Pakistan, that Dr. Muhammad Iqbal wanted

It is interesting to know what Pakistan could have been like if it were conformed into its Mufakkir Allama Iqbal’s philosophy. I am saying that because Pakistan in its present state, is far in contrast with what Iqbal wanted in the shape of a country. The fact that Pakistanis consider Allama Iqbal as their Mufakkir, is entirely based on the historic Allahabad meeting of the Muslim league wherein Allama Iqbal made a historic speech reminding Muslims of their glory, (which was his favorite topic by the way), and spilling a new soul in the Muslims of subcontinent thereby diverting their attention to an important question of the fate of the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Now, one has to read the whole Allahabad address to know the true essence of the proposal put forth by Iqbal. The conventional interpretation that the Allahabad address is subjected to, by many, is incomplete in many ways. It is perhaps a habit of human beings to twist facts in a way that suits their notion while maintaining the core fact unchanged. If one aspect of anything is iterated again and again, indoctrinated to the students in schools, colleges and universities, it eventually takes shape of a sacred saying. And then challenging that fact makes you a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

Allahabad address has several dimensions, hence, only one aspect cannot be considered, and described as a triggering point for the conception of the idea of Pakistan. If you do so, the other aspects automatically become contradictory. Therefore there were several, not one, reasons for Iqbal to demand a separate state for Muslims.

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India. - Allama Iqbal, Allahabad address, 1930

In the build-up to the above-mentioned famous statement of Allahabad address, Iqbal explains how Islam is not to be viewed through the lenses of Christianity, because Christianity is of ‘purely monastic order’ and therefore it has no potential to give birth to a polity. Whereas, Islam is a complete code of life, which binds its followers together to strive for an Islamic system, thereby giving rise to a polity or organization. Iqbal sums up by asserting that Martin Luther was perfectly justified in launching a movement against the church. To Iqbal’s mind, a Luther to Islam would be an impossible phenomenon because the retention of Islam merely to mosques is completely against its nature of being a complete code of life. This is what Iqbal has often mentioned in his poetry and this address as well.

“Therefore the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim” - Allama Iqbal, Allahabad address, 1930

Iqbal writes in Tulu-e-Islam:

يہ ہندی، وہ خراسانی، يہ افغانی، وہ تورانی

تو اے شرمندئہ ساحل! اچھل کر بے کراں ہو جا

Here are Indians, there people of Khurasan, here Afghans, there Turanians—

You, who despise the shore, rise up and make yourself boundless.

غبار آلودۂ رنگ ونسب ہيں بال و پر تيرے

تو اے مرغ حرم! اڑنے سے پہلے پرفشاں ہو جا

Your wings and your plumage are soiled with the dust of colour and race;

You, my bird of the holy shrine, shake your wings before you start to fly.

Therefore if by any chance, Muslims were to unite under any banner, the banner should only be their faith Islam. Now it should be quite clear why Iqbal was reluctant to accept the idea of United India( which was supposed to be secular).

Now Muslims were to have a separate land of their own, what then should be the characteristics of this Muslim state according to Iqbal? When we study Iqbal’s poetry in detail, we could sketch up the do's and don'ts of the new-born country. For instance, Iqbal was a hard-core critic of secularism specifically for a Muslim state because this dichotomy between religion and state is virtually impossible for Islam.

جلال پادشاہی ہو کہ جمہوری تماشا ہو

جدا ہو دیں سیاست سے تو رہ جاتی ہے چنگیزی

Statecraft divorced from Faith to reign of terror leads,

Though it be a monarch’s rule or Commoners’ Show.

Similarly, this might come as a surprise to a lot of people, that Iqbal also was a critic of Western democracy all his life. And this criticism of democracy was not restricted to the Eastern Muslims adopting it, but it also includes the western nations. Democracy, he thought, is a veil of imperialism and serves as legs of capitalism. When the British fully secured their existence in the subcontinent, they chose a few feudal lords to represent the people under them, they were that sort of local governors who reported to the viceroy. This was followed by the formation of a parliament whose members till now are the same feudal lords or their offspring.

ہوں مگر میری جہاں بیبی بتاتی ہے مجھے

جو ملوکیت کا اک پردا ہو کیا اس سے خطر

Aware am I! but tells me my cosmic foresight:

No danger from what is but a masquerade for imperialism.

Moreover, Allama Iqbal was of the view that the concept of western democracy represents a departure from the idea of the Soverighnity of Allah. In a democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people, therefore, the people have the authority to do legislation. In Islam, we already have a set of laws that govern every part of an individual's as well as collective life.

اس راز کو اک مرد فرنگی نے کیا فاش

ہر چند کے دانا اسے کھولا نہیں کرتے

جمہوریت اک طرز حکومت ہے کہ جس میں

بندوں کو گنا کرتے ہیں تولا نہیں کرتے

A certain European revealed a secret,

Although the wise do not reveal the core of the matter.

Democracy is a certain form of government in which

Men are counted but not weighed.

Here, this European, whom Iqbal is referring to, is Marie-Henri Beyle (1783-1842), who was part of Napoleon’s administration and military. He remained skeptical about the struggle for the restoration of democracy after Napoleon. There is also a saying of Winston Churchill ‘the best case against democracy is a 5 min chat with an average voter’.

For instance, if there are ten people of wisdom and 90 common people having no knowledge of who to choose their leader, if they are placed under a democratic system, democracy naturally would choose the person majority selects and effectively bypass the superior narrative of the people of wisdom. So, in this case, where would the country be led? For sure towards disaster. To draw an analogy, suppose there is a big household with 4 Elders and 20 teenagers, the elders of the household want to restrict the use of alcohol in the house and only they have the authority to make decisions. The household will never be introduced to the evil of alcohol. Conversely, if this household is placed under a democratic system, the decision of the majority will be appreciated. The teenage majority not knowing (due to inexperience or lack of knowledge) the perils of Alcohol will follow the trends of the modern day and elect to allow alcohol in the house.

گریز از طرز جمہوری غلام پخته کاری شو

که از مغز دو صد خر فکر انسانی نمی آید

"Avoid the method of democracy; become the bondman of someone of ripe intelligence; for a few hundred donkeys cannot have, combined, the brains of one man, of one homo sapiens"

Summing up: Muslims believe in morality as being objective, it is an important pillar of our philosophy. In democracy, this important premise falls apart.

Finally, in his Allahabad address, Iqbal states some of the results this idea could bring i-e the new state would be a means of security and peace for India by creating a balance of internal power between both the communities, and, for Islam, it would provide an excellent opportunity to rid itself of the impression Arab imperialism gave it. How? The true Islamic caliphate ceased to exist right after the fourth Caliph. Except for some terminal Periods of just rulers, the caliphate turned into a kingdom and the true spirit of the Islamic caliphate was swept away giving rise to Arab imperialism.

So, Islam is tied to this Arab imperialism in the eyes of the Western observer as well as most of our own people, therefore, they are not able to distinguish between the actual caliphate and the kingship that followed. Anyhow, this new state was to mobilize its laws, its education and its culture with the original spirit of Islam and the spirit of modern times so that a clear picture of Islamic caliphate could be portrayed to the West. See how far have we drifted from our supposed structure?

Now, these were some characteristics of a Pakistan that Allama Iqbal wanted. Knowing in detail about the philosophy of Iqbal pertaining to the new Muslim state is impossible without a thorough study of Allama Iqbal’s poetry and philosophy, therefore, this article was an attempt to discuss only those ideas that run contradictory to the contemporary state of affairs of Pakistan. Pakistan hasn't met its ideological goals yet and is not going to do so anytime soon unless it realizes the enormous task that is upon its shoulders.