Pakistan Reinterpreted - 2
By Dr Akbar Ahmed
American University
Washington, DC

This is why for Mr Zafar the Pakistan movement has such significance. It was the expression of a large minority that believed democracy itself would not be able to guarantee either their security or future in the united country which ignored the minority. Mr Zafar also warns us that “without harmony there is no democracy. Lack of harmony due to discord, dissonance and ethnic and sectarian prejudices or extremism distorts democracy.” The discussion around these themes that define and shape democracy in Chapter 1 sets up the reader for the rest of the book and gives us an insight into Mr Zafar’s analysis of democracy.
MrZafar presents a history of the evolution of the All-India Muslim League (AIML) in chapter 2, which leads to the eventual creation of Pakistan. He talks of the two-nation theory, which is the basis of the Pakistan movement and ultimately a demand for a Muslim homeland, and explains the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Pakistanis are still caught up in thinking of Pakistan as part of the two-nation theory, a Pakistan and an India, but Mr Zafar asks us to instead consider Pakistan beyond that colonial-era theory in terms of a one-nation theory focusing on Pakistan and Pakistani nationhood itself.
The renaissance of the Muslims in India is dealt with in chapter 3. Once again he sets the historic stage for the emergence of the Pakistan movement. In this chapter, in a letter to me, he attempts to depersonalize “the heroic movement of the Muslims of India to finally achieve freedom and their homeland.” Chapter 5 is on the brief period of the first Governor-General of Pakistan. The emphasis in this chapter is laid on the Quaid-i-Azam’s famous speech of 11 August, 1947, in which, Mr Zafar points out, Jinnah attempted to create what he calls a Homo Pakistanuswho would transcend the preexisting regional culturesbased on a shared historical background of struggle-one country, one people, and one language.
The next chapter deals with the first prime minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan,and the passing of the Objectives Resolution. The Objectives Resolution was praised as a milestone at the time of its passage but as Mr. Zafar points out it resulted in the receding of liberals against conservative forces because of the failure of the Muslim League to provide good governance. This in turn laid the grounds for the emergence of extremism and terrorism. Chapter 9 deals with the breakup of Pakistan in 1971. Here emphasis is placed on the adverse effect of parity given in the 1956 constitution by which the principle of one man, one vote was violated. It gave a message to the elites of Bengal and West Pakistan leaders that East Pakistanis were, as Mr Zafar put it in a letter to me, “constitutionally inferior as compared to themselves.”
MrZulfikar Ali Bhutto and his period of government in Pakistan are analyzed in chapter 11. While acknowledging Bhutto as a democrat, Mr Zafar also comments on his split personality as a dictator. He writes of “democratic Bhutto” as Mr Hyde and the “oppressive and a despotic ruler” Bhutto as Dr Jekyll. Chapter 12 deals with General Zia-ul-Haq. There is a discussion of ideology in the chapter on ideology and the suggestion that the emphasis should be on “Pakistan ideology” and not “Islamic ideology” as that was what was in Mr Jinnah’s mind on 11 August, 1947. The notion of Islamic ideology creates controversy and in the end has proven to be divisive in Pakistan society.
Mr Zafar is scathing about “the failure of education of Pakistan,” which he describes as “one of the causes not to achieve its potential since 1947. The failure has resulted both from commitment and implementation gap. Over a long period Pakistan has allocated only 2 percent of GDP to its education, the outcome of which is apparent in high rates of adult illiteracy, gender and regional disparities and the differences between private and public schools as well as religious (madrassas) and others.” He is also one of the few Pakistani public intellectuals speaking up about the dangers of climate change, writing, “An unpredictable calamity of change of climate is threatening Pakistan.”
The Epilogue is a strong almost stand-alone chapter. While he notes in a discussion about the PTI, “Major political parties, PML(N) and PPP dubbed the election victory of PTI as a remote rigging of elections by aliens (KhudaiMakhlooq)” he gives the PTI government credit where it is due: “PTI government is voluntarily presenting itself for public scrutiny, an unprecedented phenomenon in Pakistan. It has taken up the agenda of austerity and simplicity. The PM has also undertaken the project for building shelter for the homeless. One can see that PTI government is more concerned than the earlier governments for attending to the needs of the public.”
On the international front he points to the attempts of Pakistan to consolidate good relations with the Arab world to the west, China to the east, and even traditionally hostile India by giving the example of the Kartarpurborder which allows Sikh pilgrims to visit Pakistan by opening up a land passage to their holy sites. Mr Zafar looks at the coming time and does not flinch. He is a man committed to the idea of Pakistan and the pursuit of democratic politics, given the difficult context it is practiced in, with steadfastness and conviction. He remains cautiously optimistic about Pakistan.
Mr Zafar and I had one thing in common: we both admired Mr Jinnah. For me personally, a man’s character is best exposed in a crisis. For me Mr Zafar’s character was revealed when we were filming Jinnah,the movie starring Christopher Lee in Pakistan in 1997. The film was part of my Jinnah Quartet which also featured a documentary, Mr Jinnah: The Making of Pakistan, an academic book, Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity, and a graphic novel on Mr Jinnah. A documentary, Dare to Dream on the history and filming of Jinnah,was also produced.
While filming Jinnah, I saw to my surprise that we, the crew and cast, had become the vicious target of many Pakistanis. Every kind of calumny and slander were hurled at us for a variety of reasons, not least the notorious Pakistani malice towards anyone attempting something bold or new. There is a famous saying in the Punjab that “if I can’t play the game, I’ll make sure that I spoil it for you.”
In that atmosphere as the Executive Producer, creator and owner of the film Jinnah (I had the only share in the company that owned the film) I was desperately trying to complete the filming and create support for the project. I had organized an event in Lahore to talk about both Mr Jinnah and the Jinnah film. Every prominent person turning up for that event would obviously be a plus for us. I am delighted to place on record that at the height of the controversy, Mr Zafar not only came and spoke with his usual enthusiasm and brilliance but publicly expressed his support for the project. He even invited us to his house for a grand dinner reception. He made a request to me to bring James Fox, who was playing Lord Mountbatten, fully dressed in his theatrical costume. I requested James, who is the quintessential courteous English gentleman, and he agreed.So we turned up at Zafar Sahib’s house with James Fox fully dressed as Mountbatten with all his medals on his chest. Zafar Sahib and his family received us most warmly and the guests were delighted surrounding James to express their admiration. In that battle to make the Jinnah film, while many prominent people faltered, I saw Mr Zafar’s love for Pakistan and its founder, Mr Jinnah.
Mr Zafar’sHistory of Pakistan Reinterpreted is an original and valuable book that will interest students of political science and anyone– Pakistani or non-Pakistani alike –wanting to understand the true strengths and failures of Pakistan. As someone who has never lost faith in the idea of Pakistan and who maintains his inherent optimism in itsfuture, Mr Zafar’s perspective needs to be consulted and acknowledged when studying and examining the nation.
(The writer is Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, School of International Service, American University, Washington DC)