Sunday, November 28, 2004
VIEW: Democracy - what Mr Jinnah said
-Anjum Altaf
A straightforward reading of the evidence would suggest that subsequent events have proved Mr Jinnah wrong. India, with a much more heterogeneous polity, has made a democratic system work and fared relatively better under it while a much more homogeneous Pakistan has had a very traumatic and troubled existence
Seeing that I have been writing on democracy, a reader has directed my attention to a speech by Mr Jinnah delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University Union on March 6, 1940.
There is one particular passage in this speech that literally jumps out at the reader. It proceeds as follows: "Two years ago at Simla I said that the democratic parliamentary system of government was unsuited to India. I was condemned everywhere in the Congress press. I was told that I was guilty of disservice to Islam because Islam believes in democracy. So far as I have understood Islam, it does not advocate a democracy which would allow the majority of non-Muslims to decide the fate of the Muslims. We cannot accept a system of government in which the non-Muslims merely by numerical majority would rule and dominate us."
And it continues: "Then, generally speaking, democracy has different patterns even in different countries of the West. Therefore, naturally I have reached the conclusion that in India where conditions are entirely different from those of the Western countries, the British party system of government and the so-called democracy are absolutely unsuitable."
It was in another article published in the Time and Tide of London only a few days later, on March 9, 1940, that Mr Jinnah elaborated the reasons he felt democracy was infeasible in India: "Democratic systems based on the concept of a homogeneous nation such as England are very definitely not applicable to heterogeneous countries such as India and this simple fact is the root cause of all of India's constitutional ills."
Mr Jinnah was quite well aware of the alternative argument for he continued: "Even as Under-Secretary of State for India, the late Lt-Col Muirhead failed to appreciate this fact, for, deploring the present communal tension, he expressed the opinion that the tendency on the part of both those in power and those in opposition was to consider that what the position now was would be the position always. He deplored the failure of Indians to appreciate an essential feature of democratic government - namely, the majority and minority are never permanent, and he, therefore, felt that the minorities' (sic) opposition to Federation on the assumption that from the outset power would be in the hands of an irremovable majority was untenable."
Mr Jinnah was not swayed by this argument. "But he [Muirhead] forgot that the whole concept of democracy postulates a single people, however much divided economically." Based on this reasoning Mr Jinnah concluded that "Western democracy is totally unsuited for India and its imposition on India is the disease in the body politic."
Having described the disease, Mr Jinnah posed the question: "What is the remedy?" And he answered it as follows:
(1) "The British people must realise that unqualified Western democracy is totally unsuited for India and attempts to impose it must cease."
(2) "In India, it must be accepted that 'party' government is not suitable and all governments - central or provincial - must be governments that represent all sections of the people."
Mr Jinnah added: "While the Muslim League stands for a Free India, it is irrevocably opposed to any Federal objective which must necessarily result in a majority community rule, under the guise of democracy and a parliamentary system of government."
The article concluded: "a constitution must be evolved that recognises that there are in India two nations, who both must share the governance of their common motherland."
These extended quotes are necessary to set the stage for a discussion of what Mr Jinnah might have meant and why he saw the situation in this particular way.
Three issues seem to be of prime importance. First, what is the kind of democracy that is advocated by Islam and, by the logic of the argument presented, under what conditions could a Muslim minority accept to live under a democratic system of governance?
Second, is it correct that democratic systems are based on the concept of a homogeneous nation and are not applicable in countries with heterogeneous communities? And third, in a country with heterogeneous communities, what would be the constitutional arrangement and the nature of government that would be able to represent all sections of the people?
I do not intend to rush to judgment on these questions because I am far from being an expert on either Islam or on Jinnah. But these are critically important questions for anyone trying to understand the history and the dynamic of democratic governance in South Asia. And because such an understanding is crucial for our future welfare we must not shy away from getting to grips with difficult and emotional issues.
A straightforward reading of the evidence would suggest that subsequent events have proved Mr Jinnah wrong. India, with a much more heterogeneous polity, has made a democratic system work and fared relatively better under it while a much more homogeneous Pakistan has had a very traumatic and troubled existence.
But is there a more complex reality that we have to unearth to make sense of this historical record? I invite readers to contribute their views so that we may sift the evidence and make our way towards a reasoned and hopefully unbiased conclusion.
The two texts quoted in this article can be found on pages 469-479 of Mr Jinnah's Speeches and Statements (March 1935-March 1940), edited by Waheed Ahmad, Quaid-e-Azam Academy, Karachi, 1992
Email: anjumaltaf at hotmail.com
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved