Jinnah's shadow over contemporary politics in India

Jinnah's shadow over contemporary politics in India

By Syed Shahabuddin The Milli Gazette Online The question whether Jinnah was secular is meaningless unless one defines the term ‘Secular’. If to be secular means to be anti-religious or pro-religious, to have no religious inhibitions, to deny, ignore and not to practise religious duties, then Gandhi or Azad was not secular, Jinnah, in that sense was secular until he donned the Shervani and the Jinnah cap and became the Qaid-e-Azam. Nehru was but he professed to be a sceptic and not religious. But since Hinduism is impossible to define, he considered himself, and was considered by his followers, to be a Hindu.

If secularism is defined as non-discrimination on ground of religion, then the term is lifted from the common way of life to the lofty heights of power. Indeed Secularism is an attribute of the State which treats its citizens equally irrespective of religion. As an individual, any person is ever free to choose his friends, his spouse, the religion of his children, but as the law-giver, as a person in power, as a representative of the State he serves, he cannot import religion into his official life, in dealing with the people at large or his subordinates. So a religious or even orthodox person may well be secular as the holder of a public office. Conversely, an irreligious person may be anti-secular or communal in his public life.

Let us take a look at the problem from the conceptual angle of nationalism.

Jinnah’s name is synonymous with the Two-Nations Theory; the theory covers Hindus and Muslims only but they are not the whole of India. It has followers of at least 4, if not 6 or 7, recognized religions: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Jains, and the Parsis, and many ‘other religions’. The question was and is: if Muslims and Hindus constitute nations, then why should not the other religious groups also be regarded as ‘nations’. So Jinnah should have logically espoused the Many Nations Theory, all based on religion. What, in fact, he conceptually propounded after 1937 may be called the theory of Religion-based Nationalism or Religious Nationalism, in contrast to Territorial Nationalism which implies that all persons who inhabit a common territory constitute one nation. Territorial Nationalism tends to break down with the size of the territory as in a particular part, a minority group may command a majority.

It also tends to break down with historically determined relations among distinct peoples inhabiting the territory. Territorial Nationalism implies a relationship of friendly intercourse between different peoples inhabiting the territory, participating in its governance, sharing the responsibility for development and defence, facing common perils and sharing joys and sorrows. But Territorial Nationalism whatever the size of the territory has to be secular nationalism if