Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » VIEW: The myth of ideological frontiers
VIEW: The myth of ideological frontiers
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
More From PakTeaHouse
- Highlights of the 18th Constitutional Amendment
- Curse of God on the Mullahs
- A Win for the Women of Pakistan
PakTeaHouse Recommends
- The Face of Fascism in New America (LongCrisis)
- Causes of the Great Depression (LongCrisis)
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: blogs, lawyer, net, VIEW
166 Responses to "VIEW: The myth of ideological frontiers"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- JB
said Here is the reality and the sooner Pakistanis and... - AKB
said DAMN THESE LIBERAL MULLAHS!!
.
Dharun Ravi Sen... - AKB said @ ahem
I have never seen a bigger idiot than y...
- RajTOO
said Tajender,
you copy and paste machine, do you even... - tajender
said rajtoo like anyother brhmnst u have nothing except... - RajTOO said Tajender is a pure Paki. Just because he copies an...
- ahem
said to rex
Monotheism is inherently totalitarian an... - ahem said tajender reveals himself as a tamilian muslim....
- RajTOO said Rex Minor wrote:
And I was under the...
- Rex Minor said PS
sorry for the wrong spells! I must not miss th...
‘SO you have 1965 which LEADS to 1971′
Sheer genius! be still my beating heart……
Probyn
Let me calm your beating Heart
1965 is the mother of 1971
After 1965 people of East pakistan were highly dissatisfied because all the resources were spent on West Pakistan
So the popular movement started
India only used the oppurtunity which was created by the West Pakistani establishment
The aggression of 1965 by Pakistan on India was defeated because Pakistan could NOT conquer Kashmir
SO the Pak Army took out their frustration on Bengalis
Gorki (February 7, 2011 at 10:21 am)
“…..Now that there is a consensus between the bigots in both India and Pakistan…..”
At last.
bigots are better at backing their words with action. the question to ask is: when will see a consensus between the liberals in both india and pakistan? or is that going to be as elusive a unity as it was in united india?
Usman bhai,
when will see a consensus between the liberals in both india and pakistan
But wudnt you need first a consensus between liberals themselves (i.e. the PTH faction and the LUBP faction) in Pakistan!!!
Regards
bciv wrote: when will see a consensus between the liberals in both india and pakistan? or is that going to be as elusive a unity as it was in united india?
What consensus are you looking for? Even in “Jinnah’s Pakistan is not dead” Thread, the only consensus I found in the end was “agree to disagree”.
Do you think a consensus between the couple of thousand Pakistani “Liberals” left in Pakistan and a bunch of Indian Commies, who don’t speak for India, makes any difference?
Most Indians know that it is a waste of time talking to Pakistani “Liberals” because they don’t have anything to say in Pakistan. In fact, it is often counterproductive to puts one’s stake in forces, which are interested in proving their credibility in front of the rest of the nation, for in order to prove their credibility, they become more Catholic than the Pope, meaning they adopt an even more intransigent position, even as they talk peace.
to Hayyer
Hindu religions let everyone find his own caste in due course of time. It is not a fast track religion to salvation or knowledge. Castes exist among muslims verywhere because the ideology of all humans being equal is false and hence the caste identity is least of a problem. Self-respect and honest life is the highest caste. That is what muslims will regain by abandoning the arab finalist-totalitarian import.
We are not dealing TODAY with ALL imperialisms/invasions/invaders now but specifically with the one that is most plaguing the ISC (indian subcontinent). So don’t obfuscate.
Samachar (February 6, 2011 at 10:52 am):
I understand your sense of loss, but would you or some other knowledgeable person help me understand when was Punjabi language used as medium of instruction. Were there ever any original books of higher learning in Punjabi language. During British period Urdu along with English was introduced as the medium of instruction. Before that during Muslim period including Sikh period it was Persian and Arabic. I do know for sure but my guess is that in pre-Islamic period it was perhaps Sanskrit, and that would have been more than a millennia ago. Even the word Punjab is of foreign origin. Sometimes it is so hard for us to accept that cultures change with time. Languages, religions, ethnicity, the way we dress, the food we eat, the music we like – all cultural phenomenon including even nationalities go through change and changes and transform into something different and new. I do not know what is exactly going on in your country India but I am old enough to see how culture of what is now Pakistan has changed since independence. If Pakistan continues to be a country within its present political borders, in another sixty years or an other century, the cultural differences between Pakistan and India will be greater and not lesser. In my opinion the main reason behind such trend is that unlike India Pakistan is not a multicultural society. The religion Islam and its ethos are the main modifiers of Pakistani culture. Islam is the official religion of Pakistan and consciously or unconsciously Urdu has become the lingua franca of Pakistan. My projection is that with time Pakistan and other countries such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan will become part of what some have called the Greater Middle East. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia – all three are directing their efforts in that direction. And India on its part will become an increasingly culturally Hindu society, a society much different than say the Mughal India.
“If Pakistan continues to be a country within its present political borders, in another sixty years or an other century, the cultural differences between Pakistan and India will be greater and not lesser….”
Dear PMA Sahib:
Mostly agree with your post that culture evolves constantly thus the above may very well turn out to be true. Also agree that we will go on drifting apart in some specific aspects.
However how much did your above projection take into account the process of globalization of ideas due to internet, cable TV, easy travel and interdependant global commerce?
Why would these areas you mention drift apart as cultural islands when the rest of the world is drifting towards more homogenization in terms of art, movies, cultural ideas, fashion, food, architecture and what not?
Please note that I am not saying that you are wrong, only wondering as a sceptic….
Regards.
Raj:
“What consensus are you looking for? Even in “Jinnah’s Pakistan is not dead” Thread, the only consensus I found in the end was “agree to disagree..”
The bigots only temporarily agree on who they want to eliminate first; after that they will again be at each other’s throat with a vengeance.
The liberals only disagree about how we got here; we all agree where we want to go from here.
Regards.
Dear PMA sahib
What will never change in Pakistan is the Hatred for Hindus
pakistani liberals are now facing the threat of talibanisation so they are a worried lot
But when these terrorists were being reared , ALL pakistanis including were feverishly dreaming and hoping and praying for conquering Kashmir.
Gorki (February 7, 2011 at 9:11 pm):
Gorki Sahab: Actually the geographical areas I have pointed out – and there are some more – are changing due to some of the factors you yourself have listed above. These are not ‘island’ as say but are part of the larger ‘sea’. After the fall of Soviet Union all three countries I have pointed out went to work in Central Asia. All three are trying to bring Central Asian countries into their respective political as well as cultural sphere. Iranian and Turkish media is reaching out where it did not before. Saudi Arabia is introducing Arabic schools in non-Arabic Muslim countries. Much of sectarian tensions in Pakistan and Afghanistan are Saudi Arabia and Iran sponsored. More Pakistanis routinely travel to the Arabian Peninsula than any other region of the world. Turkey has introduced flights to all Turkic countries and encourages Turkic students to study in Turkish schools. This is all due to globalization on regional scale.
Dear PMA Sahib:
what you say is very interesting. (Perhaps you should write a longer article elaborating your thoughts).
What (we outsiders
) know about the Iranian-Saudi competition is from the articles written by western analysts and authors.
How far is this a fact and if so how do you see this play out?
Can there be a consensus among various streams of political Islam?
What does it means for those of us in the immediate neighborhood especially China, Russia and India?
Regards.
Gorki (February 7, 2011 at 10:41 pm):
Mullahs of all stripes world over, and not just Wahhabi and Shia, are at ‘war’ with each other. This is how they make their living. Even your country India supports a certain brand.
Can there be a consensus among various streams of political Islam?
No, there has never been one neither there will be any.
What does it means for those of us in the immediate neighborhood especially China, Russia and India?
Well, you tell me. Your government has its finger in the fire too.
The latest news is that US has threatened to stop all aid if Mr Davis is harmed
Secondly when drones kill at least 5 people daily on an average why this anger over Mr Davis
Thirdly and most importantly US – Pakistan relations will only go down hill from here as the US will put entire blame for the Afghan
stalemate on Pakistan
So this “cash cow ” will stop giving dollars after 2 or 3 years
@PMA
Regarding the word Malik that you have associated with the Turks, no doubt you have done so knowing that it was ‘acquired’ by the Turks, not being a native word to Turkish, from Semitic roots. The word was m-l-k, and was interpreted at various times and at various places in different ways with different vowelisation, although we tend to remember it only as the god Moloch, and not as Milcom or as Molech and other renditions of the vowels. In the Semitic, too, one meaning was ‘lord’ or ‘king’.
“Well, you tell me. Your government has its finger in the fire too….”
I think India and its Muslims have their own problems and for them it does not matter if Pakistan falls under the Iranian influence or the Saudi influence (or develops a new religious\political identity alltogether) as long as it does not threaten to export it to us or try to rearrange the borders.
Our main anxiety is that we will get mired in a defensive battle for survival of our Republic and will not be able to meet the rising aspirations of our own millions.
As for China; who knows what the Chinese think but so far their main focus is the Eastern seaboard and nations around South China Sea. For them political Islam is not a threat to its main population\political centers. Its own Muslim population is too small to affect it in any big way. Besides it is actively engineering the demographics favorably in the west with Han migration as an insurance policy for the future. If anything Islamist resurgence is useful in keeping India, a potential rival, occupied.
I don’t know enough about Russia but I think it views Islamists varily like India but less so. (Perhaps because it has no internal Muslim population to speak of). Its war in Chechenya is too far off and it would finish Stalin’s genocide in Chechenya without compunction if only the West would agree to look the other way. If the Islamic nations on its South united as a block then it will be forced to take notice though.
Regards.
Vajra (February 8, 2011 at 12:07 am):
Vajra Sahab: I know just enough of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish to appreciate what you are saying. After all these are the languages of my forefathers (smiles). Other day watching media dialogue between American and Egyptian Presidents I could miss the commonality of their respective names: Barak (Ba-rakk) and Mubarak (Mu-ba-rakk). Mubarak is subjective form of Barak – like Ahmad and Mohammad for instance.
@ Hayyer: As per usual, your commentary is most brilliant in its concept. I commend you in your “bravery” in addressing the history of Islam. I believe that if this true history of the birth of Islam was taught and understood, then the misconceptions of the religion would not bring about such divisiveness in its followers.
Also, I cringe when so many (uninformed) people of this world continue to address people of certain regions as Arabs when they are no such thing!
Raj (TOO)
“The liberals only disagree about how we got here; we all agree where we want to go from here.”(Gorki)
there is a difference between sharing the same values and having differing views and analysis about some period of history.
PMA
“If Pakistan continues to be a country within its present political borders, in another sixty years or an other century, the cultural differences between Pakistan and India will be greater and not lesser. In my opinion the main reason behind such trend is that unlike India Pakistan is not a multicultural society. The religion Islam and its ethos are the main modifiers of Pakistani culture. Islam is the official religion of Pakistan and consciously or unconsciously Urdu has become the lingua franca of Pakistan.”
now lets find 5 more pakistanis from different ethnicities and geographical areas and see if they can agree with you.
@Gorki
“when the rest of the world is drifting towards more homogenization in terms of art, movies, cultural ideas, fashion, food, architecture and what not”
lets hope modern mass communications and globalisation results in a sharing of values, ideas trade and progress but not cloning culture.
PMA,
I’ll refer you to the Wiki on Punjabi literature. It has a long history.
Regardless of its past status, Punjabi is being developed in Indian Punjab.
Your arguments against Punjabi are very much like some Indians’ arguments against Urdu, btw.
As to the Arya Samajis – sorry to say, but they did create a lot of intra-Hindu problems, Hindu-Sikh problems and Hindu-Muslim problems. This all in the cause of trying to be as monotheistic and as doctrinaire as Christianity and Islam. Their opposition to Punjabi even in Punjab has resulted in no end of problems for India. (One writer, Girja Kumar, in “The Book on Trial” even places a root cause of partition to the Arya Samaj. Their unceasing polemics (along with Qadiani polemics) made it appear that Hindus and Muslims fundamentally could not get along.)
Safir Rammah writes:
“Prior to the British rule, a large number of local schools were functioning in the Punjab. They can be classified as madrassas (for Arabic and Islamic education), maktabs (for Persian education), Gurmukhi schools (for Punjabi language in Gurmukhi script and Sikh religious studies) and patshalas (Sanskrit schools). In all of these schools, Punjabi was the medium of teaching even though the main purpose was to teach other languages and religious subjects. For a number of years after the British conquest of the Punjab, official circulars and court orders were published in Punjabi. The subject of adopting Urdu or Punjabi as the official vernacular and medium of education in government schools was widely debated among the British officers. A number of them supported Urdu for various reasons, including their fear of resurgence of Sikhs if Punjabi was officially promoted. Most of the low level functionaries in the British governments bureaucracy in the Punjab had come from Urdu speaking areas. They also supported Urdu. Eventually, the British government adopted Urdu for Punjab’s schools and lower courts. Although Punjabi continued to be taught in some private schools in Gurmukhi script to Sikh children, it only served the purpose of religious studies since government employments were available only in Urdu and English. Punjabi missed the boat of British patronization that was the key turning point in the development of other regional languages, e.g., Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Sindhi, etc. ”
“The educated classes of Punjabi Muslims accepted the hegemony of Urdu without any question. A review of Punjabi literature during the first half of 20th century reveals that while during the previous millennium, Muslim writers and poets had dominated Punjabi writings, they were conspicuously absent from the Punjabi literary scene after Urdu medium schools had replaced the traditional local schools in the Punjab. Corresponding to this change in the education system, the golden era of Punjabi Sufi poetry ended with Khwaja Ghulam Farid and Mian Muhammad at the beginning of the 20th century. Sikhs and Hindus wrote most of the Punjabi literature during this period. Punjabi Muslim intellectuals, writers and journalists abandoned their own language and willingly aligned themselves with Urdu as an indispensable requisite of their claim of a separate Muslim identity. ”
“In the villages, markets and majority of the rural and urban homes of West Punjab, the use of Punjabi language in conversations is as robust as ever. Most of the market-based popular media, outside the realm of state controlled radio and TV, is in Punjabi. Punjabis have become used to the contradiction of talking and listening in Punjabi while reading and writing in Urdu or English. Even Punjabis living in the Diaspora shift from a telephone conversation with their parents in Punjabi to writing them letters and cards in Urdu without noticing the obvious change of language from one form of communication to the other. The small cadre of Punjabi activists and writers, who have been struggling against all odds to promote Punjabi language, literature and culture, have so far generally based their case on emotional appeals to save their beloved mother tongue and culture. Unless they fully understand the underlying institutionalized and entrenched power politics of languages in Pakistan, they will have little hope to win many adherents to their worthy cause. “
I also want to add that we tend to focus on Jinnah too much as though he really was all-power as the “Sole Spokesman”.
Sho Kuwajima in “Muslims, Nationalism and the Partition – 1946 Provincial Elections in India {Girish, the book has tables which I will reproduce sometime, that may answer your questions} – Sho notes that:
“A Convention of the 500 newly elected {1946 elections} Legislators to the Central and Provincial Assemblies was held in the Anglo-Arabic College, Delhi, from 7 to 9 April 1946.” — Note the date, it was during this period the Cabinet Mission delegation was interviewing various Indian leaders.
“It was this Convention that passed the resolution which clarified the scheme of Pakistan as ‘a sovereign independent State comprising Bengal and Assam in the North-East zone and the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan in the North-West zone.’ H.S. Suhrawardy, leader of the League Party in the Bengal Legislative Assembly moved this resolution and Abul Hashim was one of the members of the Subjects Committee which approved it. Now there was no room for further interpretation on ‘Independent States’ in the Lahore Resolution.”
—
The book also has more on the support for Pakistan and/or the Muslim League by the Communist Party of India. We are told that the Communist Party manifesto was as follows:
“Two basic principles were established. One was a constitution-making body based on universal adult franchise. The second was based on the Communist view of national self-determination. The constituents of the constitution-making body should be the sovereign Constituent Assembles of Pathanland, Baluchistan, Sind, Muslim Western Punjab, Sikh homelands of Central Punjab, Hindustan, Bihar, Rajasthan, Assam, Orissa, Andhra, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnatak, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bengal with previous agreement of plebisicte of Hindu and Muslim areas.”
“According to the statement, this was the only democratic solution of Congress-League differences and met with the just demands of both, because it met the essence of the League demand for Pakistan by giving sovereign rights to Muslim homelands while repudiating the ‘unjust claim’ of some leading Leagues to the whole of Punjab or to Assam. Also, the Congress was told that it met the Congress objection that they could not agree to the League claims without the verdict of the people. There was a possibility that the leaders of the Sikhs and Muslims might preserve the unity of the Punjab by coming to an agreement among themselves, while the entire people of Bengal could decide through a prior plebiscite whether they would preserve the unity of their homeland or split. However, the CPI was convinced that the majority of the delegates to the Constituent Assembly based on universal adult franchise would not only guard the freedom of their own homeland, but voluntarily agree to set up a common Indian Union for defending and advancing common interests.”
Samachar
Thanks for that reference. I will look for your posts on the topic. I will also try and get hold of the book myself. It is available online but I will try to find it in a library first.
It remains to be seen from the tables Samachar will reproduce if the Muslim majority areas were particularly disadvantaged in British India. I think Punjab and Bengal as a whole were not. But the Muslims in these areas were probably less developed than the Hindus. This was particularly true in Bengal, where the landowners in East Bengal were predominantly Hindu and the cultivators/landless laborers were predominantly Muslim. There was no sinister design in this, as it was generally the people from the lower economic rung who converted to Islam.
The economic difference between the Hindus and the Muslims was not the reason why the Muslim League was formed in Bengal in 1906. That had to do with the politics of the partition of Bengal. Curzon planned the division of Bengal ostensibly for better governance of the province, but his real goal was to create a political division between the Muslim majority East Bengal and the Hindu majority West Bengal. Initially the Muslims in East Bengal were not convinced. But Curzon gave a number of speeches throughout East Bengal trying to convince the prominent Muslims how the partition would improve the lives of Muslims. He finally clinched the deal with the Nawab of Dhaka. The estate of the Nawab of Dhaka was going through a severe financial crisis and the Govt. of Bengal backed it up financially. In turn the Govt. of Bengal encouraged the Nawab to organize a political body of Muslims to oppose the Congress’s Swadeshi movement which was against the partition of Bengal. That’s how the original Muslim League was formed in a palace of the Nawab of Dhaka.
Of course Jinnah was with Congress at this time and opposed the creation of a separate Muslim political body as he thought it would weaken the nationalist movement. His later association with the Muslim league had probably more to do with his disaffection with Congress than any perceived disadvantages to the Muslims. At least the second factor failed to convince him in his earlier political life.
Girish:
Punjabi has certain peculiarities in the way in which its consonants are voiced or articulated. Neither Devnagari nor the Arabic script provides for these sounds. Gurmukhi which according to one tradition is a creation of the last Sikh Guru features those consonants created specially for Punjabi.
I don’t know what modifications have been made to the Arabic script to make it suitable for Punjabi sounds in the form called Shahmukhi. I do know that a similar attempt to write Kashmiri in the Arabic script is not too successful. Kashmiri used to be written in the Shardi script centuries ago but no one seems to have persevered with it so that it is now known only to a few scholars.
I am not familiar with the GGS so I cannot comment much on that. The Sikh scripture includes the writings of non Punjabis it is not all Punjabi. Besides the preferred language of the last Guru seems to have been a kind of Purabaiya even as he used Persian for his formal correspondence and wrote beautiful Punjabi poetry.
In any case the GGS Punjabi is an archaic form starting with the language of the 12th century Punjab and terminating with the 17th. Most Sikhs I know need a guide to its vocabulary. The language also meanders all over the Punjab. The problem is more acute of course in the Muslim holy book where the modern language is said to be almost entirely incomprehensible to speakers of modern Arabic.
Samachar’s excellent post on the state of Punjabi summarizes the situation admirably. There is a government Punjabi which is quite distinct from the spoken language.
Indian Punjabi is now diverging from the variety my elders spoke because words of Sanskrit origin are edging out the Persian/Arab ones. This samasya for masla and kaaran for vaje and such like. They cannot entirely disappear because Persian and Arabic are embedded, rather like the name Punjab itself in the Punjabi, or at least the Sikh psyche. One form of the faith, the Khalsa meaning Pure is from the Persian as is Nihang, the fanatic sect of Sikhs, and there are countless words of Persian or Arabic origin in the scripture and in prayer.
“The liberals only disagree about how we got here; we all agree where we want to go from here.”(Gorki)
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with the implications being drawn from this.
How we got here may be irrelevant to where we want to go; but the disagreements about how we got here may be revealing, and may even suggest that we cannot get anywhere from here.
Take even the framing of the question “who is to blame for partition?”. What is this “blame”? Especially from a Pakistani point of view? If the August 11 1947 speech of Jinnah is important for its statement of secularism, then isn’t it also important “in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’s constitutional problem”????
From my point of view, for a Pakistani to seek to affix “blame” for partition – the very foundation of Pakistan’s existence – is basically them saying, it is somebody else’s fault that they are in a mess. “My parents didn’t want me, but I was forced to be born and now life is a mess”.
For a true “Jinnahite” there can be no question of “blame for partition”. Partition was the only solution. Maybe circumstances could have been changed to make another solution possible. Maybe.
I know, the thesis is that despite numerous pronouncements by the A.I.M.L., its supporters, its voters, its elected members, its working committee and its Qaid-e-Azam to the contrary, Pakistan was just a bargaining chip.
The Pakistani liberal seems to want to have its Jinnah (secularism) and deny it too (the only solution).
This doesn’t raise much confidence on the ability of the Pakistani liberal to grasp Pakistan’s problems, which are here, today and urgent, compared to this subject of historical interest only, of the partition.
Samachar (February 8, 2011 at 4:01 am):
“PMA: Your arguments against Punjabi are very much like some Indians’ arguments against Urdu”
I do not have an argument against Punjabi language in Pakistan. What I have stated here are my observations and not an argument.
“Regardless of its past status, Punjabi is being developed in Indian Punjab.”
Again, I have no problem with that.
Now about your quote of Safir Rammah. I do not know how old is this writeup, but some of his observations about Pakistani Punjab are not true anymore. Among the school going children and the schooled-classes slowly and gradually Urdu and English are replacing Punjabi. Raza Rumi, Hamadani, Feroz Khan, Usman Ahmad and PMA are most likely to converse in Urdu with each other than in Punjabi. Things change. Punjabi has no patronage in Pakistan and that is how it is.
PMA:
That is a representative statement on Punjabi on this side of the border too. Punjabi Indians like Punjabi Pakistanis are apt to converse in Hindi rather than Punjabi. Punjabi is therefore a dying language except in the Sikh diaspora.
It may not expire entirely though, because Sikhs if they want to practice their faith shall have to develop a nodding acquaintance with the script and language of their scripture. In that respect it may linger on, like Sanskrit.
@ no-communal
@ Samachar
1. The political evolution of the Muslim League took a different course from the one taken by the political evolution of Jinnah.
2. There is no doubt that Jinnah was an ardent, rather die-hard member of the Congress and among the earliest members of the Home Rule League, but we should not be oblivious to the attitudes of his colleagues which led him to distance himself. Instead of you reminding me of what Suharwardy said me reminding you of how Jinnah was not allowed to proceed with his speech at the Congress-Home Rule League Convention at Allahabad, simply because he said “Mr. Gandhi”. Each time Jinnah said “Mr. Gandhi”, the crowd shouted and interjected “Mahatama! Mahatama!”. Gandhi, who himself was presiding over the session, for reasons known best to himself, chose not to intervene. This was the body language, in need of no paraphrasing, that was faced by Jinnah.
3. Let us not forget that chauvinism does beget distancing. So let us not allow the discussion to drift in the direction of “who started it”. It was a multi-factorial phenomenon.
We have enough problems, more immediate ones, right in front of us.
Regards
Bin Ismail
to bin ismail
if muslims (incl. yourself) insist on saying pbuh after M. and calling him the greatest guy who ever walked on the earth then why should congress not insist on putting the title mahatma before Gandhi? In case of M. the conditions are worse. Someone threw down a visting card with the name M. upon it and he landed in pak hell.
to PMA
It is the long term goal and effect of islam to destroy non-arabic languages, identities etc. So panjabi has come under the wheels.
Arya Samaj was the semitized answer to the anti-hindu successes and hatreds of the semitic religions. Since arya samaj copied from the muslims hence they too became a nuisance in their own way.
Correction. At the meeting, Gandhi did urge the audience to respect “Jinnah and his choice of words.”* Also, Jinnah had used the term Mahatma in the past, so this was clearly meant to be an open snub.
Let us also recollect what Jinnah opposed, that led to the breach. The Congress adopted the following changes in this meeting, with Jinnah as the only significant opponent (specifically of the first of these)
1. The aim of the Congress (and the Home Rule League) was modified to seeking independence, from the previous aim of seeking somewhat greater rights and representation but within the British empire.
2. The organization of the Congress was democratized and made more grassroots based.
3. The eradication of untouchability was included as a Congress aim
* Source: Rajmohan Gandhi, “Gandhi, the man, his people and the empire”, page 234
@ amar (February 9, 2011 at 7:34 pm)
“…..why should congress not insist on putting the title mahatma before Gandhi? In case of M. the conditions are worse. Someone threw down a visting card with the name M. upon it and he landed in pak hell…..”
You are comparing the conduct of a bigoted mulla to that of Mr. Gandhi and drawing justification from what the mulla did. This is not exactly a compliment to Mr. Gandhi.
@ Girish (February 9, 2011 at 7:43 pm)
“…..Let us also recollect what Jinnah opposed, that led to the breach…..”
This is precisely what I would not like to prolong – a debate along the lines of “let us recollect…” and “let us see who started it”. I don’t see anything positive coming out of such a debate.
If so, please restrict yourself to statements that are based on verifiable fact.
@ Girish (February 9, 2011 at 8:48 pm)
“…..If so, please restrict yourself to statements that are based on verifiable fact…..”
I’m grateful for the good counsel. I believe, the fact that Gandhi was presiding is a verifiable fact. The fact that in his speech Jinnah had mentioned Gandhi as “Mahatama” too, is a verifiable fact. The fact that when Jinnah made mention of Gandhi as “Mr. Gandhi”, shouts of “Mahatama! Mahatama!” started pouring in from the crowd, and obviously disrupting Jinnah’s address, is a verifiable fact. The fact that on account of this interference, Jinnah did eventually have to abandon the podium is also a verifiable fact.
Not a very fruitful discussion – is it?
@ Girish
Mr. Girish has written about the famous incident at Nagpur session of Congress in 1920.
“Correction. At the meeting, Gandhi did urge the audience to respect “Jinnah and his choice of words.”* Also, Jinnah had used the term Mahatma in the past, so this was clearly meant to be an open snub.”
I have looked over the facts in different books but I did not find any thing supporting the claim quoted above. Famous author Stanley Wolpert has written about this incident in his book’ Jinnah of Pakistan’
Please check page no 70-72. Wolpert does not mention that Gandhi Ji tried to stop the audience, when the crowd was howling at Jinnah with cries of Shame! Shame! and ‘political imposter’ and urging him to use the word Mahatma. At the end of his speech Jinnah said
‘At the moment the destiny of the country is in the hands of two men, one of them is Gandhi…….I appeal to him to pause , to cry halt, before it is too late.’
The report about the Nagpur Session is also quoted on page 484-508 of vol 5, of ‘The works of Quaide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’. In this book also there is no mention that Gandhi ji tried to stop the crowd from hurling insults. That book may not be available in India so Mr. Girish can check his facts from ‘ Bombay Chronicle 29-30 December 1920.’
As far as the second part is concerned I should remind my friend that even during this speech sometimes JInnah used the word Mahatma and sometimes used the word Mr.. If one uses the word Mahatma once it does not mean that he is bound to use it always. Most of pakistanis use the words Quade Azam for Jinnah but in this discussion we are adressing him as Jinnah, but no disrespect is meant.
Thank You
@amar
February 9, 2011 at 7:34 pm
It is surprising (or may be not) that you are linking these two incidents. “Mr.” is a commonly used English honorific, and is usually used with the last name when addressing someone directly. So, Mr. Jinnah did nothing wrong by addressing Gandhi Ji, as Mr. Gandhi. (BTW, Ji is used all over India as an honorific way of addressing).
On the other hand, I would like to know, if Gandhi Ji ever addressed Mr. Jinnah as Quaid-e-Azam?
When Muslims use ‘peace and blessings of Allah’ for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him), we are actually praying for him. We use similar prayers for all other prophets of Allah.
There are no similarities.
Bin Ismail,
I have already given you a credible, widely respected source, with page number. The book is available for viewing online on google books, if you wish to verify it. There is a positive reference there to Gandhi’s urging the audience “to respect Jinnah and his choice of words”. The absence of a reference in Wolpert’s book or another source is no support to your claim that “Gandhi, who himself was presiding over the session, for reasons known best to himself, chose not to intervene. ” Does Wolpert say that Gandhi chose not to intervene or anything to that effect?
“Mr.” is no word of disrespect, and it was not necessary for any delegate to object to it and force Jinnah to address Gandhi as Mahatma. But there is nothing in the record, as far as I can tell, to insinuate that Gandhi, either by acts of commission or even omission (as you are suggesting) contributed to this or even condoned it.
And yes, the reason for my giving the context for the meeting is that it was a situation where the entire Congress, both Hindus and Muslims being active members at that session, had agreed to a big change in direction, including seeking swaraj/independence, a campaign against untouchability and big changes in the organization of the Congress. Only one significant leader was opposing the change. That was the context for the demand from the audience to use the Mahatma prefix for Gandhi and the Maulana prefix for Mohammed Ali.
Ibn-e-Maryam: Gandhi almost always addressed Jinnah as Quaid-e-Azam, in his public writings, in his letters to him, in his speeches. For instance, please refer to the articles he wrote in the Harijan, or the correspondence between him and Jinnah before and during their 1944 talks, or indeed even his speeches/writings after independence and see what he refers to Jinnah as. After Jinnah got that title, I don’t think you will find many instances where Gandhi refers to him as anything other than Quaid-e-Azam. And in any but polite words.
Ibn-e-Maryam,
For your reference, the full text of the Gandhi Jinnah correspondence during their 1944 talks is available here for viewing/download.
http://www.archive.org/details/GandhiJinnahTalks
Please see what Gandhi addresses Jinnah as in every letter as “Dear Qaid-e-Azam”
@ Girish (February 9, 2011 at 10:50 pm)
I believe, part of your comment was in response to the comment by Sultan Ahmad. Thank you anyway. I could not help noticing two different and conflicting sets of logic, applied by you:
1. You have said, “…The absence of a reference in Wolpert’s book or another source is no support to your claim that “Gandhi, who himself was presiding over the session, for reasons known best to himself, chose not to intervene. ” Does Wolpert say that Gandhi chose not to intervene or anything to that effect?…”
2.You have also said, “…there is nothing in the record, as far as I can tell, to insinuate that Gandhi, either by acts of commission or even omission (as you are suggesting) contributed to this or even condoned it…”
In the first instance, you have argued that the the absence of a reference in Wolpert’s book does not establish that it never happened. However, in your second quote you seem to accept as acceptable evidence, the absence of another reference, by stating, “…there is nothing in the record…”. Would it not have been fairer, if you had applied the same logic to both instances?
Regards.
Bin Ismail,
Sorry for mistaking Sultan Ahmad’s post as yours.
I am qualifying the “nothing in the record” with “as far as I can tell”. That is an accurate description of my position and is consistent with the rest of my post.
To be fair, it must be mentioned that the key point of divergence between Jinnah and the Congress was not on any personality related issues, or even their overall aim to improve representation for Indians. It was on the means adopted to achieve ends that were quite close. Gandhi committed the Congress to a path of mass agitation, or non-violent non-cooperation. Jinnah did not agree with this course and split from the Congress, virtually alone. But the personalities in question, particularly Gandhi and Jinnah managed to maintain civility and even issued joint appeals well after the breach had been made virtually unbridgeable.
That civility in the face of disagreement is missing in much of the discourse today.
“At Nagpur the Congress also accepted the new bottom up structure for its organization that Gandhi had proposed. Three general secretaries were appointed for the coming year: Motilal Nehru, Ansari, and Rajagopalachari. For the first time in its history, a campaign against untouchability was made part of the Congress programme. Finally, as the Home Rule League had done, the Congress changed its aim from ‘Swaraj within the Empire’ to just ‘Swaraj’.
Jinnah was emphatic in his opposition to this change, and at first Das and Pal agreed with him. Later Jinnah was left alone in dissent, and when he referred in his remarks to ‘Mr. Gandhi’ and ‘Mr. Muhammad Ali’ , there were shouts that he should say ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Maulana’. Gandhi urged the audience to respect Jinnah and his choice of words, but the Bombay barrister felt he had had enough. After Nagpur, he left the Congress.”
Gandhi, Rajmohan Gandhi, pp 233-234
@ Girish
Essentially, it boils down to your “as far as I can tell” against Wolpert’s “as far as I can tell” – but that’s alright. We can agree to disagree on who contributed more to Jinnah’s distancing himself from the Congress.
Regarding your words on “civility in the face of disagreement”, all I can say is that civility, decency and decorum must be maintained at all costs. And by the way, if during the course of our discussion, you have found any of my comments uncivil, please do accept my sincere apology.
Bin Ismail,
I don’t think your comments have been uncivil at all – to the contrary, I have found you patient and willing to engage in a civil way even when the person you have been discussing with has been anything but civil. My comment about uncivility is directed more generally, and I must say, in sheer numbers, to people from India or of Indian origin more than others.
BTW, my main argument was not about the more general point about what caused Jinnah’s distancing from the Congress. It was about a specific point that Gandhi chose to not say anything when some of the delegates in the session asked Jinnah to refer to Gandhi as Mahatma (to which he reportedly complied) and Mohammed Ali as Maulana (to which he did not). I have read quite a bit about the history of the independence struggle and the personalities involved, though there is a lot lot more to read and I do not claim mastery over the topic. I have not come across credible evidence to the effect that Gandhi did not say anything. But there is a credible source, that I have referred to here, which says that he did urge the audience to respect Jinnah and his words. That was my main point, and that is where I disagree with you in this discussion.
Let’s leave it at that.
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.
Girish,
Thank you.
Why did Jinnah then join the ML where it was customary/compulsary to say pbuh (salallahoallaihewasallam, a phrase much longer than the word “mahatma”) after the name of M.?
Hypocrisy ran and runs the show everywhere. Jinnah had his hypocrisies too.
Hypocrisy ran and runs the show everywhere. Jinnah had his hypocrisies too.
The bloggers here are well aware that you are trying to run the show but thanks to the more sensible people on PTH you will not prevail.