c



 
p
Two 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.p

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 customary eloquence:p

?

 

 

 


 







   


































 

 

























 



  








  


 Click here to read morep

   p

Pakistan: A Living Monument of Quaid-e-Azam

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Father of Nation
Time Line of Quaid-e-Azam
Jinnah's Legacy to Pakistan- Lecture by Prof. Stanley Wolpert
Life of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Jinnah: The Founder of Pakistanp

c

  
p

What do we mean by Pakistan? - Muhammad Asad

Time now to recall Quaid's warning to Muslim World - Sharif-ul-Mujahidp

Πc

p

Address from All India Radio - 3rd June 1947 NEW

Public Meeting at Dhaka - 21st March, 1948 NEW
Pakistan Constituent Assembly - 14th August, 1947
Address to the Nation - 15th August, 1947
Message to the people of Australia - 19th February, 1948
Public Address at Peshawar - 20th April, 1948
Inaugaration of State Bank of Pakistan - 1st July, 1948 [Last Recorded Speech of Quaid-e-Azam] p

c

 p

c

 !  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 c 
Reviewp

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.p

Quaid's Address 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 hours old. p

  p

Mazar-e-Quaid
Mosouleum of Quaid-e-Azamp

pp
Date/Time Last Modified: 6/3/2004 8:15:31 AM

-
p

"Œ"#c$% 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. p
&Π8/2/2005 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 AzharAShah@aol.com p


 8/6/2005 12:52:51 PM

Visits web sites dedicated to Allama Mashraqi. Read articles by Mr. Nasim Yousaf
www.allamamashriqi.info www.allama-mashriqi.8m.com p

'( 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. p

'
c  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. p

  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. p

 
 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. p

Œ
 )  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 ³TURKEY´,
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 ³Protector 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. p

$
*
 1/29/2006 7:10:00 PM

Thank you so much for providing Jinnah's speeches. p


 Œ++, 
 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... p

 (%  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. p

#Π 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 p

c 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. p