If Jinnah
Were to Return
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA
I am appending below two letters
that were carried by Daily Times in response to
my piece, "If Jinnah were to return."
As expected, I also received a lot of direct mail
on this one, some surprisingly positive. One person
said this was the best column I had ever written.
Of course, I also got a lot of negative mail with
one person saying but for partition, I would be
selling pan in Allahbad today! This tops everything.
Many said that I should not reopen past wounds
and even questioning the original design for Pakistan
was a waste of time. It goes to show how little
interest people have with history and its riddles,
especially when it threatens their world view
and has the potential of proving them wrong.
They think they can ignore the past but to repeat
George Santayana's words for the umpteenth time,
"those who forget the past are condemn ed
to repeat it."
It's interesting that some people are expecting
Pakistan will live on for centuries, if not forever.
A couple of letters I got from people of Indian
origin said that under no conditions will India
allow Partition to be undone. So my Pakistani
friends should now breathe a sigh of relief. I
hope the Khakis are tuning in.....
Demoralising
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Lahore
Sir: This is regarding Ahmad Faruqui’s
‘If Jinnah were to return’ which I
find defeatist and demoralizing.
While he is right in pointing out that we are
far from Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s
vision of Pakistan, his explanation of the problems
it faces leaves a lot to be desired. I believe
there is a simple solution to all Pakistan’s
problems: follow the constitution. That said let
me address a few points t hat would help clarify
why I disagree so vehemently with Dr Faruqui’s
article:
1. Mr Jinnah, whom Dr Faruqui identifies as a
secular liberal turned confessional separatist,
was not the first person to inject religion into
Indian politics. The credit for that goes to Mahatma
Gandhi, who with the Khilafat Movement and his
own Hindu-centric religious outlook, sought to
undo the fragile unity at the top. While it may
have been possible to build a secular and federal
India, it would have to be built top down —
because the masses are likely to prefer religious
identities for quite some time.
2. The state language is not the same as national
language. Also, the 1971 tragedy does not signify
an end to Mr. Jinnah’s vision, but to Mr.
Nehru’s doing. It may be recalled that Sarat
Chanderbose, Suhrawardy and Jinnah had agreed
in 1947 to an independent Bangal. It was Nehru
who vetoed the plan.
3. Mr Jinnah retired from politics after the announcement
of June 3 plan and planned to live in Bombay.
He chose to become the governor general only to
stop Mountbatten, whose bias against Pakistan
is well documented by HM Seervai in Partition
of India: Legend and Reality. Had Mountbatten
had the opportunity he would have used his constitutional
position to tilt the balance further in favor
of his other dominion.
4. Nation states can all be described as accidents
of history and have gone through similar problems
with military dictatorships and extreme fringes.
With time, as constitutionalism takes hold, Pakistan
will move towards the vision Mr. Jinnah had outlined
in his August 11, 1947 speech.
5. The erstwhile ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity
would never call for an annulment of the Partition.
Jinnah’s Pakistan (and indeed Bangladesh)
will live on for centuries, if not forever. Pakistan
will ultimately be the modern, democratic, secular
state of his vision. Bangladesh, despite recent
problems, is already showing the ability to be
a constitutional republic.
Move on
Anand Haridh
New York
Dr Ahmad Faruqui’s exploration
of the promise of Pakistan (‘If Jinnah were
to return’) ends with a question about annulment
of the Partition.
While the article may be good for debate within
Pakistan about the country’s political system,
the last thing India (or Pakistan) should want
is anything along these lines. Senior pre-Partition
leaders such as L.K. Advani may take notice of
such pieces — even be delighted. But the
rest of India has very little use for such ideas.
While I respect the contributions of the Punjabis
and Sindhis through our history, the future of
the subcontinent should not be held hostage to
the nostalgia of a minority. Let us move on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
