Reflections
on the Idea of Pakistan
Within days of the publication of this column,
Pakistanis at home and abroad will be celebrating
their national day. Fifty-eight years after the
inception of their state, any question as to the
validity or advisability of the idea of a homeland
of their own would be offensive to a vast majority
of them. No such question is raised as to the independent
existence of even the tiny Maldives Islands, they
would ask, why then in the case of Pakistan?
Dr. Stephen Cohen claims in his recent book on “The
Idea of Pakistan” that it took him 44 years
to write it. One can’t help wondering why
a scholar of his caliber had to wait that long to
point out that as a state Pakistan has emerged as
a largely military-dominated entity that has nuclear
weapons and is characterized by weak and uneven
economic growth, political chaos, and sectarian
violence. “Whether failure is a strong possibility.
If so, would Pakistan dissolve slowly or collapse
suddenly. Would it become an outlaw and a threat
to the entire world? Or, would Pakistan become a
normal state at peace with its neighbors and itself?”
While the US is currently putting pressure on Iran
to give up its nuclear ambitions, the US media appear
to be preparing ground for a similar operation on
nuclear Pakistan – non-NATO ally or not. The
recent Time magazine’s cover story on Dr.
Qadeer Khan, and the lengthy stories on his activities
appearing simultaneously in L.A. Times and Washington
Post, point to the likely shape of things to come.
Against this backdrop, it appears surprising that
some of our own writers have also joined the concert
to cast shadow on the validity of the concept of
Pakistan.
In this brief column, I can barely point out the
salient feature of Pakistan’s raison d’etre.
Pakistan came into being because the Muslims considered
themselves as a separate entity from the majority
Hindu community – the well-known two-nation
theory. Several movements were launched to promote
a rapprochement between the two communities. Most
forceful of these was the one started by Bhagat
Kabir of the fifteenth century that posited that
spiritual attainment was more important than the
rituals of Islam or Hinduism. While it enraged the
Hindu priests, the Muslims viewed it as subversive.
So, it did not make much of a dent.
The Brahmanic caste system did not admit of the
acceptance of Muslims in a class other than the
lowest, the menial, and the untouchable - the ‘maleech’.
Naturally this status was not acceptable to the
Muslims who had ruled over India for centuries.
Not surprisingly enough, when a Hindu converted
to Islam, it meant his complete break from the past.
He acquired a new name, a new personality, radiating
confidence, grit and courage, and membership into
a community adhering to the concept of brotherhood
and equality of man.
This concept of the equality of man was the chief
attraction in a society given to discrimination
by birth.
Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were all for the concept
of equality and therefore opposed to the Brahmanic
domination. But the shrewd Brahmanic elite maneuvered
to absorb all of them into the Hindu fold. They
failed to do that with the Muslims.
Let us now look at the problem from Hindu viewpoint.
Waves after waves of Muslim armies invaded India
and invariably defeated and subjugated the opposing
Hindu forces. Mahmood Ghaznavi invaded the country
seventeen times. Qutbuddin Aibak established the
first proper empire, the Slave Dynasty, towards
the end of the twelfth century. This was perhaps
the most outstanding incident in the annals of world
history where meritocracy was taken to the highest
extreme - one slave king handing over power to another
slave, no relation at all. The Khiljis and the Lodhis
followed the Slaves for two centuries and were replaced
in 1526 by Babur, a Mogul chieftain of Central Asia,
who founded the Mogul empire which lasted 331 years
till the British took over in 1857.
Throughout these seven centuries of continuous Muslim
rule over India, they comprised between 15 to 20
per cent of the total population. Although the Moguls
adopted many Hindu customs, married into Hindu families
and accommodated them in senior echelons of administration,
there never was a true assimilation of the two communities
and the development of a composite culture. The
Muslims continued to be the ruling, warrior class
with a compatible, congruent status in Indian society.
The Hindus, smarting under the dominant position
of the Muslims, always looked for a leveler, an
equalizer. They saw the opportunity approaching
them as the combined struggle of both communities
for independence from British rule gathered momentum.
Muslim intellectuals had started suspecting the
designs of the Hindu (Brahman) leaders as far back
as the eighteenth century, particularly after the
Battle of Plassey in 1757 marking the first defeat
of Muslim army.
The idea of the two-nation theory had thus been
germinating for a century or more before it was
articulated by Sir Syed and his team and formally
presented by Iqbal at the Allahabad session of the
Muslim League in 1930.
The seeds of Hindu-Muslim discord were sown much
earlier during the partition of Bengal in 1909 that
effectively divided that area into two parts -one
dominated by Muslims and the other by the Hindus.
Hindu community’s opposition to the grant
of separate representation to the Muslims strengthened
their apprehensions towards the hidden Hindu agenda.
The grant of provincial autonomy and the induction
of elected Congress ministries in 1937 and their
clear communal bias alerted further the Muslim community.
The Hindu leaders kept denying that there was any
Muslim problem as they steadfastly maintained that
India had but one community. The disillusionment
among even the nationalist Muslims over the arrogance
of the Congress leadership and the unsympathetic
treatment meted out to the Muslims by Congress-led
provincial governments solidified the idea of a
separate homeland in the minds of the Muslims of
the subcontinent.
As Victor Hugo says, there are no armies as powerful
as an idea whose time has come. Pakistan resolution
of March 23, 1940 was the formal manifestation of
that idea. It received an impetus from Hindu opposition
to it. Nationalism thrives on opposition. The stronger
the opposition to it, the more coherent it grew.
Theoretically though the idea had a serious flaw.
It did not cover the entire Muslim community of
India. It was understood that the presence of a
large Hindu minority in Pakistan would assure the
protection of the Muslim minority in Hindu India.
Subsequent developments have proved this wrong.
The idea had, anyway, taken firm roots. Quaid-Azam
led eminently the nation in pursuit of that idea.
As Stanley Wolpert, Professor of History at UCLA
describes it succinctly in his biography of the
Quaid: “Few individuals significantly alter
the course of history. Fewer still modify the map
of the world. Hardly any one can be credited with
creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did
all three.”
Even his opponents acknowledge his eminent role
in the realization of the idea. But, this does not
mean that Pakistan would not have come into existence
had the Quaid not been there. Some one else would
have emerged to lead the people in the pursuit of
that idea whose time had come.
When Mahatama Gandhi, representing the Hindu community,
agreed to the division of India and the creation
of Pakistan, he called his acceptance “a Himalayan
blunder”. A fanatic Hindu, Godse, shot him
dead for that “blunder”.
It was no blunder; it was an acceptance of an unavoidable
reality. Mr. Gandhi’s statement was merely
to assuage the feelings of nationalist Hindus.
Let me add here that Mr. Gandhi was a great thinker,
a far-sighted intellectual, with the uncanny quality
of practicing what he preached for the uplift of
the menial class – the Harijans (children
of God). He had no compunction in doing the work
of Harijans including the cleaning of lavatories.
He was by any standard a great benefactor of the
downtrodden. He turned the Hindu trait of non-violence
into a point of strength that played a significant
role in the struggle for independence.
From the perspective of a student of history of
the subcontinent, Pakistan was inevitable, so was
the split and creation of an independent Bangladesh.
In the hysterical euphoria on the surrender of Pak
Army, Mrs. Gandhi proclaimed, “Today we have
thrown the two-nation theory into the Bay of Bengal”.
Fact of the matter is that with the separation of
Pakistan’s eastern wing, the two nations became
three and the new nation, Bangladesh, could not
be amalgamated into the Indian Bengal.
Within four years of liberation of Bangladesh, the
architect of that state, Mujibur Rehman, was killed
and the Indo-Bangladesh Alliance of 1972 went into
animated suspension till it lapsed in 1992.
Many of Pakistan’s self-serving and greedy
leaders, both civilian and military, have badly
let down the people. Their follies do not negate
the conceptual moorings of the state. Right now,
the men in uniform are on a usurpation rampage.
That will end as the scenario is already shifting.
But, under an alien yoke, it would be darkness for
centuries.
The people of Pakistan are made of excellent material.
The system that is keeping them under the heel need
must change. Give them freedom and education and
see how they shine. Time is not far when they would
emerge from under the heels of the jack-boots of
the ruling elite. In the distaste for the army rule,
let us not be impetuous and cut the nose to spite
the face.
Naheim mayoos Iqbal apni kisht-I-veran say
Zara hum ho to yeh matti bari zarkhez hai saqi -
Iqbal
Arifhussain@hotmail.com
March 4, 2005
