After hearing the news of Atif Mian, and government asking him to resign from his post, I got a lump in my throat.

It had been the first time I was impressed with Naya Pakistan and a decision of PTI. I had a feeling there would be a U-turn, but I tried to diverge my thought. Sadly, fate didn’t allow me to be happy. On one hand, India has decriminalized homosexuality, and on the other hand, we are busy in discussing whether to include this person or not, and equating their capabilities and skills based on religion. My apologies to Quaid-e-Azam today that we, as a nation, have ruined his vision and ideology behind the foundation of a great country, Pakistan.

I can’t digest the fact that still we are wondering over such issues that our founder, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah already resolved in the 11th August, 1947 speech. We have stumbled in our journey after that. Had we allowed Fatima Jinnah to lead us, we would be in a totally different political spectrum.

Quaid-e-Azam’s opposition to extremism and fanaticism – a mislaid phenomenon today

Just looking at the attire of Quaid’s personality, one can perceive a clear answer. I am not objectifying the physical appearance with my argument, there are proofs one can check with convenience.

The speech of Quaid-e-Azam on 11th August is an asset for many to disinter the truth. I wonder our Quaid repeatedly said, “State of Pakistan”, in his speech, rather any further religious attachments to the title like “Islamic”. His speech doesn’t seem to ingratiate the Mullahs, rather the progress and modernity of the newly born state, where all citizens are equal in the eyes of the government – no discrimination, whatsoever. Let me remind the speech to you:

“You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or cast or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State... Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”.

I am a proud Muslim who believes in Sulah-e-Hudaibia, and how our Holy Prophet (PBUH) signed that with Yahood to make friendly-relations. Why Prophet (PBUH) welcomed the Yahoodi teachers to teach the Muslim children, was it Islamic education? Why Prophet (PBUH) tried to promote humanity, compassion, tolerance, and equality? If so, then I am completely sure, my religion is secular. Now, it is an argument that if Islam is that tolerant, then why is there any issue to proceed with Islamic Republic and Islamic laws. The answer is simple: whenever there is any attachment of a religion, the extremist think-tank gets power, and one cannot stop that.

We can learn from the Europe – a region once attached to the Churches to how it progressed in its current form when Churches were excluded from the state affairs. Now, the equality principle can be determined, and we can rejoice to see a Mayor of London, a Muslim. There are Muslim representatives in almost all the modern countries, such as Australia, UK, Canada, etc. Don’t count France here, because I don’t consider it a state having modern government; however, we can see the resentment from the nation on veil ban, and that shows how civilized the French are and how masqueraded is the government of France. Anyways, “dharti” loves its people equally, and provides them food, water, and identity; therefore, it ought to be secular. If our land doesn’t discriminate us based on religious, caste, colour, and race, why our constitution and government appear to do so?