Between Myth
and History
By Pervaiz M. Alvi
US
Dr. Ayesha Jalal is a Professor of History at
Tufts University, Massachusetts. On the occasion
of Pakistan Day her article titled ‘Between
Myth and History’ appeared in March 23,
2005 publication of Dawn, Karachi. Pakistan Link
has reproduced the same article in its April 2,
2005 publication.
Dr. Jalal is an accomplished academician and author
of several books and articles on the history of
South Asia. Whereas she has a strong knowledge
of the subject her writings and analysis are tainted
by self-wishful pondering on the outcome of various
historical developments. She argues against the
celebration of March 23 by Pakistan as its National
Day by going back into the historical developments
that took place between the years 1930 and 1940
in British India. Perhaps, that is why she chooses
to refer Pakistan Resolution by its original title
as Lahore Resolution of 1940.
Dr. Jalal agrees in its significance as a point
of historic departure between the two nations
as for as the Muslims of The British India were
concerned but she refuses to grant that day to
Pakistan solely as its national day. She thinks
that March 23 belongs to all Muslims of South
Asia as a sort of ‘day of national resolve’.
In her opinion the South Asian subcontinent is
inhabited by two nations as claimed by the two-nation
theory of the British Indian days but the two
nations need not to separate from each other in
the form of separate countries of India and Pakistan
because doing so leaves more Muslims of the subcontinent
outside Pakistan than inside.
She states that the claims of Muslim nationhood
have been poorly served by the achievement of
territorial statehood and that there are contradictions
between the claims of nationhood and the achievement
of the statehood.
There is nothing new in this argument as it has
been around since the creation of Pakistan. The
founding fathers knew it yet they opted for the
creation of Pakistan as it saved at least two-third
of the ‘nation’ from the tyranny of
the majority. They were not operating in the absence
of any opposition and did the best they could
do under their circumstances. The road from resolve
to accomplishment is not liner. There is a difference
between what you wish to achieve and what you
actually end up achieving. Thanks God for Pakistan
that we are able to call ‘home’ regardless
of our ethnic origin or background.
In her conclusion Dr. Jalal writes, “Instead
of being weighed under by opposing national re-constructions
informed by the teleology of 1947, Pakistanis
and Indians could craft a more accommodative future
for the subcontinent by acknowledging the domain
of political contingency, containing possibilities
for different outcomes, that lay between the adoption
of the Lahore Resolution and partition seven years
later”.
The answer is that Pakistanis do not wish to turn
back the clock. There is no need of any ‘political
contingency’. India is not the only neighbor
of Pakistan and Indian Muslims are not the only
Muslims Pakistanis have to consider. As for as
‘national re-construction’ goes, all
nations from time to time go through that. Pakistani
people resolved on Mach 23, 1940 to have a homeland
of their own; they achieved it on August 14, 1947
and have every right to celebrate these national
holidays as they wish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
