Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Spurning Non-Muslim Pakistanis, Celebrating Muslim Non-Pakistanis
Spurning Non-Muslim Pakistanis, Celebrating Muslim Non-Pakistanis
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Raza Rumi, who is probably the most balanced Pakistani commentator out there, recently made a startling statement which surprised me greatly. The statement made, as obiter dicta, suggested that Maulana Azad is spurned in Pakistan because he might have thought that Muslim identity would be better protected in United India. It is startling because it is untrue. Every Sunni non-muqalid and Deobandi scholar invariably carries Maulana Azad’s Tafsir of the Quran. Of all the Congress leaders, he is the only one who is spared and is even championed. Same is the case with Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni of Darul-uloom Deoband- another opponent of Jinnah and supporter of the so-called “composite nationalism”. Many Mullahs in Pakistan continue to take their lead from him and many of them place him above Jinnah, our secular founding father.
Infact this is what lies at the root of all our problems with religion and national identity. Pakistan has a remarkable track record of celebrating Muslims, even if they disagreed with the creation of Pakistan or abused the founding father of Pakistan, and spurning Non-muslims even if they spent their lives in service of Pakistan. Maulana Maududi, Mufti Mahmood, Maulana Azad, Bacha Khan, Dr. Khan Sahib and others are not spurned in Pakistan for their opposition to Jinnah and the League but are celebrated in Pakistan. The result is that Maududi’s party, Jamaat-e-Islami, has become the national guardian of Pakistani ideology despite having opposed the Pakistan Movement. Mufti Mahmood’s son proudly calls himself the Father of the Taliban for having spawned them in cahoots with the Pakistani establishment and is their apologist. Maulana Azad continues to inspire retrogressive scholars like Dr. Israr and the Khan Brothers’ progeny have controlled Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province and have been the beneficiaries of Islamist Zia’s coup against ZAB’s government in 1977. Far from being spurned, these gentlemen were celebrated by the state in one form or the other, with Zia himself attending Bacha Khan’s funeral in 1988. Infact Islamist Zia had gone out of his way to give Presidential honors to Bacha Khan’s son Ghani Khan who abused Jinnah in his book. Others like Josh Maleehabadi were given state land and pension after being brought to Pakistan with bribes. Pakistans record in celebrating Muslims who are decidedly anti-Pakistan is second to none.
Now let us compare this to the plight of those unfortunate Non-Muslims and forced to be Non-Muslims who have given their all to this country. Jogindranath Mandal was once such figure. He had been chosen by Jinnah to represent Muslims of India in the interim cabinet of India and after the creation of Pakistan, he became the first law minister of Pakistan. By 1953 we had run him out of the country. If there is any “Azad” spurned by Pakistan, it is Jagganath Azad who no one remembers is the author of Pakistan’s first national anthem commissioned by Jinnah himself.
Under the constitution of 1973, no Pakistani Non-Muslim can become the president of the nation state. Meanwhile an Indian Muslim who has been a critic of Pakistan through out his life, can move to Pakistan, fulfill all the requirements of citizenship and then contest presidential elections. Splendid Christian officers in the PAF and the Pakistan Army are not allowed – after the 1980s- to go beyond a certain rank. Islamic ideology sections forms part of the ACR since Zia’s time for all civil and military government servants.
And then there are those patriots of Pakistan who consider themselves Muslims but are considered Non-Muslims by the state and therefore spurned. There hasn’t been a finer patriot to this state than Ch. Zafrula Khan, who not only drafted the Lahore resolution but was Paksitan’s advocate to the Boundary commission appointed by Jinnah himself. He also was Pakistan’s foreign minister and diplomat par excellence and without him Pakistan would have no case in Kashmir. He is forgotten in national memory. He has been spurned in Pakistan not Maulana Azad. The other patriot that comes to mind is Dr. Abdus Salam, Pakistan’s only nobel prize winner, who despite his state’s discrimination against his community described himself a proud Pakistani national at the Nobel Prize ceremony. Yet the state has spurned him again and again.
So I am not sure why Raza bhai would think that Pakistan has spurned Maulana Azad for believing that a United India would be better for Muslim identity and why that would be a problem. Pakistan has a enviable record of celebrating all crooks, cranks, mullahs, madmen (provided they are Muslim) who abused Jinnah, our founding father, and spurning those who remained steadfast to Jinnah’s ideals (especially if they are Non-Muslim).
An Indian friend recently wrote a hilarious email which should be quoted:
Well, I guess if you were making Jinnah in 2009, it would go like this.
There is a blast in a mosque in NWFP.
Gandhi says: Look what is happening in the country you created
Jinnah: Yeah, but these are your followers, not mine.
Nehru smirks and says: And I brought about the Partition so that most of Gandhiji’s followers would end up in Pakistan.
Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: Azad, Dr. Khan Sahib, Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, Ghani Khan, Islam, Jagganath Azad, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat-e-ulema Hind, Jinnah, Jogindranath Mandal, Josh Maleehabadi, Maududi, Maulana Azad, Maulana Fazlur rahman, minorities, Mufti Mahmood, nation state, Nehru, Non-Muslims, Pakistani establishment, Partition, Raza Rumi, secularism, Taliban, United India
20 Responses to "Spurning Non-Muslim Pakistanis, Celebrating Muslim Non-Pakistanis"
Leave a Reply
PTH biweekly Cartoon
Picture of the Week
-
Sunrise at the Arabian Sea, Charna Island
24 Dec 2011
(4 Comments)
Recent Comments
- Fingolfin
said @raza
again brilliant article!
i think that in a... - roamin
said Pakistanis need a bogey man. Hatred for Amrikis, J... - Babar Baig
said Can anyone please share the these books.
1) Mus... - Fingolfin said to observ
to term the bangladeshi's interpretatio...
- AKB said @ Bin Ismail
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[“The Light...
- AKB said @ Sachbol
BABY, DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER...
- AKB said @ rex minor
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[Any one with a com...
- AKB said The Mirzai's suffer from Bad Guilt!!
.
Good Guil...
- Syed said @Raj Too
Thank you very much indeed for the kin...
- Sachbol
said Kalchakra .
Good one , Did you notice how he inse...
PTH on facebook
YLH, I haven’t read Rumi’s article so I can’t really comment on that. The problem with Pakistan was that the idea of Pakistan was not convincing enough for many Indian – politically sharp-Muslims. The concept of Pakistan was not a mature political idea at that time. The leadership itself was not convinced that, that is something they really wanted. Indian Muslims that were part of the Indian independence movement had developed certain ideas for the independence of India and when the idea of Pakistan or rather a Muslim homeland was promoted in India, many IM found that contrary to their political beliefs.
Azad and many that you mentioned were part of that group. They were looking for a deal within India after the independence. Jinnah presented an entirely different deal and went about that aggressively. That sidelined leaders like Azad. They did have a point about getting a better deal in India by staying united and using their collective bargaining power for the betterment of Muslims. Jinnah and some of his friends believed that the collective bargaining power should be used before the British leave India and not after that. Jinnah collected leaders from smaller provinces, was joined by second or even third ranking Muslim leaders of the Central India Provinces. Just compare who was with Jinnah in Bengal or Sindh or Punjab. They were top ranking Muslim leaders but in UP, Bihar, the Muslim league leadership mostly consisted of people that were either washed out or were outright communalists. The Unfortunate part was that after the partition, the intellectually bankrupt or the communalists from central Indian got hold of the power and the rest is history.
So even though many that you mentioned opposed Pakistan, they were not dishonest people. They had certain ideas and I would say politically correct ideas in conventional political sense but were defeated by a radical political approach that Jinnah took.
History has proven Jinnah was right intellectually but the united front he created to gain momentum for his idea and later for battles with Congress and British was shallow. His reliance on the central India Muslim was disastrous. He ended up getting a great deal for the Muslims majority Provinces but allowed the leaders from the Muslim Minorities provinces to control the leadership of the majority Provinces. This leadership seeped in communalism, historically had political association with the most regressive section of the Muslim population in central provinces– the Mullah, reverted back to mullah for generating political support. If you look at the Khilafat Movement you will see that this was a movement by the Muslims of the Central provinces, led by the mullah to restore the Khalifat. Remember that movement allowed Muslims to get back in the Indian politics after abandoning it around 1857. That movement was basically a turning point in India after the British conquest. That movement allowed Gandhi to take a central stage, established some mullahs as the leaders of Muslims, and sidelined moderate, liberal, and progressive Muslim leaders like Jinnah. That movement happened just 3 decades before the independence and the control over the central Indian Muslims the mullah gained after that movement had an enormous impact on Pakistan after the independence.
In India, the Indian Congress still uses that formula and only encourages the mullah to remain the leader of Muslims. Congress’s policies in India are a continuation of the British policies and system of governance. Calling that democracy is just plain ridiculeous.
Apologize for a long post.
Hossp
A fascinating analysis not because I agree with it but because your perception of the situation actually elaborates the real issue of Pakistan – the divide between the indigenous and the migrant.
I disagree with your characterization of the UP and Bihar leaders as either washed out or communal or the impact post 1947. The UP leaders included people like Muhammad Ismail, Hasrat Mohani, Khaliquzzaman… all of whom were freedom fighters in their own right and could not be considered washed out communalists per se. Even Liaqat Ali Khan was not the sort that would fit in nicely in this category. Ofcourse none of these were of the calibre of Jinnah … who logically should have been in the Congress or not have been Muslim… I feel the Gujurati Agha Khani community was integrated much better in the Indian montage .. and that is why Jinnah really was part of that ever elusive secular Indian bourgeoisie and not Muslim Aligarh strain or the Hindu equivalent.
Meanwhile those people who came on board in Muslim majority provinces … well their integrity was less than unquestionable. They consisted of ex-unionists for example… and were generally pro-British loyalists. Similarly I think the Khuhros for example are not the finest example of Sindhi politics.
My thesis of what happened post 1947 is the opposite of yours… I think very soon after independence the feudals in Punjab overthrew the very weak quasi-feudal- quasi-salariat/petty bourgeoisie leadership which was entirely out of India and not Pakistan. They did so in cahoots with the Civil bureaucracy …. which no doubt was mostly extracted from India and not Pakistan. But more or less the situation was that it was the indigenous people who were politically less mature, less developed and more accustomed to DC rule than the Salariat of India.
Pakistan’s story has been one of reversal for those people… the reason why Zardari can impose 10 rupee Petroleum Development Tax is because he is from the feudal class which in turn is the product of British design. This is the reason why ZAB didn’t really touch the feudals but destroyed the national bourgeoisie almost entirely.
What is important however and the point I wish to make is we should refrain from going to Agra and Delhi all the time for intellectual inspiration. Like all nation states … Pakistan is a product of history and partly the work of influential figures in history. In so far as visions go, I feel that Jinnah’s prescription is the one that is the most palatable to the world as well as ourselves.
The cornerstone of our strategic vision for the future should be based on a rational calculation of national interest divorced from ideology or perceived myth of Islam or some exclusivist ideal as the founding principle of Pakistan… it should mean a more accurate estimate of our limitations as well as our regional realities… vis a vis India, China, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
The future is going to mean greater competition for resources, more of the great game and the great race for resources. Already the US has – despite its warming up symbolically to Pakistan- begun to see India as the great emerging power of the world… in a world that would ultimately be multi-polar.
Pakistan would not be able to match that … what Pakistan can do however is deal with its problem and bring about great internal cohesion by substituting our so called Islamic ideology with the ideology of equality, fraternity and justice for all citizens… this is what Jinnah had in mind. This cause is not served constantly obsessing over Delhi and Agra… the time has come to significantly re-model the nation state along the lines suggested above.
YLH, I have been thinking about this. And I’m very eager to get an answer from a secular Pakistani, which I believe you are.
What is the Idea of ‘Pakistan state’ in your mind? What I know from my limited knowledge is that the ‘Idea’ of ‘Pakistan’ is based on religion. And therefore it can not shun away the Islamic identity. Do you and people like you, want to see Pakistan as a secular state or a modern Islamic republic which accommodates other religions while retaining the Islamic identity.
Dear Milind,
For the history of the politics that led to the creation of Pakistan my suggestion is that you read either Ayesha Jalal’s “Sole Spokesman” or H M Seervai’s “Partition of India: Legend and Reality”. Needless to say I don’t concur that the idea of Pakistan necessarily is based on religious idealism… though the group nationalism that led to its creation was broadly based on Islam.
Your second question is very interesting… I personally feel a secular state is the only workable solution. Now as far as a Modern Islamic Republic which accomodates all religions… I would have no issues if this would be possible but this is impossible.
Pakistan was very much that flawed but modern Islamic Republic from 1956 to 1973… but incrimentally from 1973 onwards, it has become an exclusivist Islamic Republic which has become less accomodating to other religions and points of view and Zia all but buried religious freedom.
Honestly… my issue is not with the Islamic identity of Pakistan… but when I speak of a secular state, I mean equal rights for all citizens, inter alia the right to become the president of the republic, without any regard for their religion, caste, creed, gender, ethnic or any other origin… this should also mean that there is no imposition of any one religious law on anyone… and all application of personal and family law to be based on choice with an alternative of secular civil law for all… and no application of Islamic criminal law in so far as moral policing goes because that would violate individual freedoms.
If beyond this Pakistan wishes to retain an Islamic identity, celebrate Islamic holidays, call itself an Islamic republic, become a model of Islamic architecture and allow every opportunity to Muslims to live according to their religion voluntarily, I have no issues at all with such a republic. But paragraph above this one is sine qua non for such settlement.
BTW… you might interested that these fundamental points about civil liberties were also agreed upon by b0th India and Pakistan under the Nehru-Liaqat Pact of 1951.
Dear YLH, Thanks for the response.
Personally for me, Pakistan is an enigma. I have made many Pakistani friends in the US. And I just can not understand the paradox. These people are very open minded and liberal, contrary to the image of a typical Pakistani that has been portrayed by the media.
Of late the books coming out of Pakistan and websites like the ‘ PakTeaHouse’ and ‘Dawn’ help us to understand Pakistan better. Thanks for the book suggestions. Should make an interesting read.
Actually we Indians should not be surprised by these contradictions. So many of them exist in our own country. We are both modern and regressive at the same time. Even the so called secular parties like Congress have encouraged and used the worst fundamentalist forces. And in their effort to do the balancing act, they ended up encouraging the worst kind of fundamentalist elements. And we have seen a horrible spell in India. But the sanity prevailed and these forces got defeated.
The fact that India is an official Secular state and not a Hindu state helped. Had it been a Hindu state, the reversal would have been impossible. Hence I agree with your views. And it’s very true in case of South Asia because of the widespread poverty and lack of education. There are countries in world which are both religious and yet accommodating. However all of them also happen to be high/medium income countries like Turkey or Iran.
Current times are very interesting for Pakistan and looks like there is a clear divide emerging between the fundamentalist and secular forces. But Mr.Zardari doesn’t inspire much confidence. Leadership looks like the biggest problem at the moment. Hope that he does not lose his marbles.
BTW.. just read ‘A Case of Exploding Mangoes’. Very interesting read. Looking forward to more gems from Pakistani authors.
Yasser Pai,
Jogindranath Mandal was once such figure. he became the first law minister of Pakistan. By 1953 we had run him out of the country.
That was a sensible thing to do on the Pak leadership’s part. A man who was a traitor to his own qaum could never be expected to be loyal to another one’s.
Pakistan has a enviable record of spurning those who remained steadfast to Jinnah’s ideals (especially if they are Non-Muslim).
Well, the point is how Pakistanis define themselves. If they define Pakistan as a conventional nation state then of course your gripe is justified. But if Pak is to be defined as a “citadel of Islam” as it is by many (majority???) of Pakistanis then of course this is a sensible course of action. Mirza Zafarullah Khan, JNM, Singha et al may have contributed to the creation of Pakistan but once the primary objective was obtained there was no need to hero worship them (from this POV), being non-Muslims.
Regards
Regards
A weakened Pakistan is often the best guarantor of peace
Consumed as we are with the hurly-burly of the General Election, we may have lost sight of an important development in our neighbourhood. As the Pakistan government tries to persuade the Taliban to retreat from its latest encampment a mere 100 kilometers away from Islamabad, the world – and Washington, in particular – has finally come around to the view that Pakistan is on the brink of becoming the next Afghanistan.
As the steady slide into Talibanisation continues, it is also clear that we are at a watershed moment in our policy towards Pakistan. We need to decide, once and for all, how we are going to treat our north-western neighbour.
There have been two broad strands in India’s attitude to Pakistan. The first is the view of much of the media, many liberals, and a large chunk of the political establishment.
This view has as its basis the proposition: “A strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests.”
And how does India help bring this about? Well, according to proponents of this view, we must extend support to the democratic process in Pakistan and help civilian governments. We should encourage people to people contacts and abandon the Pakistan-is-an-enemy rhetoric. We must recognize that Indians and Pakistanis are really the same people, divided by unscrupulous politicians.
The contrary view is the position of the army, the intelligence establishment and many security analysts. This view states that a strong and stable Pakistan is not necessarily in India’s best interests. A weakened Pakistan is often the best guarantor of peace. For instance, after the 1971 defeat, when Bangladesh broke away, Pakistan did India no harm for nearly two decades.
According to this view, we should never let our guard down, put no faith in the so-called brotherliness of the Pakistani masses, distrust every civilian politician and recognize that the Pakistan army’s raison d’etre is the alleged threat from India.
Proponents of this view say that the only language the Pakistani establishment understands is strength and the best way to check the threat posed by Pakistan is by running clandestine operation inside that country and financing such local trouble-makers as the Baluchis and the MQM.
Of the two views, the first one has held sway for many years. The security establishment is treated with scorn by many educated Indians and its hawkish views are dismissed with contempt. During his brief stint as Prime Minister, Inder Gujral even asked R&AW to roll up its clandestine networks within Pakistan, one reason why Indian intelligence now finds it so difficult to get accurate information out of that country.
But with the current situation in Pakistan threatening to spin out of control, this might be a good time to stop and think about our policy in the future.
My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed. Over the last several years, we have done everything we can to help Pakistan. We have hosted General Musharraf, we have offered talks on Kashmir, we have supported civilian politicians and welcomed Asif Zardari with open arms. We have tried out hardest to understand the mindset of civil society with a steady stream of Pakistani intellectuals arriving in India and each evening, our channels offer endless TV time to Pakistanis to tell us what their country’s position is.
Here’s what this policy has got us: General Musharraf is still blatantly hostile to India as his last rant at the India Today conclave demonstrated. Asif Zardari has refused to help in the investigation of the Bombay attacks. Terrorists continue to be sent across the border to foment trouble in India. Far from following a liberal policy, the new civilian government has done deals with the Taliban and imposed the medieval Sharia law on parts of Pakistan.
All opinion polls suggest that the average Pakistani hates India, loves Osama Bin Laden and believes that 9/11 was a Jewish plot to malign global Islam. Worse still, the evidence suggests that if you push the Pakistani masses about their true identity they would pick Muslim over Pakistani.
Do you have to be a genius to see that the good neighbour policy has been an utter and complete disaster?
Is it not time to concede that General Musharraf’s attitude is symptomatic of the view of the Pakistan army: India is the enemy and must always be fought? Shouldn’t we accept that Pakistan’s civilian politicians are such untrustworthy sleazeballs that they make Mayawati shine like a goddess in comparison? Even if a crook like Zardari is sincere (which I doubt; his ultimate loyalty is to Credit Suisse) he simply does not have the clout to deliver on the kind of peace and love nonsense that he gushed at the HT Summit.
More worrying is that Pakistan’s civil society seems to have only the most minimal commitment to the liberal values that we in India enshrine in our Constitution. Even someone like Imran Khan, who improved his mind at Oxford and developed his loins on Sloane Street, turns into a reactionary when he addresses his own people, going so far as to praise Sharia law.
What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse. You and I can get up and say that Hindu fanatics are thugs and goons or even that Narendra Modi is a mass murderer. How many Pakistanis get up and say that about their own fanatics? We speak up for M.F. Husain’s right to paint Hindu goddesses in the nude. How many Pakistanis speak up for the Danish cartoonist?
As for people to people contacts, I am still in favour of letting Pakistanis come to India to see what a liberal society looks like. But I have given up all hope that it will make a difference to the general Pakistani mind-set. After all, if you are dealing with a country whose people have bought Al-Qaeda propaganda about how all terrorism is really an American and Israeli plot, a people who are content to live off the Yankee dollar while simultaneously hating the United States, and a people who venerate the suicide bombers that Bin Laden dispatches around the world, then do you really believe that they will suddenly see the light when they land in Bombay and discover that our three biggest stars are all Muslim?
It’s gone too far for people to people contacts to make much difference.
So, what do we do? I think we should accept that the intelligence establishment may have had a point. We should resume clandestine operations, we should do to the Pakistanis what they are doing to us, and hit back every time we are attacked.
We should tell the United States that we are tired of this policy of equivalence. When America attacked Afghanistan, we did not treat the US and Afghanistan as moral equals. Similarly, America should stop treating India and Pakistan on the same plane. One of us is the world’s largest democracy. And the other is a terrorist state.
But if we are to ensure that the world sees through Pakistan’s pretensions and recognizes it for what it is, then we must first rid ourselves of our own illusions. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about the true nature of the enemy. Let’s recognize the magnitude of the threat – growing by the day as Taliban influence spreads – and work out a strategy to fight it.
The time for lighting candles at the Wagah border has long since past.
a joke fr all of u:
Most cricketers, who are not comfortable in conversing in English, go
prepare for some standard questions that are asked to them when
commentators chat with them during the awards ceremony. Inzamam was once
asked a different question after Pakistan won the match, for which he
was not prepared. He always used his standard response to the first
question after winning.
But this time…..
Tony Greig: So Inzi, that’s fantastic, your wife is pregnant for the
second time and u must be happy!
Inzamam: Bismillah-e- Rehman-e- Rahim! All credit goes to the boys.
Everyone work hard for it, especially Afridi. It was tight situation
when he went in. Also Bob Woolmer was keeping close watch on progress
and giving instructions. It’s all team effort. Insha Allah, we all will
work together as a team, put in big effort and deliver good result all
the time and will be able to REPEAT the same result
Tony fainted!
Karun, I find your views a little simplistic. And Pakistanis would no doubt find them offensive.
Pakistani military establishment would remain hostile whether the country is strong or weak. But the same may not be true about the political (civilian) establishment. They may have to say things out of political compulsion but I’m not sure about the conviction in their vitriolic.
And every Pakistani certainly doesn’t hate India. I can say that from personal experience. Pakistanis are the most warm and loving people and they treat us like family. It’s genuine, one can make out.
And some of them may be Taliban supporters, but a lot of them absolutely hate the fundamentalists and want better relations with India. Much of the support is derived from the poor and illiterate masses. They are vulnerable and can be fooled easily. Kasab is one such example.
It seems that external pressure works and that looks like India’s game. Slowly they are forced to get rid of the rogue elements. Ultimately it will benefit Pakistan more than India.
People like YLH understand and are fighting against the same. You can not term every Pakistani into the same bracket.
BTW, since when India has become liberal. Indians
would like to believe it but the fact is something else. We are liberal in pockets. one one hand, there are many who are modern and secular. On the other hand, we have elements worst than Taliban. We are one of the most racist people on earth. Many African students can tell you that. Casteism is a monster yet to be tamed. Women face several restrictions and have been attacked for going against the society on several instances. And guess what churches are still attacked by the fundamentalists.
So we can not take the high moral ground. Both countries need to do a lot of cleaning and it’s a very long battle. Liberal elements in both the countries need to support each other. That is required for the survival and success of the entire region.
@Majumdar
Yes, and no, surely, Dada.
Why should we judge Jogen Mondal as a traitor to his qaum in the first place? Doesn’t it call for a breathtaking leap across a dozen categories, all at the same time? As a Mondal, he would hardly feel any staunch loyalty to the Hindu upper castes; he would probably say that his qaum was the Dalit qaum and that he wanted as little to do with Hindus and with Hinduism as did the Buddhists who converted to Islam in Bengal in the first place.
It does seem to give any kind of secular idea the go-by, in rather a comprehensive manner.
In saying that, it is an assumption that we are both agreed that multicultural secularism is not what either of us has in mind as a reasonable way to behave in public. It is assumed that we are both against the intrusion of personal beliefs into public life.
There appears the difficulty that apparently we may find ourselves alone, with nobody willing to go along with us. It may be that the Gandhian philosophy in India, and the Islam before all else point of view in Pakistan are stronger than any secular impulse, as far as present numbers go. So be it. It was after all a Bengali of some eminence who sang,”Jodi dak dile keu na aashe, tobe ekla cholo re!” If you aren’t prepared to take a stand, what will others rally around?
Your second point is intimately linked to this first one, actually, as no doubt you realised and intended.
An acceptance of secularism as an exclusion of the religious point of view in public life is what we would like for ourselves, and it seems to be what certain segments of Pakistani society seems to want ardently. This acceptance runs right in the teeth of the ‘citadel of Islam’. I thought we had fought up and down the town, until the good burghers are ready to produce brown bread and white bread and drum us out of town, on this very point. I thought we had sort of accepted that what was envisaged in the original vision was a ‘citadel of Muslims, with place in the ranks for non-Muslims loyal to the state’, and that this vision was precisely the one that was minced like keema (I nearly used ‘salami’ and drew back from the brink of disaster in the nick of time) by successive dictators, charlatans seeking to cling to power, demagogues with greater eloquence than vision – personifying each of these types with a name is left to your shrewd and sceptical discernment.
I suspect that the vinegar-soaked quip about ‘hero-worship’ was just your sense of irony getting the better of you, because of course we all understand that what was being sought was an almost ostentatious equation of the minorities with the majority, ostentatious largely in order to break through the layers of neglect and contumely that have been deposited by religious extremists on those considered minorities.
Do tell me if I have grossly misunderstood, or misinterpreted your point of view.
Karun:
I enjoyed reading the analytic portions of your post immensely from a purely intellectual POV. I however have a problem with the conclusion that you draw and the remedy that you suggest.
Before you dismiss my post as that of another card carrying member of the candle holding liberal coterie, I ask you to please read my post with an open mind. You are no doubt a nationalist Indian; for the moment please accept me too as another nationalist.
As for myself; for the sake of this discussion I will suspend my own deep faith in human values, and so will not bring up the moral portion of my argument. Thus I will adopt a cold, ruthless and strategic objective oriented approach.
So then let us see; what is the best strategy to realize India’s objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan?
If indeed out objective is to have a peaceful western frontier (and I see no reason for us to have any other) then I agree with you that we can not let our guard down yet I disagree that we should actively seek a weakened Pakistani state.
I say that because in a world of asymmetric warfare, a weak, populous but a economically failing neighboring state locked in a state of perpetual enmity is even less desirable than a strong state.
I give you three examples of weak nations living next to stable states that have become a headache for the neighborhood in spite of having militarily strong neighbors to demonstrate why such a strategy is likely to fail.
The first and most obvious is that of Israel and its neighbors. This is a nation that is military light years ahead of its third world neighbors with a first world economy. In the 70s it was surrounded by several enemies, the strongest was Egypt and the weakest was Lebanon and the occupied territories (that was little more than an open prison for several million Palestinian civilians.)
The most enduring peace that Israel has had is with Egypt (which has a civilian population equally hateful of Israel) and the most troublesome neighbor it has had are the weakest Palestinians and Lebanese. Even the long occupation of Lebanon, failed to make it safe in its northern flank.
All it accomplished was further radicalization and fragmentation of its enemies so much so that now it laments a lack of a credible opposition with which to negotiate.
Too late now, Israel and its most ardent ally the US, has realized that the best way to reduce this threat is to build up the Lebanon’s statehood; in a strategy that can be labeled ‘drain the swampland.’
The best example of the failure of the earlier strategy was the tragicomic scenario of Israel bombing the Hezbollah strongholds into the Stone Age followed weeks later by the US lining up donors to rebuild Southern Lebanon!
Today the conventional wisdom is that Palestinian Authority also needs to be stronger, not weaker for peace to return to this unfortunate land.
The second example is that of Somalia. Nothing can be weaker and still be called a government than the joke that is the government of this godforsaken land. This has not provided Ethiopia or Somalia’s neighbors with any lasting security; on the contrary it has made the sea lanes around the Horn of Africa a virtual pirates’ dreamland.
The third example is that of Mexico. Now Mexico has no international dispute with the US. It just happens to be an economically impoverished neighbor of the greatest Superpower of our time. Yet neither the fancy electronic gadgetry of the US nor the Rambo style aggressive tactics of border patrol (and local militias) has made the US safe in the South.
Drug runners, illegal immigrants, violent and non violent criminals have played havoc with Southern California, Texas and other adjoining states of the US.
In each of these three examples, it is felt the solution desired by strong and stable neighbors is not a weak neighbor but a strong economy and a stable government that can negotiate with the stronger Nation.
And so it is in the case of India and Pakistan.
You have given the following examples to argue that our policy of engagement and strengthening has failed:
1. Asif Zardari has refused to help in the investigation of the Bombay attacks. 2. Terrorists continue to be sent across the border to foment trouble in India. 3. Far from following a liberal policy, the new civilian government has done deals with the Taliban and imposed the medieval Sharia law on parts of Pakistan. 4. More worrying is that Pakistan’s civil society seems to have only the most minimal commitment to the liberal values that we in India enshrine in our Constitution. 5. What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse.
I would like to point out exactly these examples to say that this is in fact a symptom of the weakness of the Pakistani state itself.
I do not disagree with you that there is a large number of people in Pakistan; perhaps even a majority who have been bred on a diet of anti-India propaganda; neither that hatred of India may even be a glue that keeps it and its army together but would disagree that there is no other intellectual thoughts and currents inside Pakistan.
This blog itself has a strong presence of people who want to think beyond this zero sum game.
I even find the opinions of people like PMA who demonstrate a strong suspicion (and a faint dislike) of India and Indians somewhat attractive in this regard because he argues for a West ward looking Pakistan which does not view itself in terms of an India centric terms only.
Then there are YLH and BC; Pakistani nationalists, but people with very strong, even uncompromising views regarding secularism.
All such people are currently in a minority in Pakistan; yet these are the very people who are our best hope for the future if we want to see peace on our western frontier.
Ironically, the more we Indians focus on such people; either by supporting them or by attacking them, the more we undermine them. In such a scenario; the best we can hope is that somehow miraculously such people will succeed in making Pakistan a truly strong and a secular state.
Once that happens, then we can talk; as two equals.
I agree with you that lighting candles at Wagah has not accomplished much so far; it does not mean it is a bad idea. It just means that is an idea whose time has yet to come.
Wishing for a weak Pakistan OYOH is a truely bad idea; watch what you wish for; lest you may get it.
Regards.
Karun,
We should tell the United States that we are tired of this policy of equivalence. When America attacked Afghanistan, we did not treat the US and Afghanistan as moral equals. Similarly, America should stop treating India and Pakistan on the same plane. One of us is the world’s largest democracy. And the other is a terrorist state.
Whine …bark… jump up and down. This is not going to happen. So keep your mantra… keep repeating it day and night.
Your ignorance plus your foolhardly and idiotic world view renders you without any logical ability to analyze properly outside the dogmatic and utterly ridiculous parameters. The truth is that whatever Pakistan’s ugliness on paper and India’s greatness on paper… both countries are more or less on the same level in so far as the world is concerned. This bothers you Indians more than it bothers us…
The US attacked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan- a regime not recognized by the UN. Let us see India try and attack Pakistan- a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations Organization with a democratically elected constitutional government within the paremeters of international law.
The reason why you can’t and won’t attack… is because not only will it be an irreprehensible act of war by a poor hapless poverty stricken half naked people drunk with imaginary power and new found “Economic growth” (you Indians are truly are the nouve riche fo the world… and utterly without class I must add) … against another country which is similarly poor if not as much… but because you know that if you dare attack us, there would be no first f-ing use doctrine for the N-word. I admit you will probably end up destroying us… but what will emerge out of India will be the laughing stock of the world for another 1000 years. You will remain a populace of poverty stricken, radiation-poisoned freaks of nature for several millenia.
So think twice before you jump up and down in Los Angeles of all places… advising your compatriots to act in a foolhardy manner. A war between Pakistan and India is not something you can dare to throw about lightly.
I am sorry to see that Gorki sb has enjoyed “analytical” skills of an idiot like you.
Gorki sb,
Let me tell you … and if you look deep inside yourself you will concur… that differences between “Secular India” and “Islamic Pakistan” are only on paper.
I suggest you visit Pakistan soon. You’ll realize that people out here are far less jingoistic… than you guys have going on there in India.
Dear YLH:
Almost all of the things you say are true. My post was not meant to disparage Pakistan. I was only making a bunch of worst case assumptions to prove the point that even if all of those happened; it would be a bad scenario for India.
India and Pakistan are not so much different economically at the present and both have weak civil institutions and governing bodies. Pakistan is by no means a failed state or even a failing state as far as the society, the economic indicators and its institutions are concerned. If anything it has one too strong an institution, in th form of its military forces.
Thus Pakistan is more akin to a Japan in comparison to Soviet Union the early 1940s than a Lebanon compared to Israel in 2007-07.
I only made the later comparision to show that even a very strong state like Israel can not hope to achieve its objectives even when confronted with a very weak state if all it wants to do is threaten and destabilize. The point was that even if; (a BIG IF), the Pakistani state becomes very weak (something Karun) was arguing for; it would not mean less heeadaches for India but only more so.
Also I delibrately did not make the moral argument against wishing ill will to a neighbor or the extremely logical anti war argument (that you made) so as not to give Karun an escuse to call me a soft liberal. (I agree that the scenario of the nuclear armageddon that you mentioned and its likely outcome are very real.)
Unfortunately the jingoists who love to throw out such pro war arguments become more belligrent when such a point is raised and try to drown out the voices of reason by calling people like me ‘soft Punjabi liberals’.
The irony is that most of these ‘hawks’ are only armchair strategists with no first hand experience of what such belligrence means; and people like me are the second generation of those who have suffered; first having lost family members duing the painful partition riots and then lost friends and loved ones during the Khalistani insurgency in the 1980s.
Regards.
Absolutely. This war rhetoric is good for no one.
I endorse PMA’s vision and in different spheres, I am sure Pakistan and India can in time find common ground and common interest.
Bono da,
Why should we judge Jogen Mondal as a traitor to his qaum in the first place? he would probably say that his qaum was the Dalit qaum
Fair enough. But then let’s us test his loyalty to his qaum- the East Bengali Dalit qaum.
Did he unflinchingly stand by them during their trials and tribulations? Or did he run away like a coward to Calcutta- the bastion of the caste Hindoo- with his tail between his legs (to quote Yasser Pai’s favourite phrase) leaving his qaum to face the music?
Did he make the right decision for his qaum or did his decision devastate his constituency politically and economically?
Regards
@Majumdar
Aha, Dada, gotcha!
How rare to catch you asleep at the wheel, or caught in the searchlight with only one leg over the gate!
My argument is that Jogen Mandal would surely have claimed the Dalit qaum, not in East Bengal, but universally, meaning in this context, in India as well as in ‘East Bengal’.
So he just shifted from a weaker part of his home constituency to a stronger part of the same.
Well, I guess if you were making Jinnah in 2009, it would go like this.
There is a blast in a mosque in NWFP.
Gandhi says: Look what is happening in the country you created
Jinnah: Yeah, but these are your followers, not mine.
Nehru smirks and says: And I brought about the Partition so that most of Gandhiji’s followers would end up in Pakistan
That is why you should never mess with a Gujju Bania, even if your forefathers were Gujju Banias!
