According to one of the eminent Muslim political leaders of the 20th century, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founding father of Pakistan, the nation of Pakistan with 75% Muslims and 25% Hindus {the proportion would have been something like this in a non-"motheaten" Pakistan} could live as a united secular democratic nation where "Hindus would 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".
However, according to Jinnah, a nation of 75% of Hindus and 25% of Muslims (as would have been an undivided India) could not be such a nation. This was the foundational argument for Pakistan.
Jinnah was essentially saying that Hindus are not suited for secular democracy. Leftist and Pakistani liberal historians nevertheless try to present Jinnah as secular minded and unbigoted. But today, if we make statements like "Arabs are not suited for democracy" or "Islam is not suited for democracy" we would be excoriated for it, especially by Leftists and by Pakistani liberals.
Why the double-standard?
No comments:
Post a Comment