A.Rafay
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Author
Asghar
The partition was actually a partition of Muslims of India, now divided in three different countries, with three different cultures and three different identities
The 65-year-old infant I
A fair warning to some who tolerate my weekly gibberish, if you are sensitive to the truth, please move on and read something else in this esteemed publication. By skipping this write up, you will not hurt my feelings at all. By the time these lines will be read, the nation must have gone through its yearly high of the so-called patriotic fervor. The tube must have shown the sayings of the Quaid for the billionth time and the print media must have provided the special multi-coloured supplements highlighting the struggles of our elders to gain this promised land. Never mind on August 15th, it will be business as usual, those leaflets with tiny flags on the strings must be down on the ground by the ruthless wind and the supplements I mentioned, will perhaps become wrapping paper for the poor street vendors. Need I say any more, or does it seem to be clear as day, what the real issue is, with us.
Some of you will rush to judgment by calling me the usual names. I am old enough for that, so go right ahead. But every year, when this day comes, I am afraid my mind questions the reason why we are in such a state. To reflect in the past to discover the faults is the first step towards any possible correction. But to tuck everything under the rug and call it patriotism by blatantly ignoring what went so terribly wrong is downright idiotic and the height of our collective ignorance. I know some will criticise and label a non-resident like me to have no right over this land. Well, with them, I have always respectfully disagreed. A land that gives you birth and raises you will always remain yours, no matter where you end up, much like my grandmother, who till her last day kept on reminiscing about her Amritsar, while physically being in Rawalpindi. Her monumental struggle with her eight daughters to migrate from Amritsar to Lahore in 1947, without her husband, is another subject for another day. But who is responsible for the deaths of millions who lost their lives for no reason? Was it just because the boundary commission decided to draw lines on the land? Why were British so oblivious to the massacres that took place on both ends to form, the two so-called sovereign nations? Was it political expediency or the Great Britain was drained with war debts, that it just adopted the cut and run policy and left a partitioned India in a total mess? Who in his right mind thought that transition and migration of millions from one land to the other would be like an annual vacation? The insanity that ensued and the worst form of barbaric acts that were committed to gain the so-called independence cannot be just conveniently termed as sacrifices to gain our motherland. With all the patriotic mumbo jumbo can people conveniently ignore many who lost almost everything, from their means of living to their family members to make it to this side?
I often laugh at people with profound sadness when they yell corruption on the idiot box in this day and age. Let me take them back in time to remind them about this phenomenon and its real birth. Who was able to check all the claims that were filed in 1947 on property, whether those were valid or not? Who came up with the novel idea that people would be honest to the core and all would be up and up in the promised land? Without proper verification or a vetting process in utter chaos, who felt that justice would be done to every migrant entering the land of the pure?
If the Two-Nation Theory was so right on the ***, then nothing can be more damning than the refusal of a significant number of Muslims to buy it. Why did a significant majority of Muslims decided to remain in India? One can attribute the usual conspirators and so on and so forth, but that is your usual textbook type excuse. Ponder on it more closely and without bias, you will see some very glaring cracks in that particular belief on this side of the border. Mind you, in 65 years the number of Muslims in India has surpassed those in Pakistan. Agreed not all is hunky dory and rosy for them on that side either, but they are an extremely significant majority. In 65 years, they have debunked our claims by their utmost perseverance. Often, we in our arrogance, call it the sour grapes syndrome, but the reality, I am afraid, is to the contrary. As much as one may disagree with the narratives of Maulana Azad, but I am afraid he was on the money. The partition was actually a partition of Muslims of India, now divided in three different countries, with three different cultures and three different identities.
Those of you who will brand me as a traitor, and a paid agent of some foreign intelligence, please grow up for once. All I am trying to highlight are the undeniable facts. Ignore and obfuscate as much you like, but it only keeps you in the same state as you are presently in.
The 65-year-old infant II
Before I continue with where I left off last week, I want to express my deepest gratitude to all who sent emails after reading the first installment. It was quite humbling to see how most minds think and interpret this event the way I do. Again, a heartfelt thanks to all and I hope to get this feedback consistently.
Let me clarify my position right off the bat. My expression is not a plea for reunification of all three parts of a fragmented India. It is solely to point out the inaccuracies, according to my interpretation. I am no academic or historian. The researchers and academics can write books and papers, but in the end what really matters is how certain events and their aftermath actually affect people as a whole.
To say that the Two Nation Theory is the basis for Pakistan and in the absence of it, Pakistan has no reason for its existence is nothing but a jingoistic rant. The flaw in that assumption is proved through multiple pieces of evidence. The overwhelming number of Muslims in present-day India was pointed out last week. If that theory were accurate, there would have been a mass exodus from India post-partition. India would be an absolute Hindu populated country, with no minority in sight, let alone Muslims. Second, the theory assumes that Muslims are a unique breed of people, so unique that they are incapable of residing with any other non-Muslim group in harmony. Nothing can be further from the truth when it comes to this. Several hundreds of years of Muslim presence in India until 1947 along with other faiths is another valid testimony.
The mere fact that post-partition Muslims and Hindus live in harmony in all parts of the world where life takes them is another undeniable proof. Whether it is the Middle East, Europe, North America, the Far East, Australia or South Africa, you see us living and working together in concert with relative peace and prosperity, often characterised under a broad singular category of Indians or South Asians. Therefore, to continue to argue that we are two nations and so dissimilar that we cannot coexist at all is, to say the least, very flawed.
Does this mean that the demand for Pakistan was wrong? Maybe, maybe not. The narrative that we are fed on the tube or textbooks begs some reasonable questioning. I touched on this in one of my previous write-ups as well. Allama Iqbal is glorified as the great scholar who dreamt of this independent state for Muslims. All I know is that Allama Sahib expired prior to the passing of what was known as the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Even in that resolution, the language indicates or hints at sovereign states of Muslim majority. The plural states indicates that Muslims were demanding autonomous states within India where Muslims held a valid majority.
The partition cannot be solely attributed to a declaration, which in essence did not even request any such action. We now call it Pakistan Resolution and somehow pretend that it was the real impetus behind our demand for a separate homeland. One does not need to be a scholar to realise that the Quaid, Mr Gandhi and Mr Nehru were definitely not on the same page with one another. There was undeniable friction between them. Add the chain of events post-Lahore Resolution, and at some point, it became what it was meant to be. Disagreements, power plays, betrayals and no reconciliation whatsoever led to the inevitable.
Undoubtedly, the Quaid was a determined individual. What he accomplished was nothing short of a miracle. The gaining of an entirely different country carved out of India was monumental and unbelievable. Yet one cannot deny that the term Islam was used to galvanise popular public support. Islam or Muslims in India were not being persecuted as a whole. The other argument of a Muslim way of life being so incongruent with Hindus is only partially accurate. With the exception of faith, most of the customs of present-day Pakistanis are quite similar to their eastern neighbour. Mind you, six and a half decades later we are still relatively similar.
The Quaid was strong in his vision and convictions and felt that Muslims would always remain a minority in India. He was absolutely accurate on that count. He believed that Muslims would be marginalised in a united India. But the Quaid perhaps was overly optimistic about the relations of Muslims within their own community. Pakistan since its inception has proved that Muslim-on-Muslim violence has been a much greater threat than that between Muslims and non-Muslims. The present situation speaks volumes about the inability of Muslims to coexist with one another in harmony.
The atrocious and abhorrent violence at the time of partition has left such deep-rooted scars on our collective psyche that we are unable to erase them from our character. Look at what we did to our leaders and saviours, so to speak. Mr Gandhi, Mrs Indira Gandhi, Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Mujibur Rehman, Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto are just some names that come to mind. One can make a compelling argument that had the Quaid not been battling his terminal illness, he would have met a similar fate too. But a question about his stalled ambulance at Mauripur Road will always remain a mystery. This was the head of state, the person behind our great independence, struggling for his final moments. He was left helpless for hours, but why?
(To be continued)
The 65-year-old infant - III
There are accounts of the Quaid being dismayed and moved by the plight of the refugees when they poured into Pakistan, penniless and destitute. His confession to one of his physicians regarding the creation of Pakistan being a mistake was mentioned by Mr Kuldip Nayyar as well. Nevertheless, it was one of those decisions that was like a uni-directional bullet; once exercised there was no other option but to see it through.
With the Quaids early demise died all hopes and dreams of his vision. We often tend to overlook that all political leaders are mere mortal humans with their own strengths and weaknesses. In an effort to bring such a diverse group of people together, the Quaid may have been overly optimistic and perhaps made some very extraordinary assumptions. One of the assumptions being that all Muslims needed was their own land and that they would overcome their differences amicably.
Due to multiple sects, beliefs and practices, there are many dimensions to our faith. Like any other Abrahamic religion, there are different schools of thought about practices. What this scribe finds quite disheartening is that people too often become hung up about the process or procedure and tend to ignore the real essence. In their effort to prove that their way of practice is more authentic and accurate, they tend to marginalise others. Hence, the differences and the accompanying chaos take root. Another subject for another day.
Our foundation was built on what is often characterised as a half-baked theory or ideology. I am afraid I agree with that assertion. This topic is so deep and vast that a novice like me does not have the capacity to delve into its intricacies with utmost honesty. A diverse land like India knew that if it defined itself as a Hindu state, it was bound to fail. The reason is plain and simple: even Hinduism has divisions and subdivisions based on practices and the caste system. Indias adoption of a secular state was the best move on their part. Is it a perfectly secular state in practice? Perhaps not, but ideologically it is in a much better shape than ours is.
In this third instalment, perhaps the readers can begin to relate with the title of this write up. Ideologically, we are still in the stages of infancy. By the grace of the Almighty, Islam is my faith too, but to argue that my country is a citadel of Islam and Gods gift to mankind on the 27th of Ramzan is perhaps nothing but baseless rhetoric. I do not see the rest of the 40-plus Muslim countries looking up to my country for all the right reasons. My humble request to my fellow countrymen is to travel around a few Muslim countries to get the flavour of what our Muslim brethren really think of us.
Islam does not need any citadel or fortress, as its universal message of equality and justice, while having fear of just accountability by the Creator on the Final Day, holds true anywhere. People come together based on a more personal and common ground of heritage, belonging to the land, language, economic interests, future personal and financial growth, ability to live in relative peace and prosperity and innovative ideas. Try looking at any two Punjabis (I am one myself) meeting in a London or Toronto subway and the first thing they ask each other, of course in Punjabi, Where are you from? That is often followed by the exact location of where they are from Hoshyarpur, Ludhiana, Jallundhar, Lahore, Sialkot or Muridke, etc. One may be wearing a coloured turban, the other may be clean shaven like me, but their common language and heritage binds them together in a faraway land. The same goes for the Gujarati-speaking people from Surat or Karachi; they have a lot to share with one another. Mind you, mostly their discussion is about entrepreneurial ventures and rarely about their respective faiths. There is an unwritten rule that most sensible people follow in this world and the successful countries have adopted for their own strength: keep the divisive issue of religion out.
To say that the adoption of the Objectives Resolution in 1949 was the lethal injection to Pakistans cohesive fabric would be an understatement. Subsequently, the cracks within our Pakistan, based on language, sects, region, further augmented the argument that one cannot cobble an alliance solely based on a broad common faith. The separation of East Pakistan has been the nail in the coffin of our somewhat flawed ideology. The Bengalis were perturbed about unequal treatment and their long-standing economic woes. No matter how much we try to blame it on an Indian conspiracy, we cannot ignore our follies with our own Muslim brethren. We tend to overlook our own blunders and try to obfuscate. Remember, if there is a vacuum somewhere it is going to invite attention, because you have to feed the stomach first and provide hope for the future to elicit a favourable reaction. The faith can fill an empty soul, but an empty stomach is an entirely different story.
(To be continued)
The writer is a Pakistani-American mortgage banker. He blogs at D Asghar's Political Prism and can be reached at dasghar@aol.com He tweets at Dilawar Asghar (dasghar) on Twitter
Author
AsgharThe partition was actually a partition of Muslims of India, now divided in three different countries, with three different cultures and three different identities
The 65-year-old infant I
A fair warning to some who tolerate my weekly gibberish, if you are sensitive to the truth, please move on and read something else in this esteemed publication. By skipping this write up, you will not hurt my feelings at all. By the time these lines will be read, the nation must have gone through its yearly high of the so-called patriotic fervor. The tube must have shown the sayings of the Quaid for the billionth time and the print media must have provided the special multi-coloured supplements highlighting the struggles of our elders to gain this promised land. Never mind on August 15th, it will be business as usual, those leaflets with tiny flags on the strings must be down on the ground by the ruthless wind and the supplements I mentioned, will perhaps become wrapping paper for the poor street vendors. Need I say any more, or does it seem to be clear as day, what the real issue is, with us.
Some of you will rush to judgment by calling me the usual names. I am old enough for that, so go right ahead. But every year, when this day comes, I am afraid my mind questions the reason why we are in such a state. To reflect in the past to discover the faults is the first step towards any possible correction. But to tuck everything under the rug and call it patriotism by blatantly ignoring what went so terribly wrong is downright idiotic and the height of our collective ignorance. I know some will criticise and label a non-resident like me to have no right over this land. Well, with them, I have always respectfully disagreed. A land that gives you birth and raises you will always remain yours, no matter where you end up, much like my grandmother, who till her last day kept on reminiscing about her Amritsar, while physically being in Rawalpindi. Her monumental struggle with her eight daughters to migrate from Amritsar to Lahore in 1947, without her husband, is another subject for another day. But who is responsible for the deaths of millions who lost their lives for no reason? Was it just because the boundary commission decided to draw lines on the land? Why were British so oblivious to the massacres that took place on both ends to form, the two so-called sovereign nations? Was it political expediency or the Great Britain was drained with war debts, that it just adopted the cut and run policy and left a partitioned India in a total mess? Who in his right mind thought that transition and migration of millions from one land to the other would be like an annual vacation? The insanity that ensued and the worst form of barbaric acts that were committed to gain the so-called independence cannot be just conveniently termed as sacrifices to gain our motherland. With all the patriotic mumbo jumbo can people conveniently ignore many who lost almost everything, from their means of living to their family members to make it to this side?
I often laugh at people with profound sadness when they yell corruption on the idiot box in this day and age. Let me take them back in time to remind them about this phenomenon and its real birth. Who was able to check all the claims that were filed in 1947 on property, whether those were valid or not? Who came up with the novel idea that people would be honest to the core and all would be up and up in the promised land? Without proper verification or a vetting process in utter chaos, who felt that justice would be done to every migrant entering the land of the pure?
If the Two-Nation Theory was so right on the ***, then nothing can be more damning than the refusal of a significant number of Muslims to buy it. Why did a significant majority of Muslims decided to remain in India? One can attribute the usual conspirators and so on and so forth, but that is your usual textbook type excuse. Ponder on it more closely and without bias, you will see some very glaring cracks in that particular belief on this side of the border. Mind you, in 65 years the number of Muslims in India has surpassed those in Pakistan. Agreed not all is hunky dory and rosy for them on that side either, but they are an extremely significant majority. In 65 years, they have debunked our claims by their utmost perseverance. Often, we in our arrogance, call it the sour grapes syndrome, but the reality, I am afraid, is to the contrary. As much as one may disagree with the narratives of Maulana Azad, but I am afraid he was on the money. The partition was actually a partition of Muslims of India, now divided in three different countries, with three different cultures and three different identities.
Those of you who will brand me as a traitor, and a paid agent of some foreign intelligence, please grow up for once. All I am trying to highlight are the undeniable facts. Ignore and obfuscate as much you like, but it only keeps you in the same state as you are presently in.
The 65-year-old infant II
Before I continue with where I left off last week, I want to express my deepest gratitude to all who sent emails after reading the first installment. It was quite humbling to see how most minds think and interpret this event the way I do. Again, a heartfelt thanks to all and I hope to get this feedback consistently.
Let me clarify my position right off the bat. My expression is not a plea for reunification of all three parts of a fragmented India. It is solely to point out the inaccuracies, according to my interpretation. I am no academic or historian. The researchers and academics can write books and papers, but in the end what really matters is how certain events and their aftermath actually affect people as a whole.
To say that the Two Nation Theory is the basis for Pakistan and in the absence of it, Pakistan has no reason for its existence is nothing but a jingoistic rant. The flaw in that assumption is proved through multiple pieces of evidence. The overwhelming number of Muslims in present-day India was pointed out last week. If that theory were accurate, there would have been a mass exodus from India post-partition. India would be an absolute Hindu populated country, with no minority in sight, let alone Muslims. Second, the theory assumes that Muslims are a unique breed of people, so unique that they are incapable of residing with any other non-Muslim group in harmony. Nothing can be further from the truth when it comes to this. Several hundreds of years of Muslim presence in India until 1947 along with other faiths is another valid testimony.
The mere fact that post-partition Muslims and Hindus live in harmony in all parts of the world where life takes them is another undeniable proof. Whether it is the Middle East, Europe, North America, the Far East, Australia or South Africa, you see us living and working together in concert with relative peace and prosperity, often characterised under a broad singular category of Indians or South Asians. Therefore, to continue to argue that we are two nations and so dissimilar that we cannot coexist at all is, to say the least, very flawed.
Does this mean that the demand for Pakistan was wrong? Maybe, maybe not. The narrative that we are fed on the tube or textbooks begs some reasonable questioning. I touched on this in one of my previous write-ups as well. Allama Iqbal is glorified as the great scholar who dreamt of this independent state for Muslims. All I know is that Allama Sahib expired prior to the passing of what was known as the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Even in that resolution, the language indicates or hints at sovereign states of Muslim majority. The plural states indicates that Muslims were demanding autonomous states within India where Muslims held a valid majority.
The partition cannot be solely attributed to a declaration, which in essence did not even request any such action. We now call it Pakistan Resolution and somehow pretend that it was the real impetus behind our demand for a separate homeland. One does not need to be a scholar to realise that the Quaid, Mr Gandhi and Mr Nehru were definitely not on the same page with one another. There was undeniable friction between them. Add the chain of events post-Lahore Resolution, and at some point, it became what it was meant to be. Disagreements, power plays, betrayals and no reconciliation whatsoever led to the inevitable.
Undoubtedly, the Quaid was a determined individual. What he accomplished was nothing short of a miracle. The gaining of an entirely different country carved out of India was monumental and unbelievable. Yet one cannot deny that the term Islam was used to galvanise popular public support. Islam or Muslims in India were not being persecuted as a whole. The other argument of a Muslim way of life being so incongruent with Hindus is only partially accurate. With the exception of faith, most of the customs of present-day Pakistanis are quite similar to their eastern neighbour. Mind you, six and a half decades later we are still relatively similar.
The Quaid was strong in his vision and convictions and felt that Muslims would always remain a minority in India. He was absolutely accurate on that count. He believed that Muslims would be marginalised in a united India. But the Quaid perhaps was overly optimistic about the relations of Muslims within their own community. Pakistan since its inception has proved that Muslim-on-Muslim violence has been a much greater threat than that between Muslims and non-Muslims. The present situation speaks volumes about the inability of Muslims to coexist with one another in harmony.
The atrocious and abhorrent violence at the time of partition has left such deep-rooted scars on our collective psyche that we are unable to erase them from our character. Look at what we did to our leaders and saviours, so to speak. Mr Gandhi, Mrs Indira Gandhi, Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Mujibur Rehman, Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto are just some names that come to mind. One can make a compelling argument that had the Quaid not been battling his terminal illness, he would have met a similar fate too. But a question about his stalled ambulance at Mauripur Road will always remain a mystery. This was the head of state, the person behind our great independence, struggling for his final moments. He was left helpless for hours, but why?
(To be continued)
The 65-year-old infant - III
There are accounts of the Quaid being dismayed and moved by the plight of the refugees when they poured into Pakistan, penniless and destitute. His confession to one of his physicians regarding the creation of Pakistan being a mistake was mentioned by Mr Kuldip Nayyar as well. Nevertheless, it was one of those decisions that was like a uni-directional bullet; once exercised there was no other option but to see it through.
With the Quaids early demise died all hopes and dreams of his vision. We often tend to overlook that all political leaders are mere mortal humans with their own strengths and weaknesses. In an effort to bring such a diverse group of people together, the Quaid may have been overly optimistic and perhaps made some very extraordinary assumptions. One of the assumptions being that all Muslims needed was their own land and that they would overcome their differences amicably.
Due to multiple sects, beliefs and practices, there are many dimensions to our faith. Like any other Abrahamic religion, there are different schools of thought about practices. What this scribe finds quite disheartening is that people too often become hung up about the process or procedure and tend to ignore the real essence. In their effort to prove that their way of practice is more authentic and accurate, they tend to marginalise others. Hence, the differences and the accompanying chaos take root. Another subject for another day.
Our foundation was built on what is often characterised as a half-baked theory or ideology. I am afraid I agree with that assertion. This topic is so deep and vast that a novice like me does not have the capacity to delve into its intricacies with utmost honesty. A diverse land like India knew that if it defined itself as a Hindu state, it was bound to fail. The reason is plain and simple: even Hinduism has divisions and subdivisions based on practices and the caste system. Indias adoption of a secular state was the best move on their part. Is it a perfectly secular state in practice? Perhaps not, but ideologically it is in a much better shape than ours is.
In this third instalment, perhaps the readers can begin to relate with the title of this write up. Ideologically, we are still in the stages of infancy. By the grace of the Almighty, Islam is my faith too, but to argue that my country is a citadel of Islam and Gods gift to mankind on the 27th of Ramzan is perhaps nothing but baseless rhetoric. I do not see the rest of the 40-plus Muslim countries looking up to my country for all the right reasons. My humble request to my fellow countrymen is to travel around a few Muslim countries to get the flavour of what our Muslim brethren really think of us.
Islam does not need any citadel or fortress, as its universal message of equality and justice, while having fear of just accountability by the Creator on the Final Day, holds true anywhere. People come together based on a more personal and common ground of heritage, belonging to the land, language, economic interests, future personal and financial growth, ability to live in relative peace and prosperity and innovative ideas. Try looking at any two Punjabis (I am one myself) meeting in a London or Toronto subway and the first thing they ask each other, of course in Punjabi, Where are you from? That is often followed by the exact location of where they are from Hoshyarpur, Ludhiana, Jallundhar, Lahore, Sialkot or Muridke, etc. One may be wearing a coloured turban, the other may be clean shaven like me, but their common language and heritage binds them together in a faraway land. The same goes for the Gujarati-speaking people from Surat or Karachi; they have a lot to share with one another. Mind you, mostly their discussion is about entrepreneurial ventures and rarely about their respective faiths. There is an unwritten rule that most sensible people follow in this world and the successful countries have adopted for their own strength: keep the divisive issue of religion out.
To say that the adoption of the Objectives Resolution in 1949 was the lethal injection to Pakistans cohesive fabric would be an understatement. Subsequently, the cracks within our Pakistan, based on language, sects, region, further augmented the argument that one cannot cobble an alliance solely based on a broad common faith. The separation of East Pakistan has been the nail in the coffin of our somewhat flawed ideology. The Bengalis were perturbed about unequal treatment and their long-standing economic woes. No matter how much we try to blame it on an Indian conspiracy, we cannot ignore our follies with our own Muslim brethren. We tend to overlook our own blunders and try to obfuscate. Remember, if there is a vacuum somewhere it is going to invite attention, because you have to feed the stomach first and provide hope for the future to elicit a favourable reaction. The faith can fill an empty soul, but an empty stomach is an entirely different story.
(To be continued)
The writer is a Pakistani-American mortgage banker. He blogs at D Asghar's Political Prism and can be reached at dasghar@aol.com He tweets at Dilawar Asghar (dasghar) on Twitter
