Why is there so much debate about Jinnah?

The name of Muhammad Ali Jinnah is at the center of a unique controversy in Bangladesh. One group honors him as the founder of Pakistan, while another accuses him in the context of the Language Movement. But both sides avoid Jinnah's political complexity, his strategic sense of reality, and the practical limitations of the Two-Nation theory.

To understand Jinnah correctly, one needs the historical context, the full text of his own statements, and the courage to face the bloody truth of how the Two-Nation theory was destroyed in 1971. Renowned historian Ayesha Jalal, in her book "The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan," shows that Jinnah was essentially a constitutionalist leader who initially sought a power-sharing solution between the Congress and the Muslim League at the center of British India.

"Jinnah's main goal was a constitutional solution in which Muslim interests would be protected-but India would remain undivided." - Ayesha Jalal

Jalal emphasizes that Jinnah "saw a federation of an undivided India as the solution to the problem" and that "he never considered religion as the basis of the state to be the ultimate solution."

Jinnah's Two-Nation theory was not born of ideological emotion, but of a hard assessment of political reality. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad writes in his autobiography "India Wins Freedom" that in the Hindu-majority areas of British India, the future of Muslims was like that of "alien and foreigners."

Azad expressed his apprehension: If India had not been partitioned, three crore fifty lakh Muslims would have remained scattered as small minorities... their position would have been at the mercy of an 'unadulterated Hindu raj.

Jinnah understood this reality. So he used the Two-Nation theory as a political tool-sometimes strategically, sometimes ideologically. Ayesha Jalal's analysis:

"Jinnah's 'Pakistan' was a bargaining counter-the ultimate goal was federal balance, not partition."

What did Jinnah actually say in his speech? Jinnah's speech in Dhaka on March 21, 1948, is negatively remembered in Bangladesh in the context of the Language Movement. But an analysis of the full text of the speech shows that Jinnah's position was much more nuanced. Jinnah said- "The provincial government will decide what the official language of this province (East Bengal) will be.” He also mentioned that what would be the language of official communication between one province of Pakistan and another-this was an important question.

In 1948, it was difficult to imagine Bengali, Punjabi, or Pashto as the lingua franca of Pakistan-these three languages were so regional that their use as the language of communication for all of Pakistan was virtually impossible. There were two contenders: English and Urdu. Jinnah was a politician who had established a new state from the grip of colonial rulers. How could he say that the language of the colonial masters would be the state language of the Muslims? Jamaat-e-Islami and their allies picked out only that one sentence from Jinnah's speech and made posters serving their political agenda.

What did Jamaat do at that time?

Jamaat-e-Islami today makes a great fuss about Jinnah, but in the 1940s they politicked against Jinnah and the ideology of Pakistan. Ayesha Jalal mentions in her lecture that Jamaat-e-Islami's founder Maulana Maududi and his followers were opponents of the Muslim League. After Bangladesh's independence, Jamaat-e-Islami was banned. In 1972, they were banned due to their "anti-liberation stance." In 1975, during Ziaur Rahman's rule, the ban was withdrawn. Jamaat-e-Islami was on the side of the Pakistani army during the 1971 Liberation War. Their members formed forces like Al-Badr and Al-Shams, fought against the freedom fighters, and were involved in the killing, rape and torture of innocent Bengalis.

"Jamaat-e-Islami and its student organization Islami Chhatra Shibir opposed the Liberation War and assisted the Pakistani army." - International analysis

Ayesha Jalal emphasizes that Jinnah "did not want to make religion the basis of a state" and "he would be angered to see this kind of hateful and narrow Islam." The basis of Jinnah's Two-Nation theory was not geographical, but cultural and religious. But on the night of March 25, 1971, West Pakistanis carried out genocide against their own citizens and destroyed the effectiveness of the two-nation theory.
"Thank God, Pakistan has been saved." - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, March 25, 1971, after the genocide at Dhaka University. This statement itself proves that Pakistan's military and political leadership did not see Bengalis as 'their own citizens'-they were 'the other.'

Jamaat-e-Islami openly supported this betrayal by the Pakistani army in 1971. Their leaders and activists fought against the freedom fighters as Al-Badr and Al-Shams. Bangladesh's Law Minister Anisul Haq called Jamaat a "platform of militants." After 1971, the Pakistan government formed the Hamoodur Rahman Commission to investigate. The commission's report acknowledged "systematic killing" of Bengalis by the Pakistan army and "crimes" at Dhaka University. But Bhutto did not publish the first report, because he thought it would damage "Pakistan Army morale."

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad predicted in a 1946 interview that "East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) will not be reasonable to stay with West Pakistan."

Azad further expressed his apprehension:"Politically, educationally, and economically backward, these Muslims will be left at the mercy of an 'unadulterated Hindu raj.'"

Azad was not only concerned about Hindu-Muslim division-he realized that making religion the basis of a state would give rise to multiple problems. In Ayesha Jalal's words- "Making religion the basis of a state is a ridiculous idea."

Bangladesh's secular politicians accuse Jinnah of imposing a state language. But they do not mention that part of Jinnah's speech where he said "the provincial government will decide what the official language of this province will be." Secularists also do not say that Jinnah's entire speech was "progressive, liberal and no-nonsense." They distort history by picking out one sentence and making posters. Ayesha Jalal says: "We have turned Jinnah into such a jumble of contradictions that they cancel each other out."

Jalal further mentions:

"He (Jinnah) believed that Islam and democracy are compatible, but 'human activity' was the best basis of governance, and he prioritized the rule of law over religious directives." Those who want to make Jinnah a hero and those who want to make him a villain-both have fallen into the same trap: tribalism. They use Jinnah as a tool for their own political agendas, but do not try to understand Jinnah's real complexity.

"Those who think they can stir things up by glorifying Jinnah are making a fuss about him. And those who think they gain by vilifying Jinnah are defacing his image. The is the same: tribalism."

Jinnah was a deeply conflicted political leader-like any other great leader. He used the ridiculous idea of building a state on the basis of religion as a political tool, but he himself did not consider religion to be the ultimate basis of the state. Jinnah's vision failed to materialize because his country's citizens-on both sides-were "incompetent." The state called Pakistan ultimately did not belong to the Muslims-it belonged to the military. The entire country is on the brink of destruction. But that does not mean Jinnah's ideology was inherently wrong. The problem with the Two-Nation theory was in its application, in its effectiveness, and in the hands of those who used it.