Sunday 26 July 2009

the idea of Pakistan-Stephen Cohen

THE IDEA OF PAKISTAN
BY Stephen Cohen
A review

A common theme runs through all books which analyze Pakistan movement that the idea was based on improbability (perceived) of Hindu Muslim co-existence, that there was early promise of a liberal secular state, just because the founder Mr. Jinnah made such a speech etc, that the idea of Pakistan was never clear and the establishment quickly aligned itself with feudal class, that civilian system of power was never accepted by its citizens etc bonded labor was common and peasant live close to slavery, that Islamic Jihadists are on the rise, there is population explosion, economy is weak and low- tech. etc.
All kinds of remedies are proposed, Musharraf should send Jihadists packing, seek accommodation with India, soften stance on Kashmir, crack down on terrorism at home, amend blasphemy and anti woman laws, revive trade unions, peasant collective and student unions, over haul educational system which currently churns out fiery zealots, eliminate jihad and militarism from school books etc. Much is made of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal as an indicator the country’s scientific prowess. (I suppose by such standards North Korea is developed too).
With out analyzing the genesis of Pakistan and the influence of East-West conflict of yester years, neo colonialism using overt and covert aggression against Muslim countries Iran, Indonesia, mid Eastern Countries, neo imperialism asserting control over Muslim Asian countries such as Pakistan etc. perception of “clash of Civilizations”, failure of International Communism and Pan-Islamic movements, one cannot really understand or explain the failure of civilian system of Government to survive, why military dominated, and then took over reins of Government directly in their own hands, why even after the humiliation of 1971 civil war in East Pakistan,( it took the Army only six years to return to the helm), why the vibrant left leaning progressive student and trade union movements of the first three decades of the country’s existence became extinct and their place taken by intolerant zealots of today, why religious and sectarian tolerance disappeared ( Jinnah and many first rank Muslim League leaders like Raja Mahmoodabad were Shias, the first foreign minister Zafarullah Khan was an Ahmadi ) and why latent ethnic prejudices erupted into passionate ethnic cleansing in Karachi and elsewhere, why fundamentalist parties which had openly opposed creation of Pakistan and which were totally marginalized in the early decades of the country spurned by the rich, poor, illiterate and educated alike, dominate public life now,
Pakistan from its very inception has been a favorite of doomsayers. Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru did not expect to survive for long. Patel is on record as reassuring his adherents that the country will collapse with in days, weeks, or at the most months. That is, presumably, how they were able to convince Mahatma Gandhi to accede to the demand for Pakistan. For reasons best known to these gentlemen, they did not confide fully in Maulana Azad who was the sole senior congress leader who persisted in rejecting the demand for Pakistan.
After World War II, the British viceroy in India had concocted a cabinet. Muslim league had initially refused to join it because the viceroy refused to concede to there demand that Muslim league be regarded as the sole representative of Muslims of India. But they couldn’t stand being left out and agreed to join the cabinet. They wanted ministry of Interior, which Patel won’t give up. Someone in the congress party got the bright idea, that as Muslims couldn’t cope with Finance, they should be offered the portfolio. Liaquat Ali Khan became finance minister and assisted by two Muslim finance service men, offered a truly soak the rich (mainly) budget. Congress bank-rolled by Hindu capitalists, became hysterical. Patel exclaimed that he couldn’t even appoint a peon without Liaquat’s permission.
This un-nerving experience convinced Nehru and Patel that they couldn’t co-exist with Muslim league and Nehru publicly repudiated the tri-partite agreement (between The Congress, Muslim League and the British Government) to the cabinet mission plan, which would provided for a federal government keeping defense, foreign affairs, communication and currency the country to be divided into three wings. roughly present Pakistan + Indian Punjab on the West, Indian Bengal, Assam and present Bangladesh in the East, with rest of India as the third wing, with all residual powers vested in the wings.
After nearly losing the Indian empire in 1857, essentially because the rebellion (war of Independence if you will) was supported only by people of North/East India the British practiced “divide & rule” with a vengeance, putting Hindu against Muslim, inventing martial races among the people who had been supporting them, giving them large land holdings and creating Rajahs and Nawabs and generally restricting patronage to the “upper class”, but the prescient among them realized that some degree of “native” participation was inevitable and even desirable for strengthening imperial hold. An Englishman founded Indian National Congress in 1885. Muslim league held its first session in 1906. Both organizations sought favors from the rulers.
“Muslims” had ruled “Hindu India” for a thousand years. All rulers exploit the “ruled”. If the ruler has a different religion, grievances attain an enhanced piquancy, and all adherent of the religion not just the ruler are blamed. This alienation was latent, to be brought out as necessary. In actual fact, there was so much intermingling among Hindu and Muslim ruling classes, that Shivaji later metamorphosed into a Hindu nationalist icon, and later Marhattas had Muslim Generals in their ranks and Aurangzeb had Hindu’s leading his army. Ahmad Shah Abdali, who was invited to India to fight Mahrattas, was nearly defeated because of a bold maneuver by a Muslim General on Marhatta staff.
The British gradually but very slowly conceded some power to Indians, allowing legislative assemblies, elected through a restricted franchise. Bengal had Muslim majority, but Hindus had education, businesses and money. This situation obtained in all Muslim majority provinces.
Upper Class Hindus were incensed by the idea of Muslims getting representation according to population, claiming cultural, class, and historic superiority implying that Muslims were lower class Hindu converts. They made provocative speeches, wrote inflammatory articles, bringing to surface talent Hindu Muslim animosity.
Politics was upper class, confined to drawing rooms, speeches in assembly halls, and petitions to the Raj. Hindu/Muslim differences were papered over genuine efforts at unity were also made. Muslims conceded larger than proportionate seats to Hindus in Muslim majority provinces. Hindus paid the compliment back in their majority provinces. Jinnah emerged as the champion of Hindu-Muslim unity. Congress and Muslim league held annual session in the same city and Jinnah had the unique distinction of presiding over both congress and league session in Lucknow.
Now Gandhi arrives on the scene. Having honed his skills in South Africa, gaining victory against overwhelming odds and embodying a rare combination of a saint and a shrewd political operator, he quickly realized that a) the British couldn’t not matched in force b) using the British tools (constitutional methods) against them will be futile c) illiterate masses could be mobilized by appeal to religion d) independence struggle had to be given a moral garb. He quickly wrested control of Indian National congress from such redoubtable stalwarts as Motilal Nehru (Pundit Nehru’s father), Jinnah and later neutralized such popular icons as Subash Bose (Netaji).
Jinnah sidelined, went into self-imposed exile in England.
Muslim elite, essentially the feudal lords, apprehensive of the “socialist” platform of Indian National Congress, promising abolition of Feudal system and finding no one capable of taking on the congress, in their ranks, sent a delegation comprising the Agha Khan and Nawab Zada Liaquat Ali Khan to beg Jinnah to return and assume the leadership of Muslims. Jinnah obliged. Muslim league leaders were by and large mediocre, belonged to the feudal class and Jinnah had little difficulty obtaining complete control of the organization.
I will not go into details of how he managed to get the better of the congress and the British government both, except to say that he exploited the mistakes made by his political opponents to the fullest extent and had the uncanny gift of unerringly reaching for chinks in his opponents armor.
So we have a Pakistan in August 1947, totally bereft of infra-structure of any kind, little by way of resources, empty treasury coffers, two parts separated by a thousand miles of hostile territory, a much stronger neighbor bent upon bringing it to its knees by withholding its share of assets, inundated by millions of destitute refugees, population of its constituent provinces having little education, industry or commerce- most of the businessmen, educators, industrialist and professional were Hindu/Sikh and left for India, a demoralized residual of British administrators, existing on a prayer and a slogan and would have fallen on its face, except for a donation of Rs one billion by the Nizam of Hyderabad. Subsequently Gandhi went on hunger strike to force India to release Pakistan’s share of assets to its government.
As Pakistan’s subsequent history bears out, and there is documentary evidence that even some Hindu Rajas frightened of the congress plank of Zamindari abolition secretly funded Muslim League, it should not be difficult to surmise was established not to safeguard the rights of Muslims or to save Islam, but to save Feudal system from extinction as happened in India. If the idea was to protect Muslims of India twenty million of the adherents of the faith would not have been left behind in India. Bengali Muslims would not have been subjected to a reign of terror. A whole generation of Mohajir youth would not have been destroyed in Sindh under Zia, BB and NS. Mohajirs would not have been discriminated against by diminishing their numbers from tem to two percent in official census. Wars would not have been waged on Balochis under Bhutto, Zia and Musharraf.
Whether Jinnah realized it or not is an interesting question. There good reasons to believe that he did not really want an independent nation Almost to the end he adhered to the concept of a con-federal India with a center responsible for defense, foreign affairs, currency and communication. His hand was forced by Nehru and Patel who were confident that the state will collapse and they would accept it back on their own and not on Jinnah’s terms. Asian News week published an article some years ago that on his deathbed Jinnah said that Pakistan was his biggest mistake.
Bourgeoisie democracy is a function of capitalism. It can exist in capitalist societies. Feudal societies adopt the system of government once they graduate into industrialism as happened in South Korea and Malaysia. Indian National Congress was (and is) the political wing of Indian capitalism, so democracy flourished in India. Pakistan was and remains feudal, so democracy failed to take root there.
Feudalism and education, industry, liberal political thought is contradiction in terms. Feudals thrive in authoritarian, intolerant, unrepresentative, fundamentalist religious dispensation, so it patronizes and nurtures, armed forces, civil servants and clerics. It uses all the coercive organs of state to perpetuate its existence. Religion sanctifies private property, regardless of its origin, undermines education by forcing unreal, dogmatic and revisionist fiction into schoolbooks, even subverting its own teachings of tolerance, equality and justice. Civil servants run an unresponsive (to public needs) administration subvert course of justice, use police to suppress dissent, Mullahs brainwash the people and Army is the final guarantee of Status Quo. All the agents of feudalism are allowed crumbs from the table. Armed forces have their commercial enterprises, civil servant their perks and Mullahs, their Madarssahs and Jihad. All share and loot country’s resources foreign aid and remittances.
Muslims happen to sit on vast natural resources. A Jewish state had to be implanted in their midst to keep a close eye and provide cover for neo-imperialist designs. Saudis had mortgaged their souls to a peculiarly intolerant version of Islam-Wahabism. Wahabis objected to the licentiousness and debaucheries of Saudi Princes. So they were bribed into organizing Madrassahs in Pakistan.
Russian adventure in Afghanistan came at an opportune time for Zia, the Islamist dictator of Pakistan. American funds, technology and arms flooded Pakistan and the Hydra-headed Taliban/AlQaeda came into being. West was happy, till Russians were driven out of Afghanistan, Jihadists were lionized and tall claims of victory made.
West in general and America in particular, though not as bad as the atheistic Russians, in Taliban/AlQaeda eyes were, nevertheless, infidels and had at a minimum to be driven from holy lands and preferably exterminated. They are on the same wavelength as our beloved president Bush. If you are not with us, you are against us and a friend of an enemy is our enemy etc, so they want to destroy all the Muslim governments, Israel and the west.
Saudis funded 22,000 religious seminaries in Pakistan, where people don’t have jobs, little education, few prospects and the ever-shrinking pie has to be shared by ever increasing population. So shelter, clothes, and food provided by the seminaries were irresistible. All the seminary graduates fervently believe in jihad and wield enormous influence. They infiltrate armed forces, their intelligence wing dominated by the zealots.
So all the recommendations of reform, liberalization, peace overtures to India, revision of Hudood laws, revival of secular and progressive movements among the students and trade unions amount to no more than straws on a flood tide.
Pakistan and most other Muslim countries require structural changes and one cannot even hope for a start, unless the root cause of the spread of fundamentalist terrorism- neo colonialism- imperialist aggression and Israeli terror are dealt with first.
S.EhtishamMD,
Bath NY

No comments:

Post a Comment