Is Pakistan's Army As Islamist as We Think?

[Joe Shearer]

IMO Pakistan state create for Muslims. It not about only Jinnah .. the story of creation starts from Sirsyed A. and Iqbal who had dream a separate nation for Muslims.

There is enough evidence that Jinnah did not adopt Iqbal's ideology wholesale; Yasser Latif Hamdani has written prolifically and brilliantly on this, even though of late, he has uncovered facets and aspects of Iqbal's ideology of Pakistan which are unusual and sometimes unsuspected.

It seems after having debated the topic for more than two years now, that Jinnah first took up the cause for Muslim betterment in India as a challenge. What many of us fail to realise today is that in the 30s and 40s of the last century, India's Muslims had, some of them, a deep sense of pessimism about the future of the Indian citizen practising Islam. Muslims had got locked out of government jobs from 1832 onwards, as Persian was replaced by English as the language of government; Muslims had not gone to English-based institutions of higher learning in anywhere near the numbers that their share of the general population might indicate. Apart from government service, their numbers in the professions, in law and medicine, for instance, was inadequate and disproportionate to their numbers on the ground. There was a bleak foreboding of failure ahead, when the tempering hand of the British would no longer be there.

We also need to remember that there had been efforts made earlier, both during the system of dyarchy initiated in 1919 and the Government of India Act 1935, but nothing seemed to work. Jinnah was looking for a solution, and his solution was the three homeland constitutional configuration that was discussed with the Cabinet Mission. It was a complex plan, but Jinnah had few alternatives. The British were visibly impatient, their own social revolution, the Labour Party landslide that had brought Attlee to power, urged them to return and dwell on their own affairs, the military was developing cracks in its loyalty, and the Congress was opposed to anything that he proposed and fought him tooth and nail.

It seems that Jinnah pitched his demand as high as he could make them, but was more than willing to come to a reasonable settlement. When the betrayal of July 46 took place, however, he cut his losses and concentrated on securing an independent Pakistan.

It was not as simple as you have made it sound.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

andross , what was the point of creating a separate nation if muslims and hindus could live together ?

the basic premise behind Pakistan was that it was a nation of muslims and that hindus and muslims could not live together .What is the need for Pakistan to exist if they could all exist with each other in harmony ?

i believe Pakistan was first and foremost meant for muslims , if not then the idea of Pakistan itself would not exist .i agree with stealth.

You might find my response to @Stealth to be of interest. Pakistan was to be a place where Muslim values could be nurtured and Muslim identity could be preserved from being swamped by the overwhelming Hindu majority, but that was it; that was all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Historically, Pakistan was never an integral part of India but rather it was under British rule.

What does this statement mean?

Before 1947, we had British India, and all parts of British India were integral parts of India.

The provinces of Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP and part of the Punjab, and part of Bengal, went to Pakistan. All these provinces were integral parts of India.

Your statement puzzles me.

They the 'British' found it easier to rule both neighbouring countries and found that imposing just 1 same culture and language during the 1900s would benefit their ownintrests.

I hope you are not making the elementary mistake of thinking that the Two Nation Theory implied that there were two countries in existence side by side. The concept of 'Nation' and the concept of 'country' are quite different.

There were no two neighbouring countries that the British ruled. I am not sure what you are referring to.

I am also not sure what you are referring to by the British imposing one culture. They never imposed their culture anywhere.

The 'Urdu language never existed back then so it was just the Indian muslims that came late to Pakistan during 1950s and 1960s who basically spread. Yes it is true that there are some Muslim extremists in Pakistan who are in favour of their majority but generally this ideology of 'only Muslims' is just biased and ridiculous. I believe Pakistan is for Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who actually have been living there from as long ago as centuries and who have had their own practice of culture.

I have not understood this passage at all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You will understand if I disagree wholly with what you have said.

Sorry to say but the 'Liberal' strata of Pakistani society appears ineffective at best and hypocritical at its worst. Here are we as a Nation (read India) making the mistake of (mis)identifying the 'Liberal' section of Pakistani society.

Considering that the deep state in Pakistan has been pushing AGAINST liberalism ever since 1948, their efforts cannot be sufficiently praised. It is easy to be condescending, but when we look at Pakistan, we should remember the number of accidents that helped us out.

The first was the strong influence of Nehru, and the fortuitous removal of the influence of Patel. Although Patel did a wonderful job for India in ruthlessly bringing the princes under the banner of the Dominion, his forceful views on centralisation and his approach to dissent might have brought about a far more similar situation to Pakistan than we give history credit for.

The second was the iron-tight discipline of Cariappa, who cannot be sufficiently praised, and who upheld democratic values through all his personal qualms about the direction things were taking. We are all aware about stories about his being tempted to take charge; we are all aware that this never came to pass, though it could easily have done so. He also brought in a self-discipline and restraint in the military which was missing in the Pakistani military.

The third was the rich crop of politicians whom we inherited from the independence struggle. India took its present shape sometime in 1956, with the linguistic division of the original bits and pieces we had inherited, and the princely states stapled on to these. The surprising thing is that each and every single Indian linguistic state developed a crop of second-rung leaders who ran their states with minimal interference from the centre. Pakistan lacked this deep sub-stratum of leadership.

The most important aspect, however, is that in India, we never had that fatal chain of events that Pakistan did: the Objectives Resolution; the introduction of Sharia law by Bhutto; and the vigorous implementation of this by Zia. Nor did we have the misfortune of the Soviets invading our neighbour, and of our getting inveigled into fighting them. All these events, one after the other, and the defeats at the hands of their neighbours, built a mental barrier against liberalism, and a climate hostile to liberalism. We have had nothing quite so extreme, and the BJP/ Sangh Parivar excesses cannot be compared to the events in Pakistan.

Who are they? The ones who have been successful enterprenuers, lawers, accountants, doctors, civil servants and defence personnel in the 'good old' 60s 70s 80s. Are we talking of the academicians and journalists or sports personalities or artists,musicians,singers.... ? Or The ones who have been born into landowning and industrialist families, raised in the plush neighbourhoods of Lhr, Khi or Isloo, done A-levels and currently studying in the US ? Are we The ones who have put to use their priviledged background by running NGOs and being involved in Phlianthropy.
I'm sory to say apart from the answer to the last question that I've put up I seem to have li'l respect for the rest. Let us start from the person who has been tagged as the martyr for the cause of Liberals in Pakistan. The Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer. His, politely put, 'point scoring' anecdotes over India have been well known.
Was the man Brave? Indeed! He was also the Governor of Punjab, lest we forget. A person at such senior position in Civil services is bound to be confident about his/her stand as far his/her personal security is concerned.
The cause he stood for was indeed noble and personally I feel sory that his life ended the way it did.

However, its indeed true that some of the most reputed 'liberal' from accross the border have disilliusioned us throuh their articles, anecdotes and personal example. Here , I would like to caution that a Liberal simply isnt the one who gets up with the negative 'publicity' being showered on his/her nation and writes a rosy article highlighting the pillars of strength in the nation or someone whose well educated and erudite but alls prey to painstaking narrow comparisons with the neighbouring country.

We must be careful before raising the 'liberal' section or the 'civil society' of our neighbouring country as a whole to an alter when many amongst them don't quite belong to that exalted state.

After all ZAB's upbringing and personal life is every bit Liberal if we keep the political considerations that made him ammend the constitution to declare Ahmedis heretics aside. However, the same gentleman also FIRST spoke of the 1000 yr War.

First, if you are expecting Pakistan to be a mirror image of India, that is an obvious fallacy. Their society, apart from that of Karachi, was different from our urban elite to start with. They grew differently; our license-holding trading and business communities grew to the top, their rural rich and existing urban trading segments grew to the top. Essentially, the composition of Indian and of Pakistani society have become different.

Second, the professional classes are generally those that generate liberals. Here, and there. Who they is already clear to those of us who watch both societies. In other words, you already know who the liberals are.

Third, liberals don't have to like India. You are making the mistake of transferring your resentment of someone who has been hostile to India, or twitted India about some failure, to the liberal class as a whole. Yasser, although we are friends, usually has something salty to say about India; not to the point where he hurt feelings but certainly robust. So what? They don't stop being liberals because you or I happen to dislike something they said. Liberalism <> Indian nationalism; the two have little in common. In fact, the more wild-eyed Indian nationalists are generally bigots and fascists, and very far from liberal. So?

Fourth, Salman Taseer is a case in point. Why resent him because he said what he said? Bringing his name into this discussion was unnecessary and not in the best of taste.

Fifth, Bhutto was anything but a liberal. To argue that he could have been a liberal, but instead turned out to be a ferocious authoritarian is a strange argument. That is like saying that a horse was born and raised on a farm and fed dainty things COULD have become a cow and given us hundreds of litres of milk. But it was a horse, so where is the question of the cow? Bhutto was a strong political animal and never a liberal, so why bring him in? Varun Gandhi was bred to be a liberal of the first water, but turns out to be a neo-fascist. So?

 

[nForce]

What does this statement mean?

Before 1947, we had British India, and all parts of British India were integral parts of India.

The provinces of Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP and part of the Punjab, and part of Bengal, went to Pakistan. All these provinces were integral parts of India.

Your statement puzzles me.




I hope you are not making the elementary mistake of thinking that the Two Nation Theory implied that there were two countries in existence side by side. The concept of 'Nation' and the concept of 'country' are quite different.

There were no two neighbouring countries that the British ruled. I am not sure what you are referring to.

I am also not sure what you are referring to by the British imposing one culture. They never imposed their culture anywhere.







I have not understood this passage at all.

Good to see you back here Joe.

@ topic
I will disagree to your statement that the British did not impose their culture upon us or anywhere.

It is quite evident from Macaulay's minute(2nd february,1835),where he advocates the use of English as a medium of education over Oriental languages.

I will highlight point 10 and 11 for you.

10. I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.

11.It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.

Macaulay's Minute

Of course,we can argue,if the British propagated their culture then we accepted it with open hands,be it education,be it attires,be it etiquette but then the British imposed it nonetheless.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Good to see you back here Joe.

@ topic
I will disagree to your statement that the British did not impose their culture upon us or anywhere.

It is quite evident from Macaulay's minute(2nd february,1835),where he advocates the use of English as a medium of education over Oriental languages.

I will highlight point 10 and 11 for you.

10. I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.

11.It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.

Macaulay's Minute

Of course,we can argue,if the British propagated their culture then we accepted it with open hands,be it education,be it attires,be it etiquette but then the British imposed it nonetheless.

I am grateful that you raised the topic.

It is precisely because Macaulay's reforms were initiated but not completed, because huge sections of the Indian/south Asian population were excluded from this reformed educational system, which was left limited to the sons and daughters of the elite, that we face such turbulence today. Not too much Macaulay, but too little; either we should have pushed home the reforms to the bitter end, or never embarked on it at all.

It is because the bulk of the 'new' middle classes have been trained (not educated) in capitation fee institutions to practise dentistry, medicine and engineering, that we have such a huge horde of well-to-do young and middle-aged people with little or no background in humanities, but with money to burn. These capitation fee institutions were NOT part of the Macaulayite reforms, it should be noted. Only a handful of colleges and institutions of earlier years in these technical disciplines were part of that older tradition.

This is the problem facing Pakistan, India and Bangladesh all alike; a thin film of Macaulayites on top (more or less), with much thicker layers below and parallel of non-Macaulayites. The result is all around us to see.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What does this statement mean?

Before 1947, we had British India, and all parts of British India were integral parts of India.

The provinces of Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP and part of the Punjab, and part of Bengal, went to Pakistan. All these provinces were integral parts of India.

Your statement puzzles me.

I believe the differences over 'part of India' arise out of a sense of conflation between the Nation-State of Modern India (post 1947) and 'British India' (pre-1947).

British India was an amalgamation of provinces, Princely States, Kingdoms and territories, united by the British into a single administrative entity through various means - it was not a 'nation-state' in the sense that India and Pakistan (post 1947) are.

 

[regular]

Pakistan Army shold be Islamic in all respects cuz Pakistan is formed on the basis/fundamentals/Ideology of Islam.
A country where everybody can practice Islam freely , without any restrictions.

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

Pakistan is a dream of Allama Iqbal/Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and our forefathers.

 

[anoop]

We also need to remember that there had been efforts made earlier, both during the system of dyarchy initiated in 1919 and the Government of India Act 1935, but nothing seemed to work. Jinnah was looking for a solution, and his solution was the three homeland constitutional configuration that was discussed with the Cabinet Mission. It was a complex plan, but Jinnah had few alternatives. The British were visibly impatient, their own social revolution, the Labour Party landslide that had brought Attlee to power, urged them to return and dwell on their own affairs, the military was developing cracks in its loyalty, and the Congress was opposed to anything that he proposed and fought him tooth and nail.

It seems that Jinnah pitched his demand as high as he could make them, but was more than willing to come to a reasonable settlement. When the betrayal of July 46 took place, however, he cut his losses and concentrated on securing an independent Pakistan.

hi joe sheare sir , although i regulary visit pk but i rarely make any post . i was reading though your post in thread "Is Pakistan's Army As Islamist as We Think?" here is link Is Pakistan's Army As Islamist as We Think?

can u provide more information regarding " three homeland constitutional configuration and its alternative "

i would like to read it . please provide me with appropriate text/link . just pm or

thanks in advance
anoop

 

[Joe Shearer]

hi joe sheare sir , although i regulary visit pk but i rarely make any post . i was reading though your post in thread "Is Pakistan's Army As Islamist as We Think?" here is link Is Pakistan's Army As Islamist as We Think?

can u provide more information regarding " three homeland constitutional configuration and its alternative "

i would like to read it . please provide me with appropriate text/link . just pm or

thanks in advance
anoop

Dear Anoop,

The best resource is the archived back issues of Pak Tea House. Look for a discussion on Jinnah - there were many such between 2009 and till about 6 months ago, when the site was over-run by Hindutvavadi vermin - and look for participants including YLH (Yasser Latif Hamdani), Bloody Civilian, D_a_n, PMA, Raza Habib Raja on the Pakistani side; Hayyar, Gorki (or Gorky), Luq, Majumdar, bonobashi (or Vajra - same person) on the Indian side.

Otherwise, if you remind me 24 hours later, I'll point you at wikipedia sources, blander and not as informative.

Regards,

 

[Joe Shearer]

I believe the differences over 'part of India' arise out of a sense of conflation between the Nation-State of Modern India (post 1947) and 'British India' (pre-1947).

British India was an amalgamation of provinces, Princely States, Kingdoms and territories, united by the British into a single administrative entity through various means - it was not a 'nation-state' in the sense that India and Pakistan (post 1947) are.

What you point out is a possibility; thanks very much.

However, the original post was about two states that the British ruled side by side. It seemed too explicit for a mistake of conflation.

Coming to your comment, it is a practical statement, but is not technically correct.

Constitutionally, British India was the Crown Colony; it consisted of provinces ruled directly. The other sections, the princely states, were NOT part of British India; they were subsidiary states, linked to Great Britain direct as sovereign powers to suzerain, a relationship which ceased abruptly as first Pakistan and then the successor India.

 

[Pfpilot]

if its the people fault then why have government in the first place. are we not electing the people who form the government and is it then supposed to change the lot of the under-priveleged through jobs, education, awareness programs, rule of law etc.

there are many private organisations like CFS (Citizens Foundation), SOS (Save our Souls), Edhi Foundation and many more who are filling the gap left by our government's ineptitude.

The problem with the government is, that we elect them. If our thinking and society are flawed, then so will the government. And as much as we like to believe otherwise, the Nawaz Sharifs and Zardaris and Altaf Hussains all come from among us...privileged, yes, but still, from among us.
Our government will never be more than a mere magnification of our grass roots level corruption and cultural confusion, until Pakistanis, as a whole, make a decision of what direction we want our nation to take...at which point, we will be in a position to pick the right government, formed by the right people. The concept of liberalism and freedom can never become a hall mark of our nation, if the idea has never taken root at all.
These private organizations you speak of, provide us that light at the end of the tunnel, reminding us, that Pakistanis are capable of selfless, organized, and efficient organizations...essentially what we want our government to be. Unfortunately for us, they are the dreams of a few men, who chose to do something about a decaying society. For the government to resemble such organizations, it requires all of Pakistan to dream for the same nation, one where religious freedom, liberalism, and law and order go hand in hand.

 

[Edevelop]

i'm recommending everyone to NOT read history books written by Indian or Pakistani authors as they more often become biased. Go and do research on your own. read documents/articles before the formation of the 2 countries----- this will be more interesting.

 

[Joe Shearer]

i'm recommending everyone to NOT read history books written by Indian or Pakistani authors as they more often become biased. Go and do research on your own. read documents/articles before the formation of the 2 countries----- this will be more interesting.

Not a good idea.

But feel free - who am I to stop anyone?

 

[Omar1984]

This is not anything new for us Pakistanis. You can just compare Pakistan before Musharraf's rule to Pakistan during Musharaff's rule. Before, Ptv news anchors used to cover their hair when reading news now they wear western clothes and never cover their hair. Before we had only 3 channels in Pakistan, now we have close to a hundred channels many are available around the globe, some channels are nothing close to being Islamic.

Musharraf wanted Pakistan to be a secular country like Turkey but he failed miserably the society today in Pakistan is at two extremes----liberal extremism and conservative extremism.

However some army people are not like Musharraf. Pakistan was the best under General Zia-ul-Haq. Most Pakistanis were moderates during his time. The 80's were the best decade in Pakistan.

 

[k_n]

I am grateful that you raised the topic.

It is precisely because Macaulay's reforms were initiated but not completed, because huge sections of the Indian/south Asian population were excluded from this reformed educational system, which was left limited to the sons and daughters of the elite, that we face such turbulence today. Not too much Macaulay, but too little; either we should have pushed home the reforms to the bitter end, or never embarked on it at all.

It is because the bulk of the 'new' middle classes have been trained (not educated) in capitation fee institutions to practise dentistry, medicine and engineering, that we have such a huge horde of well-to-do young and middle-aged people with little or no background in humanities, but with money to burn. These capitation fee institutions were NOT part of the Macaulayite reforms, it should be noted. Only a handful of colleges and institutions of earlier years in these technical disciplines were part of that older tradition.

This is the problem facing Pakistan, India and Bangladesh all alike; a thin film of Macaulayites on top (more or less), with much thicker layers below and parallel of non-Macaulayites. The result is all around us to see.

Sir,
Is it indeed correct and worthy to look at oneself and one's country, its history, the multitude of ethnicities and culture through the eyes of an Empire builder? The British empire. Its advocate sybolizing the ascendant 19th century European mind that has shaped institutions leading to the building of modern nation states and gave liberty, rule of law,rights of citizens and above all the atmosphere for reason and not dogma to decide the course of actions of every individual. The narrarive sounds good enough until we remind ourselves that the same astute European mind of those times failed when it came to see beyond its own reading and version of the orient/east.

Eighteenth and Nineteenth century Europe was flourishing, the Indian sub-continent was decaying. Is it necessary to reduce our reading and understanding of the sub-continent to the narrative of the times when the society and polity of the sub-continent were in a state of decline ?

When I look back, I realize Macaulay was preparing the groundwork for providing clerks for the governing of the territories that have been brought under the rule of the Company. The class of lower, middle and higher civil servants that emerged after benifitted from the introduction of 'Western' education had some great men in its ranks who offered a counter narrative to the Macaulyite view and the ones who rejected anything "Indian' per say, worth considering in the way they led their lives and viewed the world. I had assumed that since Bengal Renaissance in general, our understanding of Ourselves has shaped itself in a more proper way where we look at ourselves from the eyes of an observer first and not as a prejudiced critic.

In my opinion, what has been carried forward since those times is the same prejudice which the British showed or the ones in power before them had shown towards the 'Natives', the ordinary wo/man.

However, I believe with certainty that the whole purpose of Macaulay's reforms were aimed at creating a class of 'Trained' civil cervants and neither enlightened Indians capable of looking back at their history and interpretting it themselves nor zealout modernists with a burning desire to bring change in their societies. The real purpose of education could have been solved by introducing Indians to Western ideas and social sciences in Vernaculars as well but the Company wanted employees.