Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » VIEW: The myth of ideological frontiers

VIEW: The myth of ideological frontiers

January 31st, 2011 | 166 Comments

Yasser Latif Hamdani writing in the Daily Times:
Pakistan is a legal nation state, one of the two successor states to erstwhile British India and duly recognised by all countries of the world. A legal nation state does not need to construct ideological frontiers, which, for the most part, are a fallacy and not based on anything concrete.

A TV discussion recently pit two firebrand anchors of the right, Mr Kamran Shahid and Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan, against my old friend Raza Rumi, who tried in vain to reason with them. The basic point that Mr Kamran Shahid and Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan insisted on was that India was an enemy of the ideological heritage of Pakistan and therefore all connection with India must be severed. Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan went so far as to state that if we were going to be friends, there was no need to draw a line. In other words, Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan was seconding the Indian nationalist narrative that Pakistan was founded on hate.

Ironically, however, this view cuts against the grain of the rationale for Pakistan that was given by its founding father, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who repeatedly described Pakistan as a Hindu-Muslim settlement and necessary for peace, tranquillity and harmony for all people in the subcontinent. Far from imagining India as an ideological enemy, Jinnah spoke of a South Asian Monroe Doctrine, which would allow India and Pakistan to stand together against external threats. At least till December 1946, Jinnah was still pleading for a judicial commission to resolve disputes between Congress and the League to revive the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah always had a sense of South Asian unity above the successor states. After Pakistan was created, Jinnah chose a Hindu, Jagannath Azad, to write Pakistan’s first national anthem, indicating the inclusive and pluralistic nature of the new state.

At the very least, he was not concerned about Pakistan’s ideological frontiers when he agreed to Gandhi spending his last days in Pakistan. Gandhi would have had he not been so tragically assassinated. Incidentally, 64 years to this day, Jinnah sent Gandhi’s son a message of condolence describing his loss to be the “loss of humanity”. For three days, Radio Pakistan’s programming was completely dedicated to the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi. Yet, there was not even a whimper of protest from the founding fathers about the invasion of ideological frontiers. Indeed, Pakistan’s flag flew half-mast for three days in mourning.

The great irony of this ideological debate is that the self-styled champions of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers are those who were the staunchest opponents of the creation of Pakistan. One need not remind the reader that Maulana Maududi proudly described the idea of Pakistan as “Na-Pakistan” and slandered the Quaid-e-Azam many times in public. Maulana Mufti Mahmud, the father of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, declared in 1971, “Thank God we were not part of the sin of making Pakistan.” Yet another self-proclaimed champion of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers was Agha Shorish Kashmiri, who belonged to the Majlis-e-Ahrar, which opposed the creation of Pakistan tooth and nail and after partition created the whole anti-Ahmeddiya sentiment to destabilise Pakistan. Agha Shorish Kashmiri even invented an interview with Maulana Azad to discredit the idea of Pakistan. This, however, did not stop him from claiming all sorts of hogwash in the name of ideological frontiers.

It may be remembered that neither Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah nor any of his associates committed the state to any official ideology. No resolution, be it a Muslim League working committee resolution or a constituent assembly resolution, was ever passed along these lines. A few attempts were made but were vetoed by Quaid-e-Azam himself. To an enthusiastic Leaguer proclaiming “Pakistan ka matlab kiya” (what does Pakistan mean?), Jinnah was forthright in declaring that no such resolution was ever passed by the Muslim League.

The term ‘ideology of Pakistan’ was first introduced officially by General Sher Ali Pataudi during Yahya Khan’s rule. General Pataudi was an exceptionally rigid and narrow-minded officer by all accounts. His introduction of the ideology of Pakistan was to take care of anti-state Bengali dissidents. Ironically, the leading victim of this manufactured ideology of Pakistan was Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, who had risen from the ranks of the Pakistan Movement and the Direct Action Day protest of August 16, 1946. Soon afterwards, the so-called ideology was used to butcher Bengalis, who had contributed more than anyone else to the creation of Pakistan. These days it is used against the minorities of Pakistan and its liberals.

Hamza Alavi once described secularists and liberals to be the true inheritors of Pakistan’s real ideology. Unfortunately, in the Pakistan we live in today, Kamran Shahids and Orya Jaan Maqbools have taken to calling these true inheritors of Pakistan’s real ideology “liberal fascists”. I suppose they are fascists because they advocate a civilised democratic polity where everyone would have equal rights. The word absurd feels so hollow when describing the state of affairs in Pakistan.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.net and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

PakTeaHouse Recommends

The Face of Fascism in New America (LongCrisis)
Ramy Essam – the voice of the Egyptian uprising (Indiacitys)

Written by yasserlatifhamdani

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: blogs, lawyer, net, VIEW

166 Responses to "VIEW: The myth of ideological frontiers"

amar says:

February 10, 2011 at 5:55 am

to mubarak
So long hypocrisy does not prevail I am happy.
Bade Miyan says:

February 10, 2011 at 10:10 am

Here is what MJ Akbar has to say about the Nagpur session and there is also an example of Gandhi addressing Jinnah as Quaid-e-Azam:

“There is a remarkable sub-text in this speech, which has never been commented upon, at least to my knowledge. When Jinnah first referred to Gandhi, he called him “Mr Gandhi”. There were instant cries of “Mahatma Gandhi”. Without a moment’s hesitation, Jinnah switched to “Mahatma Gandhi”. Later, he referred to Mr Mohammad Ali, the more flamboyant of the two Ali Brothers, both popularly referred to as Maulana. There were angry cries of “Maulana”. Jinnah ignored them. He referred at least five times more to Ali, but each time called him only Mr Mohammad Ali.

Let us leave the last word to Gandhi. Writing in Harijan of 8 June 1940, Gandhi said, “Quaid-e-Azam himself was a great Congressman. It was only after the non-cooperation that he, like many other Congressmen belonging to several communities, left. Their defection was purely political.” In other words, it was not communal.”
Z Malik says:

February 11, 2011 at 6:12 am

Gandhi was a complete Bania. He only thought all the time of day and in the Night of how much money he and his fellow greedy banias could make. Jinnah was a complete Gentleman. He never thought about money. Not at all. Not in the least. That is why they could not agree. Gandhi the Bania was miserable and mean. Only money, money, money was what he wanted. The big-hearted Generous Muslim Jinnah could only dislike him. That is the Tragedy of the Sub-continent.
no-communal says:

February 11, 2011 at 9:18 am

“That is the Tragedy of the Sub-continent.”

Are you sure it’s not a Comedy? Have you asked your role models Yasser Latif Hamdani, Vajra, or Gorki?
Hayyer says:

February 11, 2011 at 9:48 am

Z Malik:

Jinnah was pretty tight fisted himself. He never took a case without being paid for it. He even refused to fight a case for his own junior M C Chagla, a struggling lawyer then, because Chagla had not the means to pay him.
Bin Ismail says:

February 11, 2011 at 11:44 am

@ Z Malik (February 11, 2011 at 6:12 am)

While there may be severals contrasts that could be drawn between these two very great men – Jinnah and Gandhi – I do not think the particular comparison you have arrived at, really existed.

Jinnah and Gandhi, were both Congressmen to begin with. At one point in time, Jinnah began to feel that the Congress had moved away from its original ideals – ideals that enjoyed the unanimity of both these leaders. Jinnah was essentially a nationalist, very secular and a pro-minority and pro-law politician. He felt that while the majority could generally take care of itself, the minorities were relatively disadvantaged. He also felt that the Congress had moved to a course, on which it would not be able to take care of the disadvantaged Indian Muslim minority, the way it should. With respect to political acumen, however, both leaders were very able men. Both followed their own convictions, and with admirable courage.

Regards.
Z Malik says:

February 12, 2011 at 7:11 am

no-communal:

You are Cent Percent Right that my role models are Yasser Latif Hamdani, Vajra and Gorki. The scintillating essence of these Gentlemen and Geniuses is what I try to follow to my little extent, being non-capable like Them. It is surmounting Happiness when you say I am being like them.
no-communal says:

February 12, 2011 at 7:25 am

I am glad my comment brings to you ‘surmounting Happiness’. Why do you consider yourself non-capable ? It seems you are very much capable.
no-communal says:

February 12, 2011 at 9:40 am

“One feels proud of having contributors like Yasser Latif Hamdani and Vajra. It is a big achievement for Pakistan. Every time they are giving such strong light on what is happening for Muslims! The good guidance is truly classic.”

Are they still guiding you, or are you left all alone?
Z Malik says:

February 13, 2011 at 6:39 am

no-communal:

They can never ever have at all possibly left me in Sprit. That is never the possible: only impossible. Their Gentlemanly Genius looms over my poor soul like Holy Shadow. Their Teaching I can only l can only LOOK at with tremor. Fear. Of too much Greatness.
Z Malik says:

February 13, 2011 at 6:50 am

So Mujibhur Rahman was involved in the Direct Action Day riots? This is news to me.
Barani says:

February 13, 2011 at 7:20 am

@Zmalik, yes Mujibur Rahman was involved in organising Direct Action Day riots.

Mujib started off as a Muslim Leaguer and was heavily involved in organising Partition riots.

He left Muslim League around 1955.

He founded Awami League around 1965

Sheikh Hasina is of course desperately covering up this aspect of his life.
Raj says:

February 13, 2011 at 7:34 am

Jinnah was pretty tight fisted himself. He never took a case without being paid for it. He even refused to fight a case for his own junior M C Chagla, a struggling lawyer then, because Chagla had not the means to pay him.
==

The mythical, virtuous, angelic Jinnah is a pakistani textbook creation.

Rafiq Zakaria reports he was noted at the Bombay court to be very “prickly”, will never let go any slight, insult (real or imaginary) without ensuring a retaliation.
no-communal says:

February 13, 2011 at 10:36 am

“They can never ever have at all possibly left me in Sprit.”

Do you mean spirit, i.e., soul, or Sprite, the soft drink?

“Their Gentlemanly Genius looms over my poor soul like Holy Shadow.”

While there’s no doubt that they are Genius, why do you think your soul is poor?

“Their Teaching I can only l can only LOOK at with tremor. Fear. Of too much Greatness.”

I thought too much of anything is bad, even Greatness.
shahzad says:

March 1, 2011 at 3:47 pm

http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101060275&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20100925
Shovon Chowdhury says:

May 1, 2011 at 1:29 pm

Jinnah gave the call for Direct Action Day, and he was hardly shy about what he meant by Direct Action. There was communal violence before this, but this was the first deliberate, cold blooded call to butchery ever given in the sub continent, as an official tool of public policy, by an organised party and it’s leader. Since then, many politicians of various faiths in India, as well as your own ISI and sundry madmen, have constantly used this technique.

Perhaps someone else would have begun this anyway. For example, years later, when Advani rolled out his chariot, he knew exactly what he was doing. But Jinnah pioneered this ‘method’ at a terrible time, and put the full force of his personality behind it, and ‘inspired’ brilliant men like Suhrawardy and Mujibur Rehman (One of the most enthusiastic and blood soaked leaders of the Calcutta ‘action’, by the way. If you ask me, his death was a case of living by the sword and dying by it.). If Narendra Modi has a spiritual godfather, he is none other than Husain Shaheed Suhrawardy, worthy acolyte of Jinnah. Its as if he wrote a textbook for future generations.

For all the thousands of innocents who have died since then, in both our countries — Jinnah bears a large measure of responsibility. Because he could think the hitherto unthinkable. And all this so that he could take revenge on those who had bruised his ego. It doesn’t matter about India and Pakistan, if you ask me. What’s done is done. But what else can you call the man who cold bloodedly started this cycle of murder except evil?