Sharp-Eyed View of a Mohajir

Here is a what if analysis done by Irfan Hussain, a known columnist from Pakistan....

Games historians play


By Irfan Husain


HISTORIANS are fond of playing a game known as “What if?� in which they try to picture a world where a different set of decisions had been taken at a key juncture. Thus, what would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union? What would the world be like today had Nazi Germany won the Second World War?

In the same spirit, here’s a game for readers: What would the subcontinent be like today had it not been partitioned 60 years ago? Had both Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan — and they were desperately close to an agreement — India would have remained intact, albeit as a country with three confederating units. Would we have been better or worse off in such an arrangement?

In terms of physical development, I have little doubt that Pakistan has benefited from Partition. In physical infrastructure as well as social, political and intellectual development, the areas that constituted Pakistan on August 14, 1947, were some of the most backward in the subcontinent.

Since then, the country has seen considerable progress. Roads, hospitals, universities and schools have been built. Muslim entrepreneurs who migrated to the new state brought capital and business skills, and have created banks, mills and factories. And in a semi-arid country, new farming techniques have created a green revolution. For me, the transplantation of mango varieties is the most welcome aspect of this development.

In fact, had it not been for Pakistan’s inexorable population growth, we would all be much better off today, with fewer people demanding their share of the small but growing cake.

Of course, it can be argued that most of these changes would have occurred in an undivided India. But given our neighbour’s slow economic progress in the first three decades of Independence, I doubt that enough resources would have gone to the periphery.

Also, no Partition would have meant that no mass migration would have taken place. This in turn means that most of the skills and capital that crossed the new border in 1947 would not have been available to this part of the subcontinent.

Factors that led to Pakistan’s relatively rapid progress in the fifties and sixties include liberal economic policies, as well as our pro-western stance. This gave us access to capital and modern technology. Meanwhile, India was being governed under the Congress party’s socialist vision that included a tightly regulated economy that yielded what is now known as the ‘Hindu rate of growth’.

So all in all, my guess is that in economic terms, Pakistan has benefited from Partition. It is in the non-physical areas that our growth has remained stunted. Had the subcontinent not been divided into two (and later three) components, we would not all have squandered such vast resources on defence.

With the trillions that have gone into the black hole of military budgets, the government could have doubled and tripled the expenditure on health, education, culture and sports.

As a confederating unit of India, the area today known as Pakistan would not have suffered from the identity crisis that has seen it position itself as an adjunct to the Middle East. This, and the exclusion of the army from political life, would have reduced the religious fervour that has brought the Taliban wolf to our door.

Indeed, one of the factors fuelling the rise of extremism in Pakistan has been the perception of the existential threat that (Hindu) India poses to us.

This has been matched by the rise of the Hindutva religious nationalism in India reflected by the Shiv Sena and the BJP. These organisations use the (Muslim) Pakistan threat to drum up support, in the same way governments and religious and right-wing parties play the India card here.

Living under a secular constitution would have made life a lot easier for our minorities. They would not have to live in fear under the Damocles sword of our iniquitous blasphemy laws, and would be equal citizens. Women, too, would have benefited, and not been subject to random prosecution as under Ziaul Haq’s infamous Hudood Ordinances.

In the international arena, an undivided India would have long been a powerhouse. With around 1.5 billion people, it would have provided an even larger market for imported and locally produced goods.

Culturally, we would have benefited from much greater diversity than we have now. Pakistan is a monochromatic society where women have not been allowed to play their true role in society. By contrast, they are highly visible in all Indian cities. And with more exposure to literature and the arts, our cultural life would have been that much richer.

In sports, too, a combined population of 1.5 billion would have produced world-beating teams: imagine a cricket team representing the entire subcontinent!

There is a perception that had Partition not taken place, Muslims would have been oppressed by the Hindu majority. But half a billion Muslims are not a small minority that can be kicked around. As it is, about 160 million Muslims still live in India.Similar numbers in the areas that constitute Bangladesh and Pakistan today would have ensured that Muslims carried substantial political clout. And had Indian Muslims not faced the kind of isolation caused by Partition, they would not be the marginalised community they are now.

Politically, we would not have been subjugated by the army as we are today. As a result, parliament and the judiciary would have been functioning with far greater freedom than they have done here over the last six decades. Indeed, we would be a far freer people than we are.

At the end of the day, there are going to be winners and losers. Through Partition, many people gained, while others lost out. Many fortunes were made as a direct result of the scams arising out of the purchase of property claims submitted by refugees. Thousands of well-off people, caught up in the stampede created by the riots of 1947, were made destitute. Other migrants prospered due to the lack of competition in the new state.

Of course, all these are highly speculative projections, and if I have offended readers on either side of the Great Divide, let me remind them that this is just a game. And everybody can play.

Re: # 27

I know a lot of people in India who were nothing before partition who are doing great now.

I know of a lot of people who were doing great before partition but are nothing now.

None of it had to do with their religion.

#26

Mahesh ji,

Only positives or negatives does not convey the message alone..... right?

I know many people who were nothing before partition in India and are now doing great in Pakistan.....

Re: # 25

That's definitely a possibility. No denying that.

I am listing the positives as Pakistanis list only the negatives (as they have to otherwise their justification for TNT just falls apart).

Mahesh, ....or he'd have been lynched in some communal riot in India (a possibility). Possibilities would depend on the place of residence.

The situation of these contrite mohajirs is like the situation of Toba Tek Singh. He'd always yearn for the place on the other side of the fence. Had their khandaan left for good by selling-off properties then they'd not have had a chance to see this side of the fence.

Gandhi always thought that deeply religious ppl would be intrinsically good. Similarly, Jinnah thought that political Islamists would be like him i.e irreligious. Both were wrong.

Obviously ppl like Khan followed a blind optimist pied-piper.

Re: # 9

Yeah right. You have already bankrupted your country trying to deal with the nuisance. If not for licking the white man's boot you wouldn't even have the moisture for saliva that you licked that boot with.

Re: # 22

Mr. Khan might have become the president of India.

He might have become the richest man in South Asia.

He might have become famous in India Cinema as an actor/director/music director/lyricist/singer with fans not only in South Asia but across the world

He might have become the captain of Indian cricket team.

He might have become the editor of Newsweek magazine.

He would be carrying the Indian passport and not the Jehadi passport that people are suscipicous of the moment they see that green cover.

Now, he can only wish he had never migrated to Pakistan.

Mr.Khan how good /bad u r life would be if you stayed in India?

Compare..... and then curse or thank

Bhatti, if someone is not loyal to his birthplace, the birthplace of his ancestors going back centuries, what makes you think that he will have any loyalty to his adopted land? You are naïve to believe that Mr. Khan should be devoted to Pakistan, a land that screwed him many times over.

Dear Mr. Subhashbijli,

As far as confederation thing is concerned, I am sure that if you go back in history, you'll notice that there were one or two plans put forward by British to that affect and both the times, there was a party called Indian National Congress which derailed these plans by not accepting it. Now without going into the details that whether it was right or wrong, we can only be certain that this confederation thing did not come about because of INC. So much for Mr. Muqaddam and his confederation.

Now coming back to joining India; brother, lemme be very clear with you. If you carry out public poll in Pakistan, you will certainly become aware of the number of disillusioned people of Pakistan and how much in terms of percentage, they represent Pakistani population. Our chowk multi nick phenomenon Mr. Arjun, with whom I agree on some counts will give you an accurate picture by giving you the number of people who want to destroy India in Pakistan. So before uttering things that you don't understand, please make sure to consult with an abstract concept called "GROUND REALITY".

We in Pakistan do have problems and there are lot of them; but, if you think that this has to do something with forming a loose federation or confederation with India, then my dear Subash Sahib, you are totally out of touch with reality.

Remember, how harder you screw a woman in anus, you can never impregnate her. That requires taking the path through vaginal cavity. And my dear Subash sahib, your confederation thingy is like screwing the woman in anus. You'll only get shit smell and the enjoyment, if you enjoy it; but you'll never get anyway near to impregnating her if that is the objective.....

it appears that the author is very disillusioned with pakistan. many are disillusioned about pakistan. we indians are aware of it. the solution is not in confederation but in disintegration of pakistan into small states and after surrender of arms, small states to join india. india has its own problems and by joining into a confederation with pakistan we do not want to add to our problems. but what i have said is easy to say and difficult to practice. the isi, pak army, jaish, let, al qaeda, etc. will not allow integration into india so easily. so a war is essential, to tell these terrorists that their place is in hell, not in pakistan. breaking is easy, joining is very very difficult. confederation is not the solution with terrorists in pakistan. after confederation they will move around more freely in india. pakistan was formed with deceit, treachery and violence. pakistan will end with violence. as you sow, so shall you reap. jai hind.

Instead of heaping derision and abuse on the author, the obvious disappointment felt by him by what he has seen over the years is noteworthy.
A loose federation would be a good beginning.

sayeed,

You are on the right track. First re-assess what TNT has done, then remove the photos from all those govt offices. That is the first step.

Without discrediting TNT, the terroprism will not stop. TNT has taken the religious idea of jihad into the political dimension and legitimised support for jihadis, as you see in pakistan.

A country created for religion, and based on the TNt notion that muslims cannot live with people of other religion, cannoy eliminate jihadis, becase the essence of TNT is the political operationalisation of jihad.

Khalid,

I agree my brother. I shall get that book and read it.

VRV,

Having many perspective to look at any given issue is not an issue here. I myself am strongly in favour of putting myself (or at least I try) in shoes of all the people concerned before arriving at any conclusion. What I reacted to in this article was the blatant attempt on part of author to absolve himself of all the responsibilities of what went wrong in Pakistan. After all these were the people at the helms of affairs in Pakistan.

BTW, there is no dearth of such people in Pakistan itself. One supreme example of mediocrity and who absolves himself is the one called Roedad Khan. Read his book, and you will have a chill going down your backbone that these people are actually the one who controlled our destiny..

Khalid Yaar,

'.... even those dogs who survive on the heap of trash stand up and bark for the village when any intruder from outside comes in.'

This sentence jolted me, really (while keeping aside wrong and right issues in the article).

I think there could be many dimensions to an issue. I saw it from Indian perspective. U saw it from native Pakistani perspective and Mr. Khan saw it from his mohajir's perspective.