Shehla Raza’s Views: A Deliberate Slipup or Disinformation?

 By Sohail Parwaz

When Muhammad Ali Jinnah presented his fourteen points, the aim behind these points was to safeguard the political rights of Muslims through a constitutional reform plan and those who are losing their breath to prove Mr. Jinnah as a secular should bother themselves to study the history. The seven out of fourteen points of Quaid-e-Azam were directly in support of constitutional reforms and indirectly were supportive to the Muslims’ interest, while five points were unswervingly insisting for the Muslim rights. The keen observers and seasoned analysts of that era drew impartial comparison between Mr. Jinnah’s fourteen points and Nehru’s report of 1928 and considered them as a political gap between the Muslims and the Hindus in India. Jinnah’s aim was to get more rights for Muslims. While giving his 14 points Jinnah stated that it was the “parting of ways” and that he did not want and would not have anything to do with the Indian National Congress in the future.

One can always take a look on those particular and forceful five points those were supporting the Muslim interests. Those five points were; In the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one third, secondly, any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority, thirdly, provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency, fourthly, the constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture and for the protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable institutions and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies and lastly, no cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers. One fails to understand that if Mr. Jinnah had long for secular stance and motives then why on earth (and in the Subcontinent) the Hindus disregarded them and why Mr. Nehru hatefully called them as Jinnah’s “14 ridiculous points”?

One is compelled to make this entire premise when some seasoned politician of Shehla Raza’s stature shows obliviousness regarding the independence movement. The lady happens to be the deputy speaker of Sindh assembly; the august house of a province that played a great role in the war of independence. History vouches that Sindh had never submitted to British subjugation and always played a significant part in the struggle for Pakistan. The Muslims of Sindh not only supported the ‘Jihad Movement’ under the leadership of Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi but also fearlessly fought against the British in the first war of independence of 1857. Sindh was an important center of accomplishments during the Khilafat Movement. The Hijrat Tehrik also started in Sindh, when many Sindhi Muslims sold their properties and migrated to Afghanistan. This was the contribution of Sindhis for Islam and Pakistan and out of nowhere suddenly Ms. Shehla Raza came out with a novel idea that the very slogan of Pakistan movement “Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia? La ilahaa illAllah” was not associated with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and was never a part of the drive. She displaced all the ignorance and witlessness when she stubbornly insisted that she was ready to debate the issue at any forum. It was not some kind of public chinwag that she made rather these insane remarks were passed on a live television talk show, where she went on to argue that Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his address had said that all sects are free to offer prayers according to their religion. Thus, she tried to baptize her lopsided ideas, immaturely and recklessly. If, one goes by her logic then allowing the neighbours’ kids to play in one’s lawn make them the owner of the house. Agreed that the Quaid assured the minorities the full religious liberties as it should be in any Islamic state but he never talked of allowing them to extend their stick to a point from where the ‘Muslim Nose’ started. Hence, one fails to understands that how could he be termed as a leader with the secular state? Audio of Quaid-e-Azam’s historical speech in Urdu is very much on the record where he moved the crowd when said while mincing the words that, “Humaen Pakistan ko qayim rakhnay kay leaye abhi aur qurbani dayni ho gee. Muslmaan museebat maen ghabraya nahi kerta”. May be the ill-informed lady would like to listen to that eighty-five seconds audio clip http://www.pakstudyweb.com/quaid-e-azam-day-speech-25-december-in-urdu where she would find Mr. Jinnah talking of religion and stressing upon word In Sha Allah.

The separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency was the first step towards the foundation of Pakistan. When Muslims of Sindh realised the importance of separation of Sindh, the All India Muslim League passed a resolution in 1925 urging separation. The new leadership of Sindhi Muslims was more active in the movement for a separate province. Shehla Raza belongs to a political party which has already become a comical circus, hence, is in a nosedive due to their out of time immature acts like wasting money on the events similar to Sindh festival and amidst this the party’s indifference to hunger and poverty of the inopportune Sindhis of draughty Tharparker has added salt to the injuries. When a large number of starved children were dying due to lack of food and water, Shehla Raza’s party was busy with the festivals and sumptuous luncheons. To be in your leader’s footsteps is appreciable and understandable but what if the leader himself is disorientated? Asif Zardari could go with calling the Quaid a non-graduate but not a learned lady like Shehla Raza.

Oscar Wilde said and I quote, “Most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one’s mistakes’. Instead of justifying she should admit her err, and rest assured that not only that she will be praised but her political standing will also enhance. Had ZAB or Benazir been alive, they would have not let this mockery happened. The sooner you realise the better it would be, respected lady.