Pakistan: The ‘birth’ of a problem

[vsdoc]

AM if the idea was only to have a nation carved out with muslims in majority, why then the need to impose Islam as the state religion ..... why not a secular country like India ..... with the demographics reversed? Is there an insecurity angle there also or are we now entering religious territory?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Halaku Khan]

I am not sure where you disagree with me then?

As I said, there was no Indian nation, state or collective national identity (Shared by the people of the region) until the formation of the two states of India and Pakistan in 1947.


I see that as a regional identity, imposed by outsiders.

What some Pakistanis don't see is the 5000 year old civilizational identity, which continues to this day. Many Indian Muslims, too are happy to identify with it.

It's just like Athens, Sparta and Troy. Independent states, but part of the Greek civilization. Now Troy is in Turkey, and the descendents of the original Trojans may be Muslims and speak Turkish. But that doesn't mean you can say that Troy was a Turkish city. It was Greek.

Similarly, it could be that Ajmal Kasab is a direct descendent of Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian. But Panini remains part of the larger Indian civilization.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM if the idea was only to have a nation carved out with muslims in majority, why then the need to impose Islam as the state religion ..... why not a secular country like India ..... with the demographics reversed? Is there an insecurity angle there also or are we now entering religious territory?

Cheers, Doc

I believe Jinnah wanted, for all intents and purposes, a secular country that would take into account the moral sensitivities of Muslims, but one that would still have a Muslim identity.

However, it is the people and the elected leadership that must decide the form of their nation going forward, and it appears that other than Jinnah the Pakistani leadership was in favor of a stronger role for religion in the State.

That said, Pakistan has been pulled in competing directions by its elected and non-elected leadership. Ayub and Yahya, the former especially, were very strongly in favor or keeping religion out of the state.

In fact, an immensely popular elected politician, ZA Bhutto, initiated some of the more discriminatory religious policies in Pakistan (branding Ahmadis as non-Muslims to gain support from the religious right etc.), followed by the even more religious non-elected Zia, who really pulled the country towards the right.

Today I would say that a large majority of Pakistanis would choose a moderate Islamic state over a secular one, but in that Islamic state they would still want equality and freedom for all, within the moral confines defined by our culture and religion (i.e probably not in favor of open pornography, bikinis etc.).

It is what the people want today, IMO, and that may change in future generations, and so may the country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What some Pakistanis don't see is the 5000 year old civilizational identity, which continues to this day. Many Indian Muslims, too are happy to identify with it.

Oh we do see ourselves as being descendants of the ancient IVC, but the IVC did not extend across all of India, nor does the IVC exist today.

This issue has been discussed to death in the history section.

 

[vsdoc]

Fair enough .... a very balanced view. But my point was, did pakistan not become an Islamic Republic on 14 Aug 1947, or was it somewhere down the line as you are saying?

Cheers, Doc

 

[humblehobbes]

I am not sure where you disagree with me then?

As I said, there was no Indian nation, state or collective national identity (Shared by the people of the region) until the formation of the two states of India and Pakistan in 1947.

We both look at the same thing with different perception. I had pointed out that nationalism was a new concept and that there was no state of India(or for that matter most other countries) for almost thousand years. But this cant be taken as an excuse to justify the carving out a new nation out of an existing regional bloc. And its not any region. Its a region whose inhabitants had identified wholehearted identified themselves as Indians and were striving to forge a nation free of Colonial yoke. The freedom struggle mostly was directed towards creating a free India or Free nation out of the entire colony. Your nation's father and my nation's founders fought for a cause that demanded British exit from the Kashmir to KanyaKumari and from Baloch to Bangladesh. There was never a narrow agenda for independence of regions from Baloch to Lahore and for East Bengal. and the Srilankan region was not included in the same struggle for freedom! Srilankans could have easily identified themselves as Indians going by your argument of an identity forged by outsiders. But that did not happen, which clearly shows where your argument falls short.

I see that as a regional identity, imposed by outsiders. I do agree that before the idea of Pakistan, there were attempts to coalesce the myriad people into a nation by the political elite and intellectuals in South Asia, and there was movement towards the idea of a 'single nation', but it never quite got to fruition, with a competing 'Muslim nationalism' (which I would argue also existed at the time amongst some Muslims and Muslim intellectuals because of the history of Muslim rule) rising up and cementing in the demand for Pakistan.

I don't see why the dismemberment of the Ottoman empire should not be looked at in the same way as the division of British India.

Why not? What is stopping you from doing the same?

Perhaps one reason it is not is because victors write history and to present the division of the Ottoman 'empire' as such, instead of as the division of a nation, is more favorable to the historical narrative of the victor. It is more palatable to talk of the division of a 'corrupt empire', instead of 'partition of a nation'.



Do point out where I have said that 'Indians and Hindus in general detest the presence of Muslims' - what I have said is that communal issues such as the one raised by the author are the fault of Indians, not Pakistan or the idea of Pakistan. And that the animosity or distrust towards Indian Muslims, to the extent that it exists (I have made no comment on the prevalence or degree of existence of such sentiment in India) is the fault of Indian Hindus, not Pakistan.

Similarly, any distrust and animosity towards Indian Hindus by Indian Muslims is an issue for Indian Muslims to consider, not blame Pakistan over.

I concur with your underlined text, But at the same time, Pakistanis if they feel that they have nothing to do with Indian Muslims, should keep quiet and not comment about Plight of Indian Muslims. If there is genuine concern, include the whole impoverished lot, as Pakistan also has hindus and sikhs.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But I do not agree to your view that only a small elite group wanted a united India, and I feel you saying so in a way is disrespectful of the efforts of our collective forefathers ...... not just in ousting the British, but in coexisting on the same land, side by side, for centuries.

Your doubts about the sentiments being noble versus simply religously motivated are also unnecessarily simplistic, blinkered, and dare I say, cynical. That said, neither of us was alive then, and our way of looking at things is of course influenced by what we have been taught at home and in school and later by the society we live in.

I put it to you that the idea of two nations did not go down well with a majority of Indians at the time ...... Hindus and nearly half of the Muslim population too. Also if it were only the elite who were pro-united-India, how then do you explain mainly the elite migrating to Pakistan? If it were only based on means, then they had much more at stake to lose, and for the poor, it made no difference either way, being poor in india or poor in pakistan.

I feel you need to give the huge multitude of an impoverished newly independent people more credit than that.

Cheers, Doc

Communities coexisted in the immediate - the city, town village. There was no sense of a 'regional nationalism' IMO. These were for the most part rural, illiterate folk more involved in eking out an existence than contemplating the idea of a nation formed from disparate parts of a region many possibly unheard of by them.

The idea of a United India was IMO formed and pushed by the political elite and activists (who did not have to be elite, just involved in the movement).

These people would have abhorred the idea of two nations for the reasons you mentioned, the rest, if they showed anything beyond indifference, would have done so for communal reasons.

But as you said, we were not alive then, and claims either way can be hard to verify.

 

[humblehobbes]

Oh we do see ourselves as being descendants of the ancient IVC, but the IVC did not extend across all of India, nor does the IVC exist today.

This issue has been discussed to death in the history section.

Oh please.. Then I dont see why You have to name the missiles as Babur who was an Afghan who had conquered your original homeland. Why not show your pride with a missile named as Porus or Purushotham to show your identity with the Brave king who fingered Alexander's army.

But as you said, lets have this in the concerned thread.

 

[afriend]

No need to change the word - clarification of the context in its usage is enough and appreciated.

I would argue though whether the 'abhorrence', in the sense that it was abhorrence to the idea of a separate nation being formed, existed very far beyond the intellectuals and political activists that were pro-United India.

I think beyond that extremely small group, the sentiment on display was nothing so noble as 'nationalism', but simple communal tension and hatred. It was directed at Pakistan and the idea of Pakistan because Pakistan represented on community.

Yes i understand,

The demolition of babri masjid, godhra riots might not have nothing to do with the concept of Pakistan. But i believe what the author was trying to put up was the premises and some historic reaons for the current thought process of an Extremist Hindu. The partion on the religious terms have actually fueled it and there is no denying that, even if it might not be the Only and the sole reason for the communal hatred. It can be because he wants all of india to hindus, it can be because he might consider hindus as superior, it might also be because he finds muslims have divded this land for their own benifit.

 

[vsdoc]

Communities coexisted in the immediate - the city, town village. There was no sense of a 'regional nationalism' IMO. These were for the most part rural, illiterate folk more involved in eking out an existence than contemplating the idea of a nation formed from disparate parts of a region many possibly unheard of by them.

Again, you are taking somewhat of an urban intellectual elitist view of the freedom struggle. The entire nation (I will say nation .... you may similarly choose to call it land or region) had been awoken in the crucible of the movement by freedom fighters and the non-violent non-cooperation Quit India movement. The galvanizing of public sentiment was as important in those days as it is today, and the entire strategy depended on the movement moving throughout the grass roots of the country. If it had been only limited to small urban pockets, please do not kid yourself that you or I would have been free men in our own countries today.

I must sign off and go home now .... will continue if you wish tomorrow.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TaimiKhan]

There was no concept of Pakistan till 1937, till that time Muslim League & Jinnah were working for a United Independent India from the British Raj.

But the 1937 election won by the Indian Congress & its subsequent anti-muslim policies of Indian Congress Govt 1937-40 led Muslims to think about an Independent state as they had seen the preview of the future to come if they stayed united with the Hindus.

So if at that time there was no Pakistan or any talk of Pakistan, why were Muslims in India subject to the bitter anti-Muslim policies of Hindu dominated Congress Govt ??

Muslims League at that time had won only around 106 or so seats and Congress 700+ seats, meaning Muslim League was of no significance.

Then how come the tide changed after this Indian Congress govt rule & Muslims started to chant a separate home land & in the next elections Muslim League had a major win ?

Looking at history, Muslims would have been humiliated in India even if we had not opted for a separate homeland. That is a fact.

Indians can't know this piece of history, because the one who will write such a piece of history will get the same treatment as Jaswant Singh got, for telling the truth, that Muslims wanted one homeland but it was the Congress leaders who made Muslims go for a separate homeland.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" The Congress proved to be a pure Hindu party and worked during its reign only for the betterment of the Hindus. Twenty-seven months of the Congress rule were like a nightmare for the Muslims of South Asia. Some of the Congress leaders even stated that they would take revenge from the Muslims for the last 700 years of their slavery. Even before the formation of government, the Congress started a Muslim Mass Contact Movement, with the aim to convince Muslims that there were only two political parties in India, i.e. the British and the Congress. The aim was to decrease the importance of the Muslim League for the Muslims. After taking charge in July 1937, Congress declared Hindi as the national language and Deva Nagri as the official script. The Congress flag was given the status of national flag, slaughtering of cows was prohibited and it was made compulsory for the children to worship the picture of Gandhi at school. Band-i-Mataram, an anti-Muslim song taken from Bankim Chandra Chatterji's novel Ananda Math, was made the national anthem of the country. Religious intolerance was the order of the day. Muslims were not allowed to construct new mosques. Hindus would play drums in front of mosques when Muslims were praying.

The Congress government introduced a new educational policy in the provinces under their rule known as the Warda Taleemi Scheme. The main plan was to sway Muslim children against their ideology and to tell them that all the people living in India were Indian and thus belonged to one nation. In Bihar and C. P. the Vidya Mandar Scheme was introduced according to which Mandar education was made compulsory at elementary level. The purpose of the scheme was to obliterate the cultural traditions of the Muslims and to inculcate into the minds of Muslim children the superiority of the Hindu culture.

The Congress ministries did their best to weaken the economy of Muslims. They closed the doors of government offices for them, which was one of the main sources of income for the Muslims in the region. They also harmed Muslim trade and agriculture. When Hindu-Muslim riots broke out due to these biased policies of the Congress ministries, the government pressured the judges; decisions were made in favor of Hindus and Muslims were sent behind bars.

To investigate Muslim grievances, the Muslim League formulated the "Pirpur Report" under the chairmanship of Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur. Other reports concerning Muslim grievances in Congress run provinces were A. K. Fazl-ul-Haq's "Muslim Sufferings Under Congress Rule", and "The Sharif Report".

The allegation that Congress was representing Hindus only was voiced also by eminent British personalities. The Marquees of Lothian in April 1938 termed the Congress rule as a "rising tide of Hindu rule". Sir William Barton writing in the "National Review" in June 1939 also termed the Congress rule as "the rising tide of political Hinduism".

At the outbreak of the World War II, the Viceroy proclaimed India's involvement without prior consultations with the main political parties. When Congress demanded an immediate transfer of power in return for cooperation of the war efforts, the British government refused. As a result Congress resigned from power. Quaid-i-Azam asked the Muslims to celebrate December 22, 1939 as a day of deliverance and thanksgiving in token of relief from the tyranny and oppression of the Congress rule. "

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh please.. Then I dont see why You have to name the missiles as Babur who was an Afghan who had conquered your original homeland. Why not show your pride with a missile named as Porus or Purushotham to show your identity with the Brave king who fingered Alexander's army.

But as you said, lets have this in the concerned thread.

Why do you have issues with what we name and why? Next you'll be complaining about why X number of names are Islamic and Y number of names are non-Islamic which indicates a preference for X over Y or vice versa.

The people of Pakistan currently identify with their current faith, Islam, hence the larger usage of historical Muslim names.

But anyway, this too has been discussed to death elsewhere.

 

[humblehobbes]

^^^ you missed my previous post I think!

 

[Halaku Khan]

Oh we do see ourselves as being descendants of the ancient IVC, but the IVC did not extend across all of India, nor does the IVC exist today.

This issue has been discussed to death in the history section.

The entire human race is said to descend from Africans. But the issue is more one of civilizational connectivity and continuity.

But yes, perhaps this belongs to another thread - so will leave it at that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We both look at the same thing with different perception. I had pointed out that nationalism was a new concept and that there was no state of India(or for that matter most other countries) for almost thousand years. But this cant be taken as an excuse to justify the carving out a new nation out of an existing regional bloc. And its not any region. Its a region whose inhabitants had identified wholehearted identified themselves as Indians and were striving to forge a nation free of Colonial yoke. The freedom struggle mostly was directed towards creating a free India or Free nation out of the entire colony. Your nation's father and my nation's founders fought for a cause that demanded British exit from the Kashmir to KanyaKumari and from Baloch to Bangladesh. There was never a narrow agenda for independence of regions from Baloch to Lahore and for East Bengal. and the Srilankan region was not included in the same struggle for freedom! Srilankans could have easily identified themselves as Indians going by your argument of an identity forged by outsiders. But that did not happen, which clearly shows where your argument falls short.

Since no nation or state existed, why should the people of a region not organize themselves into two, three or more nations?

You argue that it was a region where 'wholehearted identified themselves as Indians and were striving to forge a nation free of Colonial yoke'. I agree on the latter part, that there was some sense of unity in fighting off British occupation, but when it came down to the nitty gritty of actually forming a modern nation-state, that sense of 'Indianhood' was not strong enough to counter the competing nationalism of a separate Muslim nation. And there was no 'narrow agenda of independence' amongst the smaller States because the region was caught up primarily in the two main competing ideologies - one of a United Indian nation-state out of all the disparate ethnicities, cultures and States in the region, and the other of two nation-states, with both coming achieving consensus around the demand for independence from the British.

Why not? What is stopping you from doing the same?

When did I say it was stopping me? I agree, the division of the Ottoman empire, comprised of different nations and people was similar to the division of the British Colony of India, also comprised of different nations and people - though obviously the methodology used was different.

I concur with your underlined text, But at the same time, Pakistanis if they feel that they have nothing to do with Indian Muslims, should keep quiet and not comment about Plight of Indian Muslims. If there is genuine concern, include the whole impoverished lot, as Pakistan also has hindus and sikhs.

In this thread, it is an Indian author who is dragging in Pakistan, and within the context of this thread it would behoove Indians to criticize this author and others like him who refuse to introspect and cast blame where it should be, upon Indians and India, for communal and social ills, and instead scapegoat Pakistan and the ideology of Pakistan for those ills.