Religion in Politics

Great article Umer!
Keep it up brother :)

Zara Hafeez

what is all this fuss about? avenger says ``one chance``..to do what? maybe he ought to join the army? I can understand our parents who went through partition might have a problem with Pakistan but this generation can see that most of this anti-pak-india sentiments are/were generated by POLITICIANS and fundamentalists from BOTH sides. How many Pakistanis does one really meet in delhi, bombay etc? The few I`ve met in London couldn`t have been more affectionate, more friendly! There is an instant rapport--we know that culturally we are the same, that we have the same roots, speak the same language, have similar rituals. What bugs me no end is this unthinking emotional response to the hype of an `enemy`. Our lives are complicated and difficult enough without external enemies, or is this why we need one? to deflect from our own personal problems?


Amit says it better...``As Indians, our response to all this should be to undercut this ideology in every possible way for obvious reasons. It is also very important for our own psychology as well. We Indians often fall into the trap of actually validating the Pakistani establishment`s ideology by accepting Pakistanis as the proxy for the muslim invaders of the past. ...

Pratibha

amit...

I have read the book... its a great read... It lays down a comprehensive basis for a secular Pakistan... and as you pointed out, it gives a historical context to Jinnah`s utterances in the constituent assembly. Barrister Aitzaz is a great politician... also..

I think this article formed the original thesis and the book grew out of it.

Re:Mantolives#25

That is a very interesting article. In fact, Aitzaz Ahsan later on wrote a book called the Indus Saga where he expounded his concepts further. If I recollect correctly, he mentions that traditionally there has always been Sindh and Hind geo-political entities with shared cultural values that have coexisted peacefully. There is no history of warfare or atrocities between Sindh and Hind either before or after Islam. Hence the current political contours are a manifestation of the historical boundaries, but the current religious-political animosity does not have any historical basis.

Intellectuals like Aitzaz Ahsan are trying to creatively change Pakistani nationalism so that it is bound to the land of Pakistan, rather than being a permanent ideological construct which is primarily anti-India. This is long overdue and it is a reflection of reality. It is also the normal, healthy formulation of nationalism for any mature nation state. Virtually all countries have nationalism that is bound to their own land. I believe Jinnah had the same thing in his mind, when he exhorted Pakistanis to establish a secular system in his first speech.

From an Indian perspective, we would love to see Pakistani nationalism being formulated along these lines. Heck, every Indian visitor to Pakistan notices that ordinary Pakistanis are quite patriotic but they willingly hug the Indian visitors and refuse to take their money!! We come back to India scratching our heads about what ideologues like Hameed Gul, Javed Nasir, Majeed Nizami, Naseem Zehra etc. keep screaming about all the time!!

Somehow the Indians on the forum thinks what they say is `fact and a reality` and what the people of Pakistan
says is `myth and bull*hit` .

Amit....

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan wrote a wonderful piece in the Dawn Newspaper in 1984... here is a complete transcript of it for you ...

---

MYTHS
AUGUST 14, 1947

AITZAZ AHSAN

When the rationalist abdicates his function and the obscurantist holds the field unchallenged, dogma is born. Its scope is narrow; its potential nil; its utility ``non est``. Yet it is not a nullity. Dogma is negatory of growth, and recusant of progress. It is another name for stagnation.
To take and maintain its hold upon upon the minds of men, the dogmatist creates a mythological system. Myths become his vehicle. The common denominator between myths and dogma is an absence of reason and logic. Both complement each other.
The origins of Pakistan, the impelling and historical circumstances that brought it into being, and the political necessity of its creation have also been subjected to the onslaught of dogma. The rationalist has stood by and allowed the very obscurantist who opposed the Movement, to dictate, by what is called the Ideology of Pakistan. Of necessity, the mythological support-system of this dogmatic frameword is tailor-made to serve an elite tied up, through their Saudi partons, to the interests of the western world. Being bereft of historica truth these myths tend to distort the national identity, stulting growth and thereby, under the cover of a `myth of independence` keeping us the captives of international imperialism.

The Arab Myth:

By this myth the rationale for Muslim separation is attributed predominantly to the Middle-Eastern Arab Influence upon the peoples of North-Western India. Barring a few fleeting and coincidental contacts with each, the story of the Pakistan - Peoples shares little commonality with either the Indian or the Arab. Basically, ethnically, linguestically, and above all culturally the peoples of Pakistan are far closely linked to the peoples of central Asia and Iran than with the tribes of Arabia. Politically the Indus Basin region (alongwith the area of its tributaries, the Punjabi rivers) has been a part of the Central Asian region and Iran. The peoples of the Indus Basin have shared little, if anything, with the peoples of Gangetic plain and even less with the peoples of Central of Southern India.
In the past 5000 years since the advent of the Aryans Sind alone has had a direct political contact with the Arabs and that, too, for a short period of the 144 years from 711 AD to 854 AD. Contacts with Islam there have been through the conquerers, the empire-builers, and the ascetics of the Soofi order, Islam became the dominant religion of the Indus Basin. Barring the young Mohammad Bin Qasim these invaders, soldier-kings and priests were almost entirely of Central Asian and Iranian origin, be they Persians, Mongols, Afghans or Turks.


The Deviation Myth:

By this myth Pakistan was almost a `deviation` in so far as it was a rare and historically unprecedented break-away from the primordial unity of the Indian Sub-Continent.
The concept of India`s geo-political ``oneness`` given currency by the secure and unified hold of the Raj was adopted eagerly by the Hindu, and unquestioningly by the Muslim historians. They always tied up the history of Pakistan exclusively with the history of the Indian Sub-Continent prefering to co-relate it to the politics of the Deccan and the South rather than the more influential developments in Parthia, Bactria, on the coasts of the Aral Sea of in Persia. We continue to style our history as ``Indian History`` paying more heed to the Guptas than to the Safavids.
It is true that the mightiest of the Indian rivers, flowing in the north-west, had given to the entire Indian Sub-contient its name. It is also true that it was in the region of this river that the mystic dialogue between those two most colourful of dieties, Krishna, and the Warrior-king Arjun inspired the celestial song of Hinduism`s sacred hym, the Bhagvad Gita.
What has to be perceived is that more than the giant Himalayas and the vast Suleman range, that indiscernible and gentle hump connecting Kashmir to the Central Plateau of Madhya Pradesh through the twin states of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (along 750 longitude) has proved to be the critical dividing line, the vital watershed. It is this inobstrusive strip of land that alongwith the Rajasthan desert separates the Indus Basin of the north-west from the rest of India, Gangetic as well as penninsular. It is this imperceptible rise in the plains that has proved to be the plapable divide between two lands, two peoples, two civilizations the Central Asian and the Indian (or Indic).
From the age of the Aryans the Indus Basin region has been far closer to areas of the Oxus (Amy Darya) and the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) than to any other plains, river basins, penninsular or desert regions, Indian or Arab.
In the almost 5000 years since the advent of the Aryans, the regions of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-continent now comprising Pakistan, have been parts of the Arab empire for a mere 144 years (711 AD to 854 AD). And that, too, only the southern province of Sind. The Indus Basin has been a part of empires covering the whole of India, and thus being unified to the rest, for little over 600 years under the vast conquests of the Mauryans (321 to 187 BC), the Moghals (1526 effectively the mid-eighteenth century AD) and the British (1849-1947 AD). For most of the remaining 5000 years, these areas have effectively, and inseparably been a part for consecutive centuries, of Central Asia, with strong and lasting links with the Iranians and the Greeks. Since ancient times the Indus Basin has been incorporated in empires with their centres beyond the Suleman Range and the Hindu Kush for a total period almost six to seven times as long as the period that it remained a part of the empire with their centres to its east or its south.
This historical and ever-present characteristic of the Indus Basin region is verified also by an examination of the development and the variety of he modes of the relations of production in this and the other regions of India. We know that relations of production in this and the other regions of India. We know that relations of production are an indispensible aspect of the mode of production, and ``afortiori``, of production itself. Man distinguishes himself from the less advanced species by the fact that he is able to produce things and artefacts beyond those for which he was biologically designed by nature i.e. the mere process of the reproduction of his own progeny. From pre-history he has been a producer of tools and utensils,developing in time, to become the most prolific manufacturer second only to nature itself. But there can be no surplus production without men uniting somehow for joint activities and mutual exchange of their product. The basis of the relations of produciton is the relation of the ownership of the means of production. Those who possess many implements and means of production may economically subordinate to themselves those who have few or no means of production. This gives rise to the perpetuation of property and ownership which have appeared in history in three main forms. Slave ownership, feudal ownership and capitalist ownership. These forms in turn correspond to the three major systems of production and social organization withnessed by the history of man.
The relations of production prevalent in the Indus Basin region have been closely identified with the relations of prodution in Central Asia and Iran, while the Ganges basin and the south have been living in historically differenct time.



The Betrayal Myth:

By this myth the march of history was determined not by any socio-economic circumstances, but by the betrayal to the native cause by certain unpartiotic adventurers. Had Jaffer not betrayed Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula, it is said and had not Qasim betrayed the valient Tippu of Masore, hisotry would have been different .
What is not realised is that in fact this was a conflict between two different systems of production, and the capitalist mode, represented by Britain, being at that time the more modern, was destined to triumph.
Europe had taken the road to capitalism in medieval times. The gradual change from the barter to the money economy had begun with the Crusades (C.110) and spread from Central and upper Italy by way of South Germany, France and the Netherlands throughout Eurupe. An aristocracy of money was born, and the pre-determined or agreed profit became the mode of man`s gainful employment.
There had already been a growth in the private Corporation, and to expand long distance trade, important merchants established their own trading companies. This was a new and enabling concept. Capital could be accumulated and dispersed without loss of the essential central control. Even the Church took to trading through its Knights Templars. Banks, first established in Genoa, Florence, Augsburg and Anwarp had grown in size and numbers. And from the sixteenth century association of merchants had developed, and were in fact to carry out the colonial policies of several States including France and England.
By the time that Vasco De Gama, in command of three ships and 150 portuguese seamen landed at Calicut on the west coast of India in 1498, a whole new world had opened up into Europe and its bursting new classes. The successfull sigeg and conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman, Mohammad II (the Conquerer) in 1453, had the effect of scaring Byzentine Monks with their carefully cloistered libraries giving the crucial fillip to the European rennaiscance. John Gutenbarge of Mainz had already (C. 1445) started about a revolution of his own by devising a movable metallic type for double faced printing on linen paper. His first remarkable production, the 42-line Bible, came out in 1455 AD.
And then there was the Mariner`s Compass. This was to have far reaching consequences, no less in fact then the printing press. Shipping was at once emancipated. Coastal sailing matured into confident seagoing shipping. By the time the East India Company was to set up its headquarters at Surat, near Bombay, Ferdinend Megellan`s fleet had circumnavigated the earth 1519-1521. The Aristotalian concept of the World, the rigid idea forms, the authro-centric universe (having become Vatico-centric in ecclestical teachings) had begun to be questioned and in 1543 Nicholas Copernieus of Torus published his revolutionary work on the as yet unproven heliocentric solar system.
The strength of the independent and sovereign nation-State grew with the strength of the merchante. The mythof Papal overlordship had to be challenged and discarded. On 31st October, 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 theses denying Papal primacy and protesting the infallibility of the Vatican at the castle Church of Wittenburg.
Europe, thus, had a printing press, advanced forms of gunpowder, well organized navies and merchant fleets guided by teh mariner`s compass and had made its first tentative arrival at the coasts of India, before Babar won the Battle of Panipat in 1526. By the time of the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the bourgeousie had obtained definite ascendency in Europe and had put the latest scientific discoveries and innovations at the use of its imperialistic designs.
And then there were advances in scientific knowledge and concepts. Galelio`s kinematics (the motion of falling bodies), and Kepler`s telescope, Newton`s calculus, laws of gravitation and the reflecting telescope facilitated the formulation of the laws of planetary motion. Alongwith Torricelli`s mercury barometer all these advances aided the bourgeoise merchants fleets on the high sea.
The eighteenth century was to further widen the technological gap between India and Europe, the growing capitalist demands promoting further discoveries and inventions. Cast Steel (1735) roller loom for spinning (1738) sheet iron mill (1754) the spinning jenny (Hargreaves 1767), the all important steam engine (Watt, 1969), the mechanical power loom (Cartwright, 1785), the hydraulic press (Bramah, 1795), Paper Manufacture (Robert, 1799). Large scale mechanical production became both possible and expendient and the industrial giants of Europe began to devour the cottage industries of Asia and Africa. It was this armeda of technological advances more than its armies that ensured Europe`s inevitable triumph over the Indian peoples.
India was static. The dynamic quality which was becoming evident in Europe was almost wholly absent in India. A contemporary description of the administration of the State and the working of the Auarangzeb`s court gives no doubt an account of the emperor`s energetic interest in the minutest affairs of the realm, but what is significant is that the description could equally have been a picture of Qutb-ub Din Aibek or Alla-ud-Din Khilji or, barring the differences of certain applied presepts, some rituals and of the court languages, of the court of Asoka. India had changed but little. The rustic centralisation, the all pervading authority of the King, the all embracing sovereignty of the imperial will, an India ruled and administered by princely feudatories, and an India that remained static and quiescent over the centuries.
The Mughal emperors at teh height of their glory and power had failed to perceive the use of such obvious vehicles to progress and intercourse as the printing press or the navy. In 1582 Akbar had been presented, at Fatehpur Sikri, a copy of a Polyglot Bible in no less than four languages by a team of Portuguese missionaries. Akbar is said to have kissed the images of Jesus and Mary, and placed the Book on his head to the great delight of the donors. He questioned them about the printing. But he was not impelled not even by curiosity, to undertake the process in India itself.
In the seventeenth and eithteenth centuries Europe had developed a trade and manufacturing bourgeousie which had a tangible economic stake in governmental stability as well as in the certainty and predictability of succession and transfer of power maintaining at the same time the strength and continuity of bourgeois governmental institutions (such as a Parliament). India`s failure to develop such a class was to cost it dearly. Without the stabilising influence of Parliamentary and judicial institutions, India continued to be convulsed, even at the height of Mughal imperialism, by wars of succession and usurpation and by inter-necine struggles.

The Ethnic Myth:

By this myth the Hindu-Muslim divide is perceived as a mere difference of rituals, religious practices and dogmatic forms. What is completely overlooked is that there were certain other inherent differences the differences of socio-economic development which made co-existence impossible. These were the differences between the bourgeois and the feudal.
The differences between the Hindus and Muslims of India were evident in many ways, and these have often been highlighted. Hindu idolatory is pitched against Muslim iconoclasm. The original Hindu polytheism has been contrasted with Muslim monotheism. The Hindu practice of ``Suttee`` and the strait-jacket of caste offend Muslim conscience, though the Muslim rulers of India did little ot eradicate the first and, in fact profited (in revenue and the maintenance of peace) by a clever employment of the latter.
Yet over the centuries the two communities had co-existed. Hindu ministers had served in Muslim courts and vice versa. Often Hindu and Muslim feudatories had formed alliances. At least at the level of the ruling elite the Mughals had practised, inter-marriages and Allau-ud-Din Khilji, Akbar and Jahangir had all taken Hindu rajput princesses for wives and queens.
The armies of the Muslim empire, and earlier Muslim States including the Delhi Sultanat, drew their strength from recruits marshalled by feudatories. Even lesser dynasties frequently entered into inter-communal alliance, as we see in the case of Nawab Wazir Safdar Jang, of Oudh sacking the Muslim principality of Rohilkhand, and the entire Rohilla country with the aid of the Marhatta army of Malhar Rao Helkor and the Bharatpur troops of Raja Suraj Mal Jat in 1751. The mixing if the two communities was not confined to the imperial and feudal elite. It was equally obvious at lower levels even if prominance to this circumstance has not been allowed by historians more concerned with dynastic fortunes and palace rituals then with the common man. Since the artisans, were organized in craft-castes, the caste idstinction continued even after conversion.
In the war of 1857, both communities joined issue with the British. To start it, the greased cartridges had incensed soldiers of both communities to `rebellion` at the Meerut garrison. The population of Dehli and the oudh peasantry who rose with the patriots drew from both communities. While most of the Princes either sided with the British or maintained a significant neutrality, the name of Lakshami Bai, the sttractive 20 years old Rani of Jhansi leading her cavalry to her defeat and death, cannot be omitted from the ranks of the Indian heroes of the war. Nor can we deny the valour in the efforts of the guerilla Tantia Topi who took up arms at a time that his people, the Marhattas, were fully exhausted.
The Hindu had been taking advantage of the prospects of playing a complimentary and facilitating role to British commercial and industrial expropriation of India. They had taken to commerce and industry as well as to participation in the administration, albeit at subordinate positions, from the very day that the British set foots in Bengal. By the turn of the century they were establishing factories and mills. Twentieth century saw a widespread and truly national Hindu bourgeoisie straining to break out of unjust and uneconomical controls upon its free development and deliberately restrictive of its growth intended to preserve all manner of British monopolies.
The Muslims, by contrast, had sulked over the outcomes of Plassey and Seringapatam as they were later to resent the annexation of Oudh and the failure of the uprising of 1857. They had stayed away from the British system of trade and industrial expropriation, and where, (as they had in the Punjab) they were to collaborate with the Raj it was in the role of the lower feudatories or ``Zamindars`` collecting revenue and harvesting crops suited to the Lancashire industries and grown upon lands allotted by the imperial administration.
Large-scale, internal and external trade was thus in the hands of the Hindu community. Allied propessions like book-keeping and accounts were also filled up by Hindus. Large scale manufactures and the large factories were owned by the Hindu Vaishyas, although th majority of the artisans were, by now, converts to Islam.
The distinction was to remain, and was ultimately to become the prime-mover impelling the Pakistan Movement of the mid-Twentieth Century. The predominantly feudal and agrarian society of north-western India was repelled by the prospect of becoming subject to the predominantly bourgeois areas of the Gangetic plain and penninsular coast. (The predominant trends were so powerful, in fact, that the latter-day, West Pakistan East Pakistan rift was, also, in part, a result of it. Bengal, with its bourgeois relations of production had always been a part of the Gengetic India the world of maritime trade and commerce distinct from teh land-locked and landowning elite of the north-west.)
That there may had been such conversions as are refferred to is possible. The bourgeois Hindu class was, economically, on the ascendency while the Muslim feudal system stood static and immobile. An attraction of economic betterment has frequently determined tbe choise of belief. In practical politics the Arya Samaj thinking was best represented in the energetic but highly provocative perosn of Bal Gangadhar Tilak to arouse Hindu sentiment Tilak revived the Sivaji cult; and the worship of the heroes of ancient scriptures.
While the Hindu marchaed on into the twentieth century witha confidence bordering upon the militant, the Muslim elite stood by and sulked. He wept upon the passing of the old glories of Delhi and Lucknow. He resented the new system and its values that seemed alien to him. He was the fallen hero unable to rise, having spent himself in the nostalgia for his past. He was fixated to the days of his forefathers glory and this fixation had immobilized him completely.
At the beginning of the present century the Muslims were compelled by the fears of the Hindu revivalism to seek protection of the British and to that effect to manifest their loyalty to the Crown at every possible occasion. To some extent, therefore, the success of the Moderator like Gokhale (who was President of the Congress in 1905) and of less fearsome reformists like Mrs. Anie Besent (President in 1917) in isolating and suppressing the extremists contributed in weaning the India Muslims from the British. The Government had kept the Muslims on its side by providing for separate electorates in the Act of 1909, thus ensuring the minority`s representation in all events. The Hindu bourgeoisie was also keen to win them over, ultimately as a passive agratian appendix. A mutual amity prevailed from the Lucknow Pat 1916 whereby the Congress recognized the Muslim right to separate Electorates, through the Rowlett Act agitation and the massacre in the Punjab at Amritsar. It was at its height in the khilafat Movement, the reaction of a Muslim community shocked by the unjust terms imposed upon Turkey by the Treaty of Sevres. In the meantime, as we have seen, India had been bled white by the First War and the Montague-Chelmsford Act of 1919 had not obtained much attention.
The Hindu Muslim amity was, however, not to last. On both sides there had been significant developments and a substantial gain of self-confidence. The Khilafat Movement though it ended in a fiasco with the Khilafat itself being discarded by the hero Ata-turk, had evidenced the Muslim potential to generate mass rallies. Moreover a growing Muslim bourgeoisie was now keen to make its own compacts with the feudals of the Muslim majority areas rather than let the Hindus make further inroads into these provinces and to take over from the British Commercial, banking and industrial interests.
The Muslim bourgeoisie was weaker. First it needed leadership. This it had the fortune to get in the shape of Jinnah. Second, and also vital, its character remained predominantly as yet of an agrarian bourgeoisie based on the economy of market (mandi) towns and mufassil cities. To come into its own it had to obtain the support of the feudal gentry commanding the rural hinterland of the Muslim majority areas, keeping the peace in these areas and thereby aiding the skimming and appropriation of the surplus. In a short term separatist struggle the support of the land-owners was crucial, as this alone would open up the larger parts of the Punjab and Sind to the crusading and zealous Aligarh Students.
But the land-owner was not willing to chip in with the Pakistan Movement unless the League first established its popular base and demonstrated mass strength. This was apparently a viscious circle. It was finally broken not by the land-owners, but by the dtermined and single-minded pursuit by the League Leadership, and particcularly Mr. Jinnah, of the cause that the League had espoused. The land-owners then fell into Mr. Jinnah`s lap in the 1940`s and the stage for the final act was thus prepared.

Re:avenger#22

I am not denying that Pakistan has been our enemy since 1947. The first step in any conflict is to analyze the enemy and the strategy it is employing against us. Ever since 1947, the establishment in Pakistan has carefully constructed an amazing mythology that is based on a denial of their pre-Islamic history. Pakistani textbooks start their history at Mohenjodaro and then skip to Mohamad Bin Qasim`s expeditions. The exploits of Ghaznavi and Ghauri are lionized to the extent that they name their missiles after them. The public is constantly bombarded with the message that muslims conquered hindus, muslims are superior and one muslim is equal to ten hindus in combat etc. The pre-Islamic cultural practices are frowned upon as unIslamic and people are encouraged to believe that Islamic values will get diluted if there is too much interaction with hindus.

Now all of this ideology totally conflicts with the ground realities since people cannot change their genes. The Pakistani people are native people of the Indus valley and hence have a composite culture of both pre-Islamic and Islamic values. They have always shared the Indian subcontinent with us and it shows in all walks of life. Their instinct is to enjoy desi culture, movies, music etc. They instinctively bond with Indians at a person to person level. Their values are very similar to ours. Their country looks and feels pretty much like ours. Their military prowess is at the same level as ours.

So why does the Pakistani establishment continue to propagate the above unrealistic charade? Because that is the only way they can motivate the people to fight for their pet cause, which is to defeat India and grab Kashmir. The jihadi fodder for the proxy war was the ordinary guy in Punjab or Karachi who was brainwashed into thinking that he was the successor to the illustrious traditions of Ghaznavi and would get brilliant victory in Kashmir. The ground reality was that in a short while the Indian army would take his life. Yet the establishment continues this myth building almost as a representation of Pakistani nationalism.

As Indians, our response to all this should be to undercut this ideology in every possible way for obvious reasons. It is also very important for our own psychology as well. We Indians often fall into the trap of actually validating the Pakistani establishment`s ideology by accepting Pakistanis as the proxy for the muslim invaders of the past. That undermines our own confidence and emotional stability to deal with Pakistan and gives them an upper hand for no reason. Notice how even in sporting events like cricket (except for the last series) and hockey, the Indian team would be nervous and collapse while facing Pakistan, while the Pakistanis would perform with extra confidence. In military matters and negotiations, we would needlessly operate with an inferiority complex stemming from past humiliations of hindus. Notice how we took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1947 and later on we were not able to capitalize on our victory in 1971 to settle this matter once and for all.

Bottom line is that we should treat Pakistan as nothing more than a neighboring country of fellow desis who are muslims and push them towards holding similar feelings towards us. It has to be a relationship based on mutual respect and a realistic assessment of each other`s capabilities. Once the myths are shattered, it is much easier to sit down and negotiate contentious issues. In fact, I think the Indian government is doing a great job increasing people to people contacts as it is slowly undermining the entire ideological apparatus setup by the Pakistani establishment.

Romair #9

When the Muslims of UP supported the idea of Pakistan I can guarantee you that they had no idea to what they were asking. It is obvious the poor Muslims did not care much about Pakistan. Otherwise they would have emigrated. They were apprehensive about the Congress Party. They obviously supported the Muslim League.

`` If Muslims wanted a separate state just for Islam, they would be demanding a state everywhere, e.g. USA, Canada, Europe etc.``

Muslims in Europe have no moral right to ask for a separate state. You will politely told to get lost to the sewer hole you came from.

`` Keeping this in mind, any group in Pakistan that can provide the highest economics and personal security, to the most people, will eventually win out. It won`t matter if it is religious or secular. I really don`t think, in today`s Pakistan, any group can gain a huge following just by pushing religion or secularism as philosophies.``

Tell me exactly what the MMA has to offer in this regard.

`` The ideologies of politics, in Pakistan, is thus different from India, where things are at two extremes: One group, the BJP, is as a philosophy pushing Hinduvta and religion, including its violent form. And another group, the Congress has completely non-Hindu leadership. Pakistan has neither the equivalent of BJP from the religious side, nor the equivalent of Congress from the secular side. Everyone is in between the two.``

When someone says the BJP is more extreme than the MMA it speaks for their ideology.
Sonia and Manmohan aside the Congress does not have a non-Hindu leadership.

amit...you didn`t get the message I was trying to convey. Ghori was just an analogy. It doesn`t matter where he was from. It was Romair who tried to equate what Ghori and the other muslim marauders did to the hindu kafeers to what India does to Kashmiris....

Basically I equated Romair`s sweet talk , all the crap about `appealing to our inner humanity` to the Ghori-Prithviraj story. My hatred for Pakistan is for very recent reasons. The post 1989-Kashmir scenario. I couldn`t care less about the hindu-muslim equation , partition etc.

Fact 1. : Pakistanis eye Indian territory .

Fact 2 : Pakistan is fighting a low intensity proxy war against India.

So what are we Indians gonna do about it ? They dont like us too much , so to please them , should we cut off one of our hands and gift it to them ? Or should we fight back , be equally brutal and ruthless , if not more.....What do you suggest ? (Just a rhetorical question. Please dont bother to answer. Your suggestion is not required.)

---

Pakistanis hold steadfast to the view that the Kashmiris dont like us and want freedon from us. Now if they dont like us , then why the hell do you think we should care about their aspirations ? If anything thats another solid reason to do everything we can to hold on to Kashmir. Nothing makes a man happier than to see his enemies and ill-wishers unhappy and discontent.

Re:labyrinth1#16

You seem to be a totally confused person with all kinds of contradictory positions. You claim to be a liberal yet you support the Taliban. You want an Islamic state but don`t want Hudood laws. Make up your mind, will you? You sound like John Kerry!!

Also, it seems like you do not want to accept that we Indians accept Pakistan!! Every Indian (even BJP) says that we accept Pakistan, yet you keep repeating that we don`t. Vajpayee went and paid respect at the Minar in Lahore. Every Indian government reiterates that it wants a stable, secure Pakistan. What more do you want us to do?

Re:avenger#19

You are directing your anger at the wrong people. You want revenge against Ghauri and Ghaznavi, go after Afghanistan, Iran or beyond. What does Pakistan have to do with it? Most people (99%) in Pakistan are Rajputs, Jats, Punjabis, Sindhis etc., in other words descendents of hindus who converted to Islam. Even the pathans on this side of the Durand Line never occupied Delhi, and in fact, under Badshah Khan they supported Gandhi in 1947. Prithviraj Chauhan`s descendent, who is a muslim with last name Chauhan, lives in Pakistan. Pakistan`s ideological guru Iqbal was a Kashmiri Pandit.

If you look at the rulers of Pakistan, what do you see? Jinnah was a third generation gujju muslim. The Bhuttos are Rajputs. Zia-ul-Haq was a Punjabi, most likely a Jat or Rajput. Musharraf is a Muhajir, most likely a north Indian Bhaiyya. Now just because some Pakistanis wrongly worship Ghaznavi and Ghauri, does not mean that we should wrongly give them the same status. No Pakistani ever occupied Delhi, ruled anyone in India or committed atrocities. So why should we hate them for no reason?

Romair..

lets cut the chase , shall we. I dont blame the muslim kings or condemn them for invading India , killing and torturing million kafeer people , raping millions of kafeer women. It was only in their nature.One cannot hold a rabies affected mad dog responsible for its actions , right ? However one should rightly blame the city authorities for not shooting the mad dog , killing it and saving the lives of so many.

So I blame my hindu ancestors for not fighting back and not fighting hard enough - for losing the war , their lives and the honor of their women folk. I blame them for being so weak.

The mistake however will not be repeated again. The hindus of today take no crap from anybody. The rajput king , the brave and chivalrous Pritviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammad Ghori the first time when Ghori attacked. Ghori was chained and brought to Chauhan. Ghori spoke beautifully prasing Prithviraj and begged for mercy and promised everlasting friendship. Being the sentimental fool that he was, the rajput king let Ghori go back and even gave his kingdom back to him. What happened ? Ghori came back the very next year , with a stronger army. Defeated Prithviraj , captured him alive , plucked his eyes out with a heated iron rod , tortured him mercilessly for months and raped Prithviraj`s beloved wife Queen Sanyukta.....

We know your lot well Romair. When cornered ,(in this case knowing that Pakistan is in no position to dictate terms to India as India is far superior militarily and economically) you talk sooo very sweetly , appealing to our `goodness , humanity , conscience and what not...But understand this , Romair . We Indians of today have learnt a lot from our past mistakes. We know your lot very well. Ghori wouldn`t get away so cheaply if he fell into the grasp of the Indians of today , to say the least....One chance my man...one chance is all we want...

Re:Romair#7 and #9

I agree with most of what you are saying. The only difference is that you believe that muslims will always get a raw deal in India, hence they should either reconcile to their fate or in the case of Kashmiris, separate from India. I believe that India is headed to the path of real secularism where people`s religious origin will cease to matter at all. The recent elections where BJP got routed was not a flash in the pan due to some slogan. In the following assembly elections in Maharashtra and elsewhere, the BJP continued to lose.

The reality is that Indian people are becoming savvy and practical. They are hungry for rapid economic progress at all levels and know that communalism is basically BS - a huge distraction and a recipe for failure. If you cannot pull all sections of your society forward, you just do not make progress. Twenty years earlier no one imagined that a Sikh would become the PM of India but it happened and today Sikhs are no longer feeling disenchanted. Today Kashmiris are disenchanted but that does not mean that it will always be that way. I can safely say that in the not too distant future, especially in the context of improving Indo-Pak relations and stronger secular bearings in India, a muslim could become the PM of India and who knows, it might be a Kashmiri muslim.

avenger #11: ``We only want the land.... ``

Would this mean that you consider the subjugation of India by the Muslim kings and the British to be justifiable. They only wanted the land, also. What about Saddam`s actions against the Kurds.

At some point, everyone has to realize, be they secular or religious, that, ``land`` only belongs to the people who live on it. And those who use religion or secularism to justify their hold over the people and the land, are violating the basic human rights of people.

As I said, secularism without humanism is facism.

At the same time, I must admit I admire your honesty and straightforwardness. It is good to see, at least a few people, admit that they just, ``want the land,`` rather than giving all kinds of double-speak arguments on why they have to have land to sustain secularism and this and that..........

Religion in Pakistani Politics is a reality - and Muallah`s has a role to play
in Pakistani politics until our country is a Islamic Country. We have a nation
where there`s more then 95% of people muslims - moderate muslims , whatever the `liberal chowk english class` thinks , those Islamic Parties
are here to stay in Pakistan - theres this class inside Pakistan who wants to
make Pakistan , ` Europe` for all the wrong reasons - they want to make Pakistan , Paris - this won`t happen . If they want to adopt anything from
West adopt social justice and respect of law thats what we need in todays
Pakistan.
Pakistan won`t ever be a secular country let me be very clear , whats secularism ? , Islam gives everyone equal rights , thats what Quaid ( rah )
said , Quaid wanted a Islamic State where everyone is equal not a secualr state . Yes I agree are not perfect , but who is ? we are trying to be better
at things .. I don`t agree with Hudood Laws at all if someone is thinking I respect those laws..
Indians in the end of the day are creatures who would never accept Pakistan from there hearts - whatever they say the reality is they will not respect our nation . Why is the word `Sind` still part of Indian National Anthem? its been more then 5o years

---

Captain Clueless : ``I long to see the day, where everyone in South Asia is living in a country, or countries, voluntarily, of their own choice. And they do not face any subjugation to satisfy the desires of people who live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. This is the humane way to live...........``

Exactly...and that is why The Land Of The Pure was created , remember ? Those South Asians who are not satisfied being ruled over by kafeers living a million miles away are welcome to migrate to The Land Of The Pure and live happily ever after. They are not wanted here anyway. We only want the land....

Romair...

You`ve got the argument down well but you are bogged in the usage of the word ``secular``. There is no ``practice of secularism`` ... no country is established to practise secularism... but notice that while some countries call themselves ``Islamic Republics``, no secular state is called a ``Secular Republic``. This is because the the principle of secularism is not practised.. it is mere absence of religion from a political sphere.

The point that the ``secularists`` make is simple... the creation of Pakistan had an economic social and political reasons for the Muslims... there is a great book about this called ``Sole Spokesman`` ... Come 1947 ... and Pakistan is a sovereign state.... the issue is no longer why or how Pakistan was made, but what Pakistan should do move forward as a modern progressive state...

Jinnah gave a vision on 11th August 1947 in the constituent assembly and he stuck by it for his 13 months as the Governor General of Pakistan. In this vision religion was relegated to a personal business... and where equality was promised to every citizen of Pakistan...

Then came another vision ... which was the vision where Islam had supremacy though freedom of religion was guaranteed... this was the vision of ``Objectives Resolution``...

Finally we saw Zia`s vision which sought to implement its own narrow interpretation of Islam....

Hope you understand the ``secular`` position better...

re: Chowk Marshall`s fantasies
I think Romair, our Chowk Marshall, is back to smoking pot.
``Muslims eventually wanted a separate state because they felt, as Muslims, they would be exploited in India.``
And, they are not exploited in Pakistan? Give me a break!
Romair has been the beneficiary of Pakistan. If Pak had not existed, may be he would not have prospered as much. But that does not mean every muslim in Pak has done well. In fact, it must be shameful for Pakis to remember that the richest muslim in the world is from a secular, hindu-majority India.

``If Muslims wanted a separate state just for Islam, they would be demanding a state everywhere, e.g. USA, Canada, ``Europe etc. ``
Fuzzy logic. I know of a case where an Indian applying for a student Visa to enter USA was asked by the US immigration officer in Delhi why he should trust that the Indian would not just settle down in USA and never come back, the student replied: ``if i wanted to emigrate, i would have gone to Australia where my sister lives``. Wanna guess what happened to his interview?
Fuzzy logic never takes u anywhere. Muslims living in western world are facing difficulties that Romair is well aware of. Otherwise he would not have left US for Canada. If muslims demand a homeland in any of the above countries mentioned, they would be sent en-masse back home. The reason is: they are in a miniscule minority and they don`t matter (unlike the Jews who matter a lot in USA).
But then, where muslims have been in a majority, they have created problems and demanded a seperate homestate. India is an eg where muslim majority provinces seperated out in 1947 to form Pakistan. Muslim majority areas round the world have been problematic (Ulghurs in China, Chechens in Russia, some Kashmiri muslims in India).
Sridhar

re: more fuzzy logic form Chowk`s idiot
``I also don`t agree with the argument that the BJP lost because of its communalism. The dumping of Vajpayee and promotion of Advani would indicate that the BJP thinks it lost because it wasn`t communal enough. In fact, in Gujrat where it practiced all out communalism, it won big. I think the BJP lost, because its, ``India is Shining`` campaign did not work. Had the benefits of India`s economic growth reached the lower classes, I think BJP, with all its communalism intact, would have been elected again.``
This idiot Romair continues to baffle me.
So, according to him BJP lost because of its stupid ``India is shining`` compaign. That much is true. It was a stupid compaign that had few takers in the rural areas (where majority of Indians live). These poor rural folks had not seen any benefits of BJP`s policies and saw no reason to vote for that party. BTW, this rejection of BJP in rural areas happened across the religious divide ie hindus themselves rejected this party in large numbers.
Romair goes on to say that if BJP`s economic agenda had benefitted all sections, the people would have elected BJP.
He fails to notice a big fallacy in this argument.
A communal minded party like BJP can just not benefit every section of the population. That goes without saying. That policy of being communal is inherently defective. Because BJP was anti-muslim (as a policy), they did not benefit the muslims and indeed, antagonised them completely through a pogram in Gujarat. They lost a big chink of vote right there.
Only a truly secular party can benefit every community the long run. BJP realised this towards the end of election compaign and tried to woo the muslims but to no avail.

The economic progress does not go hand in hand with communalism though it may seem to be so in the beginning. Nazi Germany made great econimic progress under Hitler before succumbing to its own inherent fallacies of Jewish holocaust and bringing utter destruction to that nation.

``And if Congress proves to be less economically astute than the BJP, it will probably lose out, regardless of how secular it maybe...``
For the reasons already stated, the above argument does not hold water.
Sridhar

``I have attempted to show that religion and politics are a dangerous mix particularly in the case of Pakistan.``(author)

well my dear if it is any consolation to you -- ``that religion and politics are dangerous mix`` -- very fiery and flammable indeed -- they are not dangerous for Pakistan only -- see ...how many people it burnt alive in India....

``Secularism and Religion... 95% of Pakistanis are [not] too bothered about it.``

Yes, this is exactly how I feel. The masses in India, I`m sure don`t understand (and don`t care) what the hoopla is about... this religious v/s secular nationalism. In India, we have the problem the other way. The Constitution of India was amended for the 42nd time in 1976 to add the spurious words ``secular, socialist`` to the earlier plain ``sovereign democratic republic`` in the Preamble. Does the 42nd amendment mark a point of inflection in India`s social life (in terms of secular/religious)?

In my view, clearly not! People have continued to live like they did before. Indians are not secular in the same way as, say, Europeans or the Americans. Paradoxically, Indians are secular because they are insular! There are thousands of communities, all minding their own business. This instinctive non-interference in the other community`s affairs is the basis of India`s social harmony. As long as this is the case, we don`t need the European jargon. Fascist! Rightwing Radical!! Nauseating! Just let people be, as they always have been.

We see our youngsters aping another culture in the matter of dress/customs etc, just to feel `cool`. Similarly, our intellectuals are borrowing the Western vocabulary to describe Indian problems. They force-fit Western solutions to Indian problems. Is the Indian problem uniquely Indian? No problem! First convert the Indian problem into the `known` Western problem and then use the Western solution!! There is so little original thinking in India.

If we analyse what Jinnah did, and why Muslims followed him, I don`t think it had much to do with his own personal beliefs about secularism or religion. I doubt too many of the common Muslims, of what is today Pakistan, were educated enough to understand his philosophies on religion or secularism. Only a small minority of them could read or write. And hardly any could understand the English language (or Urdu), much less his complex English speeches......

I don`t think Muslims wanted a separate state because of Islam. Nor do I think they wanted a separate state to practice secularism. The later would be quite contradictory, considering the fact that they were demanding a separate state, ``for Muslims`` of India. In fact, the Muslims of what is today Pakistan didn`t even want a separate state. It was the Muslims of Bengal and UP who drove for Pakistan.

Muslims eventually wanted a separate state because they felt, as Muslims, they would be exploited in India. They felt that since Muslims had ruled over Hindus for hundreds of years, the Hindus would eventually get back at them, i.e. they were afraid of BJP type parties eventually gaining too much influence in India. This is why the areas where the Muslims were in majority, i.e. today`s Pakistan, did not care much for a separate state, since they did not feel threatened by the minority Hindus amongst them.

If Muslims wanted a separate state just for Islam, they would be demanding a state everywhere, e.g. USA, Canada, Europe etc.

This is why, I have always felt it is incorrect to look at Pakistani politics, and its formation, through the black and white spectrum of secularism and religion. I really don`t think, once one gets past the chattering classes of these two philosophies, 95% of Pakistanis are too bothered about it. What they are bothered about is economics and personal security. That is what the surveys, and migration patterns to other countries from Pakistan, indicate also. Pakistanis migrate to Saudi Arabia and USA, not for more religion or secularism, respectivley. They migrate for better economics and security.

Keeping this in mind, any group in Pakistan that can provide the highest economics and personal security, to the most people, will eventually win out. It won`t matter if it is religious or secular. I really don`t think, in today`s Pakistan, any group can gain a huge following just by pushing religion or secularism as philosophies.

The ideologies of politics, in Pakistan, is thus different from India, where things are at two extremes: One group, the BJP, is as a philosophy pushing Hinduvta and religion, including its violent form. And another group, the Congress has completely non-Hindu leadership. Pakistan has neither the equivalent of BJP from the religious side, nor the equivalent of Congress from the secular side. Everyone is in between the two.

I also don`t agree with the argument that the BJP lost because of its communalism. The dumping of Vajpayee and promotion of Advani would indicate that the BJP thinks it lost because it wasn`t communal enough. In fact, in Gujrat where it practiced all out communalism, it won big. I think the BJP lost, because its, ``India is Shining`` campaign did not work. Had the benefits of India`s economic growth reached the lower classes, I think BJP, with all its communalism intact, would have been elected again.

And if Congress proves to be less economically astute than the BJP, it will probably lose out, regardless of how secular it maybe..........

correction #7: ``How about an Indian Muslim as a Prime Minister of Kashmir?``

should read:

How about an Kashmiri Muslim as a Prime Minister of Kashmir?

amit #2: `` hope to see a day when we have a Kashmiri muslim as the prime minister of India.``

How about an Indian Muslim as a Prime Minister of Kashmir?

There is something that is above and beyond religion and secularism. It is called humanism. The basic respect of the humanity and human rights and dignity of individuals. A respect for others living their lives where they want, as they want, under whichever leadership they want.

This is why secularism has produced as many, if not more, deaths and destruction as religion. Secularism, without humanism is facism. As is religion without humanism. This is also why it is as dangerous to, ``fight`` for secularism as it is for, ``religion.`` The moment one ends up in a situation where one has to subjugate or kill someone for religion or secularism, one has lost his/her way. Because he/she is destroying someone else`s humanity for his own, ``ism.``

I long to see the day, where everyone in South Asia is living in a country, or countries, voluntarily, of their own choice. And they do not face any subjugation to satisfy the desires of people who live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. This is the humane way to live...........

Re:Mantolives#1

The greatest failure of the Congress Party, both before and after 1947, is that they have always mixed religion with politics when it comes to dealing with muslims. For some reason, the Congress has always held this weird belief that muslims only care about religious issues, religious symbols etc and have no interest in the material benefit in their lives. Starting with Gandhi`s Khilafat movement to Rajiv Gandhi`s Shah Bano case, it has always been bowing in front of the muslim ulema, appealing to religious sentiments and ignoring the real material needs of the muslim community such as education, jobs etc. This is the reason we ended up having partition, because the Congress never offered a solution to the needs of the muslim community, in terms of protecting and furthering their material interests as a permanent minority. Jinnah fought for the real, tangible interests of the muslim poplulation, which is why he became their leader. But the real failure was that the Congress Party never offered any solution and even destroyed compromises like the Cabinet Mission plan.

An interesting thing to note is that when it came to other communities like hindus and sikhs, the Congress was very practical and secular in outlook, but it made the grave blunder of always viewing muslims in terms of religion, as if muslims only cared about their religion and nothing else. As usual, mixing religion with politics just does not pay. The ordinary muslims were more concerned about the material welfare of their children and grand-children rather than some Khilafat in Turkey. This is why they opted for Pakistan.

``Therefore, a secular state where there is a clear dividing line between religion and politics and where every individual is free to practice his own faith or interpretation of faith could prove to be a better option for Pakistan.``

...problem is the practice of faith has public aspects. Like it or not, there are many people who only buy into the concept of Pakistan as an Islamic shangri-la. At the very least, people expect that the state won`t interfere with their cultural/religious practices. Of course, we all know that secularism means the supremacy of the state over the individual`s belief, not the separation...how to win mindshare then? An opposing slippery-slope argument can be created that can feak out a wide range of religious sentiment from the Mullah types, to the average abdul on the street.

At a macro-level Islamism can`t work for the reasons cited...but at a micro-level secularism is anathema and alien...and contradicts the understood reason d`etre of Pakistan (which Jinnah pandered to quite heavily mind you, so let`s stop this Jinnah was a staunch secularist business...the word is `opportunist`).

Pakistani secularists always struck me as funny creatures...they always manage to rightly point out the idiocies of the Mullahs, yet they themselves suffer from exactly the same problems. Whose secularism do you want to adopt? When have the secularists in Pakistan ever acted competently, or how are they immune from invoking ``Pakistan in danger`` rhetoric? Aside from barking ``secularism is the answer``, exactly what are the accomplishments of the secular brigade? Perhaps we`re tempted to cite the creation of Pakistan itself...but how far would that have gone if the Pakistan movement was understood to be secular in nature?

The point is: rather then beating the old, retarded dog for not learning new tricks, perhaps it`s time to give the master a good beating or two so he can learn a trick or two.

Umer!
:) am glad you`ve made it.
Here you will find a lot of good opinion on how to make your next piece better.
Good going, pal!
-Bilal

Great article...

Since the writer uses Eqbal Ahmad`s ideas ...here is one article that deserves mention on the topic:

Jinnah, in a Class of His Own
[Dawn, 11 June 1995]

Mohammad Ali Jinnah is an enigma of modern history. His aristocratic English lifestyle, Victorian manners, and secular outlook rendered him a most unlikely leader of India’s Muslims. Yet, he led them to separate statehood, creating history and, in Saad R. Khairi’s apt phrase, ‘altering geography’.

Several scholars, among them H.M. Seervai, Aisha Jalal and Saad R. Khairi, help explain his shift from Indian nationalism to Muslim separatism but the mystery of Jinnah’s appeal remains. After all, neither Muslim nationalism nor the idea of Pakistan originated with him; he embraced them somewhat reluctantly.

There is another way of viewing the matter. In the twentieth century, two extraordinary personalities competed for the leadership of Indian Muslims. They were Abul Kalam Azad and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. As a point of departure in comprehending the aspirations of Muslims in India, we might review their biographical profiles.

The contrasts in their family background, education, culture, and styles of leadership were remarkable. Azad’s ancestors belonged since Emperor Babar’s time to the Persian and Urdu-speaking Muslim aristocracy of India. His great-grandfather was one of the last Ruknul Mudarrasin, a position roughly analogous to today’s ‘minister of education’, in Mughal India. After the War of 1857 his family migrated to Madina where it intermingled with the Sharifain aristocracy. Azad’s mother was a daughter of Sheikh Mohammed Zaher Watri, in his time Madina’s best known ‘Alim’. His father Maulana Khair al-Din gained much fame in the Muslim world for his ten-volume work on Islam, and for his central role in the restoration of Nahr Zubeida, Makkah’s main source of water. Among Indian Muslims who were still wistful over a lost empire, and reeling from the excesses of British colonisation, it is hard to envision a family with better credentials than Abul Kalam Azad’s.

Abul Kalam was a most worthy scion of an extraordinary family with roots deep in the duality—Indian and pan-Islamic—to which South Asia’s Muslims have been historically linked both psychologically and culturally. Born in Makkah, he was fluent in Arabic, at ease in Persian, and a most gifted writer of Urdu prose. He was deeply immersed in the mystical tradition of Islam. As early as 1919 he wrote on Sarmad Shaheed and the grand dichotomy between state and civil society in Islam. His later commentaries on the Holy Qura’an are still regarded as among the best in the world.

“Who is your master among the mufassareen?” I asked the late Maulana Kausar Niazi some years ago. “Abul Kalam” he replied reflexively. Al-Hilal, the magazine Azad founded in 1912, at age 22, marked the beginning of serious, mass circulation Urdu journalism. With its successor al-Balgah, it remains a milestone in the development of Urdu as a popular vehicle of political and social discourse. Azad was a spellbinding speaker and, like Jinnah, an ardent nationalist. In 1923, at age 35, he was the youngest man to be elected president of the Indian National Congress, a record Nehru will break later. An overwhelming majority of India’s Ulema supported him.

The man we shall later revere as the Quaid-i-Azam was a contemporary of Azad, and a most unlikely contender for Muslim leadership. He was born in 1876; Azad in 1890. But beyond the proximity of age, the two stood in sharp contrast to each other. While Azad’s aristocratic roots lay in the Muslim heartland of UP and Bengal, Jinnah was born to a middle class business family in the port town of Hindu-dominated Karachi. At age 21 he moved to England, thence to Bombay, the modern gateway to British India. Unlike Azad who belonged to the majority Sunni denomination of Islam, Jinnah came from the minority Shi’a community. He was the prototypical westernized Indian, tutored at Lincoln’s Inn, tailored at Saville Row, in his youth a Shakepearian actor, a constitutionalist barrister in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, married to a Parsi woman. More at home in English than his native Gujrati, Jinnah spoke little Urdu which he would later designate as Pakistan’s official language, knew neither Persian nor Arabic, and had only the rudimentary knowledge of Islam which is common to western educated Muslims. He was anathema to an overwhelming majority of the Ulema of the subcontinent, including so grand a figure as Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani and such ideologue as Abul Ala Maudoodi.

Mr. Jinnah made little effort to overcome his obvious handicaps. Unlike Barrister M.K. Gandhi with whom Jinnah shared similarities of language, class, and education, and who donned the Mahatma’s home spun dhoti, Jinnah stuck to his western ways and pin-stripe suits. He bowed but rarely to populist symbols, appearing only occasionally at political ralies, and shunning the display of emotion in public. Reasoned arguments and cold logic were the hallmark of Jinnah’s discourse. He spoke at political rallies as though he were addressing a courtroom, or a conference of lawyers. This is not the populist style anywhere, least of all in South Asia. Yet, in less that a decade of his return from London in 1935, he had eclipsed his political foes no less than colleagues in the Muslim League, and successfully established himself and the League as the sole spokesman of India’s Muslims. In the elections of 1937 the Muslim League barely survived as a minor political party; in 1940 it set Pakistan as its goal. Barely seven years later the new state was born.

In the Introduction to this first volume of Jinnah papers Professor Zaidi has asked this central question: “What then turned Jinnah into the embodiment of Muslim hopes and aspirations?” One answer, admirably documented by Saad Khairi and H.M. Seervai, is that the leadership of the Indian National Congress allowed Jinnah no alternative even though he constantly probed for one. But a deeper explanation offered in Professor Zaidi’s Introduction worth quoting: “What distinguished Jinnah from his great contemporaries is that he was quite self-consciously a modern man – one who valued, above all, reason, discipline, organisation, and economy. Jinnah differed from other Muslim Leaders in so far as he was uncompromisingly committed to substance rather than symbol, reason rather than emotion, modernity rather than tradition.”

But how could this apparently modern figure so powerfully appeal to a people laden with tradition and religious inertia? I should summarise Professor Zaidi’s answer to this question: Jinnah’s peculiar appeal worked because collectively Indian Muslims had an instinctive if inarticulate grasp of recent history. “It was a community conscious of its declining condition, and it had experienced the ineffectiveness of old remedies. After all, neither the revivalist prescriptions of Shah Waliullah, nor the fiery war cries of Syed Ahmed Shahid, nor the flamboyant, though confused, demarche of the Khilafat movement – with which Abdul Kalam Azad had become associated and from which Jinnah kept a pronounced distance – provided relief from the ills which afflicted Muslim society in India. Restorationist alternatives had nearly exhausted when Jinnah re-entered the second act of contemporary Muslim tragedy in India. On their part, leaders of the Indian National Congress were so overcome with hubris that they refused to open viable political doors to this wounded and bewildered people.

Significantly, by then the modernist view of the causes of Muslim decline and of the remedies it required, especially as articulated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and his ideological successors, including Iqbal, had seeped into the consciousness of the Muslim intelligentsia. There was to this phenomenon also a pan-Islamic context: In the 1930s the Muslim world as a whole had entered what Albert Hourani has described as the Liberal Age when Muslim nationalism grew exponentially on the premises of modernism and reform. Mr Jinnah returned from England in 1935 to find himself swept to the crest of this wave.

In the four decades that have followed his passing, Pakistan has moved precipitously away from the country its founding father had envisioned, and the people had created at costs beyond counting. The two volumes of Jinnah Papers and the archives from which they are drawn do not tell the story of the cowardice and betrayals which followed the Quaid-i-Azam. What they do tell us is who he was, how he waged a difficult and deeply painful struggle for statehood, the vision he nourished, and the hopes he had for this country. I would like to recall him and remind us in passing of what we have done with his legacy. I am sorry if in the process I cause some discomfort to some of you readers.
http://www.bitsonline.net/eqbal/articles_by_eqbal_view.asp?id=5&cid=5

Umer,

Amen!! It is good to see that Pakistanis are finally realizing that religion and politics just do not belong together. The main problem is that it is hard to establish limits once religion creeps into politics There is a slippery slope that is very difficult to avoid. Politicians are, by nature, manipulators of the public. Religion is one of the easiest ways to manipulate the public. So if the two get together, you see the widespread misuse and abuse of religion for manipulating the public. Once that starts happening, it is very difficult to backtrack.

The classic example is the Babri Masjid dispute in India. The BJP used this issue again and again to win elections, but once they won elections, they would just forget about it. Every time, a few months before any national elections, the BJP high command would discover religion, dust off the Mandir issue and start ratha yatras. What they didn`t realize is that thanks to their antics, the national atmosphere was becoming increasingly communal. Finally we all saw the horrible culmination of it in Gujarat. The Indian people did not like what was happening to their society and country and voted the BJP out when it got the chance. No one wants to live in a society where arbitrary people can create religious issues out of thin air and cause death and destruction all over. In the future, even if the BJP ever manages to get power, it would have learnt a powerful lesson.

Today India is a country where there is a Muslim president, Sikh prime minister, Sikh Army Chief and a Italian Christian President of Congress Party. So basically there is no hindu in any of the highest positions of power. Yet, as a hindu, I do not lose even one day`s sleep over this, because I know that the system we have in place is sound and respects every religion. As long as people are nationalistic and love India, who cares about their religion? I hope to see a day when we have a Kashmiri muslim as the prime minister of India.

It was Jamatis ( Mullah’s ) who were against Pakistan – they first started there campaign against Sir Syed Ahmed Khan ( may he rest in peace ) – somehow if you look at our history we see what I call ‘Mullah Conspiracy’ – which was that that Pakistan is a reality anyway so why not try to run our ( Mullah ) way. I am not against Mullahs there are good and bad in everyone, every nation, every political party and in today’s world we simply can’t generalize ; I am against there ideology which I understood when I was in NWFP last month they are trying to force people to think at what they think. It was Jamatis who brought guns in Karachi University and in every other university and educational institution in Pakistan. There are good and bad things in every political party , being a worker for MQM myself and differences apart I have found some of the Jamat-e-Islami’s workers and leaders very honest people and I am sure people in Karachi specially whichever party they belong to respect people like Prof.Ghafoor. Jamat-e-Islami’s organization and the way they elect there leader is one of the most democratic way – which I am sorry to say other parties in Pakistan don’t . Whatever the role of Religious parties are in Pakistan good or bad they are a reality and there pressure ( for the good or bad ) is here to stay in Pakistan. Mahatma Ghandi said, ‘anyone who thinks he could seprate religion with politics is a fool’- looking at Mr.Ghandis statement he was right –
Its on the record that Mulana Sami-ul-Haq ( Sexy Sam ) is still been blackmailed by ISI. Mulana Azam Tariq ( dead now ) whatever he said in public – he was acted like a d** when I.B was about to gave him some election funds ( my dad a senior bureaucrat told me ) – Its messy but in the end politics is messy everywhere -