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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
