Lost Imaginations
By Raza Rumi
Sixty one years have gone by but the creation of Pakistan is still a heated debate: contested, fractured and bitter. That history has been the preserve of the victors and the powerful is well known. But to spin and whirl the truth to the extent that it becomes empty and farcical is an art form practiced by the Pakistani state and its mock-historians.
In early January of this new year, a heated controversy entered the public domain. A famous Urdu columnist writing for the largest vernacular newspaper reiterated the widely-known fact that the pragmatic Mr Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan and given up the demand for Pakistan in 1946. However, it was the intransigence of the Indian National Congress and the quest for absolute power by Pandit Nehru and his associates that led to the traumatic moment of partition.
To support this position, Dr Ayesha Jalal’s seminal work, ‘The Sole Spokesman’ was cited by the Urdu columnist. Dr Jalal, in her outstanding book, has captured the nuances of partition history and presented an interpretation that is unbiased and brings forth the complexities of the Indian Muslim community. This community was by no means the monolith Jinnah had to contend with.
No sooner was this column published than a barrage of protests appeared in the press, authored by holier-than-thou writers who thought that this was an insult to the concept of Pakistan and that Jinnah was determined on creating Pakistan come hell or high water. The debate intensified, and as is the case in Pakistan came down to personal invective and attacks on Dr Jalal. Among others, a key conspiracy theory articulated was that her supervisor at Cambridge University was a ‘Hindu’ who must have misled her to undo the foundations of the holy project called Pakistan.
This was a ludicrous charge and betrayed our penchant to undermine scholarship and history. Dr Jalal’s book, if anything, elucidates Jinnah’s towering personality and qualities of leadership and negotiation in full measure. Her book revisits onerous challenges that Jinnah faced in negotiating for the political rights of the Muslims in a post-British India. Like most historical events, Pakistan was not a project cast in stone or a divine scheme, as our mock-historians sponsored by the state and its moribund institutions would have us believe. I was quite perturbed as I followed this debate. Over the last two decades, one had thought, a more nuanced understanding of Jinnah had gained currency in Pakistan’s popular imagination. Alas, it remains nothing but a case of lost imagination.
The reason for this poverty of intellect and imagination is rooted in the distortion of history and its flagrant abuse by the ruling classes of Pakistan. Is it not clear by now who benefited the most out of Pakistan’s creation – the bureaucrats of United Pakistan, the mercantile class of Bombay and Gujerat, the feudals of Sindh and the Punjab, or the Pakistan Army? Popular support for Pakistan was widespread amongst East Bengalis who we were quick to dispose of, as they wanted a Pakistan that was plural, democratic, non-feudal and socially just.
Of course our official historians would not see this. They cast aspersions on anyone trying to unpack the mess caused by partition – its bloodline is as fresh as ever. Look at the state of Indo-Pak relations. The demonising of Hindus is as fervent as the demonising of Muslims by the Hindutva brigades in India. Jinnah was not of this ilk. His wife was a Parsi, many of his close friends were Hindus and his daughter married a Parsi and did not move to her father’s new homeland. Could anything be more tragic than this?
Jinnah certainly did not envisage the martial state, engineered to destroy India, that we are today. This applies to India as well, where Gandhi and Nehru could never have promoted a nuclear dénouement in the subcontinent. In several interviews, Jinnah talked of going to India for vacations, and even moving there after retirement. The properties in Delhi and Bombay owned by Jinnah were kept intact for this purpose. Contrary to popular distortion, Jinnah even accepted his son-in-law, and there is a small monograph, a young historian tells me, in a US library, that was authored by Dina Jinnah, in which she testifies to her father’s softening up towards his non-Muslim son-in-law, to whom he had apparently presented a cap.
Pakistan’s grand old historian K K Aziz who is unwell now and lacks any means of support to finish his important projects, told me how Fatima Jinnah’s little book on her brother had been censored by these very masters of state power. What was the fuss all about? Well, Fatima Jinnah had not been too kind about Liaquat Ali Khan and a few other heroes of the Pakistan movement. If anything, many of the heroes were rank opportunists, power-seeking fief-holders, who all jumped onto the Pakistan ship when it became clear to them that this was the land where they would make good, without competition from more qualified Hindus.
And the good times continue to roll. I want to index all the last [feudal] names of the 1946 Constituent Assembly members and see how their progeny keep on going in the centers of power. This is beyond tragedy and beyond farce.
Two chance meetings with Dr Jalal this winter were exceedingly rewarding. She talked of her new research with pride, intensity and much concern as to where Pakistan was headed. Dr Jalal is a fiercely nationalistic Pakistani and believes that Pakistan’s very survival speaks of its inherent strengths. But she also laments how the old colonial state has finally given way to multiple states and centers of power within the polity. In the coming months Dr Jalal is going to expound this thesis. But we see it all around us: Jinnah’s Pakistan is now a splintered riyasat – there are little kingdoms in the tribal areas, in the northwestern province, and in southern Punjab that continue to bleed society and defy public policy, making us a joke on the global map.
True, we inherited the worst of geographical locations and a ‘moth-eaten’ country to quote Jinnah. But by writing false histories and nurturing delusions of grandeur we have become a delusional society. We want Islam, modernity, the Taliban and Bollywood, all at the same time. We loathe America but the queues for American visas are longer than ever. We continue to search for our identity: we are by turns Central Asian, Persian and Arab and turn our backs on our closest approximation which is Indian. The one thing we know is that we are not Indian. We claim the Mughals as our own, but ignore the fact that most of them were secular and born of Hindu mothers. We love invaders and name missiles after them, but refuse to acknowledge that most Pakistanis were converts from lower caste Hindus.
There appears to be no discipline of history – academic or popular – worth its name in Pakistan. The great empire of missiles, jihadis and opportunists has left no space for independent voices, and scholarship is stymied by state pressure or its proxy goons masquerading as patriots. It is time to revisit history and speak up against decades of lies and constructed histories, if we are to reclaim our future.
published in the friday times, Pakistan and then Pak Tea House.
All My Posts, History, India, India-Pakistan History, On Pakistan, Partition, Published in The Friday Times
I believe that both Nehru and Jinnah had significant roles to play and that it was the ego-clash between these two that had a huge bearing on all that happened in this regard.
As we all know, Mohammad Ali Jinnah used to be a member of the Indian National Congress, before he left to form the Muslim League. It seems from what I have read and heard that Nehru manipulated Mahatma Gandhi into clashing with Jinnah, which ultimately led to his exit from the Congress, though he himself did not enter openly into a conflict with Jinnah.
Even after the formation of the Muslim League, there hardly was a strong demand for a separate Muslim homeland even up to 1935, when, if I remember correctly, the Congress and Muslim League contested elections together on the basis of some kind of a seat-sharing arrangement. Post-election, however, the coalition fell apart on the question of the allotment of cabinet berths, it seems. The Muslim League, led by Jinnah, wanted a member of the party to be given the Home ministry portfolio, I am told, but the Nehru-led Congress refused. The lack of trust shown by the Congress apparently led the Muslim League to press the demand for Pakistan.
I would say the deal turned out to be profitable for both men. Jinnah became the founding father, Quaid-e-Azam, of Pakistan and Nehru’s family has been ruling India, off and on, even six decades after independence and may continue to do so in future.
I agree that an unbiased account of history is opposed in India as well as Pakistan, so that there always are enough reasons to demonise ‘the other side’ and our political classes and others with vested interests in Indo-Pak conflict can continue to benefit from the hatred generated.
Wonderfully written. Placed finger on the Achilles’ Heel. I can write a few lines, but what is the use. Ayesha Jalal is a Jewel. Thank God, she is in the US… otherwise she might have had a car accident (engineered) while going to work, like Parveen Shakir had ! I am forced by circumstances to sound cynical. When they destroyed The Girls Schools in Swat & NWFP, the little hope that remained died. Those who want muslims to remain “uneducated” cannot be friends of Islam / Muslims. A dirty trap has been laid. This is no conspiracy theory. There is no light. So keep walking in the dark tunnel…
Jinnah was a great man. Master Tara Singh told him in Shimla (1946)… “If my community had a leader like you… we would have worshipped you”…. Unpurchasable.. Uncorrupt… It was due to his upright character that the Britishers were forced to bend. People called it vanity… but i think, he was one of the greatest men born in the Indian sub-continent… but neither his country (United India as a whole)., nor his community (Muslims) were READY to understand the loftiness of his world-view.
Gandhiji promised a new dawn (Navjivan) and “hope” of a different tomorrow… when he spoke of estabilshing Ram Rajya ! His mixing religion with politics., consistent use of religious symbolism., created an environment of “us” and “them”. Gandhiji did his best for his community (as any lawyer would)… but this was not a “Case” to be won. It was about a Nation..
Honestly, partition was the only way because Gandhi / Nehru / Patel did not want to share power (as equals) with Jinnah and the Muslim League… period. There was the Nehruvian view… India is one nation… and Congress represents all its constituents (incl. Indian Muslims). The Muslim league was a temporary phenomena (measles) and would die with time. That thinking ignited suspicion among muslims… who were already suspicious (remember Arya Samaj started Shuddhi + Sangathan in the 1920s… and Lala Lajpat Rai + (Lal/Bal/Pal) had said in the 1920s that Partition was the best solution… because they did not want Muslim Majority Areas in India… as that was an impediment to build an India… they wanted to build !). Shuddhi + Sangathan led to Tanzeem and Tableegh… Arya Samaj / RSS (Estd 1926)… were pressure groups whose pressure worked heavily on the Congress. Congress President Malaviya was also the President of the Hindu Maha Sabha…
Jinnah under-estimated the POWER OF EVIL which Patel subsequently unleashed on India. Jinnah never contemplated the communal holocaust that subsequently took place. The Britishers and the Congress wanted to teach Jinnah a lesson… The lesson was given… Jinnah died under sheer pressure of work… and the enormity of the holocaust.
Gandhi & Nehru forced Pakistan to come into being… cuz the Cabinet Mission Plan 1946, in Gandhiji’s words “was worse than Pakistan”… Gandhiji also said : “What matters if a few lakhs die ?”. Maulana Azad understood the game-plan… but by then it was too late. A trap was laid… riots were unleashed… a situation / circumstance was created / forced ! There was no 24×7 TV media back then. It was an age of darkness… Lakhs of innocent people died… to fulfil the ambition of Pandit Nehru… and the Ram Rajya world-view of Gandhi ji and Sardar Patel.
If someone doesnt want you… what do you do ? You separate (with a heavy heart). From day 1., Pakistan has been faced with problems… some created… and some inherent. Jinnah’s vision was too lofty… He created Pakistan in the spirit of Moses ! The Punjabi failed him. Infact, i would go to the extent and say… the Panjabi.. the Pakhtoon.. the Baluch… and the Sindhi… are taking their revenge… Pakistan and Pakistanis were not worthy of Jinnah. Jinnah was too lofty… too high… His nation was not prepared to understand/comprehend the superiority of his world-view.
Today there is a Hindu India (de-facto), a Muslim Pakistan (de-jure… but not de-facto., ironically) and a Muslim Bangladesh. The poor are suffereing in all the 3 blocks… BUT… the Bania (the financiers of the Congress) has produced 40 Billionaires. The Bania Lobby has always won. They spent millions (Radcliffe Award) … so that Calcutta was awarded to India…. There is a history… The Rich Man always wins…. the Poor People die… They have only Religion as their life-guard. Unfortunately the poor people of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh are not only poor but extremely foolish too. Look how easily they are fooled by the Mullah… by Purohit/Sadhvi/RSS/Abhinav Bharat/VHP… to kill and rape and burn people alive. Hatred (mob-violence) pumps the adrenaline very fast. There is no HUMANITY… no Human Values. SO much of religion… arts… letters… music… philosophy… but NO HUMANITY.
This is the boldest piece I’ve read coming out of a Pakistani.
Excellent article. I am a big fan of both Ayesha Jalal and The Sole Spokesman. I would only quibble with the use of the phrase “quest for absolute power” with respect to Nehru and Patel. “Absolute power” is overstating things just a bit for my taste, since I associate that with Stalin, Mao, and perhaps others who oversaw the construction of totalitarian states. (I will not deny, however, that Nehru wanted a strong center in Delhi to oversee his centrally planned socialist miracle.)
Moreover, while I am very sympathetic to the Cabinet Mission Plan and am always playing “what if?” in my own mind, the fact is that the Congress had a legitimate and actually huge concern requiring a stronger center at Delhi than would have been permitted under the CMP: the absorption of more than 500 princely states into the Indian union. Many of these states would have acceded on their own, but many required a strong central government that could wield both carrot (all the benefits of being part of the larger union) and stick (implicit threat of military action, even if essentially unused). Under the CMP, Nehru would have been head of a “Group A” that would have required the acquiescence of Groups B and C before any kind of military mobilization could even have been implied.
Maybe the three groups would have come to an agreement requiring all princely states immediately to accede to the larger federation or face military force. But then, would we not have shifted the fight onto other terrain — i.e., fights over which principalities would join which group? The Muslim-majority Group B could well have refused to authorize any such legislation until the Hindu-majority Group A agreed that the principality of Hyderabad would be a non-contiguous part of Group B rather than A.
Over time, either this could have produced a give-and-take in which the three groups learned to coexist through compromise; or it would have let to rapid dissolution of the federation with the three groups becoming independent states — each with large populations of Hindus and Muslims.
We are in a consistent state of self denial by relishing our own versions of history. We continue to distort history for our future generations by seeing even the current situation through a marred lens and in the context of conspiracy theories. This all reminds of Faiz’s ‘ yey dagh dagh ujala yey shabguzida sehr…
Qudos, dear Raza! An exceptional read.
Regards,
ssd
The process of capitalism marks the epochal shifts.Jinna`s pakistan was aproduct of the emegence of the bipolarity power shift.The demise the cold war explicitly exposed the myth of religio or even culture.It is market, power and domination that permit it to roll on.Public was always naive and will always be.
[...] is still … Tags: Ayesha, Bombay, Delhi, Dina, Fatima, Gandhi, historian, History, India, … [ http://www.razarumi.com [...]