Pakistan-Idea to State and Reality
By Dr. Minhaj Qidwai
Stephen Philip Cohen, in The Idea of Pakistan, cites Al-Biruni as a source of ideas for Jinnah and Ayub Khan. Al-Biruni’s India is admittedly one of the most penetrative accounts of Indian society, but a society of the 11th century, not the 20th. He also observed that the “Hindus are totally different from the Muslims in religion. This is, of course, true but it isn’t such a profound observation as to have informed either Jinnah or the Field Marshal of what they were unaware. Jinnah wanted a secular dressing, whereas Ayub made it Islamic. Did this deviance had an impact on Pakistan? Did it made a difference between a “right government…which aims at general good” and “a deviation…which aims at its own good”. Was Pakistani state’s preoccupation with “its own good” resulted in a near-permanent deviation of governance itself? Above all, what was the need for creation of Pakistan.
With the Second World War, Atlantic charter was signed between Churchill and Rosevelt, which paved the way of freedom of India. Post-World War II a depleted Britain could just not have continued as masters in India. The Britishers had to leave. But before they left, wanted to leave behind a part of India loyal to them. “A united India would be a great power, whereas a divided one would be weak,” and “the British (could) use an independent Pakistan to control India”; However, during the future course of time the idea of formation of Pakistan for Britishers, probably changed the guards and masters in future “US replacing Britain”.
Recent research by Raja Narendra Singhji of Sarila, a distinguished former diplomat, in his book, The Untold Story of Partition—Shadows of the Great Game, has an interesting angle.
Field Marshal Lord Wavell, then Viceroy, who was in London in August 1945 for a policy review with the new Labour government, advised: “There is no possibility of a compromise between the Muslim League and Congress. … We’ve to come down on the side of one or the other.” On August 31, 1945, after a farewell call on the by now out of office Churchill, Wavell wrote: “He (Churchill) warned me that the anchor (he himself) was gone and (that) I was on a lee shore with rash pilots…. His final remark, as I closed the door of the lift, was: ‘Keep a bit of India’”. Wavell did just that. By early February 1946, a blueprint of a future Pakistan was sent to Pethick-Lawrence. It contained some details that almost two years later the Radcliffe Commission finally and formally announced.
That is why we are led to ask which ‘idea’ of Pakistan did Jinnah actually stand for? Also, whose ‘idea’ finally took shape?
The Muslims supported the Britishers in the Second World War. Britishers found in them an ally who can be trusted. Allama Iqbal, Quaid, Maulana Maudoodi “began as an advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity”. Allama was the author of Sare jahan se achchha, but he changed, advocating later that Muslims of India “needed a separate state…a South Asian counterpart of the great empires of Persia, Arabia”, because “political power was essential to the higher ends of establishing God’s Law”.
Jinnah grasped the import of this before others could; for him it was the long-sought-after “political opening”. His campaign was launched, resulting, in December 1939, in the announcement of the Day of Deliverance, which was more a deliverance from ‘Congress raj’ than the Hindus.
On August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam, after appointment as the president of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, made a speech from which what follows are just excerpts:
“…. A division had to take place. Both in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections who may not agree…but in my judgment there was no other solution….
I am sure future history will record its verdict in favor…. Now what shall we do? If we want to make…Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should…forgetting the past, burying the hatchet…work together in a spirit that everyone…no matter (of) what community…(or) colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations.”
Although, Pakistan came into existence but it was a hurried call for the Quaid to accept. He accepted what was being offered. However, this left Pakistan in lurch for its identity.
Pakistan-from Idea to Identity:
Pakistan was carved out of India. So, Indian culture, Muslim movements and British Raj, all had an influence on its identity. So did it become a rented state?
Indian Culture: The Indian culture and practices influenced Pakistan’s identity. In marriage ceremonies Indian songs, dances, mehndi and other practices are common in Pakistani marriages. Indian films are still widely seen in Pakistan-Bollywood is the ideal of Lollywood.
Indian Islamic Movements: Muslims had their own factions in India. Their followers continued to practice them also in Pakistan. They influenced Ayub Khan to name Pakistan as Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This became a turning point in the history of Pakistan, where it deviated from what Quaid had envisioned for Pakistan.
British Raj: In British India, the 200-year-old tradition of the Raj had influenced India and Pakistan thus became a legacy. The Civil servants were British trained. They followed their masters and became masters at independence. The elite society could still be seen after more than sixty years of independence enjoying in the clubs made by the Britishers.
A Buffer State: With amalgamated influences from different sectors, does Pakistan have an identity of a Buffer state? State to be used as a proxy for Communist expansion-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and use of Pakistan in its expulsion proves this status. State to be given a Muslim identity, to be used as a threat the Indians and keep them under control. The unresolved Kashmir dispute created by the Britishers at the time of partition and then cemented by their army commanders. Using Pakistan and exploiting its Muslim identity, making it nuclear for any future expeditions, will be unfolded as the time passes.
Pakistan-From Evolution to State
Pakistan evolved hastily from an idea into a state. With the initial control of Pakistan in the hand of the Britishers and its trained army, the civil administrators, bureaucracy, and the feudal landlords; became to dominate the politics and social life. Quaid’s life did not allow him to see Pakistan evolving as a secular state. This was followed by the murder of Liaquat Ali Khan. The conspirators had no vital opposition to implement their agenda. Inept leadership and their imposition through a foreign hand has been the hall mark of history of Pakistan. Bangladesh was born due to the inadequacies they found in their handling with the West. The remainder of Pakistan’s small provinces still feel the same. There is ethnicity in dominance rather than nationhood. The provision of licenses to media has added a new element in political and social set up of Pakistan. It could be the labeled as the fourth element influencing Pakistan apart from army, bureaucracy and the feudal. Lately, following the war in Afghanistan, various Islamic factions have mushroomed and become the most powerful element in destabilizing the state. This is evident by the fact that military had to change its complete doctrine for handling them first.
Reality
From the original Idea of Pakistan to today’s reality has been a long, tortuous journey. More than sixty years of independence, Pakistan is still in search of its identity. Is it “Army’s Pakistan”; “Feudal’s Pakistan” Islamist’s Pakistan” “Ethnic Pakistan” Elite’s Pakistan” or a Rented Pakistan. Provincial pulls in “Regionalism and Separatism” is threatening the identity of remaining Pakistan.
Pakistan’s “alarming demographic and social indicators”, the much-abused education system (business style of education overtaking the learning) and the “uncertain economic circumstances” are eye-openers. Pakistan’s population, growing at speedy rate, the high infant mortality, lack of prospects for youth and jobs, Extortions, and corruption to name a few is making it a failed state.
Hence it is necessary to take a nuanced view of “failure”—a term widely and imprecisely used to describe Pakistan. The term derives from situations where state is unable to deliver the most fundamental necessities to their citizens.
—Failure of identity
Nations seldom fulfill their high ideals and early promise. Pakistan, created as a haven for Indian Muslims, was to be a stable and prosperous secular state, but made a Islamic state. The discrepancy between its early aspirations and contemporary reality is one of the country’s more notable features.
—Failure of vision
Pakistan’s founders expected the idea of Pakistan to shape the state of Pakistan; instead, a triad of military, bureaucracy and feudal govern the state and imposes their own vision of a Pakistani nation.
—Economic failure
With the leaders and administrators interested in working for themselves rather than for masses, their pockets swell at the cost of loss to the state. State being controlled by the donors. Middle class could not rise and gaps between the haves and have not’s has widened.
—Failure of leadership
Pakistan has a distinct political and governing class: the “Establishment,” a moderate oligarchy that has presided over many political, economic, and strategic disasters, and whose most promising leaders, have by and large disappointed their ardent supporters, creating further disillusionment with the political process.
—Catastrophic failure
Failing states either are given support or absorbed by imperial powers or neighbors or placed under international trusteeship. Failure of today’s Pakistan can lead into a catastrophic failure, due to its nuclear arsenal, which has been allowed to be built and given a blind eye by its masters. This is not a welcome prospect, but there are worse: a collapsing Pakistan, spewing out nuclear weapons and Islamic extremists, or even a Pakistan transformed into a truly radical and militant state.
So, even after more than sixty years of its so called independence, Pakistan has transformed itself from an idea into a state.
However, change of its identity from secular to Islamic, impending failure of the state and the rise of militant Islam are the threats to its existence. Coupled with lack of its development as a nation and therefore no national spirit, nationalistic leadership and the ruling triad are threats to its existence. This brings us to the question of a failed two nation theory? Would united India have been a better option? Was Pakistan really carved out from India to serve the interests of Britishers and Americans? Is there any glimpse of hope for our survival? With the changing geographies on the globe, the ray of hope is diminishing. However, the one who allowed the creation of Pakistan, is the one to whom every Pakistani is looking at. Will he do something to save Pakistan?
