For a man whose portrait dons every big; small; legal; illegal; honest; corrupt; civilian; military; militant; religious; secular; commercial or charitable transaction in this country, it is an embarrassing absurdity that Jinnah’s economic thought is as little known as Iqbal’s.
Weighing Jinnah’s economic ideas in today’s day and age isn’t easy. The Quaid-e-Azam was not an economist with clearly spelled-out theories or strongly-held views on standard economic policy tools of subsidy, tariffs, fiscal stimulus, or this and that. Nor, as Sharif al Mujahid notes, did Jinnah have a lot of time to dwell on economic policies of the state he was demanding. Law and politics were his only penchant, but he knew well that “even a free nation would be handicapped if she was economically weak”.
Both these disciplines influenced Jinnah’s economic thinking, as did his upbringing in a merchant family and his frequent visits to England, where state-welfare-based intellectual movements were taking root. As a barrister, he understood that “there must be a uniform policy”, and he would have advocated the same today given Pakistan’s flip-flopping with policies.
As a member of pre-partition Indian Legislative Council, Jinnah spoke on bills concerning diverse socio-economic affairs: from coinage, tariffs, taxes, cotton and steel industries, to trade unions, education, child marriage, and a whole lot more. But, as Sharif al Mujahid notes, “as in politics so in economics, he was flexible and pragmatic”.
Professor Sharif also notes that despite Jinnah’s initial commitment to laissez faire, the founding father did not favour the adoption of the Western economic system the whole way “nor did he countenance collectivist and centrally controlled communist patterns”.
“Pakistan should be based on social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasises equality and brotherhood of man,” Jinnah once said in 1948. But this notion of Islamic socialism was in a manner of provision of welfare to the poor rather than the type that envisaged nationalisation or any other form of governing from commanding heights.
Jinnah would direct students to apply their faculties in the private sector instead of only looking for clerical jobs in the government; he would encourage them to venture into fields as diverse as agriculture, commerce and trade, and particularly science and technology. “I have no objection to your becoming B.As. and M.As., a certain amount of general education and training is necessary. But mere degrees of B.A.s and M.A.s are of no use,” the Quaid told Muslims in 1944, emphasizing on subject-matter specialities and also on the then-transferrable skills of learning shorthand and typewriting.
But if Jinnah termed commerce and trade as “the very life-blood of the nation”, in the same breath he cautioned traders and merchants that they should not “forget their social responsibility for a fair and square deal to one and all, big and small”, or “lose sight of the welfare needs of the labour employed”… “for no industry can thrive without contented labour”. This is a vision that commands respect, considering that Jinnah spelled it out long before the mantra of CSR was popularised and decades before the American CEOs declared that shareholder primacy wasn’t the only goal.
The Quaid-e-Azam wanted the public sector to play a more active role in providing a network of social and public utility services and relief and amenities, especially in underdeveloped areas. “Essential key industries ought to be controlled and managed by the state. That applies also to certain public utilities,” he once said.
That, however, is not to be construed as a justification to keep Pakistan’s currently-ailing public sector enterprises. Dr. Pervez Tahir notes that “selective public sector” and “equitable taxation” were the guiding principles for the state, with the rest of the space left for private initiative. Post-independence, Jinnah once assured businessmen “on behalf of the Government of Pakistan that it is their intention and policy to let the channels of free trading flow as freely as possible”.
To Jinnah, private enterprise was absolutely necessary. He had admonished the then Muslim business community for failing to establish a well-functioning federation of Muslim businesses, and just the same he would admonish business chambers and associations in Pakistan today for their failure to organise themselves properly. “Nothing better could be expected by an unorganised people,” he told the Muslim Chamber of Commerce in 1944.
As for the question, “what is a key industry and what is a utility service” for the state to control, Jinnah had declared that these “are matters for the lawmakers to say, not for me,” echoing principles of public deliberation and transparency in public policymaking.
“The number of industries government have reserved for management by themselves consist of Arms and Munitions of War, Generation of Hydel Power and Manufacture of Railway Wagons, Telephones, Telegraph and Wireless Apparatus. All other industrial activity is left open to private enterprise which would be given every facility a Government can give for the establishment and development of industry,” Jinnah told the Karachi Chamber of Commerce in 1948 in what Dr. Pervez describes as a very liberal industrial policy statement.
On all of these accounts, Jinnah’s vision has long been lost by public and private sector alike. But perhaps where it hurts the most is the country’s failure to follow the development priorities of the founding father.
In his address to Pakistan Session of the Punjab Muslim Students Federation in March 1941, the Quaid said: “There are at least three main pillars which go to make a nation worthy of possessing a territory and running the government…One is education. Next, no nation and no people can ever do anything very much without making themselves economically powerful in commerce, trade and industry. And lastly, when you have got that light of knowledge by means of education and when you have made yourselves strong economically and industrially, then you have got to prepare yourselves for your defence against external aggression and to maintain internal security”.
While this was the most succinct statement of Quaid-e-Azam’s development priorities, Dr. Pervez notes that “at no point in any phase does one come across a weakening of resolve to advocate the priorities of Education, Industry and Defence (and in that order)”.
“No better acronym of happiness would be possible for the Muslims of British India, EID being happiness and progress for them literally as well as religiously,” notes Dr. Pervez. As history has shown, many would argue that the Quaid’s order of priorities stands reversed in Pakistan.
Note: This piece is based on a reading of four key papers published by PIDE in its Winter 2001 & 2002 journals. These are: (a) Development Priorities of the Founding Father of Pakistan by Pervez Tahir; (b) Economic Vision of the Quaid-i-Azam by Zawwar Zaidi; (c) Democratic Welfare State as Visualised by the Quaid-i-Azam by Rafique Ahmed; and (d) Economic Ideas of the Quaid-i-Azam by Sharif al Mujahid. These papers were later corroborated by a reading of the Quaid’s various speeches and statements published by a host of authors and publishers, details of which are too long be enlisted. This note serves as a general recognition of all those works, detailed citation of which would have resulted in a clutter for the reader.
Comments
Comments are closed.