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...
@ Adnan Syed:
Excellent analysis. Albeit without conclusion, but maybe you are going to formulate one in your next article.
You have highlighted points that are normally skipped and hopped over, even on relatively liberal blogs like this one.
Its good to see more people finally seeing Pakistan’s ideology in a balanced way without ignoring its blatant short-comings, or what I would say, blunderingly ignored aspects of it.
Thanks for contributing to a much needed debate.
@Raj_m
“Muslim Leaguers were the stooges of the British. …
Ishtiaq Ahmed wrote couple of pieces in Daily Times pointing out … 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.”
1. I wonder what kind of a stooge ML made since the British did not hand over the territories demanded by ML? Kashmir, East Punjab, West Bengal were all lost by the stooges of the British.
2. Ishtiaq Ahmed is not the final authority on Pakistan.
3. The war of 1948 was between two fully independent nations where the bigger power had usurped and occcupied a land (Kashmir) which, under the terms of partition agreement, was to belong to Pakistan.
Amaar
“Also do not forget that the British blamed Muslims mostly for 1857 revolts despite Hindu contribution as well.”
I am talking of those 700 years which preceded british rule and was a big enough time period for muslims to evolve their religion/believes esp when they were getting priviliges from muslim rulers.
@Sudhir
The fall of Muslim civilization in India owes to several factors. One of which was that the education of Mughal era was insufficient to keep pace with science and technology of the west. Add to that the fact that mullahs declared modern learning as heretical. What is left is a marginalized community which has cut off itself from the very means to get out of the hole.
Amaar
“The war of 1948 was between two fully independent nations where the bigger power had usurped and occcupied a land (Kashmir) which, under the terms of partition agreement, was to belong to Pakistan”
This issue has also been discussed many times. Indian troops landed in kashmir only after Paki tribals invaded Kashmir. Mr Jinnah was very much aware and party of this invasion. India acted only after treaty of accession was signed by Hari Singh.
So effectively Kashmir logically belonged to Pakistan however was gifted by Jinnah to India on a platter.
Amaar
“The fall of Muslim civilization in India owes to several factors.”
You are deliberately avoiding the point here. Before muslim rule fell in India there was a time of 700 years for your brothers to rise in the social hierarchy and join the main stream of society.
@Sudhir
My ‘brothers’ were already in power as masters of India. They could only fall.
As for Kashmir, Sudir miyan, you have put the cart before the horse.
Fact 1: Kashmir was Muslim-majority.
Fact 2: Under the agreement of distribution of land, it should have gone to India.
Fact 3: Dogara Raja asked Indian government to send its troops to Kashmir. They complied in Oct. 1947; the first troops landed and occupied the territory.
Argument: Why would tribesmen be sent to Kashmir as a military expedition if Kashmir already was in Pakistan’s possession?
Correction:
Fact 2: It should have gone to Pakistan as a Muslim-majority state.
The idea was to conjoin Muslim-majority and Hindu-majority provinces into the respective countries. The division of Punjab and Bengal was along religious lines which was actually a faulty decision as they should have gone in totality to Pakistan. Notwithstanding this injustice, Jinnah accepted it as fait accompli (as a ‘honorable’ nation in his own words).
But Kashmir was an altogether different situation.
Amaar
I think you need to read history books (not paki currculum books
Princely states were given a choice to join India or Pak. The decision rested in the hands of Hari Singh. Regarding tribal invasion pl. read a good book, tribals from pak invaded kashmir in last week of October 1947 to liberate Kashmir from a hindu Raja. Now your YLH mian asserts that Jinnah was not aware about this invasion and this was done by non state actors. Ishtiaq ahmed has written a series of articles in daily times clearly establishing that invasion was done after consent of Jinnah.
The war of 1948 was between two fully independent nations where the bigger power had usurped and occcupied a land (Kashmir) which, under the terms of partition agreement, was to belong to Pakistan.
Bullshit. Pakistan violated the standstill agreement with Raja Hari Singh, and sent in irregulars interspersed with regular troops. Raja Hari Singh asked for help, and as Lord Mountbatten advised, it would be improper for India to send help unless the Raja acceded. Which he did. Even so, it is famously known that if the Pakistani raiders had not stopped to rape and massacre a cloister of nuns, they might have advanced fast enough to capture Srinagar airport and thereby keep India out. Pakistan’s plans were thwarted and the result thereafter is the 63 year obsession of Pakistan with J&K; Operation Gibraltar launched by Pakistan in 1965, the Kargil operation launched in 1999, after Vajpayee had paid a visit to Minar-e-Pakistan and essentially said let us bury past history and begin anew. This obsession also led Pakistan to foster the multitudes of Jihadis that now have broken their bounds and plague Pakistanis with bombings and shootings. In fact, all these so-called “Pakistani liberals” disavowed this state-sponsored jihad policy only after blowback began.
And now you want to lie all about this. The fact is that for a great number of Pakistanis, Pakistani nationhood is based on grievances, and not on anything positive. One-half of the “liberal” brigage subscribes to the Ayesha Jalal thesis “Pakistan was forced on us, we did not want Partition”. The other half subscribes to the idea that we wanted Partition, but only because of various grievances.
Then, there is the nonsensical notion espoused in this article, that Bangladesh split from Pakistan for the same reason that Pakistan split from India. Yeah, Gandhi, a Gujarati, learned to write in Urdu; while Jinnah, a fellow Gujarati told Bengalis that their language could not be an official language. What is the equivalent in this analogy of holding an election, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and the Awami League winning a majority of seats in Parliament and then being denied the right to be the ruling party????
The only positive – i.e., “for something” rather than “against something” notion of Pakistani nationhood, unfortunately, are the Pakistanis who say Pakistan is for Islam. The secularists are seemingly for something positive, but that is highly deceptive, because they are able to articulate their secularism only in the historical context of the grievances the Muslim League and Jinnah imagined they had against the Hindus. That is why Pakistani histories excoriate any and all Muslim thought that was in favor of a unified nation. All such Muslims are either fundamentalists or they are kafirs, in the Pakistani national discourse. Unless, of course, they are needed to explain Pakistan’s failings. There is a whole school of South Asian Muslim secular thought, but it has its home in India; and by virtue of residing there, is forbidden for Pakistanis even to look at.
Let’s say you wake up tomorrow, having forgotten all of history, and you take the time to visit the myriads of Pakistani people, talking to them about their day-to-day lives and their aspirations. After that, can you articulate a positive vision for Pakistan, just based on that?
Such a vision will dispel all others. It won’t happen though, because of various reasons:
1. The attachment to history as grievance. Obsession with Gandhi and Nehru.
2. The attachment to history as lost glory. Glory is lost because the religious faith is not strong enough.
3. If you ask “what are the injustices that average Pakistanis face that alienate them from the Pakistani institutions” you may find that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. (e.g., very few articles here, if at all, on how Pakistan should finance its government, which is a key to development; infinite number of articles on what Jinnah might or might not have thought. Why? Perhaps because the class of people represented here don’t want to pay taxes.)
4.You all are more interested in injustices in J&K, Palestine, Bosnia, etc., Rushdie, cartoons published in obscure Danish publications (Denmark has a population of 5.5 million, approx. Lahore? and some fraction of these would have been aware of the cartoons) and so on, than the injustices at home. Perhaps with honorable exception, the blasphemy laws.
—
Also – the liberals need to write in Urdu and reach the wider audience rather than this incestuous talk amongst themselves.
sudhir (March 16, 2011 at 2:09 am)
Amaar
“The fall of Muslim civilization in India owes to several factors.”
You are deliberately avoiding the point here. Before muslim rule fell in India there was a time of 700 years for your brothers to rise in the social hierarchy and join the main stream of society.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
@sudhir (March 16, 2011 at 2:09 am)
You’re mistaken. I’m deliberately confronting the point that most of Indian friends like to avoid. Firstly, there was no such thing as the “Muslim Rule”. There was a series of rulers, who were Muslim and that’s it. You don’t call that “Muslim Rule”. The East generally was falling behind the West in scientific research and technology. Even if there had been Vedic Rule for these 7 centuries, India still would have fallen behind. Then came the British. And along with them came their education and this is where the phenomenon I was talking about took place. The Indian Hindus grabbed the opportunity, and rightly so, and began to move ahead and up the ladder and I commend them for that. The maulvis, however, declared British education heretic and the average Muslim father for some decades remained extremely reluctant to expose his child to what Maulvi Sahib had declared heresy. It was during these decades that the Hindu youth had managed to gain a lead ahead of the Muslim youth. Being better educated, they obviously got better slots in the British system. Again good for them. Now this was happening all over India. By the time, other factors including Sir Syed were able to motivate Muslim youth towards this heretic education, the lead enjoyed by the Hindus had become huge. Obviously, the British were not on the look out for Indians who were proficient in Arabic, Persian and Urdu Poetry. The Hindus became the natural candidates. In due course, the Muslim community, as a community had become a disadvantaged one.
Nobody’s blaming you for this but this in my opinion is how things unfolded.
Amaar,
It’s actually Al Ghazali’s fault. Happy now?
@Sudhir @Samachar
If Kashmir belongs to India because Raja sahib wanted to accede to India then Hyderabad and Rann of Katch should have come into Pakistan’s fold as their princely rulers wanted to join the later. The states instead fell to India.
Would you like to explain the inconsistency?
At the risk of this discussion becoming a shouting match between India and Pakistan, and at the risk of putting some of the material from the second part of the series, let me reiterate a few points here: That this article is meant for Pakistan to realize that the process of nation forming can happen a lot quicker when the events on the ground compel a nation to rally around its threatened cause. I am not saying that the demand for Pakistan was absolutely wrong or absolutely right. But inside a society where a strong perception of inequality exists, the formation of nation and the movement for a national state can happen very quickly.
The idea of a nation can gain currency by a minority based on perception of indifference, contempt or rejection of that very nation. That Muslims were going steadily downhill in the Indian society since 1857 is a fact. There was a movement within the Muslim community to define itself as a separate nation within India. Muslims feared that they will be dominated by a Hindu Raj even though they had a sizeable minority within India. After the disastrous Congress rule between 1937 and 1939, the gulf between Muslim nation and the Hindu nation had widened considerably. Muslim League became the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims and Congress rejected this role of ML as sole Muslim nation spokesman.
We can all look at the events 63 years later and say that hey, look Muslims, your concerns did not turn out the way you feared. But the events on the ground were reinforcing the fears that were coalescing Muslims around Jinnah. The idea of perpetual majority and perpetual minority was not getting any help from Congress’ attitude. Seervai and Ambedkar slammed Congress for it heavy handedness in rejecting Muslim nationalism and calling Jinnah’s bluff. The minority nation’s fears became more rigid due to the indifference of the majority nation. A similar fear entered Quebec’s psyche in Canada where (rightly or wrongly) they assumed that their identity as French speaking European descendents with their unique culture was under threat in English Canada. As long as Canada continued to downplay that fear, the nationalist cause kept growing. The French Canada tried to secede repeatedly, and only once Canada accorded them constitutional protection as a nation within Canada and acceding to their (right or wrong) demands, did this nationalist movement weaken.
I am not a fatalist, who believe that Pakistan was promised to the Indian Muslims by the God Almighty. Pakistan was a product of the events of the decade of 1940s. I am also realist enough to believe that the idea of a separate nation for 50% of the Muslim nation was not the perfect one. Even Jinnah posed the exact question in his Aug 11 speech when he said “Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. . He thought given the circumstances, this was the best option. But my point is that what we can change is circumstances. That Congress dropped the ball to alleviate Muslim nation concerns caused them to react sharply. That Pakistan refused to alleviate the Bengali nation concerns resulted in their sharp reaction. That British Canada refused to deal with French Canadian concern brought the country closer to getting split in two (they were saved by a hair’s breadth when 50.56% of Quebecers voted to remain within Canada).
My point remains that if Pakistan continues to ignore the lessons from its own birth, it will see the same story repeated within it again and again. Pakistan cannot dismiss the calls for Balochis and Sindhis as an unjust demand based on wrong perceptions. The problem lies in the approach of the Pakistani state itself. For that matter, the same goes for India. Though by adopting secularism and continuing with democracy, India has kept itself on the right path. But deep down, even every Indian ought to ask themselves: are Kashmiris demanding freedom from India completely crazy and have baseless demands? What it India simply dismisses them as a minority that can be subdued simply with force, since they are so few. In your mind, not an iota of injustice is accorded to Kashmiri Muslims hence their demands do not merit a dialogue as a proper Kashmiri nation. That in my view would be a refusal to learn from the history.
[...are Kashmiris demanding freedom from India completely crazy and have baseless demands?..in my view would be a refusal to learn from the history..]
What do you think?… Isn’t pakiland already an exmaple of what happens when a bunch of muslims get crazy with hate of kafir and demand this and that?…. how would islamic kashmir woould be any different from islamic pakiland? How would another 100% islamic country make any difference?…
If at all – you are the one who is refusing to learn from history…
About Kashmir
Even going by the UNSC resolution, it would be very clear who was the aggressor. The operative part of the most important UN Resolution,that of Aug. 13, 1948 states:
Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and ….
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:
As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.
B.
1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.
2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.
About Hyderabad
Firstly, a little bit of background. Hyderabad, Deccan was a princely state ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali, at the time of the Partition. The Princely state was about 85% Hindu and surrounded on all four sides by a predominantly Hindu British India with no external access except through these lands. The Princely State of Hyderabad had no sea-ports. The Nizam, at that time, was reputed to be the world’s richest man.
On the same day the Maharajah of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India, Oct. 26, 1947, the Nizam was supposed to sign the “Standstill Agreement” with the GoI. The “Standstill Agreement” effectively maintained a status-quo relationship with India while the Nizam could make up his mind about the future of his state. The Nizam essentially did not want to lose his power of lordship over his citizens (I don’t blame him, who would ?. But, unfortunately, his desire for perpetuating his rule, flew in the face of the realities of a changed scenario.) He wanted to strike a deal with Jinnah who promised him heaven if Hyderabad so chose to join with Pakistan (this was bribery that Jinnah had successfully done with Islamists, pirs, zamindars, ashrafs and some Princess). The draft Stand-Still agreement had earlier been approved by his Executive Council after three days of debate and had been also negotiated with the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten. However, when the time came to sign it, the Nizam was wavering. In the meanwhile, the Razaakar goons (a private militia under the patronage of the Nizam) of Ittehadul-Muslimeen surrounded the house of the Government of India delegation carrying the Standstill Agreement and forced them to flee. At last, the Nizam signed the Agreement on Nov 29, 1947. However, this incident led to a loss of trust by New Delhi in the Nizam (and rightly so). The Nizam sent an Ittihad (the same religious organization which hounded out the delegation from Delhi earlier) emissary to Jinnah for advice. Jinnah, though he probably knew the futility of a land-locked and Hindu majority state way down south ever being part of Pakistan, still decided to make life miserable for Indian leaders at the cost of the Nizam. He advised the Nizam “not to give an inch” and the Nizam promptly played into his hands. The Princely State of Hyderabad and GoI negotiated for the next nine months to reach an agreement between the Heads of States to formalize the Stand-Still agreement, but the Nizam was steadfast in following Jinnah’s advice. The distrust that GoI had started to develop with the Nizam was complete when on June 15, 1948, the Nizam rejected the final draft after it had been re-drafted three times with his Executive Council. The final draft was very generous leaving the Nizam complete control except in matters of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. The Nizam also approached the US which refused to intervene. After considerable debate within the cabinet of GoI, after having exhausted all reasonable avenues, after having waited more than a year, after repeated obstinacy from the Nizam, after the Razaakars had started killing Hindus and raping their women, and after a couple of last-minute postponements at the instance of the First Indian Governor-General Rajagoplachari in order to give more time to the Nizam for sanity, the Indian Government finally launched Operation Polo on Sep. 13, 1948. The blame rests entirely with the Nizam and Jinnah, the former for being greedy, power-hungry and oblivious to reality and the latter for his callousness to human lives and suffering just in order to make lives of India and Indian leaders miserable, a prospect which his inflated ego always relished and which has been passed on as a legacy till this day to his successors and nation. With the end of Jinnah nearing in August, the Nizam’s game was up.
About Junagadh
Junagadh was again a Princely State in the Kathiawar area on the Saurashtra coast of Gujarat with 95% Hindu population with a Muslim ruler and like Hyderabad not having any geographical contiguity with Pakistan.The story starts with an unexpected announcement by the Nawab of Junagadh on Aug. 15, 1947 to accede to Pakistan. There was no response from Pakistan till Sep. 13 when it announced its acceptance. This came as a surprise to Indian Govt because India and Pakistan had decided not to have enclaves of one country inside the other. That was why India had refused the plea of the Khan of Kalat, the largest Princely State of Balochistan, as it had no physical contiguity with India. A mass protest movement started in Junagadh as a result. An Indian representative, V.P. Menon, was sent to Junagadh to talk to the Nawab who refused to meet him. Upon this, he met the Dewan (aka, Prime Minister in modern parlance), Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto (yes, you are right, the father of Z.A. Bhutto and the grandfather of Madam BB) who agreed with VP that he personally favoured a referrendum for ascertaining the wishes of the people. Sir. Bhutto would later play a crucial role, as we would see. On the 18th of Sep, the neighbouring Sheikh of Mangrol, a vassal state of Junagadh, signed Instrument of Accession with India. Both Mangrol and Babariawad, another vassal state that had acceded to India, argued that with the lapse of Paramountcy, they were independent to take decisions. This caused resentment to the Nawab of Junagadh to order his troops to invade Babariawad. This was rightly construed by GoI as an act of aggression on Indian territory. However, the GoI desisted from taking any action till the British Constitutional experts opined on the legality of the actions of Mangrol and Babariawad. In the meanwhile, the GoI asked the Nawab to withdraw his forces from Babariawad which the Nawab refused on 25th Sep. After the legal opinion was obtained on the admissibility of the Instruments of Accession of Mangrol and Babariawad, the GoI decided to take military action by end Sep. The GoI decided to send troops to the Kathiawar region, to the borders of Babariawad and Junagdh, awaiting further orders. Even as the troop deployment was about to begin, the Nawab of Junagadh went ahead and occupied Mangrol on 1st Oct. The GoI then instructed the Indian commander to prepare a plan for the retrieval of Mangrol and Babariawad. On Oct. 5, the GoI issued a detailed press statement on the situation there. Nehru asked Liaqat Ali, the Pakistani PM, on Oct 5, to ask the Nawab to withdraw from Mangrol and Babariawad. Liaqat Ali replied evasively. More than 5 weeks after the Nawab invaded, and after repeated attempts to end it peacefully, the patience of the GoI ran out and on Nov. 1, a small Indian force accompanied by civilian administrators, re-possessed both Babariawad and Mangrol peacefully. In the meanwhile, the situation in Junagadh itself was becoming very difficult. On 27 Oct, Sir. Bhutto wrote to Jinnah thus “The Muslims of Kathiawar seem to have lost all enthusiasm for Pakistan”. The Nawab had already fled to Pakistan on Oct. 24, on seeing the Indian forces, taking with him the entire cash balance of the treasury, his kennel of a thousand dogs and his Begums. It was Sir. Bhutto who was running the show in Junagadh now. On Nov. 5, the Junagadh State Council decided that “it was necessary to have a complete re-orientation of the State Policy and a re-adjustment of relations with the two Dominions even if it involves reversal of the earlier decision of accession to Pakistan”. On Nov. 8, the Dewan, Sir. Shah Nawaz Bhutto requested the Indian Government to take over Junagadh. The request was promptly accepted. A referrendum was conducted on Feb 20, 1948 and the state was merged with Saurashtra on Feb 20, 1949.
In the case of both Hyderabad and Junagadh, as in Jammu&Kashmir, it is very obvious that in spite of grave provocation, India stuck to legalities, a step-by-step process, attempt at peaceful resolution and resorted to arms as a last resort only. And, in the case of Junagadh per se, there was no military action at all
Amaar
“If Kashmir belongs to India because Raja sahib wanted to accede to India then Hyderabad and Rann of Katch should have come into Pakistan’s fold as their princely rulers wanted to join the later. The states instead fell to India.
Would you like to explain the inconsistency?”
The choice of a plebiscite in all three was given to Jinnah by none other than Mountbatten. Nehru and Patel were also on board. But Jinnah refused.
Here is A. G. Noorani (I suppose he is not considered anti-Jinnah),
“In his hour of triumph, Jinnah’s bitterness overwhelmed his judgment and he sowed the seeds of Indo-Pakistan strife. Mustafa Kamal founded modern Turkey, and writing of irredentist claims, he set about building the new state. Pakistan was in a far weaker position. Statesmanship, itself a blend of morality and expediency, required Jinnah to grasp the AICC formula and forge a grand settlement ***based on the popular will*** in regard to all three states – Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad. Mountbatten offered that to Jinnah in Lahore on November 1. So did Nehru the next day. Jinnah rejected it and acted in crass ignorance and ineptitude. “He received his first shock upon discovering that Pakistan was militarily incapable of securing the accession of Junagadh”. (Ayesha Jalal; The State of Martial Rule; p. 43).
A. G. Noorani, Frontline, Oct. 12, 2001,
and here again,
“..the Kashmir settlement was possible on the 1st of November 1947 when Mountbatten offered a plebiscite in Kashmir and Hyderabad. Jinnah was very fond of Hyderabad and he refused. Had he done that there would have been no cold war between India and Pakistan; everything would have been settled there. Sardar Patel was prepared and Nehru would have been prepared, had he but agreed to plebiscite in Hyderabad. This is Jinnah’s shortsightedness. There is a couplet by Ghalib: “Lazim nahi ke Khizer ki ham payravi karen, jana ke ek buzurg hame humsafar mile”. It is not necessary that we should worship the wise man Khizer, but realize that he was the companion on the journey. So we must treat all the elders with respect, but we must take them to critical scrutiny.” A. G. Noorani, Two Circles.net, Nov. 16, 2009.
I don’t think a parallel exists between undivided India’s partition and Bangladesh’s creation. The Sindhi disaffection with Punjab may be a close analogy but not East Pakistan’s disaffection with the West.
From 1947 onwards a series of missteps were taken by West Pak, all in the name of Islam, without having an iota of understanding of the Bengali psyche. Bengalis typically are much more cultural than religious. This is true even in India, religious passion has no role in West Bengal. While in East Bengal Islam may have been a stronger force than Hinduism is in W. B., Islam there would still be a much weaker force compared to the rest of Pakistan. Partly this was a result of influence of the Bengali Hindu intelligentsia, which was correctly guessed (and Hindus massacred) by the military junta of West Pak.
The first missteps were taken when Jinnah was still alive. The attempted imposition of Urdu caused a lot of consternation. Then there was an attempt to change the Bengali script (Sanskrit influenced) to Arabic. This, though a failure, also caused a lot of resentment. The day of Feb. 21, 1951, commemorated as “Ekushe” (21 st) and regarded as International Mother Language Day by the UN, saw police fire upon a large rally against imposition of Urdu and kill six people. Effectively this incident sowed the seeds of separation from West Pak.
The crowing miscalculation however came 9 years later. In 1961 Ayub Khan’s government put a ban on Tagore. When I heard this for the first time, I was awestruck. How could West Pakistan possibly imagine they could get away with banning Tagore in a Bengali speaking population? I mean, to most Bengalis a ban on Tagore is quite close to a ban on water. Tagore quite literally lives in every Bengali household and clearly Ayub Khan had no idea who he was governing. A Bengali revolutionary poet Daud Haider recently put it like this:
“It was 1961, Rabindranath Tagore’s centenary year, and all of East Pakistan was busy preparing to celebrate the 100th birth anniversary of their beloved poet. Ayub Khan flew into a rage and decreed that the celebrations should be called off immediately. Rabindransangeet was banned on radio and the publication of any literature about the poet was prohibited. Schools, colleges and universities were instructed to drop any and all references to Tagore and his works from their curricula.
Ayub Khan had obviously not read a word written by Rabindranath Tagore. Had he done so, he would have known what Tagore had said: “Baadhaa diley baadhbe loraai” (“we will fight if you stop us”) — Ayub Khan’s decree proscribing Tagore did lead to war and the birth of Bangladesh. ”
There were really no such cultural impositions from the Hindu community on the Muslims in pre-independence India. It was the Congress, not the Hindu Maha Sabha, that AIML was fighting. Congress tried to be scrupulously correct in governing and I quote again from Azad,
“…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].
So the “fears” of the Muslims were really *perceived* fears whipped up for political gains. The cultural subjugation of East Pakistan OTOH was quite real and was taking place in real time.
I end with a joke I read somewhere which nicely captures the disconnect and treatment to East Pakistanis in pre-partition Pakistan.
A Pakistani officer broke into the house of a professor in East Pakistan, formerly Bangladesh, and saw three pictures on the wall: Kazi Nazrul Islam, Mr Jinnah and Gurudev Tagore. He assumed that Nazrul Islam’s photograph was that of a Hindu so he shot it with his revolver. Then he sprang to attention and saluted the portrait of Mr Jinnah. And who is this fellow with the long hair and beard?’ demanded the officer.
‘Sir, that is the father of Quaid-e-Azem Jinnah,’ replied the quickwitted professor. The soldier sprang to attention and saluted the portrait of Tagore.
@Amaar: would you still rather have Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir be a part of present-day Pakistan? Why put these folks through the hell you guys are going through? As a Pakistani you must say yes. Be interesting to hear your opinion as a disinterested observer – if that’s possible.
After fighting 700 years of Muslim rule and almost 200 years against British, the sons of soil Hindus , Sikhs and Buddhist etc ae all contributing constructivly to India and the rest of the civilized world. Kusch Baat hai ki Muaslaman reamain backward and the frustration is increasing by the day because Muslims cant get away with usual shenanigans anymore. Just reparaphrasing Author’s Quote” While Kaffirs are full of doubt , Momins are full of Certainty” and the edificr build around this religious certainty is crumbling by the day . This certainty has gobbled up all the human reason, intellect, logic, introspection and above all positive emotions detaching one from rest of the humanity. Folks practicing doubts are progressing by the day while others wait for God. Just remembered the joke “huss ke liya Pakistan, larr ke lenge Hindustan”. Well Jinnites are now wondering why Pakistan was given by Indians.
After fighting 700 years of Muslim rule and almost 200 years against British, the sons of soil Hindus , Sikhs and Buddhist etc ae all contributing constructivly to India and the rest of the civilized world. Kusch Baat hai ki Muaslaman reamain backward and the frustration is increasing by the day because Muslims cant get away with usual shenanigans anymore. Just reparaphrasing Author’s Quote” While Kaffirs are full of doubt , Momins are full of Certainty” and the edifice build around this religious certainty is crumbling by the day . This certainty has gobbled up all the human reason, intellect, logic, introspection and above all positive emotions detaching one from rest of the humanity. Folks practicing doubts are progressing by the day while others wait for God. Just remembered the joke “huss ke liya Pakistan, larr ke lenge Hindustan”. Well Jinnites are now wondering why Pakistan was given by Indians.
@no-communal
Your last 2 posts are very enlightening.
Unfortunately, in the past, you have tried to defend Jinnah to me (to some extent), but your AG Noorani post only reconfirms, and reinforces the (very) negative image of Jinnah in my mind.
AG Noorani is certainly not anti-Jinnah. If anything, he is probably pro-Jinnah. Look how he slipped in “Jinnah’s BITTERNESS overwhelmed his judgment”
What bitterness? It didn’t take much to get Jinnah “feel insulted” “feel bitter”. Basically Jinnah was interested in land grab scheme and wanted to acquire (Hyderabad +Junagad) and Kashmir on diametrically opposite principles. Further proof of his dishonesty. No plebiscite for hindu populations, only for Muslim population.
MAJ was an ureasonable, shortsighted, egotistical individual to the core.
@AZW
Quebec, Kashmir, Bengali separation are all the same as TNT to you? How shallow!
Those are all separate ethnic land masses. Muslims living in each village, each town, each city across the length and breadth of subcontinent was supposed to be a separate nation. There is no precedence in history to this.
There are Muslim majority villages, and towns all the way to the tip of present day India. You people are absolutely amazing.
This article, actually a book review summarizes the Muslim League land grab scheme.
While playing the numbers game, Muslim League consistently wanted to make sure the Hindus living in Muslim ruled princely states did not count towards overall Hindu percentage!!
http://www.kashmir-information.com/history/bittertruth.html
The Muslim League policy on the States was more involved and shifting, which concealed the [{{{{ designs of the League to grab the Muslim ruled Hindu majority States as well as the Muslim majority States for the separate Muslim State of Pakistan}}}}, the League demanded for the Muslims in India. The All-India States Muslim League, an appendage of the Muslim League, constituted to co-ordinate the Muslim movements for Pakistan in the States, demanded in 1940, the integration of all such Indian States in the Muslim homeland of Pakistan as were ruled by the Muslim rulers as well as all such States .as were inhabited by Muslim majorities. The Lahore Resolution of the League, claimed a separate homeland for the Muslims in India, which was constituted of the Muslim majority Provinces of Sindh, the Punjab, Bengal, North-west Frontier, the Chief-Commissioner’s Province of Baluchistan and the Hindu majority Province of Assam for its geographical contiguity to Bengal, {{{{{besides the Princely States which were either ruled by the Muslim rulers or populated hy Muslim majorities.}}}}
“My point remains that if Pakistan continues to ignore the lessons from its own birth, it will see the same story repeated within it again and again. Pakistan cannot dismiss the calls for Balochis and Sindhis as an unjust demand based on wrong perceptions. The problem lies in the approach of the Pakistani state itself. For that matter, the same goes for India. Though by adopting secularism and continuing with democracy, India has kept itself on the right path. But deep down, even every Indian ought to ask themselves: are Kashmiris demanding freedom from India completely crazy and have baseless demands? What it India simply dismisses them as a minority that can be subdued simply with force, since they are so few. In your mind, not an iota of injustice is accorded to Kashmiri Muslims hence their demands do not merit a dialogue as a proper Kashmiri nation. That in my view would be a refusal to learn from the history.”
Seems like you are conflating many different things here. First off, Pakistan’s primary threat is not from Baloch separatism. There is no evidence so far that Baloch secessionism threatens to unravel the Pakistani state. The Sindh issue is even less pertinent. The major issue is with the demands for more Islam, and for the Pakistani army to choose whether it’s on the side of the jihadis or the Americans. Right now it is trying hard to do both.
Secondly, not all demands can be considered reasonable and extrapolated from diverse occurences from history. The demand in Kashmir *is* quite unreasonable since India has precisely learnt from the past and safeguarded Kashmiri identity to ridiculous levels that no other country has done. Article 370 that prevents India from ethnically flooding the state and altering its composition, thus pulling the rug out from under secessionist demands is in stark contrast to what Pakistan has done in PoK, what Pakistan’s tarrel than mountain fliend has done in both Tibet and Xinkiang, and what the Israelis are attempting to do in Palestine through settlements.
As a matter of fact, I think that India has drawn the wrong lessons in safeguarding Kashmiri identity. India should scrap article 370, flood the valley with some hard core Hindus, and see what happens.
Kashmiri demands are unreasonable because the current unrest started with allegations of rigged elections in the 80s. That is hardly cause for picking up the gun. And hardly an excuse for Pakistan to send terrorists across. If the terrorist infiltration stopped, and gun violence went down, there is no reason why Indian troops would not go back to their barracks. And there is no fundamental obstacle to Kashmiris fullfilling their ambitions as citizens of India, as any other Indian, other than their fascist attempts to secede and create another exclusivist Islamic hellhole. There is also no comparison to the Baloch grievences where they complain of their provinces natural resources being looted with their getting far below their share versus a Kashmir that on the net consumes far more of the Indian treasury than it contributes to.
The first time I heard the word “SHOODAR” was from a bearded paki in uni who kept trying to convince me to read the koran even after i kept reminding him i was not a hindu. I told him far from being able to take him seriously he actually sounded retarded every time he said “shoodar”. It was cringe inducing like hearing bush say “nucular” instead of nuclear. It turns out that this is how the pakistanis call, what would be, for the rest of the world, one of the four hindu castes, the SHUDRAS.
Now in my whole life in India I can’t remember coming across the term shudra outside the context of academic general knowledge. Here we have pakis droping their gibberish version of it like a bout of the runs, confident that this will impress upon others their inside knowledge of hinduism and that, more importantly, the mere mention of “SHOODAR” will embarrass the Indians. For them “SHOODAR” is synonymous with dalits and “untouchables”.
Despite lacking the eagerness the pakistanis show in exposing the dark side of caste system I at least know that dalits fall outside the general caste system which consists of brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. So when they say SHOODAR they actually mean dalits.
What this might reveal is their disdain for anything hindu so much so that they couldn’t even careless about the accuracy of their so called knowledge which they shamelessly flaunt as their killer argument.
But what is more disturbing is the kind of education the unsuspecting pakistanis are receiving. This is the root of all their problems. If a third rate propaganda piece with gibberish spelling and made up facts is what is drilled into paki students as the definitive history of india and hindus then it is far worse than i imagined.
Same goes for the lead pouring story. If any indian has heard of this custom it would be most likely from a paki. This actually says a lot about you pakistanis than it does about indians or hindus
I hope pakistanis have the good sense to demand better from their institutions. What seems to be going on in their educational institutions is tantamount to crimes against humanity, basic human rights violation and child abuse. But it may not be just that, as a journalist in washington post or NYT observed in pakistan, where he/she made the point along the lines that pakis prefer to hear lies even if they know they are lies as long as it agrees to their biases and gives them comfort.
“being one of the editors of PTH, …”
Skeptical
Normally, this should lead me to congratulate you. But I will actually congratulate PTH and those who make such decisions around here.
Thanks for the welcome, and best regards to you.
What we Indians can understand from the comments at PTH is that IF Kashmir had been with Pakistan , Pakistan would have been a NORMAL country
So it means that Pakistanis were completely heart broken by Kashmir and Bangladesh disasters and therefore LOST their MINDS and became Extremists
Amaar
)
“There was a series of rulers, who were Muslim and that’s it. You don’t call that “Muslim Rule”
I came across an interesting article in Daily times today which sums up answer to my question regarding development of Muslims during 700 years of Muslim rulers (not Muslim rule happy
At the core of the matter —Dr Manzur Ejaz
A core ideology of Indian Islam was developed after the Muslim conquest of most of the subcontinent. The core of this ideology was extreme conservative Sunni Islam mingled with traditions from Afghanistan and Central Asia. After interfacing with Indian society, the caste system was also appended to it. This core ideology prevailed during the entire Muslim rule in the subcontinent and later on proliferated into extremist versions in Pakistan and retrogressive tendencies in India.
In line with the general ethos of that period, Muslim invasions were quite brutal. The killing of enemies, including common Indian citizens, particularly males, was the norm. Looting personal property and plundering temples for gold, silver and other precious artefacts was considered to be the prime prize for invading conquerors. Incidentally, the Hindu rulers who conquered each other were no different — they used to rob temples in the enemy territory for the same reason.
The Muslim addendum was to take the conquered population as slaves and sell them in well-established slave markets — Ghazni and later on Lahore became very large slave markets. Slavery may have been practiced in India in some shape or form before the Muslim conquests but there were no established markets where human beings were bought and sold. At that time this was considered justified by Islam because most of the conquerors (the whole Slave Dynasty) had been bought slaves themselves. Therefore, the enslavement of other humans was also part of the core ideology of Muslim conquerors.
Court historians of Muslim Indian rulers exaggerated and created a mythology about their masters’ power of destruction, loot and plunder. Every historian wanted to portray his master as the great ‘destroyer of paganism’ in fictional stories. For example, Pamela Thapar, the famous Indian historian, has proved, after scrutinising all the old scripts, that Somnath temple must have been a very minor one and, most probably, Mahmood Ghaznavi never reached it. But, Muslim historians project it as a major Hindu centre from where so much gold was looted that it had to be carried to Ghazni on hundreds of camels and horses. Where would these tons of gold have come when the population of that area was small and quite poor? Such fictional history also suited the Indian nationalists to show Muslim plundering and, therefore, they did not challenge it. In any case, fictional conquests were also incorporated into core Indian Muslim ideology, which has remained operative even in our times.
The inferiority of women was also part of the core ideology of Muslim invaders who came from Afghanistan and Central Asia. Abû Rayân al-Bîrûnî, in his famous book Tareekh Al-Hind, gives a list of ways the Indians differ from Muslim invaders. He observes that Indian men always consulted their wives in important matters while the newcomers feel it below their manly pride to take advice from women. The concept of inferiority was an important element of the core Indian Muslim ruling elite ideology and is still alive and well: the Taliban are just resurrecting what was always part of the essential invading Muslim mindset.
After the lower layers of indigenous Hindus started converting to Islam, the Muslim rulers supplemented their core ideology with traditional Indian caste practices. They kept treating the converted Muslims as they had been treated by upper caste Hindus before. In fact, the Muslim ruling elites would prefer higher caste Hindus over the Muslims who had converted from the lower castes. Some Sufi thinkers tried to counter the official Muslim ideology but they could not change the general trend.
Foreign Muslim rulers were so contemptuous of Muslims from the lower castes that Ziauddin Burni, known for his Tareekh Feroz Shahi, writes: “The teachers should not put the jewels of knowledge in the throats of dogs, i.e. lowly, meaning low caste people. Vendors and low caste (Muslim) people should be instructed about prayers, fasting, pilgrimage and charity besides teaching them a few parts of the Quran. …Lowly people should not be educated because it makes them evil. Low caste people, as the working class, are prone to commit evil.” Of course, Burni wanted to keep the converted Muslims uneducated so they would not be able to compete for state jobs against migrant Muslims. This core ideology remained in practice throughout the Muslim period resulting in the absence of an educated Muslim urban class in Punjab and Sindh till 1947.
Uneducated, converted Muslims could neither understand Persian, the language of the rulers nor Arabic, the language of their new religion. They were totally oblivious of the state and intellectual discourse and were at the mercy of state appointed mullahs and qazis. On the contrary, Muslim rulers accepted upper class Hindus in the ruling set-up and used their professional know-how to run state affairs. These upper class Hindus picked up the lingo of the rulers and became their junior partners. They enjoyed the same superior status against lower caste converted Muslims.
The core Indian Muslim ideology was an essential part of the mindset irrespective of the sects; even the agnostic among migrated Muslims believed in the core ideas described above. To further strengthen and formalise the core ideology of foreign Muslim rulers, institutions such as Deoband were established. Deoband became the protector and propagator of the contrived conservative ideology of the Indian Muslim elite. Deoband produced a large army of mullahs that spread all over India, including what is now Pakistan. The guardians of the core Indian Muslim ideology were mostly the UP elite, which also dominated the intellectual discourse of the Muslim League. Mohammad Ali Jinnah may be idealised as the sole creator of Pakistan but he was merely a political strategist and tactician who had no effect on the Muslim League’s intellectual discourse. The passage of the Objectives Resolution, in the first few years, exposed the limitations of his secularism.
The low caste converted Muslims that made up most of the population of Punjab and Sindh readily embraced the core ideology of the Muslim ruling elite because they were not educated enough to articulate their own. As a matter of fact, like most new converts, they became zealots of this ideology to prove their Muslim credentials. After 1947, with increased schooling, the penetration of this core ideology of the Muslim elite proliferated rapidly. The expansion of conservative and jihadi Islam are just outcomes of this process. Of course, there are many other external and internal factors involved in this process but what has been described here is the essential long-term trend. One can easily identify how the above mentioned core ideology manifests itself in the day-to-day life of common Pakistanis.
Amaar
for you ease of reading I will summarise above article
“Uneducated, (low caste, which you called SHOODAR) converted Muslims could neither understand Persian, the language of the rulers nor Arabic, the language of their new religion. They were totally oblivious of the state and intellectual discourse and were at the mercy of state appointed mullahs and qazis. On the contrary, Muslim rulers accepted upper class Hindus in the ruling set-up and used their professional know-how to run state affairs. These upper class Hindus picked up the lingo of the rulers and became their junior partners. They enjoyed the same superior status against lower caste converted Muslims.
and this explains origins of extremism in pakistan
“The low caste converted Muslims that made up most of the population of Punjab and Sindh readily embraced the core ideology of the Muslim ruling elite because they were not educated enough to articulate their own. As a matter of fact, like most new converts, they became zealots of this ideology to prove their Muslim credentials. After 1947, with increased schooling, the penetration of this core ideology of the Muslim elite proliferated rapidly. The expansion of conservative and jihadi Islam are just outcomes of this process. Of course, there are many other external and internal factors involved in this process but what has been described here is the essential long-term trend. One can easily identify how the above mentioned core ideology manifests itself in the day-to-day life of common Pakistanis”
Mansur Ijaz’s articles ignores the massive influence of Sufi orders in the way Islam fashioned itself and was accepted in India. It’s not correct to say that Muslims were inclined one way throughout their time in India and hence today’s problems are a natural extension of this. Sufi ethos was inclusive, personal and anti-material. The article is quite unbalanced because it ignores the influence of Sufism. It is also unbalanced because it fails to acknowledge the efforts of Hindu and Muslim rulers at creating a syncretic culture and sharing power. It fails to address why one school or way of thinking amongst Muslims has been replaced by another in Pakistan. This has happened because the state has manufactured this transformation to fulfill it’s objectives first and foremost of promoting organised religion and making the state synonymous with religion and one that needs and Indian/ Hindu enemy to rally the nation. This state of affairs is manufactured. It could be otherwise if rulers came to the fore who thought differently because there are examples aplenty in our combined history of successful Hindu-Muslim cooperation, syncretism and power sharing.
Constant rivalry stressing the slights of one religion against another is like a cancer of the mind.
sudhir,
romila (not pamela, ejaz idiot!) thapar’s version of history – of somnath being a small temple – suits pakistani narrative quite nicely. since it was such a small temple, destroying it was no big deal. also, where did this ejaz dude come across hindu kings attacking hindu temples? forget about temples, even non-combatants were not attacked in these wars. no wonder pakistanis live pamela (LOL!) thapar.
….love pamela thapar
I lived in India from 1951 to 1992. In all that time I never came across any mention of MANUSMRITI or heard of any individual that follows it.
Here, in Pk blogs one hears about it often.
Do I make a good point here when I say it is pointless to do so !
Pak ppl would do well to concentrate on this fact- here in the UK, for the last 18 years, whenever national GCSE results are analysed, the hindu/sikhs and the chinese top the table, always OUT PERFORMING THE WHITES, while Pak students are at the bottom with the blacks. Chek it out on google.
—————-
conc- discuss what is relevant. Love to all in Pak, DR MISHRA
In continuation of my yesterday’s comments about Nehru Report issue. One may say that the issue is complicated one. O.K. but let us tackle the issue of attitude of Congress. Let me quote an episode about it. Even after Nehru Report there was a lot of optimism in Muslim League about Hndu Muslim Unity. To the extent in the Presidential adress the President of Muslim League said ‘ Approach the subject in the spirit of broadmindedness. As far as I can see, the differences between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority have narrowed themselves down to issues that are few and not essentials of any first principles.’
At that time there were two suggestions 1) All parties Muslim Conference should be convened which should make Jinnah its representative. 2) Jinnah should go to Congress meeting next day, which was taking place in the same city and negotiate with Congress. Jinnah spoke convincingly in favor of contacting Congress. Next day he went to Congress meeting and put down the suggestions of Muslim League. Congress refused to accept even a single suggestion. When next day Jinnah came to Muslim league session, a delegate who was politically not even important pointed out the fact that all suggestions of Mr. Jinnah have been turned down and added that when we have allowed ourselves to be kicked by others, now we Muslims should form a common front. One may argue that it was not essential for Congress to accept any of Muslim League demands but just think that even if Congress had sent one of their leaders to explain their position, as Muslim League did, it would have been a decent gesture. But alas it was not done. Learn from history. Unity can never be brought about by showing arrogance
( see Foundations of Pkaistan, by Sharifuddin Pirzada p 139-152)
I did not want to get into this debate, but since you have chosen to pursue it, let me only respond by asking you if you are aware of how many Muslim Leagues there were at the time that you are referring to? How many parallel sessions of the League were underway at the same time? What were the views of the other Muslim League, which had heavyweights like Iqbal in it, and had a claim to representing Punjabi Muslims at the least? What were the grounds on which what you call “minor” proposals of the League in response to the Nehru report were not accepted? What were these “minor” proposals and what makes them “minor”?
According to the record on on December 26- 30 1928.only one muslim league was meeting in Calcutta. The request of some of former mebers/or expelled memebrs for re entry was under discussion in the same session. Some of muslim suggestion were as reasonable and genuine as give provincial status to baluchistan and Sind, as other provinces have constitutional provincial status. I hope that I have answered your question. Now please enlighten us why congress showed such arrongance
Vow what a debate on kashmir issue is going on. Does anybody know who was the person, representing which government, who declared in UN Security Council, that a PLEBISCITE should be and will be held in Kashmir. And a letter of Indian head of state was read that this is temporary measure and people of Kashmir will decide about their future.Mr. Ayangar, representative of India made this commitment. On 15th January 1948, in a speech starting on 10.30 am.. And he made this promise even before Pakistani foreign minister opened his mouth, because India went in UN as complainant .Just honor this solemn promise and Pakistan and India will live as friends ever after.
Sultan, as far as I know, the Nehru Report was presented in the Lucknow All Parties Conference, August 28-31, 1928, which is where it was rejected by the Muslim League. Therefore I don’t understand how the Muslim League session of December 1928 is relevant at all in any story about “Congress arrogance”.
If I am mistaken, please correct me.
@ Aimen
And he made this promise even before Pakistani foreign minister opened his mouth, because India went in UN as complainant .Just honor this solemn promise and Pakistan and India will live as friends ever after.
India was clear from day one on plebiscite in Kashmir, this was stated not only by Indian UN rep but also by Nehru.
Hope you do realize that the plebiscite was to take place in all of Jammu & Kashmir – including the part that is under illegal occupation by Pakistan !!! It was Pakistan that refused to vacate Kashmir in order for a plebiscite to take place. So you better brush up your history !!!!
When India (Greater India)was in the eve of Independence everything was in flux,nothing was settled,Jinnah,Nehru and even Gandhi had no idea where ,what and where.If Rajaji,Patel,Ambedkhar who were the lawyers and who were neither ideologues or any axe to grind paid more attention,things would have turned out better.Mr Nehru and Mr Jinnah were bitter rivals and they hated each other.Both had lot to gain and much to lose,and so they were in no mood to give and take and the art of political accommodation was not there. Sudir,AZW and Amman have analyzed pretty reasonably, 20/20 but in 1947 there was no such 20/20.The founders cast the dice and 63 years later Pakistan to great extent got ‘SNAKE EYE’ and India too.That’s way life is,not every founder of a new nation luck out as the Founders of the 13 colony(USA)In my opinion I tend to agree with Mr Jinnah(he had his doubt too),under the circumstances there was no other option.Seperation of Muslims from H indus was the best way out,hence the birth of Pakistan was the best course available at that time.PERIOD! It has not turned out well for Pakistan,there are many reasons for it.If they could find a sane attitude towards India for their own well being, and relent on unremitting hostility for India and Hindus,things could still turn around,but it is like asking “Snake and Mongoose ‘ dancing in harmony,never gone happen,some thing are not meant to change.I have been around for a long time,most Indians(Hindus) do not burn mid night oil on Muslims and Pakistan,I do,I wish them well.,but me wishing them well,does not mean hell of a beans,Pakistani have too.and be rational,logical and less Arab than Arabs themselves,Alert—-.Arabs are losers nothing to be followed at least not blindly!
For god sake you Pakistanis stop talking about dalits and their condition, and please go through IPC (Indian Penal Code) on dalits. Every regional police station has a special cell that looks into dalit issues and on any Dalit harassment issue a non bailable warrant is issued.
The kind of advantages due to the most sweeping affirmative action program in the world some of my friends and their parents literally considered getting adopted by Dalit.
@Amaar: Please read IPC before raising this Dalit issue everytime. A bigger favour would be if you can quote/send IPC to your education departments.
Next day he went to Congress meeting and put down the suggestions of Muslim League. Congress refused to accept even a single suggestion.
It wasn’t a Congress meeting.
The major replies to Jinnah’s proposals at the All Party Convention, Calcutta, 1928, were given by Tej Bahadur Sapru (Indian Liberal Party) and M. R. Jayakar (Hindu Mahasabha).
I agree with doc Mishra. Its all about EDUCATION EDUCATION
“”"”"Pak ppl would do well to concentrate on this fact- here in the UK, for the last 18 years, whenever national GCSE results are analysed, the hindu/sikhs and the chinese top the table, always OUT PERFORMING THE WHITES, while Pak students are at the bottom with the blacks”"”"
conentrate on that alone for the next 20 years, most of your problems are solved folks
@Anant Jain (March 17, 2011 at 1:11 am)
“Amaar: Please read IPC before raising this Dalit issue everytime. A bigger favour would be if you can quote/send IPC to your education departments.”
We were not discussing the IPC. We were referring to the Hindu Scriptures. The point that was raised still stands. If the Hindu sacred scripture cannot accommodate the Shudhras and the Shudhras are not even permitted, by these scriptures, to listen to the recitation of the Vedas, then why do you count them among the Hindus?
Amaar,
Firstly, Hindus have no single set of scriptures, nor are we required to follow any single book within the thousands of treatises written over 5,000 years.
Second, unlike Muslims across the world, and even in India, Hindus are generally ignorant of the details of their scriptures. An Indian teenager, for example, knows less about Vedanta than a British teenager knows about, say, Deuteronomy.
So to keep invoking Hindu scriptures rightly or wrongly is of no relevance today. Being Pakistani and probably a hard core Muslim, you must have a deep understanding of the Koran and Shariat. Most Pakistanis seem to have such an understanding which is why they call for Shariat law, stoning to death etc. I know of absolutely no Hindu who is even aware of what Manusmriti says. More interestingly, I understand that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Manusmriti was ever used as a legal system, not even in say, the Sunga dynasty which was a Brahmin dynasty (one of very very few) to have ruled Nort India. They ruled after the Mauryas from around 200 BC to 100 BC.
While it makes a lot of sense to examine provisions of the Shariat because it has been used for centuries, including in India, it makes no sense to attribute the same status to the Manusmriti, which was never used anywhere.
Personally, I find your diatribes amusing because the bases for your arguments are completely irrelevant in India today.
In a similar vein, a distinguished Pakistani by the name of Omar Shaikh Saeed, while travelling in a train from Delhi to Saharanpur on a secret mission to kidnap some foreigners, took on the name of Rohit Sharma. When asked why he was going to Saharanpur when he was quite clearly from abroad (his English accent) he said that his Chacha or Tau had died “aur gaon mere nam chod diya hai”. Apparently you have this in Pakistan. In his memoirs, he says that it was only much later that he realized that Indian land reforms had removed zamindari way back in 1948, which possibly accounted for the bemused expressions on the faces of his fellow passengers.
Grow up friend! And grow out of your Pakistan Studies textbooks.
” Lessons from Partition of India” is worth reading article written by a historian. We need enlightened writers like Nasim Yousaf. If the link does not work google it to find the article.
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/3770.cfm
Sorry the title is “Lessons from India’s Partition” authored by Nasim Yousaf
someone need donation via paypal and alertpay click here