The Old Pakistan is Dead, Long Live New Pakistan

Re:SameerJB#36
Sameer, what do you think would have happened if the British had never showed up in India ? I can`t imagine that the Mughals would have packed up their stuff and shifted to Lahore from Delhi. At the same time, they could not have continued an imperial rule forever. A likely option would have been multiple geographic states (not based on religion) with some loose alliance with Delhi. If somehow a centralized empire over entire India was re-established, it would have definitely required power sharing and alliances with hindus, which is what Akbar did and Aurangzeb messed up.
The key concept is power sharing, which is something that neither Congress nor the Muslim League were capable of. Even leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah never really displayed the wisdom of Akbar to sit down and hammer out a proper power sharing arrangement such as setting aside seats for minorities and ensuring equal opportunity for everyone. Instead it was all a numbers game to gain demographic advantage wherever possible. Therefore, it is no surprise that India broke up.
I do believe that Jinnah made a major miscalculation of the coherence of the hindu community based on what he saw at the Congress. Hindus had never united against muslim rule but they did against the british. It was primarily because muslim rule had become indigenized with a lot of interaction between the communities. British rule always remained a colonial arrangement with clear distinctions between the ruler and ruled that could not be bridged. However, this hindu coherence was a temporary phenomenon as is obvious today when it is so difficult for anyone to form a government at Delhi, in spite of a demographic majority. Jinnah felt that the hindus had united and hence muslims had to unite to protect their interests. He overlooked the past 1000 years history of hindu disunity which was easily exploited by everyone. In fact, if he had played his cards astutely, he could have formed alliances with different sections/castes of hindus and gained overall political power.

#36 by sameerJB

SameerJB,

The British may have given India ``good`` government but it was not for altruistic reasons, it just made it that much easier to suck the wealth out of India and into the coffers of Britain. Next time you visit there, think that your forefathers paid for a whole bunch of mansions and the riches they hold.

Besides, reforms for structured governance were initiated by Sher Shah Suri. Akbar built on them and the British fitted their government on top of these structures.

shankar #34: You maybe correct. Although I hope you are not.

I try to place my arguments within the boundaries of two concepts: humanism and economics. I think these are the two driving forces in a person`s life. Not religion.

Conflicts over religion and ethnicities usually occur when there are econonmic problems or human rights violations. Otherwise, people don`t worry too much about religion.

Europe has actually had the worst cases of religious and ethnic conflicts of any area in the world. Nothing in South Asia can match it. The whole concept of secularism came about when Europeans got tired of the power the church wielded over society. Nothing similar has happened in Islam, and hence secularism never really took hold in Islamic societies, i.e. Christian mullahs were far worst than the mullahs of other religions.

The conflict between Jews and Christians in Europe is much larger than anything existing between Muslims and Hindus. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants was (is) much worse than anything between Shias and Sunnis in South Asia.

Even the ethnic conflicts between Serbians, and Albanians and Bosnians (and many others) nowdays are worse than any ethnic conflict in India and Pakistan. I have colleagues from Eastern Southern and Balkan parts of Europe, and the tensions and the ethnic cleansings they describe (even in the past decade) make South Asia look like Euro Disney.

The, ``civilisation`` of the Western society actually occured due to economic progress. If you were to reduce the size of the pie in the USA, pretty soon everyone would be at the throats of us South Asians, ready to kick us out. Just take a look at the US govt`s. over-reaction to Sep 11. If, God forbid, one more gigantic terrorist attack occurs in the USA, I think open ethnic and religious discrimination will occur in the USA.

Pakistan and India need to respect human rights of groups they are/have subjugated and they need to get their economics on the right track. At that point, religion will not matter much. After all, you must have met well-off Pakistanis in Michigan. Did they ever bother about your religion?

shankar #28: Unfortunately you took my explanation of British thinking during 1940s as criticism of British colonialism in India as a whole. My opinion about British colonialism is no different than Sohail Rabbani for the period of 1857-1947. They ran an efficient and mostly honest administration decreasing the gap between subcontinent and outside developed world. By 1857, subcontinent was fallen way behind in all aspects of development, except for weaving fine cotton that would not have lasted because of better machines would have produced better ``malmal`` too. They did what Bahadur Shah Zafar`s progeny would not have even thought of doing - education, healthcare, communication, print media at mass level and so on.
Your other point about pipe dream of many countries in subcontinent living peacefully, happily and side-by-side is also unnecessary extrapolation of an idea of several states that I find better than one or two states in historical context. I have no such illusions. I see British created Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda out of colonial Tanganyka and French west Africa got divided into many countries, yet none of them is a model for progress, prosperity or anything else. However, you would not argue that if Tanganyka or French West Africa or all Latin America except Brazil were not divided, they would be competing Germany, France or USA in development or, on the other hand, as better off as they are today individually. The perception of what could have been is a tricky and very subjective analysis. To be honest with you, I still think on a scale of 1-10 with one being the best, the difference between one nation, two nations or multiple nations out of British India would have been 1.2, 1.3 and 1.1 respectively, with the assumption that independence was 1 and continued colonialism was 10.
I hope I made myself clear about what I said previously. No shankar, I have no illusions about the potential and limitations of our societies at current level.

Romair,
#33

I agree with your ideology. However, I guess I`m a cynical, pessimisstic, realist. Europe went through the devastation & horror of two world wars before they realised peace & prosperity supercede national boundaries & cultural differences. In a sense they are ``lucky`` that they have essentially no major religious differences. Besides most Europeans were already literate. Most Europeans are Christians. .

Japan had to endure the horror of humiliating defeat & nuclear holocaust, before it became more mature.

It takes a catastrophe to open minds to do the ``right`` thing.

In S.Asia, it is further complicated by ``religion``. The two dominant religions of S.Asia...hinduism & islam..are competing ``politically`` & ``militantly`` for power..in the name of God! Unfortunately, religion is an extremely sensitive issue for most people. Becomes a bigger problem cos the majority of S.Asians are poor & illiterate. The two towering personalities..Gandhi & Jinnah are anachronisms...it is Indians & Pakistanis themselves that have made them anachronisms in their respective countries. I`m sure if Gandhi & Jinnah were alive today, both would be disillusioned that all what they stood for, has gone down the tubes.

If S.Asians ever get the ``maturity`` to transcend their differences; IMO, nothing short of a nuclear holocaust will make them open their eyes. I pray to God I`m wrong, but I feel nuclear war in the subcontinent is a given...the only question is ``when?``...

Shankar #28: Every human being is born into a system. They do not control where they are born, but they are effected by it. The term OUR, in that sense, becomes somewhat uncontrollable.

If today I wanted to reform all of Pakistan`s society, I couldn`t regardless of how much I tried. One person cannot compete against OUR. OUR itself is a concept based on history, leadership, events, the position in time where a society exists etc.

I think if the Americans, Germans, Thais etc. faced the same history, events etc. in a certain point in time, their societies would be exactly where OUR society is right now. In that sense, one cannot just put all the blame on OUR. There were external factors involved also. It is a combination of OUR and OTHER factors, that South Asia is in the state it is in today.

Anyone who occupies another people(s) against their wishes, in my opinion, commits the greatest of all sins. I hope our Maker has a special place in hell reserved for people like that and for people who support people like that. Even if one, ``occupies`` one`s own wife against her wishes, it is a great crime. In that sense, the British and anyone who else occupied anyone are at fault, as are the nawabs and nazims etc.

The desire of one human being to dominate another is the gravest of all crimes. Us South Asians should understand it better than anyone. The only group that should understand it even better than us are the Jews. We should be more sensitive to the wishes of people in such situations. It is quite ironic that South Asians (and Jews) have, immediately after freedom, committed and are still committing some of the worst occupations of past decades.

Once every South Asian starts respecting the desire of others, who may not want to live with him/her, everything will fall into place. Just because this stage hasn`t been reached doesn`t in any way absolve the Western colonial powers of the aparthied based occupation of other countries that they carried out.

Live and let live should be the motto everyone follows, if you ask me.

ZafarA #21: ``division along ethnic or religious lines doesn`t change that - in the long run it is fair societies which last, and unfair ones which don`t``

This is exactly what I am saying. I think the whole world should be one country. That is the most efficient way to work. However, if there is unfairness to the level of exploitation of one group by another, then that group should be given the right to decide its own future. Otherwise, the society will become unfair for that group. I think the basic human nature of people is to want to live together, they only separate when they feel they will be exploited.

SR #29
``Back then the Chowk resembled a small group of cyber friends who, for the most part, were considerate of other people’s sensitivities.``

You have hit the nail on the head. When talking of the reworking the subcontinent, you have to contend not just with the polite views of a small group of civil friends, but with the views of one and a half billion people. And if you cannot take chowk.. :)

#17 by Romair:

``What if there are people in power, who attempt to chase down people of other religions, or other ethnicities and kill them, as a matter of political policy? What should the people of other ethnicities and religions do?``

Do you mean the following pogrom that has taken place in the sub-continent aided and abetted by the bete-noir of the sub-continent: the Pakistani army?

Once diverse, Kashmir is now valley of Muslims
By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
SRINAGAR, INDIAN KASHMIR - Javed`s parents always talk about what Kashmir used to be – a land where Hindus and Muslims were friends, celebrated holidays and weddings together, ate each other`s food.

But Javed, a high school student here, says his parents might as well be describing life on the moon. He was 3 when a violent insurgency against Indian control tore apart the state, causing Hindus to flee by the hundreds of thousands. He has never had a Hindu teacher or friend, never tasted Hindu food.

``The terrorist activities have destroyed our culture,`` says Javed, who prefers not to give his last name. ``When the Hindu Pandits left the valley, we lost a part of ourselves.``

Yesterday, India announced that it will begin pulling back troops from the Pakistan border in eight to 10 days. But while politicians and diplomats search for ways to end the 13-year insurgency – considering everything from state autonomy to joint control by India and Pakistan – Kashmiris themselves are in the midst of a profound social change. The migration of most of the state`s Hindus has turned a once-cosmopolitan society of Hindus and Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists, into an Islamic monoculture.

Now, experts worry that an entire generation will grow up never having experienced Kashmiriyat – the thousands- year-old concept of cultural unity through diversity – and in a fundamental way, India will have already lost Kashmir.

``Kashmiriyat as a collective presence is either dead or dying, and to revive this sense of togetherness is the biggest challenge, a bigger challenge than fighting terrorism,`` says Amitabh Mattoo, a political scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

Altered classrooms
The Hindu vacuum is felt most profoundly in the state`s public and private schools, where children of Kashmir`s many cultures once mingled. Before 1989, Kashmir`s small but influential community of Pandits – a caste of Hindus whose name means teacher – occupied 20 percent of white-collar jobs. They had an especially large presence in education – 60 percent of all the region`s teachers were Hindus.

But when the insurgency broke out in 1989, sparked by a rigged election that kept Muslim separatists out of office, posters appeared in Pandit neighborhoods accusing Hindus of collaboration with the Indian government and threatening their lives if they didn`t leave the state. Pandits fled by the hundreds of thousands, some to the southern Jammu region and others to Delhi and beyond.

Today, qualified Muslim teachers have replaced Pandits in public schools. But a few hundred private religious schools, some of them owned by promilitant groups such as Jamaat-e Islami, have also sprung up. Out of 900,000 students statewide, perhaps 200,000 students attend Islamic private schools full time.

Even some separatist leaders say they have noticed a dramatic change in the mind-set of Kashmir`s young people – not necessarily because of the influence of religious schools, but because of the absence of diversity both in the classroom and outside it.

``Kashmiris are religious, but they are not communal [communally exclusive], and every Muslim believes that we want the Pandits to return,`` says Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chief cleric of Kashmir`s largest mosque and a separatist leader. ``But all that is changing,`` he adds. ``A certain sector of Kashmiri youth has gone to religion in a hard-line way.``

Preserving tolerance
Some Kashmiris believe that tolerance starts at home, where parents can reinforce values rooted in the three liberal religions that dominate the valley, Sufi Islam, Shivaite Hinduism, and Mahayana Buddhism.

``Honest to God, I feel very unfortunate that my children don`t know what it is to have a Hindu teacher or a Hindu friend,`` says Mukhtar Ahmed, a father who spent 16 years as a photographer for the royal family in Saudi Arabia before returning to Kashmir last year. ``It reminds me of Saudi Arabia. Children grow up never knowing what a Hindu is, what a Christian is, what a Sikh is. But in Kashmir, we don`t believe those values as in Saudi Arabia, and the home is the first cradle of values, so we teach humanitarian values.``

In fact, on the streets of Srinagar and even in the villages, it`s clear that Kashmir is still one of the more modern, liberal Islamic societies in Central and South Asia. Short skirts have been replaced by the loose traditional outfit called the salwar kameez, but it is still rare to see women wearing a full face-covering veil. Social mores are more liberal too. Couples cuddle up for a shikara boat ride across the expansive Dal Lake, or take long walks in the lush public gardens.

Even the hundreds of religious private schools that have sprung up across the state over the past decade have relatively liberal curricula. Islamic schools in Kashmir teach the Koran in Kashmiri and English, and require students to study math, science, literature, history, and economics.

Mohammad Shafi-Uri, a former state education minister recently ousted in this month`s state elections, says he is hopeful that schools will be able to cultivate tolerance, even as the population grows less diverse. ``Education has a tremendous liberating power. It makes you humanistic. If you talk to students at college, they may talk against the government of India, but they are secular in their outlook.``

At the Government Boys Higher Secondary Institute in Srinagar, Muslim students are asked to explain ideas from the Koran. Hindu students (there are still six left, out of hundreds of Muslims) discuss lessons from sacred Hindu texts. And Sikh boys talk about their holy book. Principal Syeeda Shafi says her teachers do what they can to mold tolerant, globally minded students – even in a cultural vacuum.

Nevertheless, the straight-talking Ms. Shafi stops short of nostalgia in talking about Kashmir`s multiethnic tradition.

``It was a lovely mixture of cultures,`` she says. ``But there was a problem: The Pandits used to overestimate their own talents, and underestimated ours. Our Muslim children were neglected.

``If the Muslim youth had been given chances to work in the central government offices, if they were allowed to see the outside world, maybe these problems [the insurgency] wouldn`t have come up.``

Times have changed here at the Chowk. Although most of the changes are for the better, a thing or two of value has also been lost since those early days in late 1997. Back then the Chowk resembled a small group of cyber friends who, for the most part, were considerate of other people’s sensitivities.

I submitted this piece in September 1997 and it was posted for public view a month later. A brief discussion followed. Some responses were very angry and not altogether polite. It may amuse today’s Chowk reader to learn that back then civility amongst parties that held widely opposing views was usually well observed. It was for this consideration that I began with a “disclaimer” about the piece being “provocative and aggressive”. Surely, today that warning seems like a joke.

Fast forward to October 27, 2002.

I learnt from a friend’s email that the Chowk had resurrected the piece from its archives so I feel obligated to say a few words.

Somehow, during transition to the “New and Improved” Chowk some of the responses were lost. Notice the date stamps of the first six messages and you’ll realize that some things fell through the cracks. Message number six, essentially encapsulates my response to the responses.

I would like to add, however, that in the last five years my own thoughts have gone through evolutionary changes. Whereas I felt strongly about the issues raised in this and the other related pieces back then, today I only feel a vague emptiness. Religious issues and South Asian politics used to galvanize me and, as the Chowk archives testify, I’ve expended several thousands of keystrokes pursuing those chimeras, but not any more. Therefore, I’ll respectfully leave these lofty matters to other of superior intellect and deeper conviction than myself.

In the mean time I’d like to have a friendly and light hearted exchange and explain (though not defend) the points raised in this (and the other related) piece.

Let me rehash just two points which I`ve made before.

First, if we accept that the British Raj was an illegitimate usurpation of South Asian soverignty, then it logically follows that ALL their actions (especially those related to the issues of state soverignty) from 1857 until 1947 were also invalid. Thus, the inception of the twin states of modern India and Pakistan were also illigitimate. Only the status quo ante could be acceptable. The map of pre-1857 should be a good starting point.

Second, for those who bemoan the British ``cunning`` in the process of subjucating the South Asian subcontinent must also, similarly, begrudge the Muslim subjugation of the Iberian peninsula in the early 700s and Central Asian (nominally Muslim) invaders of the sucontinent from the 1200s on down. What`s good for the goose, is also good for the gander.

Regards,

…SR

Sameer,

I think you are a tad too unfair with the British. If the British exploited the weaknesses of the minds of subcontinental hindus & muslims....its OUR problem, PRIMARILY..not theirs! A few million British ruled a HUGE chunk of this globe & ruled it with authority.

Its the ``losing`` side that always complains of the ``evil`` of the winning side....the ``winning`` or ``dominating`` side always believes in the righteousness of their ``civilisation`` & continues to be the bully, the sneaky ``hegemon``...

Churchill reviled Hitler as being prejudiced & arrongant in his beliefs of Aryan superiority....how the heck was Churchill different in his views (not in his actions) from Hitler? Churchill believed in the moral superiority of the British Empire...To him, we were a land of half-naked fakirs & feifdoms run by corrupt rajahs & nizams .... that the British did a great FAVOR by ``civilising`` us..

``Divide & rule`` was a strategy, backed up by superior technology. Population numbers dont matter, that much, in the long run. Technology is a great force multiplyer...& where danda or rifle wont work, divide & rule is a damn good strategy. Who cares if the losing side feels that that strategy is ``morally wrong``?..

After reading all those ``super-theoritical`` & abstract views of Freud , Piaget, Klein etc etc...I`ve found that basic ``down home`` American philosophy of my patients in the form of cliches (heck I cant even spell it!)..is the best gauge of human mentality...

for eg..

1)Everybody looks out for number ONE!
2)If it aint broke, dont fix it...
3) Who told you life is fair?...
4)Sh*t happens & then you die...

Now, maybe I sound cynical:)...but I dont think I am...there is a lot of goodness in human beings too...

British India broke up because TNT became the dominant discourse during the time of Partition. Indians & Pakistanis blame each other & the British! Mountbatten isnt as revered in Pakistan because he tilted towards Nehru & Gandhi & he did`nt like Jinnah. It was OUR fault that British India got split like it did...not the British.

I think its a pipe dream to think one day there will be a peaceful Punjab, Bengal, Kashmir etc etc...where Punjabs, Bengalis & Kashmiris of all faiths live like peaceful Punjabis , Bengalis & Kashmiri citizens AND get along with their immediate neighbors too.

Wait...maybe a nuclear holocaust may jar our mentality to that level of maturity...but who would want to live in Punjab, Bengal, Kashmir etc etc, if one glows in the dark in those places?

#26,
Nahin hazoor, Khafaa naa hoiyee. Aisa tau nahin kuch kaha maine. Intepdendent stand kariye. Paar hang kyun kar rahen hain.

friend: Is it a sin to take an independent stand on the history that is different from ML and Congress stands? I am not suggesting to break up countries now.

Is it only me that finds the article in total contradiction to its preface,where is the aggressive & confrotational style?.
Thank you for a synopsis into ``The Peopls`s History of Pakistan``& a picture of impending doom ,which anyone with a little itellect & a month in karachi can see.
what is to be done about it all?.

Sorry to intrude but let me illustrate by example the (ill)logic of the ethno-religious nationalism being damagingly canvassed for the last many decades on the subcontinent by Romair-types(and in the rest of the world by the departing British: take an ethnic conflict, any conflict and find the British had passed through) (Sorry Romair nothing personal).

Just suppose for a moment that when Bangladesh separated from West Pakistan, it was clear that there would be a LARGE number of Bengalis who would continue living in West Pakistan.

Namely that West Pakistan would have a situation where it has 1. a Bengali state separating itself away 2. Bengali citizens.

Pakistan would then be faced

1. with Romair types demanding that it concede the principle A : Bengalis must be allowed to seccede because they were unhappy in Pakistan because of treatment of Bengalis

and simultaneously

2. the need to uphold as article of faith of Pakistani nationhood, the opposite principle B : Since Pakistani had a large number of loyal Bengali citizens, Bengalis and West Pakistanis CAN live with each other.

With me so far?It gets better.

After 30 years, Romair types would come along and say, look here is this set of Bengalis in Pakistan, a fraction of the total Bengali population of Pakistan, this set has a right to separate from Pakistan on the basis of being unhappy Bengalis (principle A) so you had better introspect and uphold the principle A and let them separate

AND

these Romair types will also insist in passing, `btw, I accessed the Punjabi League website and I really think you Pakistanis need to introspect about how you are violating your (opposite) principle B, I strongly advise you for your own good and in interests of justice and humanity to the large number of Pakistani Bengalis to uphold principle B before its too late.

Does this sort of ethnic-centred logic make any sense?? Thats the logic Indians are doled out wrt Kashmir and Muslims.

For India, its involvement in the separation of Bangladesh was a surgical operation to stem the ruinous replication of this ethnocentric principle within its borders. India has a large number of Bengalis too and India didnot want to sit and watch while the festering sore of East Pakistan nutured the principle of Bengali ethnic separatism within India`s own existing boundaries which had been already been drawn in blood by a Partition era religious nationalism.

If you want further proof of the enthocentred principle being ruinous, take the human price India has paid for its involvement in the Sri Lankan Tamil movement. Or the victory of MMA in Pashtun areas in Pakistan as a result of Pakistan`s long involvement in Afghanistan`s Pashtun politics.

As others have said, in heterogenous societies, there is no logic in ethnic-religious separatism, this is not a principle fit to uphold or replicate, irrespective of the decisions of the past. Our best options are to make the best of the way things have been handed to us, period.

sameerJB #22,
Buddy, Are you feeling ok?