Pakistan: Questions of Creation and Subsistence
By: Dr. Qaisar Rashid
Via Email

In an article “All things considered” published in a Pakistani paper, Hans Bremer, a German writer, claims that Pakistanis admire Adolf Hitler because he “distracted the British in the Second World War, and so they (the British) were forced to quit India and this led to the creation of Pakistan. I am even told (by Pakistanis) that had Hitler come to power earlier than he did, the subcontinent would have gained independence sooner than it did”.
Since childhood, Pakistanis are told that Allama Iqbal gave the idea of Pakistan and the Quaid-i-Azam realized it. However, now a neo-concept is being poured into Pakistani minds that actually it was Hitler who proved the decisive factor in the creation of Pakistan. Does this mean that without Hitler the dream of Allama Iqbal could not have been realized? Does it mean that the assembly of the Muslims of the Subcontinent on March 22 and March 23, 1940 and subsequent adoption of the Lahore Resolution was simply a futile effort? Does it mean that had Hitler got power late, Pakistan would have been established later than 1947, or had there been no Hitler there would have been no Pakistan?
An American writer Stephen Cohen, an analyst of South Asia, concludes in his book ‘Idea of Pakistan:’ “Pakistan’s future is uncertain.” He gives various reasons - ranging from economic realities, sectarian divide, political reshufflings, military dominance, nuclear possession, and regional imperatives - for his apprehensions about the future of Pakistan. He foresee Pakistan as a “failed state” and in making the claim his focus is on Pakistanis. He also makes another disturbing comment: “Washington may have one last opportunity to ensure that this troubled state will not become America’s biggest foreign policy problem in the last half of this decade”.
Every nation of the world prides on its past and is optimistic of the future. However, if the past is blurred and the future appears uncertain, the first thing that a nation is forced to part with is its morale. This is precisely the situation in Pakistan today. Any Pakistani who has means to leave Pakistan is flying out of the country. Those who are staying back are trying to grab as much wealth as possible by hook or by crook before a predicted eventuality appears, say, in 2010.
Our tragedy is that while foreigners are questioning the raison detre of Pakistan, the younger generation is undergoing a transformation in its thinking and outlook and is distancing itself from the ideology of Pakistan. It is oblivious of why Pakistan was created, and how the country could survive.
As Pakistanis find it difficult to furnish answers to these “difficult” questions, they are getting increasingly polarized. Whether it is the water-sharing formula of River Indus between provinces or the construction of the Kalabagh Dam or the recent crisis in Balochistan, their response to the challenge is not one. It is regional. Pakistanis are becoming so arrogant that they now hang their pictures on a wall parallel to the picture of the Quaid-i-Azam. Pakistanis no longer write books on the Quaid and Pakistan and have left the task to foreign writers. They just convene meetings at five star hotels, take tea with desserts, clap spontaneously, distribute medals, and leave the hotel lobby to find a new avenue for such trivial ritualistic exercises.
Many foreigners consider that the stature of the Quaid is exaggerated in books of history as none of the Pakistani progeny is quite like him. Secondly, how could an old and ill person fight a legal and constitutional battle for the poor of the Subcontinent against three formidable opponents: nationalist Muslims, Hindus, and the British? Thirdly, how could a Muslim of the Subcontinent (who later on became a Pakistani) find courage to look into the eyes of the then Super Power for asserting the ‘communal rights’ of the Muslims in geographical terms and later refuse to accept the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan? Such a person could not be a Pakistani given the present state of 150 million Pakistanis (though exceptions are there).
The detractors say that the formation of Pakistan was a mistake and the survival of Pakistan is an uphill task. For them and for the ignorant Pakistanis, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, a leader of the lowcaste Hindus, observed in his book “Thoughts on Pakistan” (first published in 1941) that the Muslims were right in their fear of the caste Hindu domination and that the Pakistan scheme was a feasible way out of the Indian political impasse.
For many ills plaguing Pakistan today, ask no one but Sir Cyril Radcliff, a British lawyer, who was appointed by Lord Mountbatten chairman of the Boundary Commissions in the light of the June 03, 1947 Partition Plan to delineate the boundaries of India and Pakistan. Commenting on the Radcliff Award, the Quaid said, “The division of India is now finally and irrevocably effected. No doubt, we feel the carving out of this great independent Muslim State has suffered injustices. We have been squeezed in as much as it was possible, and the latest blow that we have received was the award of the Boundary Commission. It is a wrong, unjust and perverse award… It may be our misfortune but we must bear up this one more blow with fortitude, courage and hope”. This statement of the great Quaid answers all questions of critics of Pakistan today.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.