interesting and important
questions of law arise for consideration.” Dealing with Jinnah’s
submissions, the learned judge commented that “Mr. Jinnah
had throughout the hearing expended much labour and argued
with great skill and conspicuous lucidity.” In the end, while
decreeling the suit in favour of Mr. Jinnah’s client, the learned
judge could not refrain from observing that “the plaintiff must
feel much indebted to the exertions of Mr. Jinnah who
conducted his case, for this result of the suit.” (VI BLR 983).
The same learned judge, in the case of the Advocate-General
versus Fardoonji, wherein issues involved related to the
doctrine of Cypress and the power of the Court to vary and alter
 19

the decree already passed, noted that “Mr. Jinnah had argued
the question of the powers of the court with great care and
much elaboration and cited several authorities in support of his
contentions (VIII BLR 922).
Justice Chandravarkar, in the case of Bibi Khaver
Sultan, wherein the validity of a gift under Mohammedan Law
came up for consideration, and His Highness the Aga Khan was
examined as a witness, observed that’ Mr. Jinnah conducted the
plaintiff’s case with considerable skill and ability.” The same
learned judge, in the suit of Raghirji Vizpal, a case of pledge
and lien, complimented Jinnah “for having conducted the case
with his usual ability”.
In the famous case of the Raja of Nanpara, at Lucknow,
leading lawyers of India appeared against Jinnah. The learned
judge of the Oudh Chief Court, whose decision was upheld by
their Lordships of the Privy Council, observed; “I must also
express my sense of great indebtedness to Mr. Jinnah for his
extremely able arguments, which were of great assistance to me
in the decision of several difficult points of both fact and law
involved in the case.” (1928 AIR Oudh 155).
Their Lordships of the Privy Council very sparingly
complimented any Counsel in their judgments and decisions.
Lord Thankerton, in the reported judgment of the Privy Council
in Abdul Majid Khan versus Sarawati Bai, made this special
mention: “The arguments of the appellant were dealt with fully
and clearly by Mr. Jinnah.” (AIR 1934 PC p.4).
Patrick Spens, the last Chief Justice of undivided India,
paid a tribute to “the tallness of the man, the immaculate
manner in which he was turned out. Refering to Jinnah’s
Practice before the Privy Council, Lord Spens said: “I think the
Privy Council is the most critical. It is a friendly court, but is
tremendously critical, and no one who had first class brains, a
great power of advocacy, and above all great tact and
politeness, would have made in so short a time such a fine
practice as Mr. Jinnah did before the Privy Council.”
 20

(Address to the Pakistan Society, London, 8 January

1960).

ALL INDIA REPORTER:

By way of summing up, one might recall the glowing
tribute paid to Jinnah by the premier Legal journal of India:
The All India Reporter. “Although Mr. Jinnah’s career as a
political leader and as the representative of the successful
Muslim Movement for separation in India overshadows all
other aspects of his life, a legal journal like this has to take note
of the fact that he was a lawyer of outstanding eminence and in
his death our country has lost one of its greatest lawyers. As a
brilliant advocate, he had few rivals. He was also universally
recognized as a man of unimpeachable integrity, and honoured
by the friend and foe alike for his incorruptibility. Mr. Jinnah’s
name will live in history as the greatest protagonist of the two
nation theory in India and the creator of Pakistan.” (AIR 1948
Journal p.41).

Mr. Justice Davar:

From the beginning Mr. Jinnah was for Independence of
Judiciary. This is borne out by the following incident. After
justice Davar had sentenced Tilak to six years rigorous
imprisonment, the Government conferred knighthood upon
Davar, and the Bar Association to the High Court of Bombay
wanted to give him a dinner. A circular went round asking
those who wanted to join the dinner to sign it. When the
circular came to Jinnah, he wrote a scathing note to the effect
that the Bar should be ashamed to wanted give a dinner to a
judge who had obtained a knighthood by doing what the
Government wanted, and by sending a great patriot to jail with
a savage sentence. It seems that Justice Davar came to know
about this, and sent for Jinnah in his chambers. He asked Jinnah
how he thought Davar had treated Jinnah in his Court. Jinnah
replied that the had always been very well treated. Davar asked
 21

Jinnah next whether he had any grievance against him. Jinnah

said he had none. Davar then asked: “Why did you write a note
like this against me?” Jinnah replied that he wrote it because he
thought it was the truth; and however well Davar might have
treated him, he could not suppress his strong feeling about the
manner in which he had tried Tilak’s case. All this goes to
demonstrate the great regard which Jinnah had for Tilak, and
also the courage and the spirit of nationalism which Jinnah
displayed as a young man (M.C. Chagla, Roses in December,
p.14).

GLOWING TRIBUTE:
Let me conclude by referring the tribute paid by Mr.
Justice Muhammad Munir, former Chief Justice of Pakistan on
23rd March, 1976 in the Seminar at the University of Punjab,
Lahore: “I have appeared with or against or heard as a judge
some of the greatest lawyers of England and India – Lawyers
like Mr. Pritt Q.C., Mr. Diplock Q.C. (now the Tri Hon’ble
Lord Diplock P.C.), soft-spoken Bhulabhai Desai, aggressive
K.M. Munshi, another top lawyer of Bombay, Sir Tej Bahadur
Supru pronouncing Arabic Sighas in a Wakf case, Mr. Hasan
Imam, many bald and grey headed veterans of the Lahore Bar.
But in my long experience I have never noticed that masterly
analysis, classification and presentation of facts and the lucidity
and subtlety of argument which I heard in a few Bombay cases
argued by Mr. Jinnah.”
 22

JINNAH’S PAKISTAN:
ISLAMIC OR SECULAR?
An Interview with
Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada

If Jinnah progressively matured in Islam, did he really

envision Pakistan as a state which shall be guided by Islam?
Half a century ago, those; who were actually engaged in the
battle for ‘free Islam in free India’ (that is how demand of
Pakistan was articulated at the mass level) had no such doubts
because if they had, they would not have been fighting for it.
Yet after Pakistan became a reality, there has been an assiduous
attempt to sow confusion about the raison d’etre of the new
country. Some like to argue that as Muslims were
disadvantaged in British India where the Hindus had an in-built
majority, they asked for a separate state so that they could have
their own cake and eat it. And be merry!
In other words their Pakistan was supposed to be a state
where ‘Muslim’ feudals, as against the Hindus, would lord over
the ‘Muslim masses’, but insofar as the state order was
concerned it would be no different from any other secular,
socialist, liberal or capitalist from of government. But Jinnah
always spoke of Muslims and Hindus as two independent
nations by virtue of their culture, their religion, their way of life
and he did not put forward the economic arrangement in order
to justify the demand for Pakistan. Where does then such
confusion come from?
There is really no cause for confusion Pirzada asserts.
‘Wherever else it may lie, there is no confusion insofar as the
Quaid is concerned. We find to the contrary the Quaid defining
gradually and systematically his views about the polity of the
new state.
The Quaid said that Pakistan will be a modern state, but
it will not be a Western-type of government and it will not be a
 23

theocracy either. He told Muslim students in Hydrabad Deccan

in August 1941 that sovereignty in Islam did not lie either with
any king, parliament, person or institution, as the limits of state
authority were laid down in the Qur’an. He could not be more
specific because he maintained that it was for the future
constituent assembly to lay down the precise shape of the
political system.
There were of course enthusiastics like Dr. Abdul
Hamid Qazi, the Bombay Muslim League leader, who wanted
the League to declare then and there that the government in
Pakistan shall be based on the model of Khilafat-e-Rashidah,
the Right-guided Caliphate.
A few others were probably less categorical. Raja Sahib
of Mahmoodabad was telling us in Muslim Students Federation
that the only authoritative book was the Holy Qur’an and the
only and the only authentic translation of the Book was by
Pickthall. The Quaid could see where it might lead to. He told
Raja Sahib firmly. I regret I cannot be a party to such talk. We
must concentrate on our main goal, and I think it is better if you
arranged to stay elsewhere.” The Raja moved out of the Jinnah
House.
The Pakistan idea was being attacked from two allied
quarters: the so-called nationalist Muslims, who were politically
secular and supported the Hindu-dominated Indian National
Congress, and the Congress itself. The ‘nationalist’ Muslims said
that a Western-educated modern person like Jinnah did not have the
credentials to make Pakistan a Muslim state. But their principles,
the congressites wanted to fault Pakistan on the opposite count.
They accused Jinnah of being a ‘communalist’ and a ‘fanatic’(the
words were the 1940’s equivalent of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’.
Jinnah later joked with a British journalist: “Had I not been a
‘fanatic’, I would have never been able to win Pakistan.” The
Congressites said Pakistan would be a theocratic Islamic state and it
would oppress its non-Muslim minorities.
 24

The Quaid, explains Pirzada, ‘had, there , to speak to two

different audience: Muslims who could have been influenced by
“nationalist” propaganda and non-Muslims who were affected by
Congress propaganda that Pakistan was going to be a “theocratic”
state that would deny rights to its minorities. He addressed himself
to both constituencies without, but, he never compromised on the
Islamic character of Pakistan. He told the Delhi session of the
Muslim League council in 1943 that any controversy whether the
future government of Pakistan would or would not be based on
Islam was simply begging the question, since there could be no
doubt as to what the Muslims would do when they had achieved
Pakistan.
When the All India States Muslim League president,
Bahadur Khan [he had renounced the title ‘Nawab Yar Jang’
given by the late Nizam of Hyderabad and was now a plain
Bahadur Khan], stood up at the Karachi session of the Muslim
League in December 1943 and asked point blank: “I ask you
Quaid-i-Azam, whether, or not Pakistan was going to be
founded on the Qur’an?” The Quaid thumped his fist on the
table and declared, “Certainly, it will be based on the Qur’an.”
The Quaid gave a written assurance to Pathan spiritual
leader, Pir Sahib of Manki Shareef (d. 1960), that Pakistan shall
be an Islamic state. The Pir joined Muslim League along with
thousands of his followers. His support in the ensuing
referendum proved decisive for the inclusion of the Frontier
province in Pakistan.
Later the Quaid spoke about not just the Qur’an, but
also the Sunnah and the Shari’ah (in his speeches in
Ahmadabad and in Sylhet). He told the Hindus in sylhet that
they should not be afraid of Pakistan because Islam was known
for its tolerance and for its respect for the rights of other
religions. He could have instead said that their fears were
unfounded as Pakistan was going to be a secular state.
Jinnah did, however, make it a point to reiterate his
assurance to minorities on 11th August, 1947 after he was
 25

elected president of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. He

declared that the first duty of the state was to protect the life,
property and religious beliefs of its people. He said he wanted
the angularities of majority and minority to dissolve one day
when ‘Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would
cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is
the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense
as citizens of the state’. But it is also a speech which is used to
argue that (1) Jinnah had jettisoned his cardinal Two Nation
Theory that Hindus and Muslims were two distinct and
different nations and (2) he now stood for a secular state in
which ‘Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would
cease to be Muslims. In other words Pakistan having been
achieved, it should be the end of the Two Nation Theory as
well as of the idea of a distinctive Muslim or Islamic state?
No, not at all! The 11th August speech has to be seen in
its context, along with all the other pronouncements the Quaid
had made before and after this date. Pirzada dismisses as
nonsense the very idea that Jinnah could have suddenly gone
back on all that he had stood for during the battle for Pakistan.
The doubters should refer to the Quaid’s 14th August
speech immediately after he had taken over as Governor
General of Pakistan. The British viceroy, Lord Mountbatten (d.
1979) who was there to transfer power on behalf of the British
government, had commended to the Quaid the example of the
supposedly ‘secular’ Mughal Emperor Akbar (d. 1605). But the
Quaid did not let the remark pass and relied: “The tolerance
and goodwill that the great Emperor Akbar showed to all non-
Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates backs thirteen hundred
years ago when our Prophet of Islam [all blessings of Allah be
on him] not only by words but by deeds treated Jews and
Christians after he had conquered them, with the utmost
tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The
whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with
those humane and great principles which should be followed
 26

and practiced.” Quaid-i-Azam’s riposte to Mountbatten’s

advice to practice secularism could not have been more lucid.
‘What the Quaid had said on 11th August only meant
that Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Parsis etc. were going to be
one in their citizenship and in their rights and obligations. The
speech has been examined by two eminent jurists of Pakistan,
both were chief justices of the supreme court. Justice
Muhammad Munir and Justice S.A Rahman. They both held
that the Quaid believed in an Islamic state and that the 11th
August speech was intended to assure minorities of their status
and it did not compromise his vision of Pakistan because the
assurance itself was based on the teachings of Islam. Justice
Munir was a secularist.
Pakistan’s ideological foundation had also been defined
in two different judgements by the supreme court of Pakistan
and both ruled that Islam was the raison d-etre and fundamental
law of Pakistan. Such view was taken by Chief Justice
Hamudur-Rahman in his majority judgement as well as by
Justice Gul Muhammad who wrote a minority judgement in the
case Federation of Pakistan versus Wali Khan etc. in 1976.
Pirzada recalls an interview that the former Punjab chief
minister Sir Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana (d. 1975), had given
after the establishment of Pakistan, to the Canadian-Pakistani
scholar Khalid Bin Sayeed. Khizr did not believe in the Two
Nation Theory and he told Khalid Bin Sayeed that he had once
tried to reason with Jinnah that they all belonged to one Indian
nation because most Muslims were converts and all their
ancestors were Hindus. “That’s true”, said Jinnah and added
“but nationhood was a matter of faith.”
It’s interesting that Sir Khizr’s nephew, Sardar Shaukat
Hayat who had left Muslim League in the early years of
Pakistan, has come out with a book of his own memories
claiming that Jinnah wanted a secular order in Pakistan.
However, for all his attempt to recall history, he has not been
able to recall what he had himself said not that long ago.
 27

Pirzada remembers Shaukat Hayat’s own piece in a collection

of articles about Quaid-i-Azam compiled in a book by
Jamiluddin. “There Shaukat Hayat mentions the Quaid saying
to him that he wanted Pakistan to play an important role in the
Third World and that he had before him the example of the
government of Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him).”
We know, adds Pirzada, ‘the Quaid had studied the life of
Second Caliph (may God be pleased with him) and he was very
much inspired by his example.
Again it is now alleged that at the last meeting of All
India Muslim League Council, held probably in December
1947 at Khaliqdina Hall in Karachi, Jinnah had refuted the
commonly-held view that Pakistan meant La Ilaha Illallah ….
That was indeed a popular slogan raised during struggle for
Pakistan and it meant, in other words, Islam was sine qua non
of Pakistan. Pirzada attended the Khaliqdina Hall meeting as an
observer. I was present there and I have covered the
proceedings of this meeting in my two-volume Foundations of
Pakistan. Nothing like this happened in such statement or
observation as reported by the press the next day or
subsequently. I recently checked again with Maulana Jamal
Mian Farangimahli who confirmed to me the version given in
the Foundations of Pakistan (Vol II) was correct.
The Quaid was quite sensitive on the question of
secularism and Pirzada recalls the visit to India of a group of
Turkish journalists who had told Indian newspapers that in
Turkey religion was a personal matter and the state had nothing
to do with religion. And that’s why Turkey had proclaimed
itself a secular republic. The Indian press jumped at the
statement as a good piece of argument against Pakistan.
But when they came to see the Quaid he confronted
them with a published statement of Kemal Ataturk which he
had made shortly before his death wherein he had expressed his
strong opposition to the British plan to partition Palestine
between Jews and Arabs and declared he would fight the plan
 28

in the same way as Salahuddin. Ataturk also explained that the

reason he had adopted secularism as state ideology was that
Turkey was weak at that time, but now it had become a
powerful country – or words to that effect. The Quaid saw
Ataturk on the side of Pakistan and the Turkish journalist had
to agree with him.
Forty-Eight years after a bitterly fought and hard won
independence, Pakistan is today facing the twin crisis of
meaning and existence: to be or not to be. And 47 years after
his death, the leader of the Pakistan government, Quaid-i-Azam
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, seems to have become almost a
stranger in the very country which owes itself almost totally to
his leadership.
And whatever he stood for some recycled Pakistani
secularists would like the Quaid to be seen as an ‘enigma’
which they could then help to unravel. Jinnah’s detractors and
adversaries though had no such doubts as to what he actually
meant when he told the Frontier Muslim League Conference,
Peshawar, 21 November 1945: “Muslims demand Pakistan
where they could rule according to their own code of life and
according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic
laws”. So could he have been a different person to different
people – dubious.
Dubious? In fact, the Quaid was the only politician who
was totally transparent. He was a man of conviction, a very
consistent person, like an open book. Even his worst enemies
would admit that he was never a hypocrite.” Syed Sharifuddin
Pirzada is outraged by such insinuation.
Pirzada watched Jinnah as secretary of Bombay
Provincial Muslim Students Federation and more closely as his
honorary secretary (1941-43). He has since written several
books on Pakistan and Jinnah including, Foundations of
Pakistan, Evolution of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali
Jinnah and Pakistan (1989). After independence Pirzada served
as Pakistan’s attorney general (1965-66 and 1968-71), foreign
 29

minister (1966-68), minister of law (1979-84) and as secretary

general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (1985-
88).
As secretary, Pirzada’s work was to assist Jinnah with
research and reference. “The Quaid guided me through the
various sections of his library and asked me to familiarize
myself with the books and be ready to provide him with any
references which he might need from time to time. The library
had a very good documentation on the Congress leaders,
especially Mahatma Gandhi, even the Hindu Mahasabha, and
the British of course. It also had a rich collection of books on
politics, the library had good section on Islam: The Holy
Qur’an, its translations and Tafsirs, Islamic law and Islamic
history, especially the history of the Rashidun Caliphs; and
general works on Islam.”
“I found in his bedroom a very beautifully printed copy
of the Holy Qur’an, properly wrapped up in a juzudan (a
special cloth covering for the Holy Book) and kept high on a
shelf. The library too had a number of copies of the Holy
Qur’an some were hand written and of course, the two famous
translations, by Pickthall and by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. His
reverence for the Holy Qur’an was deep and genuine.
Prizada mentions an example. The Muslim League
treasurer Raja Sahib of Mahmoodabad (d. 1973) had been
staying at Jinnah House. He had gone out somewhere and it so
happened that when he returned, Quaid-i-Azam saw him
alighting from the car and walking towards the main door of
the house. A leather case containing a copy of the Holy Qur’an
was hanging over one shoulder, and he had a lighted cigarette
in his other hand. The Quaid was shocked. “What’s this”, he
said, “you have the Holy Qur’an hanging over one shoulder and
a cigarette in the other hand?” Raja Sahib extinguished the
cigarette immediately, and I am sure, he never ever did so
again.
 30

But some people enjoy collecting a big library, in order

simply to decorate their study and to impress others. No, the
Quaid made full use of his library. He would know exactly
what he required and where those books were to be found in his
library. His speeches and statements were not only well-argued
but also fully backed by facts.
And his interest in Islamic teachings was not for
reference purposes only. I remember the Quaid reading the first
volume of the English translation of Maulana Shibli Nu’mani’s
(d. 1914) Al-Farooq, the life of the second caliph, ‘Umar
Farooq (May God be pleased with him) and then asking me to
get him a copy of the second volume. I said there was no
English translation so far of the second volume. He then asked
me to prepare for him a brief summary in English from the
Urdu edition. I did.
Jinnah did not issue many press statements. He never
spoke off the cuff or received any politician, scholar or even
journalist without having briefed himself. Therefore, whether it
was the visit of the Cripps Mission (Sir Stafford Cripps (d.
1952), he was chancellor of the exchequer in the Attlee
government), Professor Reginald Coupland’s or any other
official or unofficial mission, we had to work very hard to
provide the Quaid the references he asked for. Before Coupland
came to see him, he asked me to collect from my college, St
Xavier’s library, all books on Swiss constitution. He studied
them for about three days and on the fourth day he dictated a
three-page note that showed his total grasp of the subject.
Coupland was admittedly impressed.
About a month before the Delhi meeting of All India
Muslim League Council in November 1942, the Quaid asked
Pirzada, to look into the speeches and writings of Mr. Gandhi
where he look pride that he was a Hindu. I found some
references from his library as well as a more direct one from
my own personal collection of (Gandhi’s) Young India. There
the Mahatma claimed that he was a Hindu. “From the top to the
 31

toe”; he believed in Dharma etc. These showed him in his true

colour.
What, if any, were Jinnah’s private thoughts about
Gandhi, thoughts which he would not express in the public?
The Quaid was very frank and open in his views and he was not
given to double-speak. He respected Gandhi as an astute
politician, and used to say jokingly that he was the only Indian
politician who knew how to create problems for Muslims. But
probably the only person who could read Gandhi’s true mind
was the Quaid himself. He was always able to anticipate his
moves and to get at their real thrust. He would never be conned
by the Mahatma’s sweet and supple words.
Pirzada recalls an interesting errand. The Quaid asked
me to take a letter of his to… a Muslim member in the
Viceroy’s executive council. He told me the code word which
would allow me to get past the guard and he calculated that
leaving his place about 6.45 p.m., I would get there around 7.30
p.m. and should be back between 8.30. p.m. and 8.45 p.m. The
minister was supposed to hand me an envelope in exchange.
I got there on time but as I approached the minister’s
railway saloon at Victoria Terminus, I saw the silhouette of a
famous Indian film actress. She was without her sari. I there,
retraced my steps and waited until I felt that she had moved out
of the compartment.
I went in (her sari was lying in a corner) and handed
over the Quaid’s letter. The minister gave me his envelope. It
was glued alright but not sealed, so I asked him to sign it along
the flaps. It was late and I couldn’t find a taxi. By the time I
returned it was 10.30 p.m. The Quaid was furious. “I did not
expect this from you” The delay had made him think that I had
possibly tried to look into the envelope.
It took me some time to explain why I had been
delayed. He then remembered and took out a news clipping
from the previous day’s Evening News which carried a news
 32

item about Miss…. Having been given a government licence

for… and he then went on to observe, “Wine, Women and
Wealth have always destroyed Muslims”. We never saw him
drink while I was working with him.
The Quaid never made any claims to being a great
Muslim. On the contrary he strictly avoided giving any such
impression. Yahya Bakhtiar (later attorney general in Z A
Bhutto’s government) wanted to take his picture but as he was
reading a book of Hadith at the time, the Quaid stopped him
from doing so. Probably those who rake up such controversy
seek to justify their own habits, but they should better refer to
the Quaid’s remarks about “Wine, Women and Wealth”
However, in trying to understand Quaid-i-Azam, one must also
try to understand the fact of evolution in his thoughts and in his
personality.
Jinnah of 1916 was not the same as the Jinnah of 1937
much less the Quaid of 1945 or 1947. Reminded that he had
been a member of Indian National Congress, he had replied that
he had once been in a primary school too. He was clean and
upright, yet he never claimed any moral high ground for
himself. People wrote to him he should grow a beard or that he
should go for Hajj etc. and he always told them he was not a
religious leader and they treat him merely as their lawyer. He
never tried to be someone he was not.
However, it seems he had soon begun to move from his
situation of being an intellectually detached lawyer to that of an
involved member of his nation and eventually its leader as well.
Pirzada thinks he had started to become “one of them”
in the 1930s. His ideas had started to crystalline during his
sojourn in London, 1930-33, and his subsequent experience of
observing the Indian National Congress in power (1937-42) in
seven provinces went to confirm those ideas. He now sought
not only the revival of Muslim League, but also revitalization
of his nation’s Islamic spirit.
 33

The Quaid always used to say that the reason he had

chosen the Lincoln’s Inn to do bar-at-law was that out of the
four Inns of Court, that he could join, the plaque on Lincoln
Inn’s entrance had the name of the Holy Prophet (Peace and
blessings of Allah on Him) among the law-givers of humanity.
I do not know about his life style prior to 1937, but
when I joined the Quaid in 1941, there were valets, cooks and
other servants who were working with him since at least 1936.
One was naturally curious to know about the life of his leader,
but as far as I could find out his life was simple, and except for
mutton, beef, chicken or fish, nothing came to his kitchen. Even
the Quaid’s Goanese Catholic stenographer, Lobo, had been
told not to bring anything like ham or bacon for his lunch.
How then do we understand Jinnah’s conversion to
Islam, that is in the ideological sense? He did not either have
the background or the upbringing for this conversion.
It is not the conversion of a secular person to Islam
according to Pirzada, ‘because he had always believed in Islam.
What happened can better be seen as the gradual maturing of
the Quaid’s Muslim personality.
It was not a political conversion. The Quaid had also
been greatly influenced by three persons: Maulana Shaukat Ali
(d. 1938), Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani (d. 1949) and
Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung (the all India States Muslim League
president. d. 1944). He used to consult them regularly and
whenever Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani came to Bombay,
he made it a point to call on the Quaid and both discussed
various matters concerning Islam, Muslims and the demand for
Pakistan. Quaid-i-Azam was a person who could act only from
conviction and not out of expediency. He meant what he said
and said what he meant.
M. H. Faruqi
Courtesy: Impact International,
August 1995.
 34

QUAID-I-AZAM
WANTED ISLAMIC,
NOT SECULAR STATE

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a dynamic

leader and had the charisma of Churchill, dignity of de Gaulle,
greatness of Allama Iqbal and rationality of Roosevelt.
The landmarks in the political life of Quaid-e-Azam are: from
Lucknow Pact to Lahore Resolution and from fourteen points
to fourteenth August 1947.
Two great leaders, Gokhale and Tilak highly
appreciated the role of Mr Jinnah. Gokhale described him as
“ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”. Tilak extended his full
support to Mr Jinnah at Lucknow.
It is well known that a farewell meeting was organized
by a section of reactionary group for Lord Willingdon, the
Governor of Bombay. When Mr and Mrs Jinnah, alongwith
their followers entered the hall and occupied front seats to
lodge strong protest, the police, in a highhanded manner,
escorted them out of the hall. The citizens of Bombay
condemned the police action and hailed Mr Jinnah as the un-
crowned king of Bombay. About 65, 000 admirers of Mr Jinnah
donated one rupee each which culminated in the construction of
Peoples Jinnah Hall to commemorate the great event. Mrs
Annie Basant inaugurated the historic Hall.
On l3th April 1919, Brigadier Dyer ordered shooting of
peaceful people who had gathered in Jallianwala Bagh in
Amritsar. Hundreds were killed and thousands were wounded.
In British India, meetings for protests were banned. Mr Jinnah
rushed to Hyderabad to conduct a case and organized a
meeting. However, the Political Agent to the Viceroy asked the
State Authorities to ban Mr Jinnah’s entry in Hyderabad. Mr
Jinnah alongwith Mr CR Das and other leading lawyers wanted
 35

to go to Lahore to defend the political leaders but the Governor

of the Punjab banned their entry in the province. It may be
added that ban on Mr Jinnah’s entry into Hyderabad continued
in force for ten years.
When the ban on the meetings in British India was
lifted, a huge meeting was organized in Bombay on 13th April
1920, under the chairmanship of Mr Jinnah. The great poet Dr.
Rabindaranath Tagore sent a moving message. Mahatma
Gandhi moved the Resolution of condemnation. Mr Jinnah said
that the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh would move even the
stones and described Dyer as a butcher.
In the meantime, the new Governor of Bombay George
Lloyed approached the Viceroy for externment of Mr Jinnah
and Mr Gandhi to Burma but the Secretary of State Mr
Montagu intervened. The correspondence between the
Governor and the Viceroy speaks volumes about their anti
Jinnah attitude.
It is unnecessary to refer to session of the Congress in
December 1920 when Mr Jinnah opposed Gandhiji’s proposal
for non-cooperation. Gandhiji later acknowledged that it was a
Himalayan miscalculation on his part. Mr Jinnah attended the
Congress session at Ahmadabad in 1921, when Maulana Hasrat
Mohani moved the resolution about Independence of India
which was opposed by Mahatma Gandhi. It may be mentioned
that at the Muslim League Session Mr Abbas Tayyabji,
Chairman of the Reception Committee, irresponsibly suggested
dissolution of the Muslim League. Fortunately, nobody agreed.
Mr Jinnah organized the Muslim League Session in Lahore in
May 1924 and then in Bombay in December 1924. This
impressed his critics. Maulana Muhammad Ali was convinced
so much that he “garlanded Mr. Jinnah at the conclusion of
proceedings, embraced him and kissed him on both cheeks
amidst loud outbursts of applauses from the audience”. (Daily
Gazette 31/12/1924)
 36

I will now deal with two points. (1) The Islamic

Ideology and (2) the Quaid-i-Azam’s speech on 11th August,
1947.

ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY
It has been suggested by certain quarters that reference
to Islamic Ideology was first made in Yahya’s Legal Frame
Work Order of 1970. The fact is: Islamic Ideology was
emphasized by the Quaid-i-Azam on 12th June 1945 in his
message to the Muslim Student Federation Conference in
Peshawar.
“I have often made it clear that if the Musalmans wish
to live as honourable and free people, there is only one course
open to them, to fight for Pakistan, to live for Pakistan and, if
necessary, to die for the achievement of Pakistan. There is no
royal road for any nation but there is one and only course open
to us, to organize our nation and it is only your own dint of
arduous and sustained determined efforts that we can create the
strength and the support of our people to not only achieve our
freedom and independence but be able to maintain it and live
according to Islamic ideals and principles. Pakistan not only
means freedom and independence but Islamic ideology which
has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and
a treasure, which, we hope, others will share with us.” (QAP, F.
1020/6-7; also Star of India 19.6.1945)

SPEECH OF 11th AUGUST, 1947

Reference may also be made to the speech of Quaid-i-
Azam on 11th August, 1947 wherein he said:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you
are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship
in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or
caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the
State”.
 37

The power was transferred by the British Government

to its Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 14th August, 1947.
The Viceroy Lord Mountbatten in his statement referred to the
liberal policy followed by Emperor Akbar. Quaid-i-Azam’s
response was spontaneous:
“The tolerance and goodwill that great Emperor Akbar
showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates
back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (Peace Be Upon
Him) not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and
Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost
tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and belief. The
whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with
those humane and great principles which should be followed
and practised”.
According to Professor Akbar S Ahmed, the two
speeches of the Quaid must be read together.

JUSTICE MUNIR’S COMMENTS

Mr Justice Muhammad Munir, former Chief Justice of
Pakistan in his book “From Jinnah to Zia” has observed that
Quaid-i-Azam’s speech of 11th August, 1947 indicated that he
visualized Pakistan to be a Secular State. However, in the well
prepared address in the seminar held under the auspicious of
the Punjab University Lahore on 23rd March 1976, Justice
Munir said:
“But to some, the most puzzling enigma that has
presented itself and left them guessing is his speech as
President of the Constituent Assembly on 11th August, 1947,
just three days before Pakistan came into being. This was a
considered speech and undoubtedly was in the nature of an
announcement to his countrymen and the world what the future
constitution of Pakistan would be. Two or three facts have to be
mentioned so as to enable you to comprehend its full
implications. The boundary award had not yet been announced,
not even signed. The indiscriminate killings, except those of
 38

Rawalpindi and Calcutta, had not yet commenced nor the vast
cross-migration of 6 to 8 million people. He expected that a
substantial number of minorities will remain citizens of
Pakistan.
“The speech was intended to allay the fears of
minorities. That such fear did exist will appear from an incident
I may mention. A representative of Lever Brothers asked for an
interview with me and I wondered what business an
industrialist could have with a judge. During the interview he
told me that he had come to me to ask only one question. I
asked him what that question was and he informed me that his
concern was thinking of investing in Pakistan a large amount of
capital but only if the judiciary of Pakistan will retain its
present form and powers and judicial power will not pass on to
the Qazis. I told him that he knew nothing about the Qazis of
Islam who were specimen of fearlessness, independence, and
integrity but that if he wanted further assurance, I asked him to
read this speech of the Quaid-i-Azam.
“It is quite clear from this speech that the Quaid spoke
with conviction and from his heart. This speech was loudly and
repeatedly cheered during its delivery. There is a tendency to
suppress or ignore this historic statement. But twist it how you
will, suppress or ignore it as you like, future historians will not
omit to notice it or to explain its true purport. The question
however still remains whether this speech was a volte-face or a
contradiction of his two-nation theory which was the main
plank in the demand for Pakistan or whether that theory was
just a convenient, expedient and temporary means for the
attainment of a homeland for the Muslim majority regions. By
taking that view we will be attributing hypocrisy, insincerity
and dishonesty to the father of Pakistan and I cannot possibly
conceive of any such thing. He was a man of scrupulous honour
and mental integrity. He was not thoroughly conversant with
the intricacies of Islamic doctrines but he was fully aware of
the broad principles of Islam - Islamic democracy, equality,
 39

tolerance, freedom of religion, subject to law and conscience,

justice between man and a man, particularly social justice.
More than once he had said that these concepts were not
borrowed from the west but had been revealed some 1,400
years earlier in a divine message to the Holy Prophet and were
actually practised during the first half century of Islam. I,
therefore, believe that the speech of 11th August, 1947 was not
a contradiction or repudiation of two-nation theory, it was just
an enunciation of the principles by which a society, in which
the Muslims were in a majority and the Government of the
territory was in their hands, would be governed”.
The above views of Justice Munir are more persuasive
and cogent then his subsequent opinion in the book “From
Jinnah to Zia”.

QUAID-I-AZAM’S REAFFIRMATION
Let me refer to Quaid-i-Azam’s own views. In an
interview with Reuter’s Correspondent Mr Duncan Hooper on
October 25, 1947, Quaid said:
“As for the two-nation theory, it is not a theory but a
fact. The division of India is based on that fact. Minorities
belonging to different faiths living in Pakistan or Hindustan do
not cease to be citizens of the respective States by virtue of
their belonging to a particular faith, religion or race. I have
repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opinion speech to the
Constituent Assembly, that the minorities in Pakistan would be
treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights and
privileges that any other community gets. Pakistan shall pursue
that policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and
confidence in the non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan”.
It may be mentioned that in the famous Gandhi-Jinnah
talks, held in September 1944, the Quaid had clarified the
position about the minorities.
 40

Gandhiji was recorded as under: “Jinnah drew a very

alluring picture of the Government of Pakistan. It would be a
perfect democracy. I asked him what would happen to the other
minorities in Pakistan: Sikhs, Christians, etc. He said they
would be part of Pakistan. I asked him if he meant joint
electorates. He said, yes, he would like them to be part of the
whole. (The collected works of Mahatama Gandhi Volume - 78
P. 96). Let me conclude that Quaid-i-Azam was always clear,
consistent and candid.