Challenging the History of Partition

[MilesTogo]

Do you think continued democracy can change the status-quo in favor of middle class gradually looking at last 6 decades? or does it have to be a sudden and forceful reforms movement?

If you read the entire interview, Tauseef argues that it was Nehru's insistence on planned land reform that pushed the Unionists to side with Jinnah and ML, with a tacit understanding that their land ownership rights will be respected in Pakistan, a fact born out by subsequent events.

William Dalrymple, writing for the Guardian in London has put it succinctly: "There is a fundamental flaw in Pakistan's political system. Democracy has never thrived here, at least in part because landowning remains almost the only social base from which politicians can emerge. In general, the educated middle class - which in India seized control in 1947, emasculating the power of its landowners - is in Pakistan still largely excluded from the political process. As a result, in many of the more backward parts of Pakistan the local feudal zamindar can expect his people to vote for his chosen candidate. Such loyalty can be enforced. Many of the biggest zamindars have private prisons and most have private armies."

Haq's Musings: Feudal Power Dominates Pakistani Elections

 

[qsaark]

Do you think continued democracy can change the status-quo in favor of middle class gradually looking at last 6 decades? or does it have to be a sudden and forceful reforms movement?

A very good question, and short answer to that is, it has to be a sudden and forceful reforms movement because "LatoN key bhoot baatoN sey nahiN mantey".

 

[RiazHaq]

Do you think continued democracy can change the status-quo in favor of middle class gradually looking at last 6 decades? or does it have to be a sudden and forceful reforms movement?

The change is already happening. With the robust economic growth averaging 7 percent and availability of millions of new jobs created between 2000 and 2008, there has been increased rural to urban migration in Pakistan to fill the jobs in growing manufacturing and service sectors. The level of urbanization in Pakistan is now the highest in South Asia, and its urban population is likely to equal its rural population by 2030, according to a report titled ‘Life in the City: Pakistan in Focus’, released by the United Nations Population Fund. Pakistan ranks 163 and India at 174 on a list of over 200 countries compiled by Nationmaster. The urban population now contributes about three quarters of Pakistan's gross domestic product and almost all of the government revenue. The industrial sector contributes over 27% of the GDP, higher than the 19% contributed by agriculture, with services accounting for the rest of the GDP.

If the level of robust economic growth, human development and increased urbanization can be sustained to significantly enlarge Pakistan's middle class, then there can be hope for genuine and durable democracy to thrive.

Haq's Musings: Urbanization in Pakistan Highest in South Asia

Haq's Musings: Do South Asian Slums Offer Hope?

 

[MilesTogo]

In that case Pakistan has a bright future ahead - slow and steady wins the race...keep moving....miles to go...

The change is already happening. With the robust economic growth averaging 7 percent and availability of millions of new jobs created between 2000 and 2008, there has been increased rural to urban migration in Pakistan to fill the jobs in growing manufacturing and service sectors. The level of urbanization in Pakistan is now the highest in South Asia, and its urban population is likely to equal its rural population by 2030, according to a report titled ‘Life in the City: Pakistan in Focus’, released by the United Nations Population Fund. Pakistan ranks 163 and India at 174 on a list of over 200 countries compiled by Nationmaster. The urban population now contributes about three quarters of Pakistan's gross domestic product and almost all of the government revenue. The industrial sector contributes over 27% of the GDP, higher than the 19% contributed by agriculture, with services accounting for the rest of the GDP.

If the level of robust economic growth, human development and increased urbanization can be sustained to significantly enlarge Pakistan's middle class, then there can be hope for genuine and durable democracy to thrive.

Haq's Musings: Urbanization in Pakistan Highest in South Asia

Haq's Musings: Do South Asian Slums Offer Hope?

 

[zuberia]

Where it is said that?

Al-Quran: 13:11 [thinking that] he has hosts of helpers-both such as can be perceived by him and such as are hidden from him-that could preserve him from whatever God may have willed. Verily, God does not change men's condition unless they change their inner selves; and when God wills people to suffer evil [in consequence of their . own evil deeds], there is none who could avert it: for they have none who could protect them from Him.


Regards.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If you read the entire interview, Tauseef argues that it was Nehru's insistence on planned land reform that pushed the Unionists to side with Jinnah and ML, with a tacit understanding that their land ownership rights will be respected in Pakistan, a fact born out by subsequent events.

William Dalrymple, writing for the Guardian in London has put it succinctly: "There is a fundamental flaw in Pakistan's political system. Democracy has never thrived here, at least in part because landowning remains almost the only social base from which politicians can emerge. In general, the educated middle class - which in India seized control in 1947, emasculating the power of its landowners - is in Pakistan still largely excluded from the political process. As a result, in many of the more backward parts of Pakistan the local feudal zamindar can expect his people to vote for his chosen candidate. Such loyalty can be enforced. Many of the biggest zamindars have private prisons and most have private armies."

Haq's Musings: Feudal Power Dominates Pakistani Elections

I'm sorry, but I still do not see any more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis here.

I understand that Tauseef is attributing the motive of avoiding land reforms to the Unionists, but what I do not see is evidence that led Tauseef to come to that conclusion, other than the fact that the Unionists were 'Feudals'. Evidence would be something indicating that the decision by a majority of unionists to support Jinnah and ML was based on the alleged motives - confessions, records of conversations etc. and that if not for the land reforms they would not have supported Jinnah and the ML.

One cannot just say that the Unionists were feudal and Nehru wanted land reforms and therefore that proves that the Unionists were supportive of an independent nation for that reason and that reason only.

Beyond that, let us assume that it is indeed shown that the Unionists were looking at protecting their land holdings in an independent Pakistan - two other issues come to mind.

1. If the Unionists were not in power, what was the sentiment of the masses towards Pakistan?

I woudl argue, based on the events that unfolded after partition, that the passion for Pakistan was widespread and that even a referendum in Punjab (amongst the Muslims) would have carried the day in favor of Pakistan. If my hypothesis is valid then the point about the motives of the Unionists is moot - Pakistan would have come into being regardless.

2. If it is indeed shown that the Unionists wanted to preserve their land holdings, was that the overriding reason for their support of Jinnah and the ML? Would they have gone along regardless, but chose to obtain concessions on land reforms because they knew that Jinnah needed their support and they could use that to their advantage?

Again, if the concessions on land reforms were more politicking and bargaining, then Pakistan would have come into being regardless in this case as well.

Tauseef has a very high bar to meet and a lot of issues to clarify to justify her hypothesis IMO, which the excerpts posted do not come anywhere close to doing.

That is understandable I suppose since her comments were from an interview, where she wouldn't really have time to go into detail, but the lack of detail also leaves her hypothesis open to criticizm and refutation. Perhaps you have access to more of her work where she justifies her argument?