Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Same as it ever was, indeed!

Same as it ever was, indeed!

December 30th, 2010 | 8 Comments

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

An article appeared in the Express Tribune today to which I was alerted early morning by a fellow PTH editor, who also asked me to respond to it. I say this because I did not think it worth it to be responded to. However on closer examination there are several things that need a rebuttal in the said piece and which is why I am writing this response.

The author writes:

The Objectives Resolution, if anything, was a more logical step for the nascent state to take than the vision outlined by Jinnah. A politician’s good intentions — and Jinnah, contrary to mythology, was a politician, not a divinely-inspired saint — are always unlikely to trump the structural problems inherent in the state. It is not surprising that a country that has its creation rooted in religion grappled with balancing the desires of its newly-empowered majority with individual liberty.

Was Pakistan rooted in religion? This seems to be the one myth that never dies.

I addressed this question most recently in my contribution The News On Sunday’s “Secularism Debate” but it was perhaps expressed much more succinctly and eloquently by Bin Ismail – a regular contributor and blogger on this website- who contributed this comment in response to a comment I made, which is an accurate summation of what I feel is the proper way of looking at the tumultous events that led to the creation of Pakistan:

@Yasser Latif Hamdani (December 30, 2010 at 6:51 pm)

With respect to your comment as well as comments made by some of our Indian friends, I would like to express my following humble opinion:

1. The posture adopted by minority communities, specially when they begin to sense chauvinism towards them, naturally tends to reflect resilience. This resilience is not ego-generated, but rather a self-preservation reflex. In the history of nations, too, it is the chauvinistic attitudes of the majority that has more often than not contributed to political divisions.

2. The terms “Islamic State” and “Muslim State” should not be mutually confused. I do not believe, Jinnah ever, for even a moment envisaged an “Islamic State”, a state “to be ruled by priests with a divine mission”, a possibility he himself ruled out. His concept and understanding of the “Muslim State” was little beyond the nature of the Turkish State as modeled by Ataturk. He clearly had in mind, a secular and modern state, in which statecraft and religion would not be allowed to mingle. Yes, that state was intended to be comprised of the Muslim-majority states of India, and this intention too, took its final shape after the failure of the CMP of ’46.

3. Jinnah was a class in himself, an institution if I may say. His presidential address was about the best will he could possibly have left behind. The Objectives Resolution of 1948 tragically changed the course of the nation he founded. Subsequent leaderships shared neither his integrity nor his wisdom. That is why we are where we are today.

My submissions on the point about Objectives Resolution being a more logical outcome are as follows:

1. Objectives Resolution may well be the “logical” course where occam’s razor treats the issue of India and Pakistan as a binary of secular and religious states but if the principle behind the creation of Pakistan is fully explored i.e. “a permanent majority ought not to oppress a permanent minority by sheer numbers” or even the two nation theory when applied to the Pakistani context, it does not follow that Objectives Resolution can legitimately have been passed with all majority members voting in favour and minority members voting against it. If anything the logical course would have been to develop a constitutional document which had the support of a majority of both the permanent minority and majority which has not happened- neither when Objectives Resolution was passed nor when our current constitution was passed.

2. Our current predicament is not even a logical outcome of the majoritarianism because the laws that plague Pakistan today in the name of Islam were seldom passed through a constitutional legal process (with the exception of the horrific second amendment which was passed in violation of the aforesaid principle on which Pakistan was founded) but more often than not on the whim of a crazed military dictator with weird ideas about Islam and society.

Now I come to another claim made by the said author:

We are belatedly coming to grips with the genocide that was perpetrated on the Bengali population but still haven’t accepted that the violence was an end-point that encompassed a) the language riots of the 1950s, b) Jinnah’s announcement that Urdu would be the lingua franca of the state and c) a host of other measures and grievances, both large and small, that served as warnings of the dangers of shabbily treating East Pakistan.

While Jinnah’s decision to impose Urdu as the lingua franca was a blunder by a politician leading to the language riots of the 1950s, by no stretch of imagination can a and b be responsible for the events that led to the separation of East Pakistan. For one thing the language issue was resolved by 1955 when Urdu and Bengali both became the National Languages of Pakistan. How is it that if Jinnah’s blunder had anything to do with the separation of East Pakistan, that his memory was still strong enough for East Pakistanis/Bengalis to vote en masse for Fatima Jinnah in 1965 elections?

East Pakistan separated because they were denied their constitutional rights by a west dominated military bureaucracy which had seized control and overthrown the civilian constitutional set up. How can then an aberration be equal to a logical outcome of a constitutional process?

All in all the said article was pointless. Instead of taking on the menace of religious fundamentalism, the author chose to take on those who refer to Jinnah to strengthen their case against religious fundamentalism. Why – it may be asked- do Pakistani secularists draw such strength from the life and times of Mahomed Ali Jinnah. Probably because he was the last politician who had the courage to get up and tell the legislative assembly that if his constituency was not advanced enough to approve of a measure that went against the wishes of religious orthodoxy the clearest duty on his part as a legislator was to ask them to elect someone else to represent them. Or perhaps it is because Jinnah sticks out as a sore thumb everytime the Mullahs claim that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam.

Written by yasserlatifhamdani

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: East Pakistan, Jinnah, politician, state

8 Responses to "Same as it ever was, indeed!"

Samachar says:

December 30, 2010 at 9:26 pm

Well, this is also what they’re saying:

“Rawalpindi—Zahid Malik, Chairman of Nazriya Pakistan Council and Editor-in-Chief of Pakistan Observer has said that according to some research-based reports Quaid-i-Azam Moh-ammad Ali Jinnah returned to India from London to lead the Muslims of the subcontinent on the inspiration from the last Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (SAW).

Addressing a big Juma congregation at Eidgah Sharif yesterday, he said that according to popular perception Allama Iqbal, who conceived the concept of Pakistan, urged Quaid-i-Azam to return from London and some other Muslim leaders of the subcontinent also pleaded for the same but the Quaid took final decision to come back to the subcontinent when on one night he received guidance from the last Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Zahid Malik explained how the Quaid interacted spiritually with the Prophet was fascinating.

The Chairman NPC said the Quaid was lover of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). “We covered a journey of “Sabz Guband” to “Sabz Parcham” in 1400 years,” he observed. “
Feroz Khan says:

December 30, 2010 at 9:56 pm

Yasser,

I will write a comment on this article, when I have some time.

ciao
Amaar says:

December 30, 2010 at 10:04 pm

@Samachar

I think you have just watched the movie ‘Inception’. The dose of that movie has led you to believe that Zahid Malik’s narrative is to be taken seriously.

While Jinnah may indeed have had strong sentiments for the Prophet of Islam, needless to say, Zahid Malik had absolutely no access to Jinnah’s mind. If Jinnah never claimed to such an interaction – and he almost certainly never did – then Zahid Malik’s story has to be treated as lunacy.
Bin Ismail says:

December 31, 2010 at 1:05 am

Yasser Latif Hamdani:

“…..the language issue was resolved by 1955 when Urdu and Bengali both became the National Languages of Pakistan…..”

A sound argument. Essentially, it was the same factor of “chauvinism” which finally led to Pakistan losing half of Pakistan. This attitude has to change.

@Samachar (December 30, 2010 at 9:26 pm)

When we hear the mention of the “Nazaria-e Pakistan”, let us remind ourselves that this nazaria or ideology is merely an afterthought and a figment of the imagination of those who imagined they could exploit the name of religion to find their way to political power. Jinnah knew no such ideology.
YLH says:

January 1, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Samachar,

Just to confirm what you are saying … or what I think you are saying…. an associate of mine at the firm told our firm stenographer the other day that “yasser sb is a Jinnah buff”. The stenographer then came to me and said “I have heard that you are an authority of Hazrat Quaid-e-Azam Rahmat ullah alei. He was such a great sufi saint. One night he was working late and there was a knock on the door. The Quaid said: who is there? The response came I am the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Quaid jumped into attention and said: yes milord. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) instructed him to go back to India and make Pakistan for the Musalmans of India”.

When I dismissed the story, the stenographer went back and told my associate: oh he does not know anything about Quaid.
Pankaj says:

January 1, 2011 at 12:28 pm

YLH

Jinnah was an Intellectual in a society which worshipped clerics and Conquerors ie emperors

In Medieval Times ,during the Islamic Empires the Two Most Important figures in any empire were the Clergy and the Emperor

So After independence Since Pakistanis considered themselves as Successors of the Mughal Empire The GENERALS became the Emperors and the clerics took their erstwhile place

In Islamic societies intellectuals were never powerful nor respected

So Jinnah was QUICKLY forgotten or rather Discarded
Amaar says:

January 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Pankaj,

Clergy have had a dubious role in the history of Islam right from the beginning. The event of Karbala where the Prophet’s grandson Hussain was martyred is an example. Hussain refused ‘bait’ at the hands of the Caliph Yazid who was ably supported by the fatwas of the clergy declaring the grandson of the Prophet ‘wajib-ul-qatal’ (liable to death).

Well what more can you need to determine how harmful the orthodoxy has been to Islam? This is not to say that there were’nt genuine and sincere scholars of religion – it’s just that the discourse has been dominated by the mob rather than voices of reason.
Feroz Khan says:

January 2, 2011 at 10:28 pm

@ YLH

The attempts to paint Jinnah in religious colors and to identify the Objectives Resolution as a part of his political legacy, is a part of a process, which is presently underway in Pakistan. With the availability of the internet and acess to the interactive nature of the web, such as blogs and newspapers, where comments can be made on articles, information and new ideas are rippling through society.

To the people, who had created the image of a false Jinnah, this is a dangerous development because for the first time they have to stand up and defend their version of history. When people start to question the past, it means they do not accept the testimony of the past as given and are not satisfied with the explanations of the past. When the people reject a given explanation, they look for reasons which not only explains the past, but also balances that past with the present times and how their experinces in the present make sense with what was promised in the past.

The most common question in Pakistan, from reading Pakistani blogs and newspaper comments is “is this what Jinnah wanted?” When the people reject the official truth and it stands discredited in their eyes, they search for other views, reasons, rationales and explanations and more importantly, search independently and from this independence of gaining knowledge, comes a sense of awareness that, then, allows one to form questions on the basis of critical thinking.

Critical questioning of history, or the past, comes from a blend of certain factors in a process of an intellectual development that starts from alienation with the official version; followed by questions questioning the official version instead of accepting it. Once an idea is intellectually rejected, the way is then opened for considering other new ideas and once new ideas are considered, then they are compared with what was told and how that complements the experience of what actually happened and why?

People in Pakistan are becoming increasinly skeptical of the state’s version of what Jinnah wanted and as they discover new information about Jinnah, they are are asking questions and this information is challening the traditional claims about Jinnah. This is the only reason, why such an article would be written and the real reason that such articles will be written in the future is the reality that power of the state of Pakistan to control ideas and information is now progressively moving towards the apogee of its eventual terminality and the process of an open debate on any issue in Pakistan cannot be any longer denied and the questions will have to answered and answered with proof or the result would be more rejection of the offical truth.

One can say what one wishes about Pervaiz Musharrraf, but his policy of opening up the media was the thin end of the wedge and as the new ideas are discussed, the ability to deny them or not allow them space for debate is graudally shrinking in Pakistan and this is also the reason, why the mullahs and their ilk are screaming and rioting in the streets.

Sooner or later, the questions will come to the role of religion and Islam in Pakistan and the Guardians of Truth and Morality, will have to defend what they have been preaching and the idea of being held accountable for what they have been saying in the past, is making them uneasy.

In order to understand why such articles would be written, we need to understand the process, which is making people write such articles.

Yasser, people do not defend something unless there is a threat to it or a perception of a threat and if people are defending the idea of Jinnah and Jinnah’s Pakistan as the logical step towards an Islamic state, what are they afraid of that is making them defend such an idea; an idea that did not need defending in the past?

Fear! It is the fear of an insecurity of losing something, which makes people defend it.

I hope, this answers your question why such an article would be written in the first place.

ciao