[Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was clear: an Islamic welfare state where justice, equality, and human rights prevailed according to Islamic principles. Unfortunately, some religious factions misinterpreted this vision, promoting slogans and ideologies contrary to Jinnah’s dream. His aspiration was a country where all citizens, irrespective of religion, enjoyed equal rights, where the rule of law prevailed, and where justice was paramount…..] by Syed Atiq ul Hassan
The founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, once expressed a sorrowful truth in the final days of the Pakistan Movement: “I have a few counterfeit
coins in my pocket.” He was referring to the feudal lords, landlords, and tribal chiefs who joined the All-India Muslim League in the latter stages of the movement, motivated not by ideology but by political gain. These individuals, disconnected from the true essence of the movement, introduced a feudal mindset that would plague Pakistan’s political decision-making for decades.
Even after Pakistan’s creation, this feudal mindset dominated its politics, alienating Bengali politicians who approached politics with ideological and movement-oriented thinking. In contrast, politicians from Punjab and Sindh adhered to a feudal approach, contributing significantly to the eventual separation of East Pakistan.
Adding to this misfortune, religious parties that had opposed the Pakistan Movement became part of the political landscape after the country’s establishment. These parties actively worked against the foundational ideology of Pakistan. Mufti Mahmood, the father of Fazlur Rehman, openly declared in the National Assembly, “Thank God, we were not complicit in the crime of creating Pakistan.” This duplicity, evident then, continues to plague Pakistan’s politics today.
Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was clear: an Islamic welfare state where justice, equality, and human rights prevailed according to Islamic principles. Unfortunately, some religious factions misinterpreted this vision, promoting slogans and ideologies contrary to Jinnah’s dream. His aspiration was a country where all citizens, irrespective of religion, enjoyed equal rights, where the rule of law prevailed, and where justice was paramount.
In 1946, speaking at Islamia College, Peshawar, Jinnah said, “We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land, but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.” Today, this vision remains unfulfilled.
The Parallels with Imran Khan
Imran Khan faces challenges strikingly similar to those encountered by Jinnah. Khan envisions an Islamic welfare state free from corruption, nepotism, and injustice. Yet, opportunists within his party have undermined his vision, seeking to transform Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) into a traditional political entity driven by personal interests and the pursuit of power. While some of Khan’s close associates remain loyal to his ideology, many prioritize their own benefits, complicating matters for him. Genuine activists have been labelled traitors, expelled, or forced to resign, leaving Khan’s vision in jeopardy.
The public’s apathy compounds the problem. They fail to distinguish between allies and enemies, reducing themselves to mere spectators. While a few loyal supporters stand by Khan and face imprisonment, the majority chant slogans of “Long live Pakistan” without making meaningful sacrifices.
Imran Khan’s honesty and integrity remain unquestioned. However, his trusting nature has led to political missteps, diverting his revolutionary politics toward electoral strategies. His decision to engage with a corrupt governance system, judiciary, and the unconstitutional involvement of the military in democratic affairs was a significant miscalculation. Khan’s current imprisonment on fabricated charges highlights these blunders, as political opportunists reap the benefits of a corrupt system.
Jinnah’s Warnings Ignored
Before Imran Khan’s political rise, Pakistan’s provinces were deeply divided along lines of provincialism, culture, language, and sectarianism. Jinnah foresaw this danger, warning on March 28, 1948, in a radio broadcast from Dhaka: “If we begin to think of ourselves as Punjabis, Sindhis, etc., first and Muslims and Pakistanis incidentally, then Pakistan is bound to disintegrate. Do not think this is some abstruse proposition; our enemies are fully alive to its possibilities and are already busy exploiting it.”
Unfortunately, the people of Pakistan ignored Jinnah’s warnings. Provincialism and sectarianism have since eroded national unity, enabling internal and external adversaries to exploit these divisions.
A Precarious Present
The current state of Pakistan is dire. The public places its hopes on foreign powers, such as the United States, for Khan’s release—a misplaced trust reminiscent of 1971, when promises of American support to save East Pakistan went unfulfilled. The deployment of the Seventh Fleet, promised by the U.S., never materialized, leaving the nation to suffer the consequences.
Today, Pakistan faces existential threats. The United States, Europe, and India are reportedly united in their efforts to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, a goal that may gain momentum during Donald Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, Pakistani institutions and a puppet government have isolated the nation on the global stage. Allies like China, Iran, Türkiye, and Russia have lost confidence in Pakistan, exacerbating its vulnerability.
Since the early years of Pakistan’s independence, the military and its intelligence services have steadily gained control over the governing system. This process began with the appointment of the first Pakistani Army General, Ayub Khan, who also assumed the role of Defence Minister following the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. From the imposition of martial law in 1958 to the present day, the military has maintained direct or indirect control, often under the guise of democracy. This has been achieved by manufacturing political leaders and parties, from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and Asif Ali Zardari, often in collaboration with foreign allies. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had foreseen the dangers of military involvement in governance, warning that such control would erode civil rights and civil liberties. He famously stated, “Do not forget that the armed forces are the servants of the people. You do not make national policy; it is we, the civilians, who decide these issues, and it is your duty to carry out these tasks with which you are entrusted.”
The Path Forward
Pakistan’s survival hinges on its people’s ability to recognize their internal and external enemies and unite against them. Identifying true leadership and supporting it wholeheartedly is imperative. Failure to seize this opportunity could mean that another leader like Imran Khan may never emerge, and the nation’s borders may become increasingly insecure.
The time for introspection and action is now. Jinnah’s vision and warnings remain as relevant as ever. It is up to the people of Pakistan to honour his legacy and ensure that the nation rises above its challenges to secure a prosperous and united future.
(The writer is a Sydney-based journalist a mentor, a life coach, analyst and editor, Tribune International, Australia. He is also a recipient of harmony & peace and lifetime achievement awards. His email address is shassan@tribune-intl.com ).
END
