Javed Jabbar in ‘The Nation Is Made Of These’ (Outlook, 8th April 2013) appreciably makes a very strong case for defence of minority rights in Pakistan. At the same time he makes serious omissions in the list of minorities. He fails to mention the Muslim sects against whom atrocities are being committed, Shia Muslims and Ahmadiyas. The latter have been even deprived the status of being Muslims. The reasons are obvious as Jabbar’s concept of Pakistan nationalism is based on the hollow ground, that Islam is the base of Pakistani nationalism. He also gives a new twist to the formation of Bangladesh. The formation of Bangledesh irrefutably proved that religion cannot be the binding glue for a modern nation state, but he comes to change the two nation theory in to ‘two nation-three state’ theory!
Pakistan was not a nation before its formation. In his Constituent Assembly speech on 11th August 1947 Mohd Ali Jinnah had pointed out that a new nation was to be created in the state of Pakistan. Contrary to this, Jabbar tries to say that the process of formation of Pakistan begins with the time when the first Muslims arrived in the subcontinent. This is a total distortion of history; in a way it is falling in the trap of communal historiography, which the British introduced in this region to pursue their goal of ‘divide and rule’. This linking of Muslim nationalism with the rule of Muhammad bin Qasim is in keeping with the Hindu nationalists arguing that this has been a Hindu nation since times immemorial.
The very formulation that Muslims ruled for so many years or Hindus ruled from times immemorial is flawed. This periodisation of history into Hindu, Muslim and British periods was introduced by British Historian James Mill, where the religion of the ruler or king is given primacy. The matter of fact is that it is not Hindus or Muslims who ruled, but the Muslim kings or Hindu kings who ruled. They again did not rule on behalf of all Hindus and Muslims, neither did they rule for their religion. In these kingdoms, the administration and armed forces were of mixed religious denominations. Mahmud Gazni had five Hindu generals in his army. Shivaji had 12 Muslim generals in his army. Akbar had Raja Mansingh as his commander in chief while Rana Pratap had Hakim Khan Sur fighting on his behalf. Thirty four percent of court officials of Aurganzeb were Hindus, Mirza Raja Jaisingh used to come to meet Shivaji on Aurangzeb’s behalf. Kingdoms are a different system of rule and to link up today’s modern nationalism to the rule of kings is to fall in the trap of politics, which became divisive and communal in modern times.
The communal claim that the British had taken over the Raj from Muslim rulers and so it should be returned to Muslims is as flawed as the formulation that we are a Hindu nation and so we should have a Hindu Rashtra. Glossing over the formation of Bangladesh as merely a failure of state structure is again an apologia for communal thinking. The very formation of Bangladesh proved that the interests even of the ruling elite of East and West Pakistan were diagonally opposite to each other. The major factor in formation of Pakistan as such begins with the reaction of feudal classes, Hindus and Muslims both, to the rising Indian nationalism. The lead founders of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha (Nawab of Dhaka and Raja of Kashi in particular) were together in United India Patriotic Association, which was formed jointly by the Muslim and Hindu landlords and kings. The aim of this organization was to protect their interests and they pledged their loyalty to the British crown. It was the British Viceroy who encouraged the Muslim landlords and Nawabs to call upon him in Shimla in 1906 and to recognize them as the representative of Muslims. The role of the British in partitioning the subcontinent is underplayed by the communalists of both colours. The role of feudal elements in trying to protect their social, economic political privileges in the garb of religion is cleverly hidden by the proponents of religious nationalism from both sides.
The British, having succeeded in their goal of splitting United India Patriotic Association into Muslim League and Hindu Mahsabha, got the best allies for lording over the subcontinent. While the leaders of these communal organizations, Jinnah and Savarkar were hardly religious in their life style, the leaders of the secular democratic national movement, Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, both very religious, rejected the religious nationalisms and the concept of a Muslim nation and a Hindu nation. The Lahore Resolution, which Jabbar calls the major milestone towards his brand of Islamic nationalism, was a handiwork of small section of Muslims while the average Muslims at large opposed it. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who knew the history of Indian Muslims better than others, never came to support such a resolution. The obvious point was that the communalist failed to see that the Muslims in India were not one monolith -- but had different denominations and also had vast differences of history, culture, dress, food habits and language. This also became the ground for splitting of Pakistan in due course. And Azad could predict the trajectory of a state formed in the name of religion.
Gandhi, in his own style pointed out that Muslims have different characteristics in different states of India and so his query to Jinnah that when he talked of Muslims, did he mean the Muslims of entire Indian geography or Muslims of the geography that Pakistan was to be? One has to realise, 60 years down the line, that the colonialists had bigger interests in dividing India for their long term goal of confronting the rising tide of socialism. And how shrewdly, later they used Pakistan for their hold on South and West Asia.
One welcomes the positive attitude of Jabbar in recommending the rights of minorities in Pakistan to live with security and equity, but at the same he too should realise that the very notion of Islamic identity for a state is untenable in these times.
The Roman Empire faced the situation, where Rome ruled neighbours, and the neighbours of their neighbours, through coercion, and force, if they weren't persuaded. It appears, that since they couldn't regulate who entered Rome, the 'Barbarians' might have entered any area or province, and then done what they wanted, in murder or pillage. Hence, Rome was ransacked.
Do we know, a great Britisher called India, 'many nations within a nation', or words to that effect? It seems, Pakistan has fewer nations within Pakistan. The idea is, that people should live in peace with each other. Why should the other matter to me, if we are all doing the same thing? Why cannot we live independent, and why do we believe that we can influence each other, when we want to influence ourselves more than others? In Pakistan, it seems easier to resolve differences, because there are Punjabi's, Baluchi's, Sindhi's etc.. It just might be, that they fight each other because of this. In India, there seem to be more people in terms of ethnicity, race, and religion. I did express earlier, that China seems to have no problem, because they see themselves as 'Han Chinese'. If they compare themselves with their neighbours, they aren't Han Chinese. If that nation ruled the world, then what happened in Mumbai, in 26/11, might have made the Chinese govt. in Beijing face that situation, very often. One might not be in a situation within a nation, for that situation to develop in a manner, 'bad'.
Also, the treatment of the Tibetan people, according to people not in Tibet and China, might be the reason why China is insecure in Beijing. It seems, that people there will not want to change what they feel, is not pertains to the Chinese state. The idea of Communism, is that no community will exist, as people will not need the concept of 'conscience', being perfectly moral. A person might be 'married' but he won't need to feel so, perhaps. Just because there seems to be no progress towards the ideal of Communism, doesn't mean that there needs to be conflict. The Buddhist monk, is not a community. The monks are supposed to be independent as individuals. They are, apparently, following the ideals of what society will be, when Communism disappears, according to Marx.
The Indian people made a good precedent in acknowledging that the term 'Muslim State', means a Muslim society, even a single family in any nation. It seems, the Arabian Peninsula encourages nationalities from overseas, and not belonging to that peninsula, of all religions, to emigrate for a period, and treats the foreign nationals in a manner commensurate to nationals of their nations. It seems, there are no Christian or adherents of Judaism in those lands, and they are not unwelcome there. The idea of state, is not entirely in the interest of the state. I mean, it is so unusual that a nation might see self security and interest in a manner meaningful to the extent, that they station troops in other nations, and no one bothers. The precedent is, if you are an important state, then station interests overseas in the form of troops, and business considerations, but the British have peaceably eschewed this idea, after being the entity that they were.
I have no comprehension problem. If anything, you have a problem understanding your own writing.
We are a nice pair. You have comprehension problem and I have communication problem. Dumb talking to deaf.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT