http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag1.htm
Did freedom come to us early?
Did the Muslims of South Asia get their freedom earlier than they should have? This communal question crops up in ones mind if one looks at the difference between how we Muslims have treated our freedom and how the Hindu majority has looked after their country and their freedom.
Quite arbitrarily, Indian history is often divided into the Hindu period and the Muslim period, even though during the Muslim period independent Hindu states were flourishing in the south. Nevertheless, all parts of the subcontinent have come under Muslim rule for varying periods of time. Sindh, Balochistan, the NWFP and southern Punjab came under Arab (Umayyad) rule in the eighth century, while Delhi was not to be the capital of Muslim India until the battle of Tarain (1193). Then onwards began the Muslim thrust toward the south.
Alauddin Khilji (1296-1316) brought the south under his control, and from then on virtually the entire subcontinent remained under Muslim rule until the Mughal Empire started disintegrating. This means the Hindu nation (in Jinnahs words) remained under Muslim subjugation for periods that ranged, in the case of the Deccan, from 600 years to 1,000 years or more as in the case of most, if not all, areas that now constitute Pakistan.
The disintegration of the Mughal Empire did not mean the end of Muslim rule in such areas as Sindh, Balochistan and trans-Indus areas, because Muslim khanates and emirates continued to exist till the British supplanted them in the 19th century. Taking the subcontinent as a whole, we can see that within 90 years of the failure of the first war of independence in 1857, a fairly large and sovereign Muslim entity by the name of Pakistan had come into being. Could any Muslim Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan included -- have imagined even in his wildest imagination that within 90 years the British would be gone and a sovereign Muslim entity would come into existence in South Asia?
This state was the worlds largest Muslim country in terms of population, and within the subcontinent itself it occupied nearly one-third of territory. This state was strategically located, and in the case of West Pakistan comprised an area that varied in topography and climate from the burning shores of Sindh and Balochistan to the snowy heights of Swat and Chitral in Central Asia. By any standards, this was a great state potentially: all it needed was reconstruction and tender care. Neither was available.
The big difference between the Hindu and Muslim attitudes to freedom springs from their historical experiences. For Muslims the loss of freedom was for a short period. (90 years between 1857 and 1947); for the Hindus the period of time under Muslim rule was as long as 600 years in the Deccan to a millennium or more in other areas. No wonder, the Hindus and Muslims should have different attitudes toward their freedom and sovereignty.
Most of our leaders have not read modern history, without which one is unable to grasp the intricacies of modern statecraft and the harsh world of geopolitics. Self-abnegation and self-restraint are alien to them. For that reason the leaders and their followers lack a sense of proportions. We burn vehicles and destroy public and private property even though the cause of our anger could be a cartoon or the bestowal of knighthood on someone in a distant land. For the Hindus, it was a sensation: a dream come true. Freedom had come after a millennium; for Muslims, Pakistan merely meant a continuation of Muslim rule after a gap of 90 years nothing much to celebrate. The British period, they thought, was a brief nightmare an aberration -- and things would be back to what they had always been: Muslim sovereignty that brooked no challenge. For Hindus, departure of the British meant the beginning of a new era an era in which the Hindu genius would find fulfilment after a millennium of degradation and humiliation. This opportunity, they were determined not to lose. They were going to make a success of it and ensure that Hindu India would never again be under alien rule.
The Pakistanis thought they were under no such compulsion. That was the one major difference. Pakistan, they thought, was a playground where they could enjoy the return of sovereignty within 90 years and be happy. This happiness brooked no sense of responsibility. From this fundamental difference in attitudes spring Pakistani and Indian perceptions of what is at stake and how Indian politicians would always make a difference between country and government while their Pakistani counterparts would not.
During my stay in the US, I noticed one extraordinary phenomenon: the Indians made a distinction between their government and country; the Pakistanis would make no such difference. So blind were the Pakistanis in their enmity of a given government that they wouldnt mind hurting Pakistan itself.
During the political period (1988-1999) Pakistanis supporting the party not in power would go to ranking Senators and Representatives, especially the members of the Senate and House foreign affairs committees, and contact the media to plead for cutting off aid to Pakistan and demanding foreign intervention to sort things out in their country, and it did not ever occur to them that in the process they were hurting Pakistan itself. The Indians would never allow partisan feelings to damage Indias cause. In 1994, Indian Prime Minister Narsimha Rao visited Washington, and he was greeted by hostile demonstrations by Sikh separatists. There were also demonstrations by Sri Lankans denouncing Indian interference in their country, and of course leaders from occupied Kashmir were denouncing Indian repression in the valley. But mainstream Indians themselves made it a point to ensure that a rally against a given Indian leader did not acquire an anti-Indian character or damage Indias cause.
Another example of this lack of patriotism came during the second Nawaz Sharif government and concerned a British MP, who was projecting the Pakistani viewpoint on Kashmir and other affairs. The Nawaz government blew up his identity, causing embarrassment to a man who was an asset for Pakistan in Britain and had launched a newspaper called East, besides working for the pro-Pakistan National Lobby on Kashmir.
No heads rolled, because the idea was to defame Benazir Bhutto and accuse her of doling out money to her friends. If in this frenzy of partisan politics, Pakistan itself suffered damage well, that was of no consequence.
The recent events Lal Masjid and the bomb blasts. and the attitude of a large number of leaders and people to the tragedy testify to our attitude to freedom. Here is a country located at the cross-roads of history and civilisations. Its geographical location is both an advantage and disadvantage. Looking at what is going on all around Pakistan, any disinterested observer of the regional scene would advise us to act with caution and responsibility. At stake is not the fate of this government or that but the very fate of the freedom and the state we have created. Yet, astonishing as it appears, even sensible people tacitly approve of suicide bombings that kill innocent Pakistanis and rock the state. Indeed some parties on the lunatic fringes do not care about the recent abduction and killing of Chinese.
An essay is not needed here on what Chinas friendship means for Pakistan, but only a confirmed enemy of Pakistan would love to spoil our relations with our northern neighbour. Yet many religious leaders and parties tacitly approved the abduction and murder of Chinese by religious elements who believe it is justified to wage war on Pakistan and kill civilians to enforce Shariat.
Madressahs and religious institutions in Pakistan are a subject unto itself. Those who run them have failed to instil in the young people respect for law and order and love for Pakistan and seem to be unaware of the sovereignty history has bestowed upon the people of Pakistan within 90 years. There is also lack of character, for how else can you explain the fact that many of those running well-funded institutions and commanding vast armies of cadres behave in a way that betrays arrogance and a hidden lust for publicity and power? Many religious parties and associations operate in a spirit of mutual rivalry, and the leaders and their acolytes exude arrogance and seem to have no qualms of conscience when their strikes lead to widespread acts of vandalism and arson.
The Lal Masjid criminals behaviour and the politically motivated support they had from a considerable section of our politicians confirm my thesis that freedom has come to us early, we do not cherish it and might as well squander it. If, in the process of destroying a party, a leader or a government, Pakistan the Muslim worlds only nuclear power gets destroyed most of us would perhaps not care. Most of our leaders have not read modern history, without which one is unable to grasp the intricacies of modern statecraft and the harsh world of geopolitics. Self-abnegation and self-restraint are alien to them. For that reason the leaders and their followers lack a sense of proportions. We burn vehicles and destroy public and private property even though the cause of our anger could be a cartoon or the bestowal of knighthood on a distant land.
Perhaps freedom came to us early. We have had our revival but not renaissance. The religious and the secular pursue missions which are thoroughly dubious and fake. As a corollary, their public behaviour is immoral. They do not value freedom because it came to them early and without the kind of bondage and humiliation which the Hindus and Jews suffered for a millennium or two.
Did freedom come to us early?
Did the Muslims of South Asia get their freedom earlier than they should have? This communal question crops up in ones mind if one looks at the difference between how we Muslims have treated our freedom and how the Hindu majority has looked after their country and their freedom.
Quite arbitrarily, Indian history is often divided into the Hindu period and the Muslim period, even though during the Muslim period independent Hindu states were flourishing in the south. Nevertheless, all parts of the subcontinent have come under Muslim rule for varying periods of time. Sindh, Balochistan, the NWFP and southern Punjab came under Arab (Umayyad) rule in the eighth century, while Delhi was not to be the capital of Muslim India until the battle of Tarain (1193). Then onwards began the Muslim thrust toward the south.
Alauddin Khilji (1296-1316) brought the south under his control, and from then on virtually the entire subcontinent remained under Muslim rule until the Mughal Empire started disintegrating. This means the Hindu nation (in Jinnahs words) remained under Muslim subjugation for periods that ranged, in the case of the Deccan, from 600 years to 1,000 years or more as in the case of most, if not all, areas that now constitute Pakistan.
The disintegration of the Mughal Empire did not mean the end of Muslim rule in such areas as Sindh, Balochistan and trans-Indus areas, because Muslim khanates and emirates continued to exist till the British supplanted them in the 19th century. Taking the subcontinent as a whole, we can see that within 90 years of the failure of the first war of independence in 1857, a fairly large and sovereign Muslim entity by the name of Pakistan had come into being. Could any Muslim Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan included -- have imagined even in his wildest imagination that within 90 years the British would be gone and a sovereign Muslim entity would come into existence in South Asia?
This state was the worlds largest Muslim country in terms of population, and within the subcontinent itself it occupied nearly one-third of territory. This state was strategically located, and in the case of West Pakistan comprised an area that varied in topography and climate from the burning shores of Sindh and Balochistan to the snowy heights of Swat and Chitral in Central Asia. By any standards, this was a great state potentially: all it needed was reconstruction and tender care. Neither was available.
The big difference between the Hindu and Muslim attitudes to freedom springs from their historical experiences. For Muslims the loss of freedom was for a short period. (90 years between 1857 and 1947); for the Hindus the period of time under Muslim rule was as long as 600 years in the Deccan to a millennium or more in other areas. No wonder, the Hindus and Muslims should have different attitudes toward their freedom and sovereignty.
Most of our leaders have not read modern history, without which one is unable to grasp the intricacies of modern statecraft and the harsh world of geopolitics. Self-abnegation and self-restraint are alien to them. For that reason the leaders and their followers lack a sense of proportions. We burn vehicles and destroy public and private property even though the cause of our anger could be a cartoon or the bestowal of knighthood on someone in a distant land. For the Hindus, it was a sensation: a dream come true. Freedom had come after a millennium; for Muslims, Pakistan merely meant a continuation of Muslim rule after a gap of 90 years nothing much to celebrate. The British period, they thought, was a brief nightmare an aberration -- and things would be back to what they had always been: Muslim sovereignty that brooked no challenge. For Hindus, departure of the British meant the beginning of a new era an era in which the Hindu genius would find fulfilment after a millennium of degradation and humiliation. This opportunity, they were determined not to lose. They were going to make a success of it and ensure that Hindu India would never again be under alien rule.
The Pakistanis thought they were under no such compulsion. That was the one major difference. Pakistan, they thought, was a playground where they could enjoy the return of sovereignty within 90 years and be happy. This happiness brooked no sense of responsibility. From this fundamental difference in attitudes spring Pakistani and Indian perceptions of what is at stake and how Indian politicians would always make a difference between country and government while their Pakistani counterparts would not.
During my stay in the US, I noticed one extraordinary phenomenon: the Indians made a distinction between their government and country; the Pakistanis would make no such difference. So blind were the Pakistanis in their enmity of a given government that they wouldnt mind hurting Pakistan itself.
During the political period (1988-1999) Pakistanis supporting the party not in power would go to ranking Senators and Representatives, especially the members of the Senate and House foreign affairs committees, and contact the media to plead for cutting off aid to Pakistan and demanding foreign intervention to sort things out in their country, and it did not ever occur to them that in the process they were hurting Pakistan itself. The Indians would never allow partisan feelings to damage Indias cause. In 1994, Indian Prime Minister Narsimha Rao visited Washington, and he was greeted by hostile demonstrations by Sikh separatists. There were also demonstrations by Sri Lankans denouncing Indian interference in their country, and of course leaders from occupied Kashmir were denouncing Indian repression in the valley. But mainstream Indians themselves made it a point to ensure that a rally against a given Indian leader did not acquire an anti-Indian character or damage Indias cause.
Another example of this lack of patriotism came during the second Nawaz Sharif government and concerned a British MP, who was projecting the Pakistani viewpoint on Kashmir and other affairs. The Nawaz government blew up his identity, causing embarrassment to a man who was an asset for Pakistan in Britain and had launched a newspaper called East, besides working for the pro-Pakistan National Lobby on Kashmir.
No heads rolled, because the idea was to defame Benazir Bhutto and accuse her of doling out money to her friends. If in this frenzy of partisan politics, Pakistan itself suffered damage well, that was of no consequence.
The recent events Lal Masjid and the bomb blasts. and the attitude of a large number of leaders and people to the tragedy testify to our attitude to freedom. Here is a country located at the cross-roads of history and civilisations. Its geographical location is both an advantage and disadvantage. Looking at what is going on all around Pakistan, any disinterested observer of the regional scene would advise us to act with caution and responsibility. At stake is not the fate of this government or that but the very fate of the freedom and the state we have created. Yet, astonishing as it appears, even sensible people tacitly approve of suicide bombings that kill innocent Pakistanis and rock the state. Indeed some parties on the lunatic fringes do not care about the recent abduction and killing of Chinese.
An essay is not needed here on what Chinas friendship means for Pakistan, but only a confirmed enemy of Pakistan would love to spoil our relations with our northern neighbour. Yet many religious leaders and parties tacitly approved the abduction and murder of Chinese by religious elements who believe it is justified to wage war on Pakistan and kill civilians to enforce Shariat.
Madressahs and religious institutions in Pakistan are a subject unto itself. Those who run them have failed to instil in the young people respect for law and order and love for Pakistan and seem to be unaware of the sovereignty history has bestowed upon the people of Pakistan within 90 years. There is also lack of character, for how else can you explain the fact that many of those running well-funded institutions and commanding vast armies of cadres behave in a way that betrays arrogance and a hidden lust for publicity and power? Many religious parties and associations operate in a spirit of mutual rivalry, and the leaders and their acolytes exude arrogance and seem to have no qualms of conscience when their strikes lead to widespread acts of vandalism and arson.
The Lal Masjid criminals behaviour and the politically motivated support they had from a considerable section of our politicians confirm my thesis that freedom has come to us early, we do not cherish it and might as well squander it. If, in the process of destroying a party, a leader or a government, Pakistan the Muslim worlds only nuclear power gets destroyed most of us would perhaps not care. Most of our leaders have not read modern history, without which one is unable to grasp the intricacies of modern statecraft and the harsh world of geopolitics. Self-abnegation and self-restraint are alien to them. For that reason the leaders and their followers lack a sense of proportions. We burn vehicles and destroy public and private property even though the cause of our anger could be a cartoon or the bestowal of knighthood on a distant land.
Perhaps freedom came to us early. We have had our revival but not renaissance. The religious and the secular pursue missions which are thoroughly dubious and fake. As a corollary, their public behaviour is immoral. They do not value freedom because it came to them early and without the kind of bondage and humiliation which the Hindus and Jews suffered for a millennium or two.
