Pak Tea House » Egalitarian Pakistan, Identity, Islam, Jinnah, Pak Tea House, Religion, Rights, state » Nations within a Nation; The Search for a Pakistani Nation – 1
Nations within a Nation; The Search for a Pakistani Nation – 1
By Adnan Syed
“Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous” (Voltaire)
Nations within a Nation
I write these lines in the year 2011. It is 63 years since my country gained independence. The idea of a separate homeland for Indian Muslims gained momentum during the momentous decade of 1940s. The idea of Pakistan proved so strong and infectious among the Muslim masses of then United India that within 7 years after a resolution was passed by Muslim League, Pakistan was born.
From the very beginnings, this idea of Pakistan contained certain vagueness to it. Two Nation Theory stipulated that India primarily consisted of two major nations that were distinct from each other. The primary cause of this difference came from their religions. Nations were derived from their religious identity; even if cultural differences were distinct, religion still played a huge role in shaping the culture. Therefore, if religion was a huge aspect behind the distinction, won’t religion play a huge role in the new state that was formed due to that very distinction?
We think in 2011 we have a slightly better understanding regarding the idea of nation and various identities that individuals carry within them that eventually coalesce into a nation. These identities may be tribal, linguistic, cultural, religious, or even centered around a single cherished ideal. These identities may overlap each other, most often blurring the lines between various characteristics that define a nation. Nations may or may not have a nation state, though most modern nation-states do comprise of one or more nations that have a singular cultural, linguistic or religious thread running through them.
Nation is a Fluid Concept
The concept of nation itself is amorphous. Modern nation states are increasingly developing their identity simply around an idea; race, culture or religions are beginning to take a back seat. For example, a second generation Italian American or a Pilipino American is glued to his or nation by the idea of freedom that the United States of America guarantees for all of its citizens. Canada used to have an identity derived from British Loyalists Protestants who lived along with Catholic Quebecers in a Christian majority secular nation. This identity rapidly gave way to firmly secular, freedom-for-each-individual driven ideology comprising of various cultures keeping their cultural distinctiveness inside a firmly secular democratic framework. Indeed in the decades to come, we may see nations born out of shared ideals rooted in scientific or economic principles. The key is to recognize the amorphous nature of nation itself.
Bengalis were a nation in the United India, where their primary identity came from their culture and language. When Eastern Bengal became part of Pakistan, it quickly found its cultural identity threatened by the overriding Islamic identity that was imposed upon them by Pakistan. In a span of 5 years, the idea of Bangladesh that was confined to loud musings of Bengali nationalists became a political reality.
When a facet of a nation’s identity is threatened, it does not mean that the nation is rejecting its other identities. It simply means that the nation rallies around the threatened identity to safeguard its imagined identity. The perceived threat may appear larger than it is. The nation (or the nation group) can be accused of being paranoid, and exaggerating the threat. But almost in all cases, the nation group perceives itself to be subjugated, and retaliates by invoking the identity that defines that nation.
The formation of Bangladesh was part of the identity wars that were unleashed in the Sub-Continent in the twentieth century. The formation of Bangladesh followed the formation of Pakistan, and rather curiously, explains birth of Pakistan quite well. In both cases, a sizeable section of population felt threatened by another group of people inside the country. Rightly or wrongly, they assumed that their identity was threatened by the coercive tactics employed by the dominant section of the society to which they belonged. In both cases, demands of these “nations” were dismissed out of hand, causing them to become more rigid in their fears, and consequently their stance. In both cases, the dominant section of the society denied the nation status to the threatened nation, insisting that there was but one nation in the country. In both cases, the demand to protect their identities rapidly coalesced into a demand for an independent nation state since their very right to be considered a nation (built around the threatened identity), was denied. Once they can’t win recognition within the existing political framework, they can’t win any considerations against the perceived threats. In both cases, the nations decided to walk away from the existing political structure, often after excessive violence and loss of lives.
One major aspect of this rapid nation building process is unfortunately, fear. Fear lends itself to rather extreme behavior. Fear intensifies when it faces rejection or indifference. Inside a nation that is rallying around a threat, emotions take a turn towards further protectionism. This is where the modern formation of nation around a perceived identity threat gets tricky; are they correct in asking for their rights? Are their rights indeed been violated as much as they suggested?
Most likely not; But that does not invalidate the idea of a nation that is rallying around a perceived threat to its identity. Once the threat goes away, the raison d’être of that nation take a firm back seat. The nation does not cease to exist, but the principle reason behind its rise ceases to. And to deal with the threat to an identity, it is vital to realize that nation is a continuous and amorphous concept. And the idea of nation will continue to evolve in the future. As long as humans share common traits and identities (ideological, tribal, religious), they will continue to manufacture various nations to which they will belong simultaneously. Most of these nations will remain dormant most of the time. Most of the time when the identities are threatened, will they be invoked; where they will seek to alleviate the threat that they will face from other sections of the society.
Dealing with Nations within a Nation
Once we recognize that multitudes of identities (and consequently nations) exist within a society, we begin realizing that a nation of nations can only exist peacefully once the dominance of majority is neutralized to an extent that none of the sub-nations feel sidelined. To begin with, that means taking away institutional discrimination based upon religious or ethnic characteristics. In some cases however sterilizing the dominance of a majority may prove impossible; Hindus cannot offer equality to Muslims inside the Indian society because they are simply in majority. Pakistani Punjabis cannot offer equal opportunity to Balochis or Sindhis because Punjab has the overwhelming majority within the nation of Pakistan. Hindus or Punjabis cannot reduce their majority to satisfy a minority nation’s fears.
There are no easy answers to this conundrum; however the key to a rally under the banner of a nation is the perception of not being recognized as a nation. This perception leads to another perception that once a nation itself goes unrecognized, there is scant chance of getting its grievances properly addressed inside the present political framework. These perceptions take time to develop based on ground events. In essence, the demand of a nation within a nation is based upon perception of lack of recognition, that itself is based upon perception of inequality and injustice. Once these reasons are taken away, that demand and the consequent identity movement withers away.
But what happens when the nation within a nation wins freedom by invoking its suddenly discovered ideal. Once a nation forms a separate state based on its new found nationalism, will it stick to its nationalist cause and sacrifice the very equality? As we discussed in the beginning of the article, the two nation theory was primarily based on distinctive majority-two-nations within United India. The distinction was cultural as well as religious, where both of these characteristics freely overlapped each other. Given the dominance of religion within the edifice of the Muslim nation, it was inevitable that religion will form a large part in the new nation state that was carved due to the Muslim nation identity. And given a strong tradition of political Islam within the Muslim body, it was inevitable that the very political Islam will find its way through the vague contours of the shifting idea of an Indian Muslim nation that was formed mainly as a reaction to the changing landscape of nineteenth and twentieth century India.
Given Pakistan was a political unit demanded by the sudden rise in Indian Muslim nationalism in a span of 7 years, it remained a reactive idea. It was an alternative to recognition of the Muslim nation; and when that recognition was denied, Pakistan was born. And this is where the reactive nature of the idea became its own worst enemy. Because when a nation is formed around an ideal of cultural and religious identity, it is hard for the new state to not turn and impose the very religious inspired identity upon all who live inside the boundaries of the newly formed nation. The very violation (or the perception of violation) of equality is what gave rise to the newly formed nation state of Pakistan. What Pakistani founders failed to realize was that if the new found state is to repeat the same mistake, its sub nations will feel immediately threatened, in a way similar to how Muslims felt due to perceived Hindu dominated India. As it happened, new nations within Pakistan did quickly rise to protect their interests and ideals.
Tomorrow: Imposing Pakistani nationalism upon Pakistan
Filed under: Egalitarian Pakistan, Identity, Islam, Jinnah, Pak Tea House, Religion, Rights, state · Tags: azw, Jinnah, National identity, nations, Objectives Resolution, Pakistan, Two Nation Theory
99 Responses to "Nations within a Nation; The Search for a Pakistani Nation – 1"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- AKB
said UGLY INDIA!!
.
India’s slide leads to an i... - 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...
Brilliant article Sir. I found this comment by Dr Mishra elsewhere, and I paraphrase it slightly-
INDIA AND PAKISTANI NATIONS
MJ Akbar, an Indian journalist said that the children of Jinnah need to defeat the children of Maududi. Similarly we often say in India, that the tragedy of the muslims in the subcontinent is the fight between Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb won, and so was murdered the cosmopolitan Dara, who had translated the Vedas and the Upanishads, and had thus appreciated the spectacular advancements of the hindu civilisation. And so was murdered a chance to combine 2 nations.
Aurangzeb, Maududi, Ghazi Ilmudin, Quadri- the list of SEPARATORS is endless.
Nevertheless, it brings me to the next point. Contrary to the few Indians on PTH and ET expressing displeasure about the creation of Pakistan, can I claim to speak for the 99.9% of Indians for whom the creation of Partition is an old historical event to which we are largely indifferent. So, whether Pak was created on group nationalism or religious divide is irrelevant, a bit of semantics.
I finish with another quote from MJ Akbar who I admire greatly, and which has relevance with this debate- ‘ why is it that when muslims are in a minority, ie India, they desperately want a secular democracy, and when they are in a majority they slide inexorably towards a theocratic dictatorship? BALWINDER SANDHU
Comparing the formation of Bangladesh with that of Pakistan is the height of imagination. Why wasn’t Sheikh Mujibur Rehman allowed to become the Prime Minister?
Adnan Syed:
Excellent analysis and I do look forward to Part II of this eloquent and rational narrative.
The Two Nation Theory was, as I believe and have often argued, a self-preservative theory for both the Muslim-majority states bloc and the Indian Muslim minority community. The very need for a self-preservative stance would not have arisen if a certain demeanour had not been adopted by the Congress leadership. There are certain attitudes of the majority that naturally tend to inspire attitudes of dissent among minorities. India needs to learn from 1947 and Pakistan needs to learn from 1971.
Adnan Syed,
this looks like an interesting thesis, but I am interested to know whether in the end, you arrive at the right implications or not!
An uncharacteristically shallow and rambling article. I was looking forward to reading the article when I saw the title and the name of the author but am disappointed. Maybe the next article in the series will be better thought through.
Bin Ismail: could you please point out specifics about the demeanor and attitide that you allege Congress and the majority Hindu community adopted that inspired attitudes of dissent amongst the minorities? I am curious.
@ Bin Ismail
It will again lead us to CMP debate. Although I do not support CMP, I would like to inform you that it was AIML who first withdrew support from CMP. Why AIML withdrew its support from CMP just one the basis of a press statement from Nehru? In Jan 1947 Congress climbed down on grouping issue however Jinnah and the Muslim League stated that the Congress’s “acceptance” in its 6 January Resolution was not unequivocal and genuine enough and rejected it.
Now can we read AIML’s resolution regarding acceptance of CMP and see how unequivocal it was?
Regards
QUOTING Bin Ismail
“The very need for a self-preservative stance would not have arisen if a certain demeanour had not been adopted by the Congress leadership. There are certain attitudes of the majority that naturally tend to inspire attitudes of dissent among minorities.”
You have regurgitated the CORE LIE of Pakistan Ideology. All the several thousand lies, the subsequent internal and external warfare, inability to form a nation all flow from this CORE LIE.
Alas, I don’t expect you to see The Light.
Balwinder:
Thanks and I agree with Dr. Mishra’s comments wholeheartedly. Except that I must add for Pakistan, it is a matter of life and death to realize whether Muslim nationalism equals Islamist nationalism or not?
Regarding the fact that 99% of Indians accept Pakistan’s existence, I, and many others roughly concur. The number may not be 99%, but overwhelming majority of Indians want to have peaceful relationships with Pakistan. We have to fight those within our nation who are unsure of raison detre behind our nation, and use your nation as a bogey to keep bolstering a false ideology that is playing havoc with our nation.
the amorphousness of the idea of a nation means that any one nation can rise quickly given the events on the ground. It also probably means that there is no right or a wrong nation. I am hoping for more comments on overlapping, multidimensional identities within a society that can take lives of their own, especially if the society becomes unfair towards them. The inclusion of religion complicates the situation as Pakistan is experiencing firsthand.
@Balwinder Sandhu
“Nevertheless, it brings me to the next point. Contrary to the few Indians on PTH and ET expressing displeasure about the creation of Pakistan, can I claim to speak for the 99.9% of Indians for whom the creation of Partition is an old historical event to which we are largely indifferent. So, whether Pak was created on group nationalism or religious divide is irrelevant, a bit of semantics.”
The above is a mischaracterization of why Indians are discussing creation of Pakistan. This has nothing to do with some Indians “not accepting” Pakistan.
The discussion of partition history is not to score brownie points against Pakistanis either.
It is very much relevant to present day reality of Pakistan and what Pakistanis think of themselves. It is futile to lament present day poisonous fruits with out addressing/exposing the roots of the poisonous tree.
Indian curriculum, outlook is secular. Attempts to make India, a Hindu Pakistan have been resisted. Our history books teach Indians of all stripes fought against British and some muslims wanted a separate country and we are one people. Historical religious fault lines are downplayed.
However, Pakistanis are taught lies, hatred of hindus, falsified versions of Jinnah/partition story in Pakistan Studies. This subject is required even in medical, dental and engineering colleges.
These are examples of REAL questions in Pakistan Studies exam paper:
1. Write short notes on why Congress was a hindu organization
2.What are the 4 castes of Hindus, and outline how they are classified
3.Explain how Congress worked against the interests of Muslims.
Ajmal Kasabs are produced through this education. Hatred of non-muslims, specifically of hindus, Hinduism, portrayal of Indic heritage as pure evil, degraded society is imparted in Pakistani curriculum.
Most/ Many Indian muslims were Congress supporters until early 1940s, and even in 1947 many rejected Muslim League policies. Congress had Muslim Presidents including Maulana Azad. Thus teaching lies has produced a fascistic state, hell bent on violence inside and outside.
Dear AZW,
Let me add to your and Balwinder’s comments.
To me as an Indian living in 2011, it is immaterial now as to how and why Pakistan came into being. Thus I second the following:
“It also probably means that there is no right or a wrong nation….”
However as an Indian Punjabi (with my farm less than 60 miles from the Pakistani border) wishing to be left alone to live in peace and , the following is of utmost importance:
“We have to fight those within our nation who are unsure of raison detre behind our nation, and use your nation as a bogey to keep bolstering a false ideology that is playing havoc with our nation…..”
Rest is of importance for Pakistanis alone (eg how they want to define themselves).
Regards.
@Raj_m, @Girish,
Having heard stories of genocide of Muslims from my grandparents in Punjab in 1947, I cannot help but say that their fears in a Hindu-dominated India were vindicated. Muslims were denied jobs and discriminated against in the pre-1947 era. Hence group nationalism based on Islam had to be invoked in retaliation as the writer argues.
peace and = peace and calm
Gorki
“To me as an Indian living in 2011, it is immaterial now as to how and why Pakistan came into being.”
That is a surprising statement. Even if you see yourselves as a Punjabi alone, the partition, merely sixty years ago, was a cataclysmic event for Punjabi people – an event in which untold numbers were slaughtered and had to leave home. Understanding how and why that happened – not the creation of Pakistan itself – should be of fundamental importance to Punjabis.
“It also probably means that there is no right or a wrong nation….”
This is just too silly, unless we take the position that nothing in the world is ever wrong or right.
————————
I came to check this site out because my friend ylh used to be involved here, at least in its early days, I believe. Surprised to see so many Indians here. My guess was that this would be a place where mostly Pakistani liberals would come to share ideas, join forces, and build Pakistan they would be proud of.
“Understanding how and why that happened – not the creation of Pakistan itself – should be of fundamental importance to Punjabis…”
The partition affected all of us; some of us like my family in personal gut wrenching ways. However I think most Indian Punjabis have moved along and the events of parition are a distant memory like the Ghalugaras of the 18th century.
Even 60 miles from the border Pakistan is only mentioned either during cricket matches or when ever there is a major terror attack\theat of hostilities as a result.
Amaar
I don’t share that view but am very much interested in understanding what other people believe to be true.
Did your grandparents complain of discrimination against them and jobs being denied to them in Punjab specifically or did they see it as an all-India/Hindu-specific phenomenon?
The brief Congress rule, pre-1947, is also seen by some Muslims as an event of considerable significance. Many of them charge that the Congress banned Cow-Slaughter in order to offend Muslims, forbade construction of new mosques, threw Muslims out of jobs, and encouraged desecration of mosques by Hindus. Did you grandparents mention any of that too or was that perception limited to Muslims from UP?
Again, that is not my view, but it’s important to understand why a Punjabi would think so differently than, say, Gorky. Thanks in advance, if you share your thoughts.
“most Indian Punjabis have moved along and the events of parition are a distant memory”
Gorky, in that case, would it not be better to leave its discussion to those who are actually interested in understanding it and who believe it – and everything related to it – remains relevant to us today?
Kaal Chakra,
What I gather from the experience of my elders in eastern Punjab, in the weeks leading up to and after August 1947, violence against Muslims had flared up. The situation was pretty bad especially since Indian army regiments, comprising mainly Hindu Dogra soldiers, had imposed restrictions on Muslims from carrying weapons for self-defense but Sikhs were barred from this on religious ground. Sikh mobs were involved in pogroms of Muslim villages in Gurdaspur district particularly. Ultimately, the situation got so out of hand that my elders had to leave their towns for Lahore.
I also know that the issue of cow slaughter was an issue there even in the 1930s. The other issue of Muslims being subjugated to usury by Hindu moneylenders was also a massive economic problem during this era. From this I gather that the problems you mentioned were also widespread in Punjab.
regards,
@ Raj/ Girish/ Sudhir/ etc
We should learn from history. Even decade before 1940 there were many opurtunities when a little flexible attitude on Congress side could have brought Muslims and Hindus together e.g. When Nehru Report came out in 1928, even Jinnah was convincing Muslim League that they should join hands with Congress. And he himself went to Congress working Committee meeting for some minor amendments in the Nehru Report. But such was the attitude their that all the suggestions put forward by Jinnah were turned down. And just imagine most of the suggestions were minor issues. Such attitudes could not have ended in united India.
The area that constitutes today’s Pakistan was free of communal riots until the partition riots even if North India and Bengal were in flames. It is misleading to say that the partition riots somehow justified the TNT without ignoring the principle of causality. The Muslim majority areas were not that keen on partition, middle class in North India was or were made to be.
In a multicultural state whether a particular sub-culture thrives is decided by those in the sub-culture, not by those who are not. Once some basic rights are guaranteed by the state, Bengali, Tamil, or Marathi subcultures are thriving in India. Even if there are signs of attrition, it is due to influence of English not Hindi. Would the subcontinent’s more than 30% Muslims have been able to ensure adequate state patronage to Urdu? Would they have retained sufficient control of the state influence, even if Congress won the election? They most certainly would have. (One needs no further proof of this than the example of Vande Mataram. Even with a 13% Muslim population, India did not choose this song as the national anthem despite it being a far superior composition to Jana Gana Mana at least in isolation. One must also keep in mind that Vande Mataram, in addition to being the undisputed rallying cry of the nationalist movement, actually captures the true essence of how the majority views their motherland.) Was Muslim subculture really threatened in independent India? How could this be, if India was going to be based on the principle of one man one vote? Would there have been some mutual discriminations at the individual levels? Probably there would have been, but most certainly they would have diminished over time. As Azad said repeatedly, identity issues were non-issues for 80% of the subcontinent who lived together in villages for over one thousand years.
“would it not be better to leave its discussion to those who are actually interested in understanding it and who believe it – and everything related to it – remains relevant to us today?…”
Dear Kaal Chakra,
If you go through the back pages of the PTH using tags like the partition of India, India, Jinnah, CMP, Nehru, Gandhi, Two nation theory etc. you will find this topic; of the partition of India has been discussed in more ways than one can imagine. The Indian POV and the Paksitani POV is divergent on this topic, even among the liberals (for the record I don’t agree wholeheartedly with the pakistanis on some important points you raised either). Others are much more critical of Paksitani POV.
Therefore it usually becomes a mud fight after about 30-50 posts.
After staying through all of these, I have come to realise that the more important issue is not a common understanding or an agreement on the past but the following words of AZW:
“We have to fight those within our nation who are unsure of raison detre behind our nation, and use your nation as a bogey to keep bolstering a false ideology that is playing havoc with our nation…..”
It is for this purpose I wrote my first post; to read intra-Pakistani discussion in this matter independant of distractions provided by our presence.
I hope you understand and also hope you are not offended.
Regards.
Amaar
“Muslims were denied jobs and discriminated against in the pre-1947 era.”
Before british arrived, India was ruled by Muslims for more than 700 years. I think all pakis very proudly claim that. I fail to understand what prevented muslims from getting educated and occupy respected positions in govt/ society. pl do not tell me that those muslims rulers also discriminated muslims against hindus.
For your information muslim world on the whole still lags behind rest of the world in education, research, inventions and modern governing system called democracy. any idea why?
Girish,
Consider the following before passing judgments:
1. The government of India was decidedly dominated by Indian Congress despite British lordship. Mountbatten and Nehru were close personal friends; Jinnah and Mountbatten never had a cozy relationship.
2. It is true that the violence also hit Hindu community in western Punjab but let us not put the cart before the horse; the pogroms against Muslims in eastern Punjab preceded the violence against Hindus. Gandhi’s nonviolence philosophy could not stop Sikhs and Hindus from savaging Muslim neighbors in Gurdaspur district well before the first Hindu was molested in Lahore.
3. The partition of Punjab and Bengal was contrary to the earlier agreement between the British, ML and Congress. Cyril Radcliffe demarcated the provinces along religious lines even though as a whole both were Muslim-majority states. This demarcation shifted a large non-Muslim population out of Pakistan making the possibility of theocratic control feasible.
4. Ahrar, a Muslim extremist group, were supported by Nehru. Congress lawyers fought the cases of Ahrar without fees. Why? Simply because the Ahrar were stauncly pro-Congress.
sudhir,
‘I fail to understand what prevented muslims from getting educated and occupy respected positions in govt/ society. pl do not tell me that those muslims rulers also discriminated muslims against hindus.’
Thanks to our mullahs who branded modern education as haram (forbidden), a large number of Muslims were misguided into the wrong direction. Also do not forget that the British blamed Muslims mostly for 1857 revolts despite Hindu contribution as well. This meant that there was a natural mutual animosity between British and Muslim Indians who resented the ‘outsider’ learning. Stupid as it may have been but this played a big role in Muslims not getting the right opportunities subsequently. Thus was created an imbalance which continues to this date.
In reply to Amaar:
1. Pre-Independence Punjab never had a Congress government. It had a Unionist Government. For a pre-independence Punjabi to complain of Congress discrimination in Punjab is something of a trick of propaganda.
2. The “partition” violence in Punjab really started with the Feb-March 1947 attempts of the Muslim League to overthrow the Unionist Government. Of course, there were riots before that. But for other reasons, and none so deadly.
I refer you to this:
http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/punjab-february—march-1947
from which I quote:
Note by Sir E. Jenkins (Governor of Punjab)
20 March 1947
Raja Ghazanfar Ali came to see me at 4 p.m. today. He opened in rather a complacent way about the riots in the Rawalpindi and Attock districts and in the Chakwal Sub-Division. He took great credit for having kept Gujrat and the greater part of Jhelum quiet. He scouted the idea that the outbreak was organised or that the League had anything to do with it.
He worked up gradually to the suggestion that I might now put a Muslim League Ministry into power. He suggested a general election and said that this would give the electorate an opportunity of deciding whether the Punjab should be partitioned or not.
…
I was exasperated by Ghazanfar Ali’s complacency and dealt with him rather roughly. I said he did not appear to realise that what had occurred in Rawalpindi, Attock and the Chakwal Sub-Division was a general massacre of a most beastly kind. He could suggest, as he had suggested, in dealing with the conspiracy theory that the non-Muslims had been provocative, but the provocation was certainly not such as to justify the slaughter and savagery that had occurred.
As regards a Muslim League Government, I said I would resign sooner than see one in office at this juncture, and I thought practically every British officer would do the same. The massacre had been conducted in the name of the Muslim League, and senior Military Officers thought that it had been carefully planned and organised. Non-Muslims with some justice now regarded the Muslims has little better than animals, and for my own part I thought that British officers would find it difficult to work with or under such people.
I could see no object whatever in a a general election. It would not alter the basic position that no single community could rule the Punjab except by actual conquest. If a Muslim League Government took office, there would be immediate fighting, and the Government would find it impossible to hold even a single session of the Assembly. I considered Raja Ghazanfar Ali’s political views so irresponsible as to be hardly worth discussing.
…
I said that the troubles of the Muslim League were due to folly and bad leadership. The League had given the impression that the Muslims were a kind of ruling race in the Punjab and would be good enough to treat with generosity their fellow Punjabis, such as the Sikhs, when their rule was established. They could not explain what they meant by “Pakistan”, and unless they were prepared to deal with other Punjabis as equals, they would make no progress at all. It was a ludicrous position in which the so-called League leaders had to take orders from Bombay from a person entirely ignorant of Punjab conditions. If Raja Ghazanfar Ali argued, as he did, that the Central picture must be complete before any picture of the Punjab could even be sketched, my reply was that his whole conception of the future of India was topsy turvy. A Punjab divided into two or three States or in a condition of chaos and civil war could not possibly fit into any conceivable all-India picture. Surely the right course was to determine the future of the units in a way acceptable to their inhabitants and then to sketch the all-India picture. (Raja Ghazanfar Ali said that he thought there was something to this.).
At the end of the interview Raja Ghazanfar Ali said that I had distorted and misrepresented the League’s views and that he would send me a number of statements by Mr. Jinnah showing that he had never intended to treat the minorities and particularly the Sikhs, in the way I suggested.
I said that the first task now was to restore order. I could not prevent the League from making further blunders. They had already fooled away a kingdom, and it would in my judgment be futile now to attempt any final solution of the Punjab problem until feelings had settled down. The League did not seem to realise that the non-Muslims regarded the Muslims of Rawalpindi and Attock as little better than beasts and hated the League profoundly. It was futile to suggest, as he had suggested, that the League agitation was noncommunal. It was manifestly communal from the first, and could not have been anything else.
Thanks Amaar
Very much appreciate your response. This genuinely understanding of where others may be coming from is far far more helpful in creating mutual trust, and in some case, mutual respect, than merely hand-waving and hoping that all our differences and discords will disappear and peace will descend on its own if we could only ignore our differences long enough.
Best regards
———
Having said all that, I still think that PTV would be better served if it stuck to its original vision (or my view of their original vision) – as a place for Pakistani liberals to pool their resources and share their ideas. Not as a forum for Indian-Pakistani debates. These debates can be never-ending, and can be hugely distracting for Pakistani liberals.
My do paise
Best.
I am sure PTH will not turn into PTV anytime soon….so apologies for the typo.
Jenkins, March 17, 1947, excerpt:
3. The rural disturbances have been far more serious. The major outbreaks are so far confined to the Rawalpindi and Attock districts, the part of the Jhelum district around Chakwal, and the Multan district.
Trains have been attacked in Mianwali, and there is a report in this morning about the looting of an entire train on the Khushab-Kundian line somewhere near the Mianwali borders.
4. In the rural areas gravely affected there has been extreme savagery. In the triangle Taxile-Murree-Gujar Khan there was a regular butchery of non-Muslims particularly Sikhs. Cruelty and treachery seem to have been common. General Messervy told me that he had seen in hospital a child whose hands have been cut off; there are at least two well-authenticated stories of non-Muslims being lured into “peace committees” and then murdered; and in one village, a party of Sikhs, who surrendered to the Muslim attackers on the promise that their lives would be spared, were murdered out of hand. The most brutal killings seem to have been in the triangle to which I have referred, but there has been frightful brutality outside it, and everywhere in the district looting and arson have been common.
In Attock the Chauntra area, which is very close to Rawalpindi, was affected in much the same way. In the rest of the district there seem to have been fewer killings than in Rawalpindi, but quite as much burning and looting. A common method of attack has been for the Muslims in a village to put white flags on their houses and to invite the Muslims of the neighbouring villages to come in and deal with property not so marked.
In the Chakwal neighbourhood of the Jhelum district a large village, Dhudial, was sacked, but the Police and troops were able to inflict fairly heavy casualties on the attackers.
In Multan murder, arson and looting were very much the same as in the districts of the Rawalpindi Division, but the area affected (the Sadar Police Station and part of the Shujabad tahsil) is flat and relatively easy to control. The troops seem to have inflicted fairly heavy casualties on a mob at an early stage, and though the loss of life and property must have been heavy, it is certainly less than that in the Rawalpindi district.
…
7. It is very difficult to account for this extraordinarily violent rural movement. General Messervy thinks that there are some signs of organisation and conspiracy- in parts of Rawalpindi outbreaks seem to have occurred almost simultaneously, and the raid at Murree to which I referred in my letter of 9th appears to have been carefully planned and carried out. All Muslims in the affected districts seem to be involved in or sympathetic to the movement. The Commander 7th Division told me when I saw him yesterday that attacks on non-Muslims had been led in some cases by retired Army officers-some of them pensioners with honorary Commissioned rank. The Muslim section of the local notables, to whom I spoke at Campbellpur yesterday, were extremely sulky, and though some of them are beginning to be frightened, there is little doubt that they believe that the movement was inevitable and are not prepared to oppose it.
The most probable theory is that the growth of the Pakistan idea from 1943 onwards, the extreme communalism of the election campaign of 1945-46, the frustration which followed it, the propaganda against the Coalition Ministry, the Muslim League agitation, H.M.G’s statement of 20th February, and Khizar’s resignation combined to touch off an explosive mixture which had been forming for some time. The Muslims say that they were influenced by rumors of a large Sikh Army marching on the north; also that the movement is a spontaneous outburst against black-marketing by non-Muslims. It is more likely that they believe that by exterminating non-Muslims now they will make their districts a safe base for operations against the other communities in due course. No educated man could reasonably believe the story about the Sikh army, and though opportunity had been take to wipe out economic scores, resentment at the controls and the way in which non-Muslims make money out of them was not in my judgment the immediate cause of the trouble.
Amaar, when you write 3. The partition of Punjab and Bengal was contrary to the earlier agreement between the British, ML and Congress.
your understanding of history is essentially wrong. Right from the get-go, the British told Jinnah – you can have your groupings of undivided provinces within an undivided India, or you can have only the Muslim-majority districts (the so-called moth-eaten Pakistan).
Ahrar, a Muslim extremist group, were supported by Nehru. Congress lawyers fought the cases of Ahrar without fees. Why? Simply because the Ahrar were stauncly pro-Congress.
The Ahrar choose to support the Muslim League sometime around Feb-March 1947.
no-communal wrote:
The area that constitutes today’s Pakistan was free of communal riots until the partition riots even if North India and Bengal were in flames.
The above is a lie of Goebbelsian proportions.
@Girish (March 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm)
@sudhir (March 15, 2011 at 7:16 pm)
@Raj_m (March 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm)
Girish, I have reason to believe that you would, in all likelihood, be more aware of the specifics than myself. With reference to Amaar’s comment (March 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm), may I add that one cannot exactly ignore his argument. Our friends may also like to examine the comment of Sultan (March 15, 2011 at 9:50 pm) and preferably more dispassionately. What he says does appear to make sense. The idea here, is not to initiate a debate on “who started it”, because it is does seem a bit late for that. The idea essentially, is to learn from history, something not many of us are really eager to do.
The following words of Adnan Syed warrant attention than is being lent: “…Fear intensifies when it faces rejection or indifference. Inside a nation that is rallying around a threat, emotions take a turn towards further protectionism. This is where the modern formation of nation around a perceived identity threat gets tricky…”.
We have moved ahead of 1947 by 64 years and of 1971 by 40. What has been done cannot be undone but what we can do is to learn from what we all have done.
@Kaal Chakra
March 15, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Having said all that, I still think that PTV would be better served if it stuck to its original vision (or my view of their original vision) – as a place for Pakistani liberals to pool their resources and share their ideas. Not as a forum for Indian-Pakistani debates. These debates can be never-ending, and can be hugely distracting for Pakistani liberals.
I don’t know who you are, which is a welcome change from my usual position of not knowing who I am, but had to comment because of what you wrote.
This is so true, and yet so seldom honoured.
I wish that your words should come true at the earliest.
Correction: Please read as:
The following words of Adnan Syed warrant [more] attention than is being lent: “…Fear intensifies when it faces rejection or indifference. Inside a nation that is rallying around a threat, emotions take a turn towards further protectionism. This is where the modern formation of nation around a perceived identity threat gets tricky…”.
Sorry for the omission.
@Samachar
“no-communal wrote:
The area that constitutes today’s Pakistan was free of communal riots until the partition riots even if North India and Bengal were in flames.
The above is a lie of Goebbelsian proportions.”
Samachar, I am amused. Who wrote the following lines,
“The “partition” violence in Punjab really started with the Feb-March 1947 attempts of the Muslim League to overthrow the Unionist Government. Of course, there were riots before that. But for other reasons, and none so deadly.”
Does it still appear to be “Goebbelsian proportions”?
Welcome Kaal to PTH
I am sure just like chowk you will add a lot of value. Always liked your comments at chowk. Being one of the editors of PTH, it is our privilage to have you here.
Regards
Raza Habib Raja aka Skeptical
About the alleged atrocities to Muslims committed by the Congress ministries, this is what Azad had to say many years after. Unless liberals still believe that Azad was merely acting as a quisling and did not have the Muslim interest in mind, this should settle the question.
“I must however make one fact clear. The Provincial Congress Committees of Bihar and Bombay erred in denying local leadership to Dr Syed Mahmud and Mr Nariman, and the Working Committee was not strong enough to rectify the wrong. Apart from this one lapse, Congress made every effort to live up to its principles. Once the Ministries were formed, every effort was made to ensure justice to all minorities.
When Congress accepted office, a Parliamentary Board was formed to supervise the work of the Ministries and give them general guidance on policy. The Board consisted of Sardar Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad and myself. I was thus in charge of the Parliamentary affairs in several Provinces, viz., Bengal, Bihar, UP, Punjab, Sind and the Frontier. Every incident which involved communal issues came up before me. From personal knowledge and with a full sense of responsibility, I can therefore say that the charges leveled by Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League about injustice to Muslims and other minorities were absolutely false. If there has been an iota of truth in any of these charges, I would have seen to it that the injustice was rectified. I was prepared even to resign if necessary on an issue like this.” , India Wins Freedom,[pp. 24-25] .
@Girish
Correction for some errors:
12% of the population today). So India could go on to construct a secular polity with half the minority proportion as Pakistan while for Pakistan, theocratic rule was made feasible by the removal of Muslim minority areas, even though one in four of its citizens belonged to the minorities even after such removal? I don’t get the logic at all.”>
When you measure the religious minorities of India as “under 13%”, where are you placing the Shudhars? The kind of treatment the Hindu religious law proposes for them, should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that they are not Hindus. The Hindu religious law instructs, and I believe you are aware of this, that if a Shudhar happens to listen to the recitation of the Hindu sacred Scriptures, the Vedas, molten Copper should be poured into the ears of such a Shudhar. Without going into the debate of whether this teaching is humane or not, my primary concern here is that if the Shudhars are not meant to listen to the recitation of the Hindu Scripture and if the sacred Hindu Scripture is not meant for the Shudhar, then how can the Shudhar community be included among the Hindus? It should be interesting to see what the proportion of minorities in India would be, if the Shudhars were to be counted rightfully as a non-Hindu minority, given that the Hindu Scripture is most certainly not meant for them.
Pakistan would never have come into existence if the idea of India as one nation was bigger than the ideas of Islam or Hinduism individually. In my view, Congress sought to inculcate that idea of one nation but it was limited by the fact that practically speaking it was failing to bring the majority of muslim Indians along in certain key parts of India. The idea was a very noble one but it failed in a practical way. There are many reasons for this and they have been discussed ad nauseam on this forum by Pakistani liberals. When I see the selectivity and tenor of the debate even today, it’s clear that similar debates, dominated by religious identity were the order of the day in those times.
Today Pakistan faces the same issue. The idea of one Pakistani nation is not strong enough. The other identities whether religious or ethnic are much stronger. They seek to dominate the national narrative. The idea that Pakistan is a nation for Muslims and the state should be a strictly Islamic one has been the one patronised by the security establishment. As other identities also exist in Pakistan, a partition or cleansing of sorts has begun once again. The PPP which is the only political force that has had representation from all four provinces is not up to the tough challenge for upholding a Pakistani identity, as one nation, over other identities. In a vague sense, there are some parallels with partition and why history marches in certain directions.
Unfortunately a narrative dominated by talk of minority and majority undermines the idea of one nation.
@Samachar
Incorrect argument. The Boundary Commission led by Sir Cyril Radcliffe had to demarcate the boundary for the two countries. How is it possible for Radcliffe to assign heavy Muslim populated areas of Punjab to India?
Interestingly, Qadian, which was the headquarters the Ahmadiyya community, was presented as a Muslim holy place by the Muslim League to the Commission. This city and its environs – which definitely only had minor Hindus or Sikhs communities – were assigned to India. This led to a large migration of Ahmadis from India to Pakistan. Why if it were not for an unfair assignment of a city which was only 70 miles from Lahore?
There are no strict “Hindu religious law” as there are Muslim religious laws. Even if there were various attempts to organize such laws in the ancient times, almost no one follow them except in ceremonies such as marriages. The molten lead appears in an obsolete scripture that is probably not even printed. Right in the early fifties India adopted modern civil codes for the Hindus. The first law minister was explicitly chosen as a Dalit for specifically this purpose. An average Indian will be startled to hear that “Shudars” should not listen to Hindu scripture. In my hometown there’s an annual community Durga festival specifically managed by the sheduled caste community (variously called Dalits, Shudars etc.). While there may be odd incidents of social discrimination in the rural areas, in the larger Indian context this issue is insignificant.
No Communal
“The molten lead appears in an obsolete scripture that is probably not even printed…odd incidents”
How did such a teaching survive then which we non-Hindus are so amply and painfully aware of? As for ‘odd incidents’, Dalits continue to allege widespread incidents of discrimination and subjugation across India.
Amaar wrote
“The kind of treatment the Hindu religious law proposes for them, should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that they are not Hindus. ”
=
You dont know India
And you are a bigot. to be honest
Our courts, Judiciary, constituition, parliament, day to day activities are all dictated by “Hindu Religious Law”. Pakistan Studies education, and surfing internet to read Left extremist hate literature should not be construed to be scholarship.
Amaar wrote:
Because proselytization programs and programs for the consolidation of religious fervor requires that the other community be painted in bad light! So the defects of the other religious faith are magnified many times over.
That is why I say, a religion is not defined by scripture but by the social dynamic of its adherents, as observed empirically! Were there any truth to this rumor of pouring molten copper/lead into the ears of Shudras, there would have been plenty of reporting on it!
This is just another rumor which the Muslim clergy and Muslim chauvinists use to underline the superiority of their beliefs over those of the Hindus.
By all means, stay Muslim if you wish, but do some research before you accept the anti-Hindu propaganda as true! Of course, there is the “positive side” of accepting such propaganda at face blank value – one’s beliefs are not shaken! But should beliefs be based on lies?
@Girish
‘On a side note, I also find it funny how the same person can go from claiming that Dalits do not constitute a part of Hindu society to saying that Jinnah appointed a Hindu as his first law minister (when he actually was a Dalit and hence not a Hindu).’
What religion Dalits follow is of no concern in this discussion. If you have an analytical ability you will see my point about minority persecution. Instead of twisting my words you should return to the original argument at hand. What was under discussion is that a group which has a common denominator feels that some particular identity it possesses is under threat and reacts to defend that identity.
I feel that the self-righteous and Pakistan-is-the-problem attitude you espouse was precisely the attitude of Hindu Congress members in the 1940s. No need to look any further. Here on a Pakistani blog where we are discussing means to protect the country from annihilation of formerly Congress-sponsored mullahs you can only think of insult and taunt.
After seeing the comments of some many Indians I wonder why would’nt the Nehru-Patel mindset be arrogant and chavinistic towards Muslims?
THE VERSION of “Muslims fought against Hindu discrimination and our beautiful Pakistan was achieved after our beloved Quaid defeated Hindu Banias who connived with the British” is the poison seed.
Your inability to form a viable nation, let alone a tolerant nation is because of this poison pill.
Mountbatten came just before partition. Muslim Leaguers were the stooges of the British. Pakistani scholars have started breaking through this barrier and have started writing things heretical to the Pakistani nationalistic narrative. I will post Tareq Fatah’s comments in the next post.
Ishtiaq Ahmed wrote couple of pieces in Daily Times pointing out how ML disrupted communal harmony deliberately He also wrote Jinnah was fully involved in the 1948 war and laid the foundation for the tradition of proxy jihad, and the subsequent tradition of Pakistani civilian leaders feigning ignorance of proxy jihad.
YLH wrote “rebuttals” to him, but his comments were more along the lines of personal attacks, innuendos and ridiculing Ishtiaq Ahmed. YLH also has the habit of simply dismissing any one disagreeing with his positions to be “biased”.
Amaar,
“The Hindu religious law instructs, and I believe you are aware of this, that if a Shudhar happens to listen to the recitation of the Hindu sacred Scriptures, the Vedas, molten Copper should be poured into the ears of such a Shudhar.”
Actually, we use plastic now. Copper is too expensive man. Some idiots suggested molten wax but some evil brahmans objected that it might be taken as a cosmetic(pun intended) procedure. Btw, it’s shudra not sudar or shudhar..
Amaar
Why the non-Hindus are so amply and painfully aware of it is a curious question. May be because they are deliberately made to be aware of it. What else could be the reason, because as a born Hindu, and this I am saying with all honesty and sincerity, I myself was not aware of the molten lead rule. That is, before I was told of such a rule in PTH.
How did this happen? How did Hindus by and large forget this rule? May be because in Hinduism there is no one book, no one source. There are multitude of books, folklores, fairy tales, local customs, all put together is Hinduism. Manusmriti, which supposedly contains that rule, is a drop in the ocean of these multitudes of sources. I am not being dishonest when I say that almost no average Indian has ever seen a copy of Manusmriti. Kamasutra is another ancient scripture, written by the sage Vatsyayana. There are depictions of explicit sexual positions between males and females (and in some cases between the same sexes) in many ancient temples. Do all these represent what is generally known as Hinduism? May be they all do, but there is no “core”, no single source, on which you can pin what are really a set of continuously evolving mores. The molten lead rule has been lost in these continuous evolutions.
As for Dalits alleging incidents of discrimination and subjugation, the largest province in India is ruled by a Dalit leader who leads a Dalit-centric party. The “subjugation” issue is also abundantly abused for political purposes, like anywhere in the world. The Constitution has possibly the most sweeping affirmative action program in the world. This, by the way, is a cause for consternation among multitudes of equally poor non-Dalits, because India is most definitely not yet a country without scarcity of resources. So no doubt the Dalits have been very well taken care of by the leaders, many of them (for example the present Speaker of the Parliament and past Presidents, among others) are Dalits themselves. There are incidents of social discriminations in the rural side but how can that be stopped by laws which cannot encroach on peoples personal lives. Even then there are village level government bodies which are meant to take care of such social and personal matters.
@Girish (March 15, 2011 at 11:24 pm)
Bin Ismail may like to answer for himself. However, what I would like to say is that it is never one single event that is perceived as threatening. It would obviously be a series of events and the general attitude, that would be seen as potentially threatening. I also cannot agree with you on Amaar’s comment. You are right that history has been distorted by State machinery in Pakistan, but deplorably speaking the history taught by Indian textbooks is also not unbiased. Quoting you, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” applies here too. The 1947 Muslim deaths and casualties, as you know, greatly outnumber Hindu casualties. So Amaar does have a point and a point that stands. Your rather casual handling of Sultan’s comment was disappointingly unimpressive. Calling the Nehru Report debate a complicated one is not an argument. You are obviously evading the discussion. But never mind.
Mubarak,
“but deplorably speaking the history taught by Indian textbooks is also not unbiased.”
This issue comes up again and again. We have given examples ad nauseam about the relative scarcity or such biased textbooks. Now, would you be so kind as to furnish some examples.
I think it’s because of such biased comments that some of us Indians get sucked in these debates. One would expect the radicals to hold such outdated views but to see some dyed in wool liberal spew such gibberish makes me rather sad. How can one compare birth of Bangladesh with that of Pakistan. That just takes the biscuit, I say. Really, I mean, was the entire hoopla about a piece of steak or “demeanor” of some in the Congress?