Why attack religion in the philosophical
sense
Bhagat singh
I have been advised by various people, friends and foes alike, that
religion is a personal affair and must therefore not be critisized. I
have been told that "one should refrain from attacking or critisizing
the foundations of religion".
For those who know me personally my response is already too well known:
I disagree. The reasons for my disagreement are the subject of this
brief essay.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that belief (or disbelief) in any
philosophical method is a subjective choice (the fact that one's
subjective choices are directly influenced by one's objective
reality is an almost obvious fact). It is subjectively possible to
believe that a person is endowed with supernatural powers, that the
earth is flat or that the sky is a roof supported by pillars. The entire
history of mankind is filled with supernatural hogwash that could baffle
the most brilliant of minds. However, my fundamental thesis is that it
is possible, and indeed desirable (as I shall show shortly) to question
subjective choices. A subjective choice must have some semblance of
objectivity to it in order to be classified within the category of
"truth".
Where do we come from? Do we have a purpose in life? Is there something
out there that governs our life? Does God exist? I'll come back to
that in a little while, but first:
Why am I so wound up about belief in god?
I consider religious explanations for questions such as "where do we
come from", "do we have a purpose in life" and "where is
the world going" as alternatives to scientific explanations.
Consider the following:
When asked the question, "do we have a purpose in life", the
religious person would automatically respond by saying that the purpose
of this life is to please god and pray for a comfortable place in
heaven. On the contrary, when a scientist is confronted with the
"purpose-of- life" question he would respond by telling us that
the purpose of life is the propagation of DNA, since natural selection
favours species which are more likely to propagate their DNA. I confess
that this explanation is not as uplifting or morale boosting as the
former.
It must be understood that even though belief or disbelief in any
explanation is a matter of subjective choices; not all subjective
choices are true. As soon as I utter these words, I see a crowd of
post-modernists jumping in the air as if bitten by a host of bees in all
the wrong places. They claim that it is a matter of "respecting
individual choices". While it is perfectly reasonable to allow
freedom of conscience as a philosophy of individual well-being, it is
not a perfectly acceptable theory of social governance for the simple
reason that subjective choices are influenced by the objective realities
that the individuals living in society face. For a society that is
injected with the virus of religion, god and angels on an hourly and
daily basis, the choice of freedom from superstition is never there. The
question of individual "choice" could only arise, had human
beings been GIVEN the choice to choose between Atheism and superstition.
For the majority of the people of the world, living and growing up in
reactionary environments, the choice of disbelief is never there.
Therefore, it is immature, and frankly quite juvenile to suggest that
individual "choices" must be respected. Just as I would not
respect someone who believes that "women are inferior" or
"blacks are an inferior race" for the simple reason that both
these statements are false, it is equally unwise to suggest that at the
philosophical level, attempts must not be made to defeat the decadent
theory of religion for the simple reason that it is against the notions
of "individual freedom".
In the final analysis, all subjective choices must pass the test of
objectivity; they must be able to prove that they deserve to exist or
must perish. Nay more. Conscious attempts must be made to pulverise and
annihilate such theories at the philosophical level. Not for one moment
am I suggesting cruelty and brutality as an instrument of oppression
against religious people. Not for one second do I believe in such
measures. What I am suggesting is a philosophical war against religious
ideas.
Now that we have understood that we must counter religious theories not
to "slight individual freedom" as is wrongly assumed by our
post-modernist friends, but with the purpose of finding the truth it is
reasonable to assume that the post-modernists will respond by saying:
"What do you care if a particular philosophy works for an individual?
Each person must find his or her own truth and must seek happiness. If a
theory gives you comfort and happiness, who cares?"
The flaw in the above argument may not seem immediately clear to those
of us who are fond of utilitarian approches to political economy and
philosophy. The fact is that the above argument assumes that the primary
purpose of philosophy is to give comfort to humans even if it comes at
the cost of letting go of the truth. Surely no one can deny the
spiritual satisfaction that a believer finds in the consolation that
there is a god up there who cares, and things will be better in the life
hereafter. So why bother? Why does it matter?
It matters if we are willing to accept this: Human beings must seek the
truth, even if it is against our personal whims, and even if it is not
as pleasing as a delusive idea". Just as it is unwise for a cancer
patient to live under the illusion that he/she will be cured
automatically, or the theory that jumping from the mountain top will
make wings appear in place of arms is destined to result in an accident
in practice, it is similarly unwise to seek happiness in illusions. We
know for a fact that the use of drugs and alcohol gives humans a sense
of happiness. Just as the elated experience of alcohol abuse gives a
delusional and false sense of happiness, god, the belief in religion
provides a comfort zone to comfort seekers. Just as the happiness
derived from alcohol consumption is delusional; so too is the utility
driven from belief in god. I would much rather live in an unhappy
society (not for one moment am I suggesting that rational societies are
destined to be less happier) than to live in a society that lives on a
lie.
Therefore the question of countering religious ideas is not a question
of showing disrespect for individual choices. Nor is it a matter of
subjective wellbeing. It is a matter of finding out what is true and
what is not. It is a matter of differentiating between fact and fiction.
I, for one, am not for one second willing to settle for "morale
boosting", "comforting" and utilitarian approaches to philosophy if they
are false. Are you?
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Why Pakistan
Why Pakistan
Muslims ruled India for some eight hundred years. Initially they came as raiders. There were rich pickings in the fabled land. The country was divided into large and small kingdoms at odds with each other. Some fought fiercely, others acquiesced after a token resistance. Among the invaders, a few came with religious zeal, with a mission to spread the word of God, and resorted to violence only if the natives hurt the proselytizers. Others used the banner of faith as a subterfuge for aggression. But most came for conquest, and spread of the faith was an added bonus.
Before setting their eyes on establishing an Imperium, Muslims had come as traders. Their relics exist to the day in West India in a predominantly Muslim enclave of Moplahs. Arabs famously traded with Sind. The local pirates had looted and killed some of them. The Rajah, foolishly as it turned out, haughtily refused to punish the miscreants and insulted the envoys of the Governor of Basra. He sent his teen-age nephew Muhammad Bin Qasim on a punitive Expedition. Rest is history.
The British elevated this technique of conquest to an art form. They also used the missionaries as stalking horses.
Only Sufis brought a message of love, tolerance and accommodation. They came with a few disciples, some times alone, on foot. No armed retainers escorted them. They attracted a following with their exalted mien, piety and sublime teachings. People flocked to them every place they visited, and begged them to stay. A local ruler would at times get perturbed at the influence they wielded. He would prohibit them from his land. The Sufi would comply with grace. Adherents would follow. The ruler would have to give in. The Sufi would not insist on conversion to his Faith. The teaching was that one could be good with any belief; God belonged to all, all belonged to God. This created an anomalous situation at times. Till late nineteenth century, a large section of the population in the environs of Delhi and in the Punjab did not know if they were Hindus or Muslims. When the British led census takers insisted on a definition, most in honor of their Pirs opted to be classed as Muslims.
A glance at the demographic map of India tells the story of the influence of Sufis. Muslims came to constitute the majority of the population in the North West and the North East of the country, with a solid Hindu belt in between. Muslim conquest started in the North West and proceeded to North-Central India. South came next and North East was the last to fall under their dominion. If conversion were at the point of the sword, as some chauvinistic Indians would have it, few Hindus would survive in Central/North India, which was impacted the most by Muslim rule. People of Bengal and Assam converted under the influence of a Saint, Bayazid Bustami (RA), as others responded to their own Pirs.
The concept of nationalism had not developed yet. Regions with inhospitable climes, harsh winters and desolate deserts geographically surrounded India with its fertile soil, plenty of water, generally temperate climate and peaceable populace. She had been the destination of resource-starved neighbors from times unknown. Aryans, Huns, Iranians, Central Asians and Mongols all came and stayed.
An invader was taken at his face value. If he was successful in establishing his dominion, he was obeyed like any other ruler, regardless of color, race or creed. People had only one measure. They gave their allegiance willingly if the ruler was just, served in
his army paid him tribute and even put him on a pedestal after a while. They suffered cruel rulers till they could encourage an outsider to get rid if him.
Most of the invaders settled in the land. They consorted with their own kind for a while. Gradually exclusivity was lost. The new arrivals gave some of their mores and norms to the natives and accepted others from the natives. They inter married. No one thought of going back to his or her native land. There was little to return to.
Not all the conquerors were that benign. Generally the larger their number, the more cruel they were. The Aryan hordes drove the natives to the south, made them do all the menial and scavenging work and called them untouchable for their trouble.
Before the advent of Muslims in India, religion had been esoteric, with all kinds of divinities. Natural phenomena were worshipped. New deities were readily adopted in the pantheon. There was a rather vague concept of a central divinity, governing all the lesser ones, in a hierarchy patterned after what obtained in the world. Idols of different stature, representing the gods abounded. One had own personal idols in a niche at home. The teachings of Buddha and Mahavira (the founder of Jain faith) were given the local shroud. They exist in their near pristine form only in the Far East, China and Japan.
Islam was the first divinely inspired faith to affect Indians in a major way. Jews and Christians had preceded them by centuries, but were insignificant in number and influence. The religion was egalitarian with concepts, at least on paper, of equality before God, amity and brotherhood among the faithful. This attracted some "lower class" Hindus. It was apparently not an overwhelming influence. Eighty five percent of Hindus still belong to lower classes. The upper fifteen percent Brahmins and Rajput warrior class have historically repressed them. The stigma remained attached to them even after they converted to Islam. The Brahmin Hindus of Bengal had demanded of the British that Muslims not be given the weightage of their numbers in provincial assembly seats, as they were the progeny of lower class Hindus. The view reverberated in historical memory. West Pakistanis never agreed to accede to the demand of East Pakistanis for seats in the constituent assembly proportionate to their population.
Gandhi Ji was the first person to foresee the profound effect it would have on body politic of India if lower class Hindus were not assimilated, at least in political terms, in mainstream Hindu flock. He went on hunger strike to have his demand accepted, and literally overwhelmed the lower cast Hindu leaders to submit to him. He started calling them Hari Jans (progeny of god). For all his crusades, discrimination persists, though successive Indian Governments under electoral constraints have had to concede affirmative action in their favor.
At a personal level, denigration persists. I once visited my Brahmin friends in long Island NY. They were entertaining a visitor. I noted a stricken look on their face. After the visitor had left I asked them what the problem was. My friends’ wife whom I called Bhoji (Bhabi in Urdu) nearly stated crying. The visitor had been an untouchable-in A BRAHMIN house. This would never happen in India. I tried to console her. I was a Muslim; they always welcomed me with open arms. But my Bhoji expostulated; you are Syed. We would never contemplate inviting a lower class Muslim in our home in India. And these were liberal people. They had once tolerated meat in their house when my daughter, seven at the time had artlessly protested that there was no meat dish on the table.
Untouchables have started coming into their own politically, only lately. To date India had one President from their ranks. There have been a few Chief Ministers in UP and Bihar.
To get back to Muslims in India, the religion was also largely nativised. It even adopted a caste system Syed, Shaikh, Moghal, and Pathan, though not as rigidly enforced that two casts could not dine together, yet they would not intermarry. Even as late as the sixties an engagement was broken by a Pathan family when they learnt that the prospective bride was a Syed. The mother of the would be groom said that it would be a sin if she uttered a cross word to her daughter in law. It was, of course, her right to discipline her son's wife. She would rather break her son's heart than forego this privilege!
Muslim rulers were by and large tolerant to the native faith. They were wont to use their faith for statecraft, and to garner support. Aurangzeb marshaled his forces against his father on the ground that the crown prince was not a good practicing Muslim. After overwhelming the royal army, he proceeded to perform un-Islamic acts of imprisoning his father, killing two brothers and banishing the third.
He imposed Jazya (poll tax in lieu of military service) on Hindus, but kept Hindu generals in his army. He spent most of his life fighting with fellow Muslims Nawabs of Deccan. Contrary to common belief Shiva Ji, who looms so large in current revisionist Hindu folklore, was small fry at the time. I might as well debunk a myth, given wide currency by fanatic Hindus, that Shiva Ji was a champion of the Hindu faith. He had Muslim Generals in his army and Muslim ministers in his administration. Later too, when Ahmad Shah Abdali took on the Marhatta forces out side Delhi, a Muslim General in the Marhatta army would have out flanked the Abdali troops, had he not been prevented from doing so by a jealous superior. That would have led to a rout of the Afghans. Indian history might have taken a different turn.
The Moghal rule was emasculated by the incessant warfare conducted by Aurangzeb. He, conscious of the treatment he had meted out to his father, did not give military training to his sons. The edifice started crumbling soon after his death. The Moghals had been enervated by long years of luxurious living. They took to leading their army sitting not on horseback, but lounging in a palanquin. Aurangzeb was the last functional General they were to have.
Further blows of Marhatta incursions, Nadir Shah's raid and subsequent massacre on Delhi residents left but a hollow facade of the once mighty empire.
Foreign vultures had long been hovering over the horizon. They now descended, fought among themselves, one overwhelmed others, and the victorious British grabbed the richest pickings in history.
The new rulers, not sure of their ground, initially made a good faith attempt to nativize themselves. They wore the local garments, took native wives and mistresses, and became regular visitors to the houses of dancing girls. They were not Brothels, though discreet liaisons did exist, but the regular business was floorshows of song and dance, with patrons offering jewellery off their own bodies to the favorites. Money was showered too, but for art not flesh. Respectable citizens sent their children to these houses to learn culture and diction. The British even wrote poetry in Urdu and boast of some notable Poets in their ranks. (Suggested reading- the Book White Moghals).
But times were a changing. With the advent of steamships, the journey from Britain to India had been cut down to several weeks from many months. If transport had not so developed the British would not have been so successful any way. The British in India were enabled to visit their native lands fairly frequently. The lure of language, race and culture was irresistible. Then British girls, allured by tales of riches beyond dreams of avarice, descended in veritable hordes and put a stop to their men’s' carousing in short order.
After the battle of Plassey in 1757, only Hyder Ali and his son Tippu sultan offered credible opposition to the British juggernaut. By the early nineteenth century they had mopped up various princes. They had taken over principalities on one pretext on another, exiling the Nawab of Oudh Wajid Ali Shah, making a faithful ally of the Nizam of Hyderabad for stabbing Tippu Sultan in the back, subduing Marhattas and pensioning off the Marhatta Peshwa. They were able to annex the Punjab after Ranjit Singh died, and his successors succumbed to the royal pastime of infighting. They had little trouble in getting the better of the Talpurs of Sind.
They were monarchs of all they surveyed. But it is a curious historical fact that they were still acting in the name of the Moghal King in Delhi, whose writ was accepted only in the few acres of the red fort. But the prestige of the crown was such that the British Governor General had to pay humble homage to the Emperor once a year bearing gifts and message from the British king. He was kept standing during the audience, and had to walk backwards when dismissed. One Governor General sought permission to sit in front of the Royal personage and exemption from having to walk backwards. Bahadur Shah, destined to be the last of the Moghals, haughtily dismissed the request.
Persons better and more exalted than him, scions of ruling houses had to stand and walk backwards. The British supplicant was only a humble commission holder of the Indian Crown.
Unrest had been brewing. Princes had been supplanted. The British were not as sensitive to Indian mores. The Rani of Jhansi, destined to play a heroic role in 1857 war of independence, was child less. The British would not accept the child she had adopted as legal heir. Hindus, contrary to Muslim practice, had treated adoptive children as very much rightful heirs. (Why Muslims do not do it is a rather touchy topic). The Marhatta Peshwa had his own gripes. The Begum of Oudh, a redoubtable lady had her own designs. The erstwhile ruling class had come to realize that their King had not only lost his paramountcy, but they themselves had to scrape and bow to low born foreigners. Soldiers used to the paternalistic behavior of Indian officers, whom they used to call "Mai Baap", roughly benefactor, were put off by the officiousness of the British subaltern. The Muslim Mullah and the Hindu Pandit, contrary to their norm of tagging along with the current ruler, gave religious sanction to the rebellious thought.
Mindless of Indian sensitivity to animal flesh-Hindus regard the cow as sacred, and Muslims would rather starve to death than lick pig fat-the British introduced a cartridge whose cap had to be bitten off before being inserted into a rifle. The cap had fat grease lubrication. Soldiers grumbled. British officers threatened them with cruel punishment. A few soldiers were hanged, one a legendary figure subject of a recent movie, Mangal Pande.
Rebellion, brewing already, took on a life of its own. Some thought was given to organization. The then equivalent of Internet, messages wrapped for security in chapati, were taken from village to village. The titular King Bahadur Shah was unanimously accepted as the leader of the insurgency. He reluctantly accepted command, and designated a commoner as commander in chief of the forces. He took another statesman like decision. He forbade cow slaughter during the Muslim festival of sacrifice. These were about the only two rational measures of the whole campaign. The princes of blood refused to fight under a commoner. The King was physically and mentally incapable of taking the field himself.
The rebellion failed. The reasons of failure are an independent study and there is vast literature on the subject. The British and the Indians naturally differ on the reasons, but both agree on two points. Indian forces lacked coherent leadership and the Northwestern region of India gave critical support to the rulers. Why the people of the Northwest fought on the side of the foreigners is also a contentious and much debated issue. For the purposes of this paper, suffice it to say that for the non-Muslims in the region, one overlord (Muslim) was as good as another. The Muslims had been out of the main stream, and under ferocious Sikhs for several decades. The British had actually freed them from the iniquitous rule of the Khalsa.
The British exacted ferocious revenge. The King’s sons were slaughtered in cold blood after they had been promised mercy if they came out of their hideout. Muslims naturally bore the brunt of the British thirst for blood. (Real retribution waits). Thousands were hanged, bodies floating in rivers and streams for as far as the eye could see, and swinging from trees for miles and miles. Leading Hindu partisans were victimized too, but the general populace was spared. Traitors, the faithful from the British point of view, were duly rewarded. People from the Northwestern region were declared martial race. The ranks of the rebellious army, as that of the Moghal forces, had been driven from Delhi, the UP, Bihar and Bengal. The more prominent among the supporters of the rulers became nobility over night. The most talked of example is that of Tiwanas of the Punjab.
The surviving members of ruling houses, which had supported the rebellion, were reduced to penury. Many Moghal princesses had to resort to prostitution. Others took to procuring, begging, and stealing. Muslim upper and middle classes had a very rough time for the next several decades.
Having supplanted Muslims, the British naturally favored the Hindus. The latter had managed the Moghal Empire and were already accomplished administrators and accountants. They displaced Muslim landlords in Bengal and acted as deputies to the British over lords all over India. They already harbored historic hostility to their erstwhile Muslim rulers. Hindu revivalist and reformist movements de-Islamized the Hindu upper and middle classes in short order and developed a cultural synthesis of ancient Indian and current European mores. The lower Hindu and Muslim classes continued to be treated as movable assets. Greater percentage of Muslims of India had been Hindu untouchables before conversion. Whatever little emancipation from their lot they had obtained as a result of conversion, was now lost.
Hindu upper and middle class took to education, finance and industry in a big way. They dreamt of the glory that ancient India had been. They were no longer content with playing second fiddle to the British. They were as comfortable in the role as they had been under the Muslims, but they wanted to be powerful. The general feeling led to development of independence movement.
The emerging professional class of Hindus, largely London trained Barristers and a few others led the movement and gained strength in astonishingly short time. Indian National congress (INC) though launched by a British civil servant, and led initially by a Parsi gentleman was their vehicle. They were able to reverse the partition of Bengal imposed by the Viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905 for administrative reasons. Muslims of Bengal favored the divide as they were under severe economic, social and political domination of Hindus, even though they were in overall majority in the province. Hindu elite of the rest of India supported the movement to annul partition of the province.
Muslims saw the writing on the wall. Even the invincible white rulers had to give in to Hindu protests. They reacted by founding the Muslim league (ML). Salimullah, the Nawab of Dacca who had led the Muslim support of partition, presided over the birth of ML. The leadership consisted entirely of a Corp of Muslim landowners who had either sided with the British in 1857, or were the creatures of the upheaval. The Agha Khan, in the current incarnation, entirely the creature of the British, was prominent among them. He was to lead a delegation of Muslim notables to the Viceroy in, what sounds a quaint expression now, presenting humble memorials. (Please refer to the Book the Agha Khans by Mihir Bose)
The British who had taken advantage of the latent hostility between the two communities, now woke up to the fact that had empowered the Hindus nearly beyond control. Muslims had been begging them for a glance of favor. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s effort had created a sizeable group of young men educated on the British pattern. Muslims had a reputation of being more effective security agents. They started favoring Muslims and their political party and insisted on assigning reserved seats for the community.
Hindus, by and large vegetarians, except in Bengal where they ate fish and goat meat and certain areas in the south where they relished lamb, were considered physically and temperamentally unsuitable for police jobs. The Rajputs did eat meat of all kinds. But the percentage of carnivorous Hindus was very low. Muslims came to dominate these services in the Muslim minority provinces. In the UP, for instance, Muslims occupied 24% of junior jobs over all, but dominated the police services. They were only 9% in the population.
The plight of Muslims in the provinces where they were in over all majority, contrary to expectations, was in a sorry state. Here I would refer to two books both by non-Muslims. Both regard partition as a great tragedy. The authors place the blame of partition of India squarely on their own community. If, they contend, Muslims had not been treated as untouchables, they would not have heeded the call of the Muslims of minority provinces for an independent homeland. (Autobiography of an unknown Indian by Nirad Chaudhury and The Other Side Of silence by Urvashi Butalia). The situation was a consequence of deliberate policy. The colonists tried to promote the minority at the cost of majority.
Hindus as well as secular Muslims, among whom Jinnah was the most prominent, disdained communal politics. Together they were able to keep INC on a non-religious track. Politics was yet a gentlemanly pastime and confined to drawing rooms. Passion and zeal would be unseemly in the assembly houses and well disciplined public meetings where Decorous speeches were made in well-disciplined public meetings. Jinnah who had served as secretary of Dada Bhai Nauro Ji, the grand old man of INC, was instrumental in getting INC and ML to agree to a formula to safe guard minority rights in jobs and assemblies.
Indians made slow but steady progress towards home rule, and expectation was that in due course India would emerge as a dominion on the pattern of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Now Gandhi appears on the scene. He had actually supported the British war effort in WWI and had been awarded “Qaiser-e-Hind” medal for services rendered. But he had tasted success in his civil disobedience moves in South Africa. He had a much larger arena now and wanted to test his skills honed in Natal. He already had a sort of halo around his head and used it to full advantage to garner support of INC leaders. He was able to convince them that only a grass roots campaign will be strong enough to dislodge the British and that it would be impossible to take them on with sheer physical force. They had all the guns, soldiers and money to fund both. Non-violence will exert moral pressure and civil disobedience/non-cooperation will hurt the pockets of the rulers. 85% of India lived in villages. Vast majority were illiterate. They lacked political consciousness but were endowed with native shrewdness. They would only respond to the political process if appeals were couched in economic terms with a tint of religion. Vast majority were Hindus so imagery of the creed will have to be used.
Gandhi used the technique very effectively, but failed to take into account the feelings, prejudices and history of 25% of the population who were of the Muslim faith. Muslims abhorred idol worship. Expressions such as Ram Raj were anathema to them. Gandhi did realize the hazards of such an approach. He tried to explain them away by saying that Ram Raj meant Insaaf Raj-rule of justice- but Muslims, by and large did not accept it. He did manage to catch the imagination of Muslims by coming out strongly in favor of Khilafat movement. But the alliance was short lived. Turkey abolished the Khliafat and the movement collapsed. Gandhi unceremoniously ditched the Ali brothers. Alienating the majority was not practical politics. Nearly the whole Hindu populace fell under his spell.
Secular politicians, both Hindu and Muslim vehemently objected to introduction of religious imagery in politics. Gandhi was able to brush aside all opposition. Jinnah was the most vocal of the opponents. Gandhi sidelined him in 1921 INC convention. Shaukat, the elder and the more emotional of the Ali brothers actually threatened Jinnah with physical assault, if the latter were to persist in opposing Gandhi. The “pragmatic” dismissal of Ali bothers by Gandhi was the last nail in the coffin of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Jinnah left for England to a self-imposed exile. Maulana Azad was the now the only Muslim leader of national stature in India. But he was firmly in the INC camp. Minus Jinnah ML fell into disarray, dividing into provincial and sub-provincial factions. Muslims as a group were rendered rudderless. INC had the whole arena to itself. Then party made another of its major blunders. A commission presided over by Moti Lal Nehru, the future PM’s father, repudiated the 1916 INC-ML agreement on safeguards of minority rights. That buried any residual hope of Hindu-Muslim united platform.
Muslims of India went into profound depression. INC leaders at the local level started telling Muslims to get their act together, support them otherwise justifiable retribution will visit them. All the wrongs inflicted on Hindus by Muslim rulers over a thousand years will be avenged. The ones on the lunatic fringe gratuitously pointed out the advantages of “Shuddhi”, literally purification but used for re-conversion to Hindu creed. Some working class Muslims might have considered the “offer” but the catch was that the convertees would be relegated to untouchable status. They could, of course do good deeds and hope to be reborn in a higher caste! Progeny of immigrant Muslims were advised to make their way back to Iran and Arabia.
What differentiated this depression of Indian Muslims from their usual state of hopelessness was that the affluent among them also lost faith in British omnipotence.
A delegation led by the Agha Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan visited Jinnah in London and begged him to return to take over the helm of the floundering ship of Muslim India. What mental anguish must the latter have gone through; he was being asked to shed all his secular beliefs and to carry the burden of a forlorn cause. He must have been aware of the class allegiance of his would be followers. He would be dealing with the creations of the imperial power, the power that he regarded as illegitimate. When Gandhi was fawning on the British rulers, he had snubbed the wife of the Governor of Bombay, who had slyly offered a shawl to Mrs. Ruttee Jinnah on the thin excuse that she must be feeling cold. Ruttee had an audacious, for the times, bare shouldered dress. But accept the invitation he did and soon after return to India made short work of regional ML leaders. Taking revenge on Gandhi must have figured in his calculations; I do not think he could visualize a place in history yet.
Jinnah set about organizing the ML. It was a gigantic task. But the period till 1936 elections was not adequate. ML did poorly even in seats reserved for Muslims. INC, which had a penchant for committing grave mistakes, took a leaf from its past history and spurned the advances of ML leaders from the UP, the only province in which the party had done well. Pandit Nehru, whose head usually remained in the clouds till the Chinese brought it down to earth in 1961, told them that the price of a seat in the cabinet would be membership of INC and dissolution of the ML. That was too much even for the feudals to stomach.
That gave a new lease of life to ML. Small men who occupied offices of profit under INC ministers now started harassing and discriminating against Muslims. Jinnah commissioned an enquiry committee under the Raja of Alipur, which established to his and the satisfaction of the average Muslim, that these acts, if not actively abetted by INC ministers, had their covert blessings. Muslims were finally recognizing Jinnah as their last hope. No less a person than Allama Iqbal accepted him as the leader.
A popular saying has it that if you have a particular kind of friend, you do not need an enemy. I will paraphrase it. With INC as his enemy, Jinnah did not need any friends. WWII was looming. The British asked the INC for cooperation. Power drunk, the latter decided to take on the British Empire and demanded an equal status and pledge of independence after the cessation of hostilities. Though they had their backs to the wall that was too much to concede for the rulers. INC ministries resigned and the party launched its usual non-cooperation campaign. The government retaliated by putting all the INC leaders, along with hundreds of thousands of their followers, in jail. The party was suddenly rendered bereft of its entire infrastructure.
Jinnah celebrated a day of deliverance. He had the field to himself. He worked tirelessly and was finally able to develop a credible grass roots organization. The British government sent commissions, which were widely boycotted. WW II ended. Another election saw ML capturing most of the Muslim seats. An interim cabinet with the viceroy at its head and Pundit Nehru as virtual PM was set up. INC added to its lengthening litany of errors and offered the critical finance portfolio to ML. Liaquat heading the ML faction of the cabinet presented a capitalist baiting budget. It was in line with the professed INC socialist stance. But all the INC backers were moneymen. That properly put the cat among pigeons.
The British sent a high-powered cabinet mission which after consulting all the leaders presented a formula, which would retain Indian unity. Federal government would keep foreign affairs, defense, communications and currency. Regional governments would have autonomy over other portfolios. ML and INC duly signed on to the arrangement. Pandit Nehru ever the maverick, repudiated the agreement publicly. It would be unproductive to speculate if this was an impulsive statement. That he was not taken to task, however, does indicate that he spoke with full agreement of his comrades. Jinnah whose greatest strength was to wait for his opponent to make a mistake, he had a willing partner in Nehru, pounced on the declaration and announced that all the deals were off.
Jinnah now uncharacteristically took a decision to call for direct action. His instructions were clear. Protests were to be disciplined and peaceful. Muslims took to the streets in unprecedented numbers. Widespread rioting, especially murderous in Calcutta, followed. INC cried foul. They blamed Jinnah for unleashing violence. International opinion tended to agree with them. Gandhi had called people out on the streets many times causing hundreds of deaths and injuries. Scores of thousands had been rendered destitute. But the whole world acclaimed him for non-violence. He practiced, to Western eyes an esoteric political methodology. They were impressed. Jinnah had stuck to parliamentary methods, which had lost their novelty centuries ago. They would not put Jinnah on a pedestal. But the demand for partition of India could no longer be ignored.
Among congress leaders Gandhi and Azad remained steadfast. The former solemnly declared that the country would be divided over his dead body. Nehru and Patel had other ideas. They had decided that an undivided India was not worth co-existence with Jinnah. Patel was especially sanguine that Pakistan would collapse with in days, weeks or at the most in months. He made public prediction of the collapse of the country. That incompetent appendage of the British royal house, Mountbatten encouraged him. Why bother negotiating with Jinnah when he would come begging to be taken back in the union in the near future?
It is again speculative, but that was the most likely reason Gandhi gave his consent to the partition plan. Why a person who prided himself on keeping his word would suddenly turn around so abruptly and give his blessings to a vivisection, which he had pledged to fight against, with his very life? To save his sensibilities Azad was probably not made privy to the idea behind acceptance of Pakistan. But he had nowhere to go any way.
India was duly divided.
Muslims ruled India for some eight hundred years. Initially they came as raiders. There were rich pickings in the fabled land. The country was divided into large and small kingdoms at odds with each other. Some fought fiercely, others acquiesced after a token resistance. Among the invaders, a few came with religious zeal, with a mission to spread the word of God, and resorted to violence only if the natives hurt the proselytizers. Others used the banner of faith as a subterfuge for aggression. But most came for conquest, and spread of the faith was an added bonus.
Before setting their eyes on establishing an Imperium, Muslims had come as traders. Their relics exist to the day in West India in a predominantly Muslim enclave of Moplahs. Arabs famously traded with Sind. The local pirates had looted and killed some of them. The Rajah, foolishly as it turned out, haughtily refused to punish the miscreants and insulted the envoys of the Governor of Basra. He sent his teen-age nephew Muhammad Bin Qasim on a punitive Expedition. Rest is history.
The British elevated this technique of conquest to an art form. They also used the missionaries as stalking horses.
Only Sufis brought a message of love, tolerance and accommodation. They came with a few disciples, some times alone, on foot. No armed retainers escorted them. They attracted a following with their exalted mien, piety and sublime teachings. People flocked to them every place they visited, and begged them to stay. A local ruler would at times get perturbed at the influence they wielded. He would prohibit them from his land. The Sufi would comply with grace. Adherents would follow. The ruler would have to give in. The Sufi would not insist on conversion to his Faith. The teaching was that one could be good with any belief; God belonged to all, all belonged to God. This created an anomalous situation at times. Till late nineteenth century, a large section of the population in the environs of Delhi and in the Punjab did not know if they were Hindus or Muslims. When the British led census takers insisted on a definition, most in honor of their Pirs opted to be classed as Muslims.
A glance at the demographic map of India tells the story of the influence of Sufis. Muslims came to constitute the majority of the population in the North West and the North East of the country, with a solid Hindu belt in between. Muslim conquest started in the North West and proceeded to North-Central India. South came next and North East was the last to fall under their dominion. If conversion were at the point of the sword, as some chauvinistic Indians would have it, few Hindus would survive in Central/North India, which was impacted the most by Muslim rule. People of Bengal and Assam converted under the influence of a Saint, Bayazid Bustami (RA), as others responded to their own Pirs.
The concept of nationalism had not developed yet. Regions with inhospitable climes, harsh winters and desolate deserts geographically surrounded India with its fertile soil, plenty of water, generally temperate climate and peaceable populace. She had been the destination of resource-starved neighbors from times unknown. Aryans, Huns, Iranians, Central Asians and Mongols all came and stayed.
An invader was taken at his face value. If he was successful in establishing his dominion, he was obeyed like any other ruler, regardless of color, race or creed. People had only one measure. They gave their allegiance willingly if the ruler was just, served in
his army paid him tribute and even put him on a pedestal after a while. They suffered cruel rulers till they could encourage an outsider to get rid if him.
Most of the invaders settled in the land. They consorted with their own kind for a while. Gradually exclusivity was lost. The new arrivals gave some of their mores and norms to the natives and accepted others from the natives. They inter married. No one thought of going back to his or her native land. There was little to return to.
Not all the conquerors were that benign. Generally the larger their number, the more cruel they were. The Aryan hordes drove the natives to the south, made them do all the menial and scavenging work and called them untouchable for their trouble.
Before the advent of Muslims in India, religion had been esoteric, with all kinds of divinities. Natural phenomena were worshipped. New deities were readily adopted in the pantheon. There was a rather vague concept of a central divinity, governing all the lesser ones, in a hierarchy patterned after what obtained in the world. Idols of different stature, representing the gods abounded. One had own personal idols in a niche at home. The teachings of Buddha and Mahavira (the founder of Jain faith) were given the local shroud. They exist in their near pristine form only in the Far East, China and Japan.
Islam was the first divinely inspired faith to affect Indians in a major way. Jews and Christians had preceded them by centuries, but were insignificant in number and influence. The religion was egalitarian with concepts, at least on paper, of equality before God, amity and brotherhood among the faithful. This attracted some "lower class" Hindus. It was apparently not an overwhelming influence. Eighty five percent of Hindus still belong to lower classes. The upper fifteen percent Brahmins and Rajput warrior class have historically repressed them. The stigma remained attached to them even after they converted to Islam. The Brahmin Hindus of Bengal had demanded of the British that Muslims not be given the weightage of their numbers in provincial assembly seats, as they were the progeny of lower class Hindus. The view reverberated in historical memory. West Pakistanis never agreed to accede to the demand of East Pakistanis for seats in the constituent assembly proportionate to their population.
Gandhi Ji was the first person to foresee the profound effect it would have on body politic of India if lower class Hindus were not assimilated, at least in political terms, in mainstream Hindu flock. He went on hunger strike to have his demand accepted, and literally overwhelmed the lower cast Hindu leaders to submit to him. He started calling them Hari Jans (progeny of god). For all his crusades, discrimination persists, though successive Indian Governments under electoral constraints have had to concede affirmative action in their favor.
At a personal level, denigration persists. I once visited my Brahmin friends in long Island NY. They were entertaining a visitor. I noted a stricken look on their face. After the visitor had left I asked them what the problem was. My friends’ wife whom I called Bhoji (Bhabi in Urdu) nearly stated crying. The visitor had been an untouchable-in A BRAHMIN house. This would never happen in India. I tried to console her. I was a Muslim; they always welcomed me with open arms. But my Bhoji expostulated; you are Syed. We would never contemplate inviting a lower class Muslim in our home in India. And these were liberal people. They had once tolerated meat in their house when my daughter, seven at the time had artlessly protested that there was no meat dish on the table.
Untouchables have started coming into their own politically, only lately. To date India had one President from their ranks. There have been a few Chief Ministers in UP and Bihar.
To get back to Muslims in India, the religion was also largely nativised. It even adopted a caste system Syed, Shaikh, Moghal, and Pathan, though not as rigidly enforced that two casts could not dine together, yet they would not intermarry. Even as late as the sixties an engagement was broken by a Pathan family when they learnt that the prospective bride was a Syed. The mother of the would be groom said that it would be a sin if she uttered a cross word to her daughter in law. It was, of course, her right to discipline her son's wife. She would rather break her son's heart than forego this privilege!
Muslim rulers were by and large tolerant to the native faith. They were wont to use their faith for statecraft, and to garner support. Aurangzeb marshaled his forces against his father on the ground that the crown prince was not a good practicing Muslim. After overwhelming the royal army, he proceeded to perform un-Islamic acts of imprisoning his father, killing two brothers and banishing the third.
He imposed Jazya (poll tax in lieu of military service) on Hindus, but kept Hindu generals in his army. He spent most of his life fighting with fellow Muslims Nawabs of Deccan. Contrary to common belief Shiva Ji, who looms so large in current revisionist Hindu folklore, was small fry at the time. I might as well debunk a myth, given wide currency by fanatic Hindus, that Shiva Ji was a champion of the Hindu faith. He had Muslim Generals in his army and Muslim ministers in his administration. Later too, when Ahmad Shah Abdali took on the Marhatta forces out side Delhi, a Muslim General in the Marhatta army would have out flanked the Abdali troops, had he not been prevented from doing so by a jealous superior. That would have led to a rout of the Afghans. Indian history might have taken a different turn.
The Moghal rule was emasculated by the incessant warfare conducted by Aurangzeb. He, conscious of the treatment he had meted out to his father, did not give military training to his sons. The edifice started crumbling soon after his death. The Moghals had been enervated by long years of luxurious living. They took to leading their army sitting not on horseback, but lounging in a palanquin. Aurangzeb was the last functional General they were to have.
Further blows of Marhatta incursions, Nadir Shah's raid and subsequent massacre on Delhi residents left but a hollow facade of the once mighty empire.
Foreign vultures had long been hovering over the horizon. They now descended, fought among themselves, one overwhelmed others, and the victorious British grabbed the richest pickings in history.
The new rulers, not sure of their ground, initially made a good faith attempt to nativize themselves. They wore the local garments, took native wives and mistresses, and became regular visitors to the houses of dancing girls. They were not Brothels, though discreet liaisons did exist, but the regular business was floorshows of song and dance, with patrons offering jewellery off their own bodies to the favorites. Money was showered too, but for art not flesh. Respectable citizens sent their children to these houses to learn culture and diction. The British even wrote poetry in Urdu and boast of some notable Poets in their ranks. (Suggested reading- the Book White Moghals).
But times were a changing. With the advent of steamships, the journey from Britain to India had been cut down to several weeks from many months. If transport had not so developed the British would not have been so successful any way. The British in India were enabled to visit their native lands fairly frequently. The lure of language, race and culture was irresistible. Then British girls, allured by tales of riches beyond dreams of avarice, descended in veritable hordes and put a stop to their men’s' carousing in short order.
After the battle of Plassey in 1757, only Hyder Ali and his son Tippu sultan offered credible opposition to the British juggernaut. By the early nineteenth century they had mopped up various princes. They had taken over principalities on one pretext on another, exiling the Nawab of Oudh Wajid Ali Shah, making a faithful ally of the Nizam of Hyderabad for stabbing Tippu Sultan in the back, subduing Marhattas and pensioning off the Marhatta Peshwa. They were able to annex the Punjab after Ranjit Singh died, and his successors succumbed to the royal pastime of infighting. They had little trouble in getting the better of the Talpurs of Sind.
They were monarchs of all they surveyed. But it is a curious historical fact that they were still acting in the name of the Moghal King in Delhi, whose writ was accepted only in the few acres of the red fort. But the prestige of the crown was such that the British Governor General had to pay humble homage to the Emperor once a year bearing gifts and message from the British king. He was kept standing during the audience, and had to walk backwards when dismissed. One Governor General sought permission to sit in front of the Royal personage and exemption from having to walk backwards. Bahadur Shah, destined to be the last of the Moghals, haughtily dismissed the request.
Persons better and more exalted than him, scions of ruling houses had to stand and walk backwards. The British supplicant was only a humble commission holder of the Indian Crown.
Unrest had been brewing. Princes had been supplanted. The British were not as sensitive to Indian mores. The Rani of Jhansi, destined to play a heroic role in 1857 war of independence, was child less. The British would not accept the child she had adopted as legal heir. Hindus, contrary to Muslim practice, had treated adoptive children as very much rightful heirs. (Why Muslims do not do it is a rather touchy topic). The Marhatta Peshwa had his own gripes. The Begum of Oudh, a redoubtable lady had her own designs. The erstwhile ruling class had come to realize that their King had not only lost his paramountcy, but they themselves had to scrape and bow to low born foreigners. Soldiers used to the paternalistic behavior of Indian officers, whom they used to call "Mai Baap", roughly benefactor, were put off by the officiousness of the British subaltern. The Muslim Mullah and the Hindu Pandit, contrary to their norm of tagging along with the current ruler, gave religious sanction to the rebellious thought.
Mindless of Indian sensitivity to animal flesh-Hindus regard the cow as sacred, and Muslims would rather starve to death than lick pig fat-the British introduced a cartridge whose cap had to be bitten off before being inserted into a rifle. The cap had fat grease lubrication. Soldiers grumbled. British officers threatened them with cruel punishment. A few soldiers were hanged, one a legendary figure subject of a recent movie, Mangal Pande.
Rebellion, brewing already, took on a life of its own. Some thought was given to organization. The then equivalent of Internet, messages wrapped for security in chapati, were taken from village to village. The titular King Bahadur Shah was unanimously accepted as the leader of the insurgency. He reluctantly accepted command, and designated a commoner as commander in chief of the forces. He took another statesman like decision. He forbade cow slaughter during the Muslim festival of sacrifice. These were about the only two rational measures of the whole campaign. The princes of blood refused to fight under a commoner. The King was physically and mentally incapable of taking the field himself.
The rebellion failed. The reasons of failure are an independent study and there is vast literature on the subject. The British and the Indians naturally differ on the reasons, but both agree on two points. Indian forces lacked coherent leadership and the Northwestern region of India gave critical support to the rulers. Why the people of the Northwest fought on the side of the foreigners is also a contentious and much debated issue. For the purposes of this paper, suffice it to say that for the non-Muslims in the region, one overlord (Muslim) was as good as another. The Muslims had been out of the main stream, and under ferocious Sikhs for several decades. The British had actually freed them from the iniquitous rule of the Khalsa.
The British exacted ferocious revenge. The King’s sons were slaughtered in cold blood after they had been promised mercy if they came out of their hideout. Muslims naturally bore the brunt of the British thirst for blood. (Real retribution waits). Thousands were hanged, bodies floating in rivers and streams for as far as the eye could see, and swinging from trees for miles and miles. Leading Hindu partisans were victimized too, but the general populace was spared. Traitors, the faithful from the British point of view, were duly rewarded. People from the Northwestern region were declared martial race. The ranks of the rebellious army, as that of the Moghal forces, had been driven from Delhi, the UP, Bihar and Bengal. The more prominent among the supporters of the rulers became nobility over night. The most talked of example is that of Tiwanas of the Punjab.
The surviving members of ruling houses, which had supported the rebellion, were reduced to penury. Many Moghal princesses had to resort to prostitution. Others took to procuring, begging, and stealing. Muslim upper and middle classes had a very rough time for the next several decades.
Having supplanted Muslims, the British naturally favored the Hindus. The latter had managed the Moghal Empire and were already accomplished administrators and accountants. They displaced Muslim landlords in Bengal and acted as deputies to the British over lords all over India. They already harbored historic hostility to their erstwhile Muslim rulers. Hindu revivalist and reformist movements de-Islamized the Hindu upper and middle classes in short order and developed a cultural synthesis of ancient Indian and current European mores. The lower Hindu and Muslim classes continued to be treated as movable assets. Greater percentage of Muslims of India had been Hindu untouchables before conversion. Whatever little emancipation from their lot they had obtained as a result of conversion, was now lost.
Hindu upper and middle class took to education, finance and industry in a big way. They dreamt of the glory that ancient India had been. They were no longer content with playing second fiddle to the British. They were as comfortable in the role as they had been under the Muslims, but they wanted to be powerful. The general feeling led to development of independence movement.
The emerging professional class of Hindus, largely London trained Barristers and a few others led the movement and gained strength in astonishingly short time. Indian National congress (INC) though launched by a British civil servant, and led initially by a Parsi gentleman was their vehicle. They were able to reverse the partition of Bengal imposed by the Viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905 for administrative reasons. Muslims of Bengal favored the divide as they were under severe economic, social and political domination of Hindus, even though they were in overall majority in the province. Hindu elite of the rest of India supported the movement to annul partition of the province.
Muslims saw the writing on the wall. Even the invincible white rulers had to give in to Hindu protests. They reacted by founding the Muslim league (ML). Salimullah, the Nawab of Dacca who had led the Muslim support of partition, presided over the birth of ML. The leadership consisted entirely of a Corp of Muslim landowners who had either sided with the British in 1857, or were the creatures of the upheaval. The Agha Khan, in the current incarnation, entirely the creature of the British, was prominent among them. He was to lead a delegation of Muslim notables to the Viceroy in, what sounds a quaint expression now, presenting humble memorials. (Please refer to the Book the Agha Khans by Mihir Bose)
The British who had taken advantage of the latent hostility between the two communities, now woke up to the fact that had empowered the Hindus nearly beyond control. Muslims had been begging them for a glance of favor. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s effort had created a sizeable group of young men educated on the British pattern. Muslims had a reputation of being more effective security agents. They started favoring Muslims and their political party and insisted on assigning reserved seats for the community.
Hindus, by and large vegetarians, except in Bengal where they ate fish and goat meat and certain areas in the south where they relished lamb, were considered physically and temperamentally unsuitable for police jobs. The Rajputs did eat meat of all kinds. But the percentage of carnivorous Hindus was very low. Muslims came to dominate these services in the Muslim minority provinces. In the UP, for instance, Muslims occupied 24% of junior jobs over all, but dominated the police services. They were only 9% in the population.
The plight of Muslims in the provinces where they were in over all majority, contrary to expectations, was in a sorry state. Here I would refer to two books both by non-Muslims. Both regard partition as a great tragedy. The authors place the blame of partition of India squarely on their own community. If, they contend, Muslims had not been treated as untouchables, they would not have heeded the call of the Muslims of minority provinces for an independent homeland. (Autobiography of an unknown Indian by Nirad Chaudhury and The Other Side Of silence by Urvashi Butalia). The situation was a consequence of deliberate policy. The colonists tried to promote the minority at the cost of majority.
Hindus as well as secular Muslims, among whom Jinnah was the most prominent, disdained communal politics. Together they were able to keep INC on a non-religious track. Politics was yet a gentlemanly pastime and confined to drawing rooms. Passion and zeal would be unseemly in the assembly houses and well disciplined public meetings where Decorous speeches were made in well-disciplined public meetings. Jinnah who had served as secretary of Dada Bhai Nauro Ji, the grand old man of INC, was instrumental in getting INC and ML to agree to a formula to safe guard minority rights in jobs and assemblies.
Indians made slow but steady progress towards home rule, and expectation was that in due course India would emerge as a dominion on the pattern of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Now Gandhi appears on the scene. He had actually supported the British war effort in WWI and had been awarded “Qaiser-e-Hind” medal for services rendered. But he had tasted success in his civil disobedience moves in South Africa. He had a much larger arena now and wanted to test his skills honed in Natal. He already had a sort of halo around his head and used it to full advantage to garner support of INC leaders. He was able to convince them that only a grass roots campaign will be strong enough to dislodge the British and that it would be impossible to take them on with sheer physical force. They had all the guns, soldiers and money to fund both. Non-violence will exert moral pressure and civil disobedience/non-cooperation will hurt the pockets of the rulers. 85% of India lived in villages. Vast majority were illiterate. They lacked political consciousness but were endowed with native shrewdness. They would only respond to the political process if appeals were couched in economic terms with a tint of religion. Vast majority were Hindus so imagery of the creed will have to be used.
Gandhi used the technique very effectively, but failed to take into account the feelings, prejudices and history of 25% of the population who were of the Muslim faith. Muslims abhorred idol worship. Expressions such as Ram Raj were anathema to them. Gandhi did realize the hazards of such an approach. He tried to explain them away by saying that Ram Raj meant Insaaf Raj-rule of justice- but Muslims, by and large did not accept it. He did manage to catch the imagination of Muslims by coming out strongly in favor of Khilafat movement. But the alliance was short lived. Turkey abolished the Khliafat and the movement collapsed. Gandhi unceremoniously ditched the Ali brothers. Alienating the majority was not practical politics. Nearly the whole Hindu populace fell under his spell.
Secular politicians, both Hindu and Muslim vehemently objected to introduction of religious imagery in politics. Gandhi was able to brush aside all opposition. Jinnah was the most vocal of the opponents. Gandhi sidelined him in 1921 INC convention. Shaukat, the elder and the more emotional of the Ali brothers actually threatened Jinnah with physical assault, if the latter were to persist in opposing Gandhi. The “pragmatic” dismissal of Ali bothers by Gandhi was the last nail in the coffin of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Jinnah left for England to a self-imposed exile. Maulana Azad was the now the only Muslim leader of national stature in India. But he was firmly in the INC camp. Minus Jinnah ML fell into disarray, dividing into provincial and sub-provincial factions. Muslims as a group were rendered rudderless. INC had the whole arena to itself. Then party made another of its major blunders. A commission presided over by Moti Lal Nehru, the future PM’s father, repudiated the 1916 INC-ML agreement on safeguards of minority rights. That buried any residual hope of Hindu-Muslim united platform.
Muslims of India went into profound depression. INC leaders at the local level started telling Muslims to get their act together, support them otherwise justifiable retribution will visit them. All the wrongs inflicted on Hindus by Muslim rulers over a thousand years will be avenged. The ones on the lunatic fringe gratuitously pointed out the advantages of “Shuddhi”, literally purification but used for re-conversion to Hindu creed. Some working class Muslims might have considered the “offer” but the catch was that the convertees would be relegated to untouchable status. They could, of course do good deeds and hope to be reborn in a higher caste! Progeny of immigrant Muslims were advised to make their way back to Iran and Arabia.
What differentiated this depression of Indian Muslims from their usual state of hopelessness was that the affluent among them also lost faith in British omnipotence.
A delegation led by the Agha Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan visited Jinnah in London and begged him to return to take over the helm of the floundering ship of Muslim India. What mental anguish must the latter have gone through; he was being asked to shed all his secular beliefs and to carry the burden of a forlorn cause. He must have been aware of the class allegiance of his would be followers. He would be dealing with the creations of the imperial power, the power that he regarded as illegitimate. When Gandhi was fawning on the British rulers, he had snubbed the wife of the Governor of Bombay, who had slyly offered a shawl to Mrs. Ruttee Jinnah on the thin excuse that she must be feeling cold. Ruttee had an audacious, for the times, bare shouldered dress. But accept the invitation he did and soon after return to India made short work of regional ML leaders. Taking revenge on Gandhi must have figured in his calculations; I do not think he could visualize a place in history yet.
Jinnah set about organizing the ML. It was a gigantic task. But the period till 1936 elections was not adequate. ML did poorly even in seats reserved for Muslims. INC, which had a penchant for committing grave mistakes, took a leaf from its past history and spurned the advances of ML leaders from the UP, the only province in which the party had done well. Pandit Nehru, whose head usually remained in the clouds till the Chinese brought it down to earth in 1961, told them that the price of a seat in the cabinet would be membership of INC and dissolution of the ML. That was too much even for the feudals to stomach.
That gave a new lease of life to ML. Small men who occupied offices of profit under INC ministers now started harassing and discriminating against Muslims. Jinnah commissioned an enquiry committee under the Raja of Alipur, which established to his and the satisfaction of the average Muslim, that these acts, if not actively abetted by INC ministers, had their covert blessings. Muslims were finally recognizing Jinnah as their last hope. No less a person than Allama Iqbal accepted him as the leader.
A popular saying has it that if you have a particular kind of friend, you do not need an enemy. I will paraphrase it. With INC as his enemy, Jinnah did not need any friends. WWII was looming. The British asked the INC for cooperation. Power drunk, the latter decided to take on the British Empire and demanded an equal status and pledge of independence after the cessation of hostilities. Though they had their backs to the wall that was too much to concede for the rulers. INC ministries resigned and the party launched its usual non-cooperation campaign. The government retaliated by putting all the INC leaders, along with hundreds of thousands of their followers, in jail. The party was suddenly rendered bereft of its entire infrastructure.
Jinnah celebrated a day of deliverance. He had the field to himself. He worked tirelessly and was finally able to develop a credible grass roots organization. The British government sent commissions, which were widely boycotted. WW II ended. Another election saw ML capturing most of the Muslim seats. An interim cabinet with the viceroy at its head and Pundit Nehru as virtual PM was set up. INC added to its lengthening litany of errors and offered the critical finance portfolio to ML. Liaquat heading the ML faction of the cabinet presented a capitalist baiting budget. It was in line with the professed INC socialist stance. But all the INC backers were moneymen. That properly put the cat among pigeons.
The British sent a high-powered cabinet mission which after consulting all the leaders presented a formula, which would retain Indian unity. Federal government would keep foreign affairs, defense, communications and currency. Regional governments would have autonomy over other portfolios. ML and INC duly signed on to the arrangement. Pandit Nehru ever the maverick, repudiated the agreement publicly. It would be unproductive to speculate if this was an impulsive statement. That he was not taken to task, however, does indicate that he spoke with full agreement of his comrades. Jinnah whose greatest strength was to wait for his opponent to make a mistake, he had a willing partner in Nehru, pounced on the declaration and announced that all the deals were off.
Jinnah now uncharacteristically took a decision to call for direct action. His instructions were clear. Protests were to be disciplined and peaceful. Muslims took to the streets in unprecedented numbers. Widespread rioting, especially murderous in Calcutta, followed. INC cried foul. They blamed Jinnah for unleashing violence. International opinion tended to agree with them. Gandhi had called people out on the streets many times causing hundreds of deaths and injuries. Scores of thousands had been rendered destitute. But the whole world acclaimed him for non-violence. He practiced, to Western eyes an esoteric political methodology. They were impressed. Jinnah had stuck to parliamentary methods, which had lost their novelty centuries ago. They would not put Jinnah on a pedestal. But the demand for partition of India could no longer be ignored.
Among congress leaders Gandhi and Azad remained steadfast. The former solemnly declared that the country would be divided over his dead body. Nehru and Patel had other ideas. They had decided that an undivided India was not worth co-existence with Jinnah. Patel was especially sanguine that Pakistan would collapse with in days, weeks or at the most in months. He made public prediction of the collapse of the country. That incompetent appendage of the British royal house, Mountbatten encouraged him. Why bother negotiating with Jinnah when he would come begging to be taken back in the union in the near future?
It is again speculative, but that was the most likely reason Gandhi gave his consent to the partition plan. Why a person who prided himself on keeping his word would suddenly turn around so abruptly and give his blessings to a vivisection, which he had pledged to fight against, with his very life? To save his sensibilities Azad was probably not made privy to the idea behind acceptance of Pakistan. But he had nowhere to go any way.
India was duly divided.
Imperial sunset?
Imperial sunset?
Daniel Dombey
FINANCIAL TIMES
The world that was born with the end of the cold war is dead and
buried. Today, America's sole superpower status, which steeled the
Bush administration in its determination to go to war in Iraq, is
losing relevance. Instead, the US has an ungovernable new world on
its hands.
THE UNITED STATES HAS LOST POWER AND INFLUENCE.
This, at least, is the outlook of some of the world's most seasoned
officials and international affairs experts, who believe that the US
has lost power and influence and that an uncertain era is about to
begin. The age they describe is one dominated neither by Washington's
matchless military strength nor the old international -institutions.
"We are going through systemic change," Madeleine Albright, the
former US secretary of state, says in an interview. "What has
happened in the past six years has been a lessening of respect for
American power . . . The world is going to be multipolar," she adds,
referring to the growing influence of countries such as China and
India and the likelihood that they will have greater roles in
deciding the world's affairs.
Already, the US is finding both diplomacy and military action
increasingly difficult. Tensions over Iran and North Korea's nuclear
programmes, the crisis in Darfur, Kosovo and climate change all cry
out for urgent attention. But none can be solved by a single power or
even a select group of allies - and progress has been haltingly slow
at the United Nations.
Even more worryingly for Washington, the Bush administration is
finding it increasingly difficult to find allies to help fight its
battles - whether in the shrinking "coalition of the willing" in Iraq
or the Nato-led mission in Afghanistan.
No longer does the US inhabit the lop-sided world created by the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Instead, the growing diffusion
of international power makes this an era in which a profusion of
deals has to be done.
Yet multilateralism - the use of international treaties, institutions
and consultation to achieve diplomatic goals - is harder than it has
been for at least half a generation.
This point is hammered home by Moscow, the great loser of the cold
war. Three days ago Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, derided what
he said was the US's attempt to create a "unipolar" world - a world
with "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of
decision-making" . In a speech that signaled a new post-cold war low
in Moscow-Washington relations, he said such a world was both
unacceptable and impossible. Referring to the war in Iraq, he added:
"Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any
problems… No one feels safe."
China and India are also thrusting on to the world stage, confident
that the future is on their side. China already has the world's
fourth-biggest economy, ahead of the UK, and is rapidly closing in on
Germany. Even Russia, whose hydrocarbon wealth may not last long into
the century, is infinitely more confident than it was when it begged
for western aid in the 1990s - as Mr Putin's speech attested.
"The US has had its unipolar moment for about 15 years but is
beginning to realise that it isn't getting the things done it wants,"
says Paul Kennedy, the author of The Rise and Fall of the Great
Powers. "But just as the US could be moving back to a more
multilateralist position, Russia and China may be less interested in
agreeing with the west."
While Moscow and Beijing insist on their attachment to international
law - hence Mr Putin's denunciation of the US's decision to go to war
without UN backing - they also have a hard-headed view of national
interests that limits their appetite for deal-making with Washington.
On Iran, Russia has watered down proposed UN sanctions to protect
billion-dollar defence and nuclear deals. On Darfur, China seeks to
prevent disruption to Sudan, in whose oil sector it invests.
Photo: The problem of climatic change cannot be resolved by one
power.
Even when agreement was easier to reach, the difficulties and
indignities of such dealmaking produced plenty of critics. Charles
Krauthammer, an influential American rightwing columnist, decried the
Clinton administration for its "fetish for consultation" and its
"mania for treaties" on issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to
climate change. The net effect, he believed, was to temper American
power.
But the Clinton era also contained signs of resurgent unilateralism.
The US Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for
nuclear weapons and made clear its opposition to the Kyoto protocol
on climate change. President Bill Clinton himself decided to go to
war over Kosovo without UN backing.
The election of President George W. Bush and his response to the
attacks of September 11 2001 took things much further. No longer did
the US use its unipolar power for multilateral ends.
"We used to say things such as: 'Multilaterally if you can,
unilaterally if you must'," says Ms Albright. "But the Bush
administration walking away from a bunch of multilateral arrangements
gave people a reason to say: 'Why work with the US?' - and then that
was compounded by the behavior in Iraq."
As Washington grew more assertive, Russia and China improved
relations to the warmest since the 1950s, while a ragtag group of
countries such as Venezuela, Belarus and Iran deepened ties.
"Right now, China is multilateralist because it is weaker than the US
. . . but no one can stop China," says Shen Dingli, a professor at
Shanghai's Fudan University. "The US should be sophisticated enough
to use international institutions so that when China becomes a
superpower it too is educated to act that way."
Traditional European allies have also distanced themselves from
Washington, leaving the US to fight an ever lonelier battle in Iraq.
Spain and Italy have both pulled out their troops and this month Tony
Blair, UK prime minister, is expected to announce a reduction in UK
forces. Mr Bush holds out hope that he can win in Baghdad by
dispatching more American troops. But outside the confines of the
Oval Office few share his optimism.
Meanwhile, the US and the UK are anxiously seeking allies for the
bitter struggle against the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan.
Volunteers have been hard to come by.
Another theatre of conflict may yet bring tensions to new heights -
Iran, whose nuclear programme could be the target of a US or Israeli
air strike. Although such a move would be risky, in the extreme, the
US and Israel could eventually conclude that no other course would
prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.
Western officials protest that no such action is imminent. "We have
no intention of attacking Iran," said Robert Gates, US defense
secretary, last week. But, equally, no one discounts the possibility
that an attack may take place during Mr Bush's presidency. A strike
would be almost certain to drive the US further apart from Europe,
Russia, China and the developing world, further tearing at the
tattered fabric of multilateralism.
In such a world, what hope is there of addressing the risks of
nuclear conflict, ethnic cleansing and environmental disaster?
With the US so militarily stretched, an imperfect kind of
multilateralism may prove the only answer. "There is limited spare
capacity for major military operations," says Sir Lawrence Freedman,
professor of war studies at King's College London. "The implication
of that is that you are going to have to work with regional powers
and accept regimes for what they are," he says, in a reference to
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Indeed, at present, the US is pursuing a variety of à la carte
multilateralism that uses both UN and bilateral measures to achieve
its goals. It championed a UN Security Council resolution in December
that imposed sanctions on Tehran, but is now seeking to persuade the
European Union to go further than the UN mandate and introduce
additional financial sanctions.
The US and the UK have chosen a similar path on Kosovo, endorsing
plans for a UN resolution that would give the province many of the
attributes of independence without using the actual word. Both London
and Washington expect that, once the resolution is passed, Kosovo
will declare independence in any case - and that they, at least, will
recognise it. On Darfur, too, Mr Bush and Mr Blair drop hints of a
unilaterally imposed no-fly zone, hints they hope will push Sudan and
its backers towards acceptance of a UN force.
Other deals need to be done outside the UN. Last night, US
negotiators were trying to reach agreement over North Korea's nuclear
program in six-party talks that at times seemed at the point of
collapse. Expectations are low for a US-brokered summit between
Israeli and Palestinian leaders later this month, even though Bush
administration officials describe it as the highest level of
engagement between the two sides since Bill Clinton's -presidency.
Beyond the US administration, however, there is little agreement on
what else can be done to get the world back into shape. Lord Hurd, a
former British foreign secretary, argues that the west should relax
its conditions on talking to Iran or the militant group Hamas. "We
should get out of the idea, which is an imperial one and not fitting
for Europe or even the US, that you are doing people a great favor if
you talk to them," he says in an interview. "Listening to people is
not doing them a favour; it is good sense."
Mr Kennedy says that the world's great powers may ape the Concert of
Europe - which reshaped affairs after the fall of Napoleon - and find
common ground on issues of overwhelming international concern such as
climate change. Similarly, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, both
former US secretaries of state, called last month for Washington and
Moscow to take steps against nuclear proliferation, including
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to prevent the
world from entering a dangerous new atomic era.
Lalit Mansingh, a former Indian foreign secretary, argues that the
best solution for the world's ills is a revived UN with an expanded
Security Council, including Delhi. "It can't remain a closed shop
forever, with all the massive powers given to it by the UN Charter,"
he says. But every aspirant for a Security Council seat faces
opposition. Many observers conclude that the future of
multilateralism rests not with overarching world organizations, but
with matching policy to ever more divergent facts on the ground.
In today's fragmented world, says Lord Hurd, there are different
rules for the great power rivalry in Asia, the law-based approach of
the EU and the near-anarchy of the Middle East. One unifying theme is
that the US's role as the protector of Asia and Western Europe and
the powerbroker of the Middle East is a diminished one.
"We must simply do the best we can in the circumstances of each
case," he says. "Our best will not always be brilliant." The dilemma
for the US and the world is that the prospects for multilateralism -
for diplomacy - are distinctly unpromising. The still more daunting
problem is that all other courses may very well be worse.
Taken from The Financial Times
Daniel Dombey
FINANCIAL TIMES
The world that was born with the end of the cold war is dead and
buried. Today, America's sole superpower status, which steeled the
Bush administration in its determination to go to war in Iraq, is
losing relevance. Instead, the US has an ungovernable new world on
its hands.
THE UNITED STATES HAS LOST POWER AND INFLUENCE.
This, at least, is the outlook of some of the world's most seasoned
officials and international affairs experts, who believe that the US
has lost power and influence and that an uncertain era is about to
begin. The age they describe is one dominated neither by Washington's
matchless military strength nor the old international -institutions.
"We are going through systemic change," Madeleine Albright, the
former US secretary of state, says in an interview. "What has
happened in the past six years has been a lessening of respect for
American power . . . The world is going to be multipolar," she adds,
referring to the growing influence of countries such as China and
India and the likelihood that they will have greater roles in
deciding the world's affairs.
Already, the US is finding both diplomacy and military action
increasingly difficult. Tensions over Iran and North Korea's nuclear
programmes, the crisis in Darfur, Kosovo and climate change all cry
out for urgent attention. But none can be solved by a single power or
even a select group of allies - and progress has been haltingly slow
at the United Nations.
Even more worryingly for Washington, the Bush administration is
finding it increasingly difficult to find allies to help fight its
battles - whether in the shrinking "coalition of the willing" in Iraq
or the Nato-led mission in Afghanistan.
No longer does the US inhabit the lop-sided world created by the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Instead, the growing diffusion
of international power makes this an era in which a profusion of
deals has to be done.
Yet multilateralism - the use of international treaties, institutions
and consultation to achieve diplomatic goals - is harder than it has
been for at least half a generation.
This point is hammered home by Moscow, the great loser of the cold
war. Three days ago Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, derided what
he said was the US's attempt to create a "unipolar" world - a world
with "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of
decision-making" . In a speech that signaled a new post-cold war low
in Moscow-Washington relations, he said such a world was both
unacceptable and impossible. Referring to the war in Iraq, he added:
"Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any
problems… No one feels safe."
China and India are also thrusting on to the world stage, confident
that the future is on their side. China already has the world's
fourth-biggest economy, ahead of the UK, and is rapidly closing in on
Germany. Even Russia, whose hydrocarbon wealth may not last long into
the century, is infinitely more confident than it was when it begged
for western aid in the 1990s - as Mr Putin's speech attested.
"The US has had its unipolar moment for about 15 years but is
beginning to realise that it isn't getting the things done it wants,"
says Paul Kennedy, the author of The Rise and Fall of the Great
Powers. "But just as the US could be moving back to a more
multilateralist position, Russia and China may be less interested in
agreeing with the west."
While Moscow and Beijing insist on their attachment to international
law - hence Mr Putin's denunciation of the US's decision to go to war
without UN backing - they also have a hard-headed view of national
interests that limits their appetite for deal-making with Washington.
On Iran, Russia has watered down proposed UN sanctions to protect
billion-dollar defence and nuclear deals. On Darfur, China seeks to
prevent disruption to Sudan, in whose oil sector it invests.
Photo: The problem of climatic change cannot be resolved by one
power.
Even when agreement was easier to reach, the difficulties and
indignities of such dealmaking produced plenty of critics. Charles
Krauthammer, an influential American rightwing columnist, decried the
Clinton administration for its "fetish for consultation" and its
"mania for treaties" on issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to
climate change. The net effect, he believed, was to temper American
power.
But the Clinton era also contained signs of resurgent unilateralism.
The US Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for
nuclear weapons and made clear its opposition to the Kyoto protocol
on climate change. President Bill Clinton himself decided to go to
war over Kosovo without UN backing.
The election of President George W. Bush and his response to the
attacks of September 11 2001 took things much further. No longer did
the US use its unipolar power for multilateral ends.
"We used to say things such as: 'Multilaterally if you can,
unilaterally if you must'," says Ms Albright. "But the Bush
administration walking away from a bunch of multilateral arrangements
gave people a reason to say: 'Why work with the US?' - and then that
was compounded by the behavior in Iraq."
As Washington grew more assertive, Russia and China improved
relations to the warmest since the 1950s, while a ragtag group of
countries such as Venezuela, Belarus and Iran deepened ties.
"Right now, China is multilateralist because it is weaker than the US
. . . but no one can stop China," says Shen Dingli, a professor at
Shanghai's Fudan University. "The US should be sophisticated enough
to use international institutions so that when China becomes a
superpower it too is educated to act that way."
Traditional European allies have also distanced themselves from
Washington, leaving the US to fight an ever lonelier battle in Iraq.
Spain and Italy have both pulled out their troops and this month Tony
Blair, UK prime minister, is expected to announce a reduction in UK
forces. Mr Bush holds out hope that he can win in Baghdad by
dispatching more American troops. But outside the confines of the
Oval Office few share his optimism.
Meanwhile, the US and the UK are anxiously seeking allies for the
bitter struggle against the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan.
Volunteers have been hard to come by.
Another theatre of conflict may yet bring tensions to new heights -
Iran, whose nuclear programme could be the target of a US or Israeli
air strike. Although such a move would be risky, in the extreme, the
US and Israel could eventually conclude that no other course would
prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.
Western officials protest that no such action is imminent. "We have
no intention of attacking Iran," said Robert Gates, US defense
secretary, last week. But, equally, no one discounts the possibility
that an attack may take place during Mr Bush's presidency. A strike
would be almost certain to drive the US further apart from Europe,
Russia, China and the developing world, further tearing at the
tattered fabric of multilateralism.
In such a world, what hope is there of addressing the risks of
nuclear conflict, ethnic cleansing and environmental disaster?
With the US so militarily stretched, an imperfect kind of
multilateralism may prove the only answer. "There is limited spare
capacity for major military operations," says Sir Lawrence Freedman,
professor of war studies at King's College London. "The implication
of that is that you are going to have to work with regional powers
and accept regimes for what they are," he says, in a reference to
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Indeed, at present, the US is pursuing a variety of à la carte
multilateralism that uses both UN and bilateral measures to achieve
its goals. It championed a UN Security Council resolution in December
that imposed sanctions on Tehran, but is now seeking to persuade the
European Union to go further than the UN mandate and introduce
additional financial sanctions.
The US and the UK have chosen a similar path on Kosovo, endorsing
plans for a UN resolution that would give the province many of the
attributes of independence without using the actual word. Both London
and Washington expect that, once the resolution is passed, Kosovo
will declare independence in any case - and that they, at least, will
recognise it. On Darfur, too, Mr Bush and Mr Blair drop hints of a
unilaterally imposed no-fly zone, hints they hope will push Sudan and
its backers towards acceptance of a UN force.
Other deals need to be done outside the UN. Last night, US
negotiators were trying to reach agreement over North Korea's nuclear
program in six-party talks that at times seemed at the point of
collapse. Expectations are low for a US-brokered summit between
Israeli and Palestinian leaders later this month, even though Bush
administration officials describe it as the highest level of
engagement between the two sides since Bill Clinton's -presidency.
Beyond the US administration, however, there is little agreement on
what else can be done to get the world back into shape. Lord Hurd, a
former British foreign secretary, argues that the west should relax
its conditions on talking to Iran or the militant group Hamas. "We
should get out of the idea, which is an imperial one and not fitting
for Europe or even the US, that you are doing people a great favor if
you talk to them," he says in an interview. "Listening to people is
not doing them a favour; it is good sense."
Mr Kennedy says that the world's great powers may ape the Concert of
Europe - which reshaped affairs after the fall of Napoleon - and find
common ground on issues of overwhelming international concern such as
climate change. Similarly, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, both
former US secretaries of state, called last month for Washington and
Moscow to take steps against nuclear proliferation, including
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to prevent the
world from entering a dangerous new atomic era.
Lalit Mansingh, a former Indian foreign secretary, argues that the
best solution for the world's ills is a revived UN with an expanded
Security Council, including Delhi. "It can't remain a closed shop
forever, with all the massive powers given to it by the UN Charter,"
he says. But every aspirant for a Security Council seat faces
opposition. Many observers conclude that the future of
multilateralism rests not with overarching world organizations, but
with matching policy to ever more divergent facts on the ground.
In today's fragmented world, says Lord Hurd, there are different
rules for the great power rivalry in Asia, the law-based approach of
the EU and the near-anarchy of the Middle East. One unifying theme is
that the US's role as the protector of Asia and Western Europe and
the powerbroker of the Middle East is a diminished one.
"We must simply do the best we can in the circumstances of each
case," he says. "Our best will not always be brilliant." The dilemma
for the US and the world is that the prospects for multilateralism -
for diplomacy - are distinctly unpromising. The still more daunting
problem is that all other courses may very well be worse.
Taken from The Financial Times
Uneven development-Sebastian
Uneven development
Surplus value was incidental in feudalism which was more concerned with maintenance of hierarchy and privilege., but became the central motor driving capitalism. Mercantilism was a transition from feudal to capitalist mode of production.
In primitive accumulation under capitalism surplus extraction was done in the process of exchange from handicraft man to the merchant. The latter gathered a large number of craftsmen in a factory and reorganized production and introduced division of labor.
Under capitalism surplus value is extracted in the production process by reducing the necessary labor time. In order to accumulate capitalists improved technology and to reduce turn over time improved transport. Advanced capitalism has been able to shift surplus creation to low wage area. workers in developed countries are beguiled into believing that capitalism is good for them by giving them social security measures.
There are differences between accumulation in mercantilist period and that by MNCs. Under the earlier system knowledge was free. Under globalization knowledge is the most important item of production. Small scale producer enjoys no autonomy. Toyota developed "Just in time" concept. Intermediate suppliers parts. Assembler assemble on order. with low demand intermediates reduce production and fire workers in the informal sector which does not have any protection thus transferring crisis of over production to intermediate to worker. Further surplus value produced by intermediate will be realized in the "host" country. Wealth is concentrated in a few hands, socially and geographically where knowledge is produced. Globalization is a search for solution to relative surplus, reduce turnover time and to reduce resistance to imperialist exploitation.
The success of globalization depends upon the cooperation of ruling elite of neocolonies to suppress people's movements, by promoting religious fanaticism and racial/caste sect divides by compromising with feudals, the clergy and armed forces and promoting the new religion of consumerism.
TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM
Feudalism arose as it was more efficient production force than slavery. Peasants worked better when given land. It also gave incentive to colonized new lands and develop technology like water mills. The clergy were the only literate ones and spread new technology. Feudals were wasteful, only 4-5% went into investments but the mode of production helped recovery from Roman collapse and to outstrip China and Muslim empires.
Feudalism is hegemony of small scale production and seigneurial rights.Trade created wage laborers , primitive accumulation and separation of peasants from land which led to decline of feudalism and rise of capitalism. The process started in 14th century.
TRANSITION FROM LABOR RENT TO RENT IN KIND TO MONEY RENT
Malthusian crises of shortage of food occurred once every century and in the 14th and 15th centuries loosened feudal ties.
Rent in kind was more productive as peasants took more int erst in land. Next was money rent; producer pays not the produce but its value. Money presuppose considerable development of commerce, urban industry and money circulation.Common law relationship between peasant and land owner is changed into cash contact based one. it also creates a class of landless day laborers for hire.
SEPARATION OF PEASANTS AND EMERGENCE OF WAGE LABOR
The enclosure movement in England proceeded along with capitalist development. In 16Th and 17Th centuries kings in England and France passed laws to deprive people of land ( and turn them into wage laborers. Peasants were turned into vagabonds and then whipped, branded and tortured if they resorted to begging.
In England a combine of landlords, nascent capitalist farmers and state fought centuries long campaigns to force people off the land (commons which were open to all on cooperative basis for grazing).
TOWNS AND VILLAGES
With the establishment of towns new methods of of gaining control over surplus developed. Merchants became a class and skimmed off surplus. New technical advances like the lathe, spinning wheel, dye, printing, eye glasses and paper making were made.
The logic of town was commodity exchange. Craftsmen ceased to be additionally peasants. work shop owners used the guild system to restrict production. Journey men fought and free wage labor was produced. "Putting out" system known as proto-industrialization came into being.
MERCANTILISM-UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT-ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION.
Pre-capitalist communities were driven by direct satisfaction of wants met by production at home. Luxury goods and spices were brought from out side. But communities were aware of long distance trade. Chinese porcelain, ostrich feathers and spices in Africa and Europe are examples.
In pre-capitalist stage middlemen made the profit. In the middle ages Muslim countries in middle East controlled trade. European merchants had to pay in gold (which Africa provided) as India and China did not care for any thing the former Europeans thus net contributors to Muslim wealth
Portuguese made the first effort to go beyond the boundaries of Europe to secure control of trans-Saharan gold routes. They did not get it, but probably gave them the idea of outflanking the overland network of Arab traders
While Portuguese tried the eastern route, Columbus went west and landed in the Caribbean in 1492. Vasco de Gama reached Kozhikode in 1498. Sea voyages were common place for Asians but were a discovery for Europeans. ( My note. In the seventies an Indian American went to Rome, planted a flag in front of the airport and declared that he had discovered Italy). Pope ruled Europe and gave Papal bull to the King of Portugal to conquer, kill, subdue and reduce to slavery Saracens and all non-believers in Christ.
The earliest demand for slaves came from Spanish colonies, but the trade was conducted by Portuguese, dutch, French and the British, the last after gaining naval supremacy became the leading slaver.
Ships from Europe were loaded with trade goods, exchanged for slaves in Africa and for sugar and other products in the Caribbean and Americas.Ten million slaves were taken across the Atlantic between 1451 and 1807;1.6 for Spanish America, 3.6 for Brazil, 2 for British colonies including the USA and 1.6 for French Caribbean.
The first trading post was established in Kozhikode, India in 1500. By 1509 Portuguese had captured Malacca, Goa in 1511 by Albuquerque. thus by 1510 spices and other goods flowed into Europe by 1510, bypassing Arab traders and drying up revenue of the Ottomans as well.
The Portuguese with better ships using bases in India captured cities in Oman and Iran and collected tributes from local rulers.Abbas 1 of the Safavid dynasty sought the help of the British and the Dutch, got the Portuguese out only to lose control to the British who defeated the Dutch.
Indonesia was one of the most important sources of spices (the fixation of the Europeans to spices can be easily explained. Out of season they did not produce enough to eat With out refrigeration the stored food went bad. Spices were needed to suppress the smell of rotting meat) Portuguese controlled the spice trade in the 16Th century but lost it to the Dutch in 17Th century. the latter subjugated most of the islands by early 18Th century. Once coffee became popular in Europe they forced Indonesians to grow it and paid them little.They did not establish direct rule, but exercised complete control.During Napoleonic wars the British occupied Indonesia, but the Ditch got it back in 1816. In the 19Th century sugar replaced coffee as major Indonesian export. Before the dutch arrival the main export was textiles. By the end of 18th century that had been eliminated.
Robert Clive defeated Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula of Bengal in 1757 and started the subjugation of India.Between 1757 and 1813 when the monopoly was abolished India was exploited through the East India company legal monopoly of trade between Europe and the East.Between 1813 and 1834 was the transitory free trade exploitation phase. The trade was in cotton, handicraft, agricultural goods, indigo and opium.
During 15 hundreds Western Europeans took control of international trade and three centuries of mercantilist stage of capital accumulation paved the conditions of industrial capitalism.
While the West Europeans progressed to capitalist mode rest of the world was pushed into miserable poverty.For three centuries black Africa's sole function was to supply slaves.
American Indians had been killed in large numbers. By the first quarter of 19th century they, led by landowners and merchants and supported by the British were able to overthrow Spaniards weakened by Napoleonic wars. the leaders shifted their loyalty to the British whose manufactured goods destroyed native handicraft.
COLONIALISM-INSTITUTION OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT.
During the industrial revolution capitalist countries matured and transformed themselves into imperialist countries. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S mill, J.B Say and Thomas Malthus were the leading theoreticians of the era. Market theory if left to it self the world economy would grow. Free tradesupplanted slave trade and plunder of the new world.
Marx pointed out that the market was not a liberating process, but only a cover over the real exploitative relations between owners of the means of production and workers who create surplus value and accumulation of wealth and that the new relations of production were more unjust and exploitative than the ones they had replaced.
Surplus value was incidental in feudalism which was more concerned with maintenance of hierarchy and privilege., but became the central motor driving capitalism. Mercantilism was a transition from feudal to capitalist mode of production.
In primitive accumulation under capitalism surplus extraction was done in the process of exchange from handicraft man to the merchant. The latter gathered a large number of craftsmen in a factory and reorganized production and introduced division of labor.
Under capitalism surplus value is extracted in the production process by reducing the necessary labor time. In order to accumulate capitalists improved technology and to reduce turn over time improved transport. Advanced capitalism has been able to shift surplus creation to low wage area. workers in developed countries are beguiled into believing that capitalism is good for them by giving them social security measures.
There are differences between accumulation in mercantilist period and that by MNCs. Under the earlier system knowledge was free. Under globalization knowledge is the most important item of production. Small scale producer enjoys no autonomy. Toyota developed "Just in time" concept. Intermediate suppliers parts. Assembler assemble on order. with low demand intermediates reduce production and fire workers in the informal sector which does not have any protection thus transferring crisis of over production to intermediate to worker. Further surplus value produced by intermediate will be realized in the "host" country. Wealth is concentrated in a few hands, socially and geographically where knowledge is produced. Globalization is a search for solution to relative surplus, reduce turnover time and to reduce resistance to imperialist exploitation.
The success of globalization depends upon the cooperation of ruling elite of neocolonies to suppress people's movements, by promoting religious fanaticism and racial/caste sect divides by compromising with feudals, the clergy and armed forces and promoting the new religion of consumerism.
TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM
Feudalism arose as it was more efficient production force than slavery. Peasants worked better when given land. It also gave incentive to colonized new lands and develop technology like water mills. The clergy were the only literate ones and spread new technology. Feudals were wasteful, only 4-5% went into investments but the mode of production helped recovery from Roman collapse and to outstrip China and Muslim empires.
Feudalism is hegemony of small scale production and seigneurial rights.Trade created wage laborers , primitive accumulation and separation of peasants from land which led to decline of feudalism and rise of capitalism. The process started in 14th century.
TRANSITION FROM LABOR RENT TO RENT IN KIND TO MONEY RENT
Malthusian crises of shortage of food occurred once every century and in the 14th and 15th centuries loosened feudal ties.
Rent in kind was more productive as peasants took more int erst in land. Next was money rent; producer pays not the produce but its value. Money presuppose considerable development of commerce, urban industry and money circulation.Common law relationship between peasant and land owner is changed into cash contact based one. it also creates a class of landless day laborers for hire.
SEPARATION OF PEASANTS AND EMERGENCE OF WAGE LABOR
The enclosure movement in England proceeded along with capitalist development. In 16Th and 17Th centuries kings in England and France passed laws to deprive people of land ( and turn them into wage laborers. Peasants were turned into vagabonds and then whipped, branded and tortured if they resorted to begging.
In England a combine of landlords, nascent capitalist farmers and state fought centuries long campaigns to force people off the land (commons which were open to all on cooperative basis for grazing).
TOWNS AND VILLAGES
With the establishment of towns new methods of of gaining control over surplus developed. Merchants became a class and skimmed off surplus. New technical advances like the lathe, spinning wheel, dye, printing, eye glasses and paper making were made.
The logic of town was commodity exchange. Craftsmen ceased to be additionally peasants. work shop owners used the guild system to restrict production. Journey men fought and free wage labor was produced. "Putting out" system known as proto-industrialization came into being.
MERCANTILISM-UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT-ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION.
Pre-capitalist communities were driven by direct satisfaction of wants met by production at home. Luxury goods and spices were brought from out side. But communities were aware of long distance trade. Chinese porcelain, ostrich feathers and spices in Africa and Europe are examples.
In pre-capitalist stage middlemen made the profit. In the middle ages Muslim countries in middle East controlled trade. European merchants had to pay in gold (which Africa provided) as India and China did not care for any thing the former Europeans thus net contributors to Muslim wealth
Portuguese made the first effort to go beyond the boundaries of Europe to secure control of trans-Saharan gold routes. They did not get it, but probably gave them the idea of outflanking the overland network of Arab traders
While Portuguese tried the eastern route, Columbus went west and landed in the Caribbean in 1492. Vasco de Gama reached Kozhikode in 1498. Sea voyages were common place for Asians but were a discovery for Europeans. ( My note. In the seventies an Indian American went to Rome, planted a flag in front of the airport and declared that he had discovered Italy). Pope ruled Europe and gave Papal bull to the King of Portugal to conquer, kill, subdue and reduce to slavery Saracens and all non-believers in Christ.
The earliest demand for slaves came from Spanish colonies, but the trade was conducted by Portuguese, dutch, French and the British, the last after gaining naval supremacy became the leading slaver.
Ships from Europe were loaded with trade goods, exchanged for slaves in Africa and for sugar and other products in the Caribbean and Americas.Ten million slaves were taken across the Atlantic between 1451 and 1807;1.6 for Spanish America, 3.6 for Brazil, 2 for British colonies including the USA and 1.6 for French Caribbean.
The first trading post was established in Kozhikode, India in 1500. By 1509 Portuguese had captured Malacca, Goa in 1511 by Albuquerque. thus by 1510 spices and other goods flowed into Europe by 1510, bypassing Arab traders and drying up revenue of the Ottomans as well.
The Portuguese with better ships using bases in India captured cities in Oman and Iran and collected tributes from local rulers.Abbas 1 of the Safavid dynasty sought the help of the British and the Dutch, got the Portuguese out only to lose control to the British who defeated the Dutch.
Indonesia was one of the most important sources of spices (the fixation of the Europeans to spices can be easily explained. Out of season they did not produce enough to eat With out refrigeration the stored food went bad. Spices were needed to suppress the smell of rotting meat) Portuguese controlled the spice trade in the 16Th century but lost it to the Dutch in 17Th century. the latter subjugated most of the islands by early 18Th century. Once coffee became popular in Europe they forced Indonesians to grow it and paid them little.They did not establish direct rule, but exercised complete control.During Napoleonic wars the British occupied Indonesia, but the Ditch got it back in 1816. In the 19Th century sugar replaced coffee as major Indonesian export. Before the dutch arrival the main export was textiles. By the end of 18th century that had been eliminated.
Robert Clive defeated Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula of Bengal in 1757 and started the subjugation of India.Between 1757 and 1813 when the monopoly was abolished India was exploited through the East India company legal monopoly of trade between Europe and the East.Between 1813 and 1834 was the transitory free trade exploitation phase. The trade was in cotton, handicraft, agricultural goods, indigo and opium.
During 15 hundreds Western Europeans took control of international trade and three centuries of mercantilist stage of capital accumulation paved the conditions of industrial capitalism.
While the West Europeans progressed to capitalist mode rest of the world was pushed into miserable poverty.For three centuries black Africa's sole function was to supply slaves.
American Indians had been killed in large numbers. By the first quarter of 19th century they, led by landowners and merchants and supported by the British were able to overthrow Spaniards weakened by Napoleonic wars. the leaders shifted their loyalty to the British whose manufactured goods destroyed native handicraft.
COLONIALISM-INSTITUTION OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT.
During the industrial revolution capitalist countries matured and transformed themselves into imperialist countries. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S mill, J.B Say and Thomas Malthus were the leading theoreticians of the era. Market theory if left to it self the world economy would grow. Free tradesupplanted slave trade and plunder of the new world.
Marx pointed out that the market was not a liberating process, but only a cover over the real exploitative relations between owners of the means of production and workers who create surplus value and accumulation of wealth and that the new relations of production were more unjust and exploitative than the ones they had replaced.
The Two Nation Theory And Its Aftermath
The Two Nation Theory And Its Aftermath
An Analysis
Debate on such diverse issues as Two Nation Theory, mistakes made by Pandit Nehru, causes of Partition, nature of Communal riots in 1947,Jinnah’s intentions, nature of Pakistan Movement, perfidy of the British, causes of instability & poverty in Pakistan, Kashmir dispute, riots in Karachi, need for peace in the subcontinent, continued need of dialogue between India and Pakistan, good will between people of the two countries, the necessity to move on rather than dwell on the past is still relevant.
I would like to tackle the last point first. History, its knowledge and understanding are of supreme importance. “ Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”.
People of different races, color, creed, and religion were able to live together in India for several millennia before the advent of the British. The reason they could no longer live together when the British had to leave was not entirely due to their machinations “divide & rule” policy etc as the Nationalists are fond of believing, though the rulers did fan the smoldering fire.
All the people who invaded India before the British did, stayed on, intermarried with the locals, got assimilated and eventually became Indians for all practical purposes, although they often kept links with their erstwhile home lands This was especially true of Muslims as the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, daily prayers, month of fasting etc gave them a sense of belonging to an International polity. A vast number of Indians converted to Islam for all kinds of reasons too complex to go into here and incorporated allegiance to the creed as a part of their life. Further concept of exclusive nationalism had yet to develop. People accepted any ruler who could conquer and hold their region regardless of the faith the victor followed. Rulers on their part left the ruled alone as long as they paid their dues, were loyal and were law abiding, joined the army in times of need and fought for the sovereign. The law generally was whatever the ruler said, though lip service was paid to religious dogma. Religious coercion was rare, in fact Hindu rulers often built mosques, and Muslim rulers had Temples constructed. After Sufis arrived both professed allegiance to them.
Society was divided along strict class lines, a Hindu Rajah would socialize with a Muslim Nawab and both would disdain any intimacy with lower classes, Hindu as well Muslim. There was little to distinguish between peasants adhering to either creed. In fact it the Punjab it was not till the British introduced general census in the late nineteenth century that Muslims in the province reluctantly agreed to be classifies as such.
Initially the British followed in the same foots steps. They took Indian women as consorts, learnt Urdu and Farsi, (there were several notable British Urdu Poets-please refer to the book White Moghals), frequented the parlors of dancing girls and adopted Moghal dress and lifestyle. A few took the title of Nawab and their servants were only too happy to address them as Huzoor e wala.
But technology changed everything drastically. With advent of Steam Ships, the British could visit their native land in weeks rather than months and travel became safer. Men could visit British Isles to find wives for themselves and hopeful girls, having heard of the lavish life style in the East descended on India in hordes to find husbands. The lure of culture and language would naturally make British women more attractive.
The UK took an unassailable lead in mercantilism. Industrial revolution created a great demand of raw material. It was no longer just the spices to suppress the foul odor of rotting food, but raw cotton, indigo, iron ore and other natural resources Europeans had their eye on. There was little was to be found in their own countries. India on the other hand had an abundance of them hence the necessity of controlling the country, and the determined onslaught of all the worthwhile European powers on India. They could not nativize themselves and capture the wealth of the East at the same time.
The British worked stealthily, gradually defeating local chieftains, conquering more and more territory, but the fiction of the over lordship of the Moghal emperor was still maintained. A few years before the cataclysm of 1857, the British Governor-General requested that he be excused from presenting annual tribute to the King in person, or at least be allowed to sit during the audience and to walk with his back to the emperor at the end of the audience. Bahadur Shah whose rule was confined to the Red fort indignantly turned the request down. Persons much more exalted, potentates of states larger than his native land dare not sit in front of him. He was only a humble servant of a trading company beholden to Moghal Emperor for permission to conduct business.
After the British had effectively sidelined other Europeans, it became necessary to do away with the over lordship of the Moghal Emperor. They were actively looking for an excuse. The 1857 war of Independence was just such an opportunity The British rule was oppressive. Indians missed the paternalistic behavior and attitude of their erstwhile ruling class. The new rulers were insensitive and had been goading all Indians, Hindu and Muslim to rebel, so they could be put in their place and further territory captured. Grease on cartridges was not incidental. But they had grossly under estimated the passion with which Indians wanted them out. Indian rulers, and the public, Hindu and Muslim alike united as never before or since, tried to wrest power back from the British and thrust leadership on a very reluctant Bahadur Shah.
The causes of failure of 1857 struggle have been thoroughly researched and documented and need not be gone into. The British emerged victorious, perpetrated an orgy of wanton murder, loot and rapine and wreaked vengeance on those who were active in the struggle. (True retribution is in the lap of gods). They had already been developing a subservient class which of necessity was essentially of the Hindu upper caste as Muslims were averse to being supplanted. Bengal which had been under their effective control since 1757 saw the most wide spread of replacement of Muslim agents of the Nawab with Hindu rent collectors. They eventually made the appointment hereditary creating a hitherto non-existent non-Nawab-Raja feudal class. Muslims in the Punjab and NWFP had already been subjugated by Sikh rule of Ranjeet Singh. The process was accelerated and the British did work actively to sow the seeds of Hindu Muslim discord.
Indians in general thoroughly demoralized and disheartened collaborated or sulked and indulged in self-pity. Some did realize that open revolt would not succeed, decided to get educated and beat the British at their own game. The more liberal among the rulers helped them. Indian National Congress owes its birth (1885) to an English man. Very loyal (to the crown) Muslim grandees Muslim league was organized by some years later (1905).
At this time, Indian leaders worked on constitutional lines. Some curried favors from the rulers and presented petitions and memoranda. Many, however, stood up to the British, Jinnah perhaps the foremost among them, who once snubbed the Governor of Bombay and walked out of a formal dinner party as the Governors wife had slyly offered a shawl to a bare- shouldered Mrs. Jinnah.
Things progressed at a slow parliamentary pace till WWI. Having bested the British & Boers in South Africa and honed his political skills, advent of Gandhi on the Political scene did not usher in non-cooperation, Satyagraha and other extra-constitutional campaigns. He active helped the British war effort by working in drives to recruit Indians into the army and was awarded a rather “Kaiser e Hind” medal. Disappointed and disillusioned that the British had not come through with rapid advancement of Indian participation in governance of India he came to the conclusion that constitutional measures would take too long, civil disobedience and flouting the law non-violently would bring quicker results and made himself ready to take on the British. Associating the common man, worker and peasant, would nourish and revolutionize the national movement and defeat the colonial power with out firing a shot. To galvanize masses he needed to use religion. An armed conflict was a non-starter; the overlords were too powerful to confront.
Jinnah, hither to lionized by Congress and Muslim league alike, called an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity by such luminaries as Gokhle and Sarojini Naido disagreed. He had had the unique distinction of presiding over a league as well as congress session in Lucknow in 1917 and had engineered an agreement on protection of minority rights called Congress-League pact. But the tide had turned against him. Indians had been carried away in a tide of emotionalism Gandhi had mesmerized the educated and illiterate alike. He had for tactical reasons co-opted the movement to restore Khilafat in Turkey. When Jinnah stood up to oppose a non-cooperation resolution presented by Gandhi in the congress annual session of 1921, he was hooted down. Shaukat the brawnier of the two Ali brothers threatened to break his bones.
Disgusted, Jinnah left for England where he developed a highly lucrative law practice and could afford a chauffer driven car and live the life of an upper class English man. He joined the Labor party, was proposed as a parliamentary candidate in a North England working class constituency. During a get acquainted visit, local politicians were put off by his intellectual aloofness and cold behavior. They protested they could not accept a “Toff” for the constituency. “Toff” is an English term for an upper class, pretentious person! During his voluntary exile Muslim league broke into disparate factions. Congress had things all its way.
There are divergent opinions about Gandhi’s ’ role in the fast widening Hindu-Muslim divide. Some nationalists feel that by introducing religion into politics, though he was able to mobilize the masses, as no one had been able to do before, yet by alienating the minorities he dealt a body blow to Hindu-Muslim relations. His meetings used to start with recitation of Bhagvat Gita, Bible and the Quran. He also called for establishment of Ram raj. I recall Muslims proclaiming that Bible and Quran recitations were only to hoodwink the Christian and the Muslim and the real purpose was to indoctrinate Hindu thought and Philosophy. Ram raj was the real agenda.
I for one do not impute any nefarious design to Gandhi Ji. He was a man of high integrity, a humanist and tolerant of opposing news. But perception is as important as reality and often counts for more. Right wing Hindus are known to proclaim that without Gandhi Ji independence might have been delayed by another 15-20 years but would have been purer with India undivided. I know of conservative Muslims grudgingly pay him tribute for having opened their eyes. He tried to back track that by Ram raj he meant “insaf”-justice raj, but it was too late. Fanatics ran away with it. Lost ground could never be regained.
By repudiating the 1917 agreement on safeguards for minority rights congress, in my opinion, committed a grave and in retrospect an unforgivable blunder. It appointed a committee headed by Motilal, father of PM Nehru to look into and resolve the issue. The committee ostensibly paying homage to the concept of one nation rejected all the provisions painstakingly worked out by Jinnah and left the decisions to the will of the majority.
Muslims felt that they were being overwhelmed by the congress machine, although Maulana Azad, Rafi Ahmad Qidwai and a few other Muslims were in the top congress hierarchy.
Be as it may, Muslim leadership felt that only Jinnah could save them. Prince Agha Khan and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan traveled to England to beg him to return and take over the leadership of Muslim league. He returned in early nineteen thirties to face an uphill task, to reconcile the differences between different league factions and control the more recalcitrant ones. He had not had enough time to unify the Muslims when elections were held in 1937. League did poorly in elections; its only respectable performance was in the U.P.
Jinnah was not universally acceptable to all Muslim leaders yet and the local UP leaders made overtures to the congress to be allowed to join the Government. Local congress leaders were agreeable.
But Nehru the presiding genius of congress, liberal and idealist, nationalist, rather self centered (he made a confession to the effect in an anonymous article) vehemently secular, socialist by conviction, wanted to demolish the league and asked the UP leaders to dissolve the party and join the congress as the price of joining the ministry. This was too much for even the opportunist among them. (Lucknow had a tradition of alternating Muslims and Hindus in the Mayor’s office. The league leader Chaudhury Khaliq uz Zaman had built a Temple in Lucknow during his term as “Muslim” mayor. Hindus returned the compliment by nominating him for the mayor’s job when it was their turn)
This episode has been made much of by Maulana Azad and nationalist Muslims. Nehru was a politician and not a prophet. He could not see into the future nor could he know that the episode would energize and revitalize the league. And who would countenance demands from a faction which did not have balance of power and whose avowedly communal party had done so poorly even in the constituencies reserved for the community. Congress formed governments in all the provinces, British Governors behaved like constitutional heads, did as they were told to, and the leadership became confident and even complacent.
Congress functionaries once in office behaved as petty tyrants and alienated Muslims further. Jinnah took full advantage of the failure of vision of the congress leaders. He appointed a commission under the raja of Pirpur to investigate and report on the discrimination and victimization Muslims had been subjected to under “Hindu” raj. The findings were scathing of mid-ranking officials and ministers alike. Congress disdainfully rejected it. Jinnah was further empowered.
Come the shadows of World War II, congress demanded that the British agree to independence as the price of their support and India that would join the war as an equal partner or would be neutral etc. They had overplayed their hand. The British viceroy was reportedly to be agreeable and wanted to make appropriate noises. But the crusty imperialist Churchill had taken over as the head of a war time grand coalition and grandiloquently declared that he had not accepted the office of the first minister to his majesty to preside over the dissolution of the empire and ordered the viceroy to dismiss all the ministries and put the congress leaders in jail.
Jinnah the tactician par excellence that he was, exhorted Muslims to celebrate a day of deliverance and offered cooperation to the Government. He now had a free hand and the time he needed to break heads of local chieftains together and build up his party. He was immensely successful and in time was able to parley as an equal with congress and the British alike. But he did not want an independent country for Muslims. All he wanted was adequate safeguards and autonomy for Muslims in their majority areas. Communal bias was repugnant to him. He was married to a non-Muslim, though she had converted, his life style conformed more to upper class England than to the masses in India and he had never been known to discriminate on the basis of religion.
The British government under public pressure from allies especially the USA and urged by the viceroy who was apprehensive of the swell of anti-British sentiment among the masses, and rattled by the Indian National army that Neta Ji Subhash Bose had been able to organize from among the Indian prisoners of war held by the Japanese who were knocking at the doors of Bengal, sent commissions to parley with Indian leaders. The final effort was the cabinet mission in 1944. Jinnah agreed to the plan offered by the mission in which Federal structure would be weak, most of the powers would be vested in the three wings: 1) the present Pakistan and East Punjab 2) Bangladesh, West Bengal and Assam 3) rest of India. Status of princely states was left for future negotiations. Congress also signed on to the deal. It was decided that an INC/ML coalition cabinet with rough parity between Muslims and non-Muslims presided over by the viceroy be formed at the center.
Jinnah had been riding high and the league had swept the Muslim constituencies in 1945 Elections. After initial demurral on the question of the league being allowed to nominate all the Muslim members Jinnah agreed to let the party join the government under a face saving formula under which the league would nominate a non-Muslim in its quota. He himself disdainfully declined to join the coalition government, instead nominating Liaquat Ali Khan to head his faction in the cabinet. The league had to be given two major portfolios. It wanted home and foreign affairs ministries held by Patel and Nehru respectively. Neither were inclined to surrender their cherished territory and working under the delusion that Muslims could not count (they were not far wrong; finances had been handled by the Hindus under the Moghals and all trade was conducted by Hindu banyas) they committed the mortal error of offering finance to the league. Liaquat demurred; he was a Nawabzada and finance was beneath him. He was reassured by two Muslim finance bureaucrats Ghulam Muhammad and Chaudhury Muhammad Ali and with their help of presented a budget, which levied high taxes on business and industry. That made the congress leaders scream. Not withstanding the egalitarian noises they made, INC was funded by Hindu moneymen. Liaquat also made life intolerable for the Congress Ministers in other ways as well. Patel pitiably complained that he could not even appoint a chaprasi (porter) in his ministry without the approval of Liaquat's finance ministry.
I believe Nehru and Patel came to the firm conclusion that they could not co exist with Jinnah. Nehru while addressing a press conference declared that the sovereign constituent assembly of India would not be bound by any pre-conditions and would approve a constitution according to the will of the majority. Patel probably goaded him. For all practical purposes that scuttled the tripartite British, Congress and League agreement on sharing Power and pre- agreed safeguards. Maulana Azad attributed that to Nehru’s impetuous behavior. The episode was also made much of by him and his nationalist cohorts. The Maulana was very fond of Nehru and presumably gave him the benefit of the doubt. It was most likely by design; Nehru and Patel felt and probably rightly so that in any joint central Government, they would be reduced to impotence as Jinnah would have a veto over everything. And once Jinnah made up his mind not even the most powerful imperial servant could sway him as Mountbatten would ruefully confess later.
Jinnah, on his part felt the same way and turned down with contempt Gandhi’s informal proposal to make him the Prime Minister of United India. He did not relish the idea of being a puppet either. Nehru and Patel, furious at Gandhi Ji’s desperate gesture openly defied him for the first time).
Gandhi Ji and Maulana Azad were the only ones left among congress notables who still clung to the idea of a United India.
It is not known precisely what made Gandhi Ji accept partition shortly afterwards. It is conjectured by many that he was out voted-it would be uncharitable to say that it was a failure of Gandhi’s moral leadership, he probably felt that Nehru, Patel and others would not listen to him any way- by others that Patel convinced him that Pakistan would collapse in a few months and would come begging to be re-admitted into the Indian Union. There was thus not much wrong with accepting Pakistan as a transient and ephemeral phenomenon. They would accept it back in fold on their and not Jinnah’s terms. Patel made public speeches predicting the collapse of the land of the pure with in weeks or at the most months.
And this would probably have come to pass, Indian Government withheld Pakistan’s share of assets under the patently unfair pretext that it will use them to promote the insurgency in Kashmir. The perfidious Mountbatten went along. Pakistan Government had no money to pay its employees or as a wit put it even to buy stamps to post a letter to India to ask for its share. Pakistan Government was virtually on the verge of collapse when the Nizam of Hyderabad came to the rescue and “lent” a billion rupees (equivalent to 10 billion or equivalent to two billion US dollars now). Patel was cut to the quick. Many believe that if he had not bailed Pakistan out he would still be the Nizam. Then Gandhi Ji went on hunger strike to force Indian government to release Pakistan’s share of assets.
Indian Government was further bolstered in their resolve by Mountbatten who openly sided with them. Jinnah had spurned his desire to become the joint Governor General of India and Pakistan. Many on both sides of the divide believe that if Jinnah had acceded to his desire Mountbatten would not have been able to be so openly partial, border may have been demarcated with more deliberation and not with such indecent haste and dishonestly as it was, he may not have advised India to demand accession from the Kashmiri ruler as the price of intervention; Nehru mindful of law had demurred. But Pakistan would have lost some semblance of sovereignty, which Jinnah feared the most. There are no limits to conjecture.
Mountbatten behaved in many ways as a jilted courtesan, manipulating the Government machinery to thwart Jinnah. What role did the affair of Pandit Nehru with his wife play-she confessed to the affair in her letters released posthumously- in all that happened, the way he altered Radcliff boundary awards, the way announcement of awards was with held up till several days after independence, it is impossible to say. (I recently read a book in which it was strongly implied that Mountbatten was bisexual and was aware of the many and frequent amours of wife Edwina. Nehru’s affair was only the most known one. Jinnah offered a bunch of letters Nehru and Edwina wrote to each other contemptuously rejected the proposal to publish them as beneath his high principles. I wonder what would have been the aftermath. Mountbatten would have been discredited and almost certainly sacked. Pakistan would have benefited, but may be not even formed. I also read a rather off color joke. Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar told of the sexual orientation of the viceroy offered to “bend” him towards Pakistan. Jinnah was not amused).
In any case Pakistan survived. In the meanwhile, the ruler of Kashmir had been vacillating between a). Joining India b) joining Pakistan c) becoming independent- the options all the major rulers had been given. He was veering towards independence when his hand was forced by the invasion of his state by tribal fighters. He asked for help from India, Nehru and Patel hesitated, and as noted earlier Mountbatten advised them to demand accession to India as the price of support. The ruler gave in. Jinnah ordered his British army chief to intervene who refused to obey the orders of the head of the state. India appealed to the U.N. The rest is history.
I have given this brief outline of the event leading to Partition of India, as with out understanding this history one cannot explain the genesis of the Two-nation theory. Jinnah was left with no choice but to accept even a “moth eaten” Pakistan, as he was to put it ruefully. Gandhi though had a valid point when he asserted that one doesn’t become a separate nation by adopting a different religion. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans have converted to Islam. Should they be stripped of their citizenship?
But the problem facing Muslims of India was not just the religion. It was a profound feeling of uncertainty. They had lost their primacy to the British whom they had come to regard as their protectors and to whom their leaders had submitted petitions. Now the prospect loomed of being subservient to their one-time subjects. Should they passively accept this ultimate humiliation? Would they not be relegated to the lowest class in a society, which openly professed and practiced a caste system? Wont they lose their culture, language and eventually their religion? For all kinds of reasons, which would form a separate study, they had been left far behind Hindus in Education and could not compete on a playing field, which was obviously not level. They needed tangible safeguards. True or not this was the perception and I clearly recall my elders subscribing to the notion, though we had close and cordial relations with Hindus and lived in U.P. where Muslims had more jobs and assets than their number warranted.
This is the perception that congress failed to come to grips with. Nehru the visionary liberal had a firm conviction that once Indians had complete control, they would deal justly with each other. Patel the pragmatic Tammany Hall type politician gleefully expressed the view that Muslims would get what they deserved. Gandhi Ji a rare mix of saint and shrewd politician regarded good observance of religious rites as the solution. Maulana Azad patrician and scholarly adhered to the sublime belief that there would be a tremendous ground swell of good will, which will overcome all problems. Congress leaders could not breach the wall of Jinnah’s supreme self-confidence. They were also tired of the struggle and wanted to settle into governing even at the cost of conceding Pakistan.
The riots that followed were the result of Mountbatten’s crass indifference and incompetence, lack of fore sight and criminal negligence of his sworn duty. Uncertainty in both communities as to where they would be the next day, if their homes would be in India or Pakistan led to unprecedented blood letting as each side wanted to drive the other out and in many cases found itself on the wrong side of the eventual border. That led to further senseless slaughter. British security forces lacked clear directives and with out the support of Indian policemen were clearly not up to the job. Indian police were divided in their loyalties; their British officers did not give a damn. At times they in fact incited riots (in Quetta the British superintendent of police is known to have shot down a Muslim as a provocation). Combine this chaos with the simmering hatred between the communities, bigots on both sides ready to kill and rape in the name of their respective gods, and rapacious miscreants waiting in the wing to loot and plunder. Catastrophe was inevitable.
Mounbatten as supreme overlord failed miserably and ignominiously in organizing an orderly transfer of power, making proper security arrangements, in clearly defining boundary lines or, deploying troops in sensitive areas. On his doorstep lies the responsibility of the unprecedented carnage, bestiality and mayhem that followed partition of India. He was a small man in a big job, arrogant beyond belief, inordinately proud of his royal birth and convinced of his omniscience. He only wanted to secure his position in history-he selected August 14 as the Independence Day because the Japanese had surrendered to him on the date- as the person who had with surgical precision and expediency cut India into two countries. Instead like a novice he let India and Pakistan bleed.
In order to understand what has happened in Pakistan since requires critical analysis. Jinnah occupied a more dominant position in Muslim league than any combination of congress leaders did in their party. He followed parliamentary rules, always referring to the party executive for decisions or ratification of decisions he had taken. But the party looked up to him as a semi divine figure. He could get away with telling a public meeting in Bengal that Urdu will be the only official language. He could tell Sindhis that Karachi would no longer be a part of Sindh. After having achieved Pakistan in the name of Muslim nation and not having repudiated his followers when they invoked Islam as the reason for Pakistan, he could tell the parliament that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state, that all citizens would enjoy equal rights and that religion would be a private affair with no business in the state.
But he was dealing with material, which was in socio- historical terms, far behind its Indian counterpart. India had well developed industry, commerce, education and administration. Pakistan had little by way of industry. The only worthwhile asset at the time, Jute, was grown in Pakistani East Bengal while the mills were in Indian west Bengal. When non-Muslim teachers, bankers, shop keepers and industrialists left for India, all organized life ground to a halt till teachers and administrators could arrive from India. Congress leadership consisted of lawyers and businessmen supported by a capitalist class. Muslim league was feudal in character with only Jinnah and a few other lawyers in position of leadership. No wonder Jinnah’s vision did not survive him. Feudal lords and their henchmen in the armed forces, administration, and clergy lost little time in subverting his heritage. The latter were the most strident in demanding a religious state even though most of them had opposed the creation of Pakistan, calling Jinnah, (what else) a Kafir.
With a thousand miles of hostile territory between the two wings Pakistan was physically at a disadvantage too. Class character was a greater handicap. Bengal had the larger population and except for Khwaja Nazimuddin and a few others, had a non-feudal character. It had little representation in bureaucracy and less in the army. Immigrant army officers and bureaucrats quickly aligned themselves with west Pakistanis where the center of power lay and further distorted the tilt against the eastern wing.
Indian constituent assembly had expeditiously passed and adopted a constitution. Its Pakistani counter part could not, as West Pakistan politician were not prepared to give East Pakistan representation proportional to their population. There were no countrywide general elections. The only worthwhile attempt at electoral politics resulted in virtual annihilation of the ruling Muslim league in East Pakistan. India abolished Zamindari in 1948. It still survives, thrives and flourishes and has Pakistan in its stranglehold. Constituent assembly had lost its representative character. Instead of holding new elections the governor-general dissolved it and appointed a nonentity as prime minister. A ridiculous spectacle of politicians changing their loyalties and governments followed. Heads were actually broken during an assembly session.
A constitution was passed only after East Pakistan politicians had given up their just demand for representation in the national assembly commensurate with their numbers.
At any rate things were settling down a bit. National elections were scheduled in January 1959, political parties were campaigning vigorously and it was expected that an all Pakistan political party would win majority of seats to form a stable government.
But the west Pakistan ruling class could not stomach the idea of a freely elected stable democratic government presided over by a middle class party. A national government would focus on social services, industry, job creation and infrastructure. Bureaucrats would not be able to dismiss the orders of ministers who enjoyed public support. Mullahs would no longer be able to invoke the name of Islam at the drop of their headgear. Army was waiting in the wings. Its bloated ranks were dependent on the finances provided by a weak government. They justifiably felt that no government with a national mandate would countenance spending better part of exchequer on the military.
Aided and abetted by the other three components of the Quad, (Feudals and bureaucracy and clergy) the, army took over. There after followed ten years of intellectual stagnation. Meaningful political activity was suppressed, restricted or proscribed, newspapers taken over and even student organizations banned. There was no outlet for grievances. In the aftermath of the stolen election in 1964, the disillusionment of 1965 war Ayub regime weakened and was brought to its knees by a popular protest led by students. Not ready to give in yet, the quad engineered a coup against Ayub. Ayub Khan abdicated and flouting his own tailor made constitution handed over the reins of the Government not to the speaker of national assembly but to the army chief. It became an explosive mix Genie could no longer be contained in the bottle.
The Quad felt that a general election would be the lesser risk and the parliament would anyway be hopelessly hung. They may well have been right in their calculation but a major political party (Maulana Bhashani's NAP) withdrew from the race because they felt that dealing with the after math of hurricanes was more important. Mujib’s Awami league a middle class party swept the polls in East Pakistan winning enough seats to form a government on its own. With the support of a few smaller parties from West Pakistan they commanded enough votes to pass a constitution of their choice. Now the cat was properly among the rats.
The Quad scrambled to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. They indulged in subterfuges, procrastinated and when they had transported sufficient number of troops launched a campaign of oppression and brutalization, which far surpassed the 1947 communal riots in ferocity. A Pakistani commander Lt General Tikka Khan, better known as the butcher of Bengal publicly claimed that he was interested in the land and not the people. Another of the butcher’s infamous declarations expressed the intent to change the genetic make up of Bengalis. I have not come across even a remotely similar intent to use rape of women as a measure of public policy. And these were Muslims terrorizing other Muslims.
Untold millions fled to India. Indra Gandhi the Indian prime minister after a skillful international campaign (Pakistan sent a foreign ministry official in her wake. He had difficulty getting appointment with even mid level officials) sent her army into East Pakistan and it ended in a rout of Pakistan army.
Bhutto, who had actively aided and abetted the heinous outrage in East Pakistan, emerged as the strong man of West Pakistan and his repugnant role in East Pakistan debacle notwithstanding, worked with great finesse to restore stability and common sense in what was left of the country. He got 90,000 POWs out of India without conceding much else than that all issues between India and Pakistan would be settled bilaterally- without third party intervention.
Bhutto was the scion of a feudal house and true to his class he established a personal dictatorship reminiscent of middle ages. He emasculated the nascent Pakistani capital by nationalizing industry and commerce wholesale, crushing whatever little prospect there was of a potent capitalist class emerging and overcoming the feudal class. He had pretensions of International leadership too and was lionized by Muslim rulers during the conference of Islamic states he had convened to boost the morale of the people. That also gave him the fig leaf to cover the acceptance of Bangla Desh. In his euphoria he overlooked the cardinal rule that you may crush your subjects under your heel but may raise your head to those in higher authority at your own peril. He stood up to the International capital. Even after the drastic set back and humiliation of the army in East Pakistan the Quad aided and abetted by International capital managed to oust and hang him. This time clergy played the leading role. What followed is the sickeningly familiar pattern of weak government between military rules.
Now we come to poverty, non-development and illiteracy in Pakistan. No doubt Kashmir, debacle in East Pakistan, adventure in Afghanistan, which introduced Klashnikov and heroin in Pakistan (prior to that the only heroines Pakistanis knew were the likes of Noor Jehan and Rekha), ethnic riots in Karachi, smoldering insurgency in Sindh and Baluchistan, the medieval tribal and clan misogynist social system and general break down of law and order played havoc with Pakistan’s economy. Population explosion eroded whatever little development had been achieved.
But these are all symptoms of an underlying disease and the disease is very chronic. It is compounded of bigotry, illiteracy, feudal system, lack of industrialization and socio/political un-awareness.
Let us tackle the prime parasite first. I call the army the prime depredator because they now control seventy five percent of commerce, trade and industry of the country and a good bit of land and real state. It needs Kashmir for its existence. It should be clear even to the meanest intelligence that the army cannot in any conceivable circumstances defeat India militarily and take over Kashmir. They could not even hold their own territory- East Pakistan. They are hard put to controlling the insurgents in Baluchistan. All they are capable of is that given an unarmed-lightly armed crowd they can mow them down-in an open field. They consume more than half the budget. Pakistan spends the least on health and education among even the least developed countries.
Feudals need the army. A truly representative government would swiftly take away their privileges and redistribute land. They were quite happy to serve under military dictators and would accept Mickey mouse as one US ambassador pithily put it, as long as they can continue with wine, women, murder and mayhem.
Bureaucrats need the feudals and army to sustain, support and nourish them. They would not in a democratic set up, be able to plunder the national wealth at will. (A few years ago Pakistan Link an expatriate UD based newspaper published the names of Dollar billionaires in Pakistan. Accompanying Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were the names of some army generals and two civil servants. Nawab Hoti had offered to swap his estates for one month’s take of Lt general Fazal Haq the military governor of NWFP’s one month take of drug and arms money).
Mullahs need all the above to impose their vision on all. A democratically elected stable Government would not let them trample upon women’s rights and permit unchecked and unregulated conversion of young men into raving maniacs. Nor would they be allowed to get millions of dollars from a degenerate Middle Eastern monarchy to run twenty two thousand schools to churn out zealots to propagate their brand of (intolerant) Islam.
True in acute conditions, one has to deal with the symptom first. If you have a fever of 106 it has to be brought down before making an attempt to diagnose the disease. Restoration of electoral process to the level it obtained after Zia’s dictatorship would be tantamount to giving aspirin for high fever and let it rise again and again. It will not even bring the social temperature down long enough for the country to recover even to a modest degree. It would not permit definitive treatment, as the disease carriers will remain in the seats of power. Drugs poured into the country would end up in the pockets of bureaucrats and army officers. Cure will depend upon diagnosis and definitive treatment.
A functional representative democracy cannot take root in Pakistan till feudal holdings are abolished, till there is far greater literacy, till there is industrialization, till fanatics and bigots are suppressed, till army is cut down to size. A representative government even as mediocre as that of Nawaz Sharif did try to develop friendship with India. India a Capitalist country would naturally be attracted to the potentially rich market that Pakistan is. It will help rejuvenate Pakistan’s capital. But would the quad accept it? Would they not fight to death? The recent show of friendship towards India is I am certain a subterfuge to ease the tremendous western pressure and an effort to escape the punishment likely to be meted out for indulging in nuclear proliferation and black market. After all the current army chief overthrew an elected government for trying to get his chestnut of Kargil out of hot coals. He of course does not say so. But Kargil was a devilishly clever plan. A military adventure, a few gains, international community forcing the civil government to order withdrawal, cries of betrayal, military coup – all finely turned and orchestrated.
A stable civilian government would have reached some kind of settlement on Kashmir many decades ago. It would hot have accepted the invitation to participate in big power clash in Afghanistan. At any rate it would not have wasted scarce national resources on a “commercial” army. It would have launched a vigorous family planning program. It would pay attention to education, health, industry and development of resource.
Confronting and overcoming the deeply entrenched and powerful interests is a tall order. It may never be filled. The quad will fight it rather than withdraw. They fought in East Pakistan to the bitter and humiliating end. They did not even tolerate the puny attempt by Karachites to develop a middle class party (it regrettably turned into a fascist group) and wiped out a whole generation of young men. When economic interests are involved religion, nationality, law and justice can all be set aside.
S.Ehtisham.
__________________________________
_________________________________
An Analysis
Debate on such diverse issues as Two Nation Theory, mistakes made by Pandit Nehru, causes of Partition, nature of Communal riots in 1947,Jinnah’s intentions, nature of Pakistan Movement, perfidy of the British, causes of instability & poverty in Pakistan, Kashmir dispute, riots in Karachi, need for peace in the subcontinent, continued need of dialogue between India and Pakistan, good will between people of the two countries, the necessity to move on rather than dwell on the past is still relevant.
I would like to tackle the last point first. History, its knowledge and understanding are of supreme importance. “ Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”.
People of different races, color, creed, and religion were able to live together in India for several millennia before the advent of the British. The reason they could no longer live together when the British had to leave was not entirely due to their machinations “divide & rule” policy etc as the Nationalists are fond of believing, though the rulers did fan the smoldering fire.
All the people who invaded India before the British did, stayed on, intermarried with the locals, got assimilated and eventually became Indians for all practical purposes, although they often kept links with their erstwhile home lands This was especially true of Muslims as the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, daily prayers, month of fasting etc gave them a sense of belonging to an International polity. A vast number of Indians converted to Islam for all kinds of reasons too complex to go into here and incorporated allegiance to the creed as a part of their life. Further concept of exclusive nationalism had yet to develop. People accepted any ruler who could conquer and hold their region regardless of the faith the victor followed. Rulers on their part left the ruled alone as long as they paid their dues, were loyal and were law abiding, joined the army in times of need and fought for the sovereign. The law generally was whatever the ruler said, though lip service was paid to religious dogma. Religious coercion was rare, in fact Hindu rulers often built mosques, and Muslim rulers had Temples constructed. After Sufis arrived both professed allegiance to them.
Society was divided along strict class lines, a Hindu Rajah would socialize with a Muslim Nawab and both would disdain any intimacy with lower classes, Hindu as well Muslim. There was little to distinguish between peasants adhering to either creed. In fact it the Punjab it was not till the British introduced general census in the late nineteenth century that Muslims in the province reluctantly agreed to be classifies as such.
Initially the British followed in the same foots steps. They took Indian women as consorts, learnt Urdu and Farsi, (there were several notable British Urdu Poets-please refer to the book White Moghals), frequented the parlors of dancing girls and adopted Moghal dress and lifestyle. A few took the title of Nawab and their servants were only too happy to address them as Huzoor e wala.
But technology changed everything drastically. With advent of Steam Ships, the British could visit their native land in weeks rather than months and travel became safer. Men could visit British Isles to find wives for themselves and hopeful girls, having heard of the lavish life style in the East descended on India in hordes to find husbands. The lure of culture and language would naturally make British women more attractive.
The UK took an unassailable lead in mercantilism. Industrial revolution created a great demand of raw material. It was no longer just the spices to suppress the foul odor of rotting food, but raw cotton, indigo, iron ore and other natural resources Europeans had their eye on. There was little was to be found in their own countries. India on the other hand had an abundance of them hence the necessity of controlling the country, and the determined onslaught of all the worthwhile European powers on India. They could not nativize themselves and capture the wealth of the East at the same time.
The British worked stealthily, gradually defeating local chieftains, conquering more and more territory, but the fiction of the over lordship of the Moghal emperor was still maintained. A few years before the cataclysm of 1857, the British Governor-General requested that he be excused from presenting annual tribute to the King in person, or at least be allowed to sit during the audience and to walk with his back to the emperor at the end of the audience. Bahadur Shah whose rule was confined to the Red fort indignantly turned the request down. Persons much more exalted, potentates of states larger than his native land dare not sit in front of him. He was only a humble servant of a trading company beholden to Moghal Emperor for permission to conduct business.
After the British had effectively sidelined other Europeans, it became necessary to do away with the over lordship of the Moghal Emperor. They were actively looking for an excuse. The 1857 war of Independence was just such an opportunity The British rule was oppressive. Indians missed the paternalistic behavior and attitude of their erstwhile ruling class. The new rulers were insensitive and had been goading all Indians, Hindu and Muslim to rebel, so they could be put in their place and further territory captured. Grease on cartridges was not incidental. But they had grossly under estimated the passion with which Indians wanted them out. Indian rulers, and the public, Hindu and Muslim alike united as never before or since, tried to wrest power back from the British and thrust leadership on a very reluctant Bahadur Shah.
The causes of failure of 1857 struggle have been thoroughly researched and documented and need not be gone into. The British emerged victorious, perpetrated an orgy of wanton murder, loot and rapine and wreaked vengeance on those who were active in the struggle. (True retribution is in the lap of gods). They had already been developing a subservient class which of necessity was essentially of the Hindu upper caste as Muslims were averse to being supplanted. Bengal which had been under their effective control since 1757 saw the most wide spread of replacement of Muslim agents of the Nawab with Hindu rent collectors. They eventually made the appointment hereditary creating a hitherto non-existent non-Nawab-Raja feudal class. Muslims in the Punjab and NWFP had already been subjugated by Sikh rule of Ranjeet Singh. The process was accelerated and the British did work actively to sow the seeds of Hindu Muslim discord.
Indians in general thoroughly demoralized and disheartened collaborated or sulked and indulged in self-pity. Some did realize that open revolt would not succeed, decided to get educated and beat the British at their own game. The more liberal among the rulers helped them. Indian National Congress owes its birth (1885) to an English man. Very loyal (to the crown) Muslim grandees Muslim league was organized by some years later (1905).
At this time, Indian leaders worked on constitutional lines. Some curried favors from the rulers and presented petitions and memoranda. Many, however, stood up to the British, Jinnah perhaps the foremost among them, who once snubbed the Governor of Bombay and walked out of a formal dinner party as the Governors wife had slyly offered a shawl to a bare- shouldered Mrs. Jinnah.
Things progressed at a slow parliamentary pace till WWI. Having bested the British & Boers in South Africa and honed his political skills, advent of Gandhi on the Political scene did not usher in non-cooperation, Satyagraha and other extra-constitutional campaigns. He active helped the British war effort by working in drives to recruit Indians into the army and was awarded a rather “Kaiser e Hind” medal. Disappointed and disillusioned that the British had not come through with rapid advancement of Indian participation in governance of India he came to the conclusion that constitutional measures would take too long, civil disobedience and flouting the law non-violently would bring quicker results and made himself ready to take on the British. Associating the common man, worker and peasant, would nourish and revolutionize the national movement and defeat the colonial power with out firing a shot. To galvanize masses he needed to use religion. An armed conflict was a non-starter; the overlords were too powerful to confront.
Jinnah, hither to lionized by Congress and Muslim league alike, called an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity by such luminaries as Gokhle and Sarojini Naido disagreed. He had had the unique distinction of presiding over a league as well as congress session in Lucknow in 1917 and had engineered an agreement on protection of minority rights called Congress-League pact. But the tide had turned against him. Indians had been carried away in a tide of emotionalism Gandhi had mesmerized the educated and illiterate alike. He had for tactical reasons co-opted the movement to restore Khilafat in Turkey. When Jinnah stood up to oppose a non-cooperation resolution presented by Gandhi in the congress annual session of 1921, he was hooted down. Shaukat the brawnier of the two Ali brothers threatened to break his bones.
Disgusted, Jinnah left for England where he developed a highly lucrative law practice and could afford a chauffer driven car and live the life of an upper class English man. He joined the Labor party, was proposed as a parliamentary candidate in a North England working class constituency. During a get acquainted visit, local politicians were put off by his intellectual aloofness and cold behavior. They protested they could not accept a “Toff” for the constituency. “Toff” is an English term for an upper class, pretentious person! During his voluntary exile Muslim league broke into disparate factions. Congress had things all its way.
There are divergent opinions about Gandhi’s ’ role in the fast widening Hindu-Muslim divide. Some nationalists feel that by introducing religion into politics, though he was able to mobilize the masses, as no one had been able to do before, yet by alienating the minorities he dealt a body blow to Hindu-Muslim relations. His meetings used to start with recitation of Bhagvat Gita, Bible and the Quran. He also called for establishment of Ram raj. I recall Muslims proclaiming that Bible and Quran recitations were only to hoodwink the Christian and the Muslim and the real purpose was to indoctrinate Hindu thought and Philosophy. Ram raj was the real agenda.
I for one do not impute any nefarious design to Gandhi Ji. He was a man of high integrity, a humanist and tolerant of opposing news. But perception is as important as reality and often counts for more. Right wing Hindus are known to proclaim that without Gandhi Ji independence might have been delayed by another 15-20 years but would have been purer with India undivided. I know of conservative Muslims grudgingly pay him tribute for having opened their eyes. He tried to back track that by Ram raj he meant “insaf”-justice raj, but it was too late. Fanatics ran away with it. Lost ground could never be regained.
By repudiating the 1917 agreement on safeguards for minority rights congress, in my opinion, committed a grave and in retrospect an unforgivable blunder. It appointed a committee headed by Motilal, father of PM Nehru to look into and resolve the issue. The committee ostensibly paying homage to the concept of one nation rejected all the provisions painstakingly worked out by Jinnah and left the decisions to the will of the majority.
Muslims felt that they were being overwhelmed by the congress machine, although Maulana Azad, Rafi Ahmad Qidwai and a few other Muslims were in the top congress hierarchy.
Be as it may, Muslim leadership felt that only Jinnah could save them. Prince Agha Khan and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan traveled to England to beg him to return and take over the leadership of Muslim league. He returned in early nineteen thirties to face an uphill task, to reconcile the differences between different league factions and control the more recalcitrant ones. He had not had enough time to unify the Muslims when elections were held in 1937. League did poorly in elections; its only respectable performance was in the U.P.
Jinnah was not universally acceptable to all Muslim leaders yet and the local UP leaders made overtures to the congress to be allowed to join the Government. Local congress leaders were agreeable.
But Nehru the presiding genius of congress, liberal and idealist, nationalist, rather self centered (he made a confession to the effect in an anonymous article) vehemently secular, socialist by conviction, wanted to demolish the league and asked the UP leaders to dissolve the party and join the congress as the price of joining the ministry. This was too much for even the opportunist among them. (Lucknow had a tradition of alternating Muslims and Hindus in the Mayor’s office. The league leader Chaudhury Khaliq uz Zaman had built a Temple in Lucknow during his term as “Muslim” mayor. Hindus returned the compliment by nominating him for the mayor’s job when it was their turn)
This episode has been made much of by Maulana Azad and nationalist Muslims. Nehru was a politician and not a prophet. He could not see into the future nor could he know that the episode would energize and revitalize the league. And who would countenance demands from a faction which did not have balance of power and whose avowedly communal party had done so poorly even in the constituencies reserved for the community. Congress formed governments in all the provinces, British Governors behaved like constitutional heads, did as they were told to, and the leadership became confident and even complacent.
Congress functionaries once in office behaved as petty tyrants and alienated Muslims further. Jinnah took full advantage of the failure of vision of the congress leaders. He appointed a commission under the raja of Pirpur to investigate and report on the discrimination and victimization Muslims had been subjected to under “Hindu” raj. The findings were scathing of mid-ranking officials and ministers alike. Congress disdainfully rejected it. Jinnah was further empowered.
Come the shadows of World War II, congress demanded that the British agree to independence as the price of their support and India that would join the war as an equal partner or would be neutral etc. They had overplayed their hand. The British viceroy was reportedly to be agreeable and wanted to make appropriate noises. But the crusty imperialist Churchill had taken over as the head of a war time grand coalition and grandiloquently declared that he had not accepted the office of the first minister to his majesty to preside over the dissolution of the empire and ordered the viceroy to dismiss all the ministries and put the congress leaders in jail.
Jinnah the tactician par excellence that he was, exhorted Muslims to celebrate a day of deliverance and offered cooperation to the Government. He now had a free hand and the time he needed to break heads of local chieftains together and build up his party. He was immensely successful and in time was able to parley as an equal with congress and the British alike. But he did not want an independent country for Muslims. All he wanted was adequate safeguards and autonomy for Muslims in their majority areas. Communal bias was repugnant to him. He was married to a non-Muslim, though she had converted, his life style conformed more to upper class England than to the masses in India and he had never been known to discriminate on the basis of religion.
The British government under public pressure from allies especially the USA and urged by the viceroy who was apprehensive of the swell of anti-British sentiment among the masses, and rattled by the Indian National army that Neta Ji Subhash Bose had been able to organize from among the Indian prisoners of war held by the Japanese who were knocking at the doors of Bengal, sent commissions to parley with Indian leaders. The final effort was the cabinet mission in 1944. Jinnah agreed to the plan offered by the mission in which Federal structure would be weak, most of the powers would be vested in the three wings: 1) the present Pakistan and East Punjab 2) Bangladesh, West Bengal and Assam 3) rest of India. Status of princely states was left for future negotiations. Congress also signed on to the deal. It was decided that an INC/ML coalition cabinet with rough parity between Muslims and non-Muslims presided over by the viceroy be formed at the center.
Jinnah had been riding high and the league had swept the Muslim constituencies in 1945 Elections. After initial demurral on the question of the league being allowed to nominate all the Muslim members Jinnah agreed to let the party join the government under a face saving formula under which the league would nominate a non-Muslim in its quota. He himself disdainfully declined to join the coalition government, instead nominating Liaquat Ali Khan to head his faction in the cabinet. The league had to be given two major portfolios. It wanted home and foreign affairs ministries held by Patel and Nehru respectively. Neither were inclined to surrender their cherished territory and working under the delusion that Muslims could not count (they were not far wrong; finances had been handled by the Hindus under the Moghals and all trade was conducted by Hindu banyas) they committed the mortal error of offering finance to the league. Liaquat demurred; he was a Nawabzada and finance was beneath him. He was reassured by two Muslim finance bureaucrats Ghulam Muhammad and Chaudhury Muhammad Ali and with their help of presented a budget, which levied high taxes on business and industry. That made the congress leaders scream. Not withstanding the egalitarian noises they made, INC was funded by Hindu moneymen. Liaquat also made life intolerable for the Congress Ministers in other ways as well. Patel pitiably complained that he could not even appoint a chaprasi (porter) in his ministry without the approval of Liaquat's finance ministry.
I believe Nehru and Patel came to the firm conclusion that they could not co exist with Jinnah. Nehru while addressing a press conference declared that the sovereign constituent assembly of India would not be bound by any pre-conditions and would approve a constitution according to the will of the majority. Patel probably goaded him. For all practical purposes that scuttled the tripartite British, Congress and League agreement on sharing Power and pre- agreed safeguards. Maulana Azad attributed that to Nehru’s impetuous behavior. The episode was also made much of by him and his nationalist cohorts. The Maulana was very fond of Nehru and presumably gave him the benefit of the doubt. It was most likely by design; Nehru and Patel felt and probably rightly so that in any joint central Government, they would be reduced to impotence as Jinnah would have a veto over everything. And once Jinnah made up his mind not even the most powerful imperial servant could sway him as Mountbatten would ruefully confess later.
Jinnah, on his part felt the same way and turned down with contempt Gandhi’s informal proposal to make him the Prime Minister of United India. He did not relish the idea of being a puppet either. Nehru and Patel, furious at Gandhi Ji’s desperate gesture openly defied him for the first time).
Gandhi Ji and Maulana Azad were the only ones left among congress notables who still clung to the idea of a United India.
It is not known precisely what made Gandhi Ji accept partition shortly afterwards. It is conjectured by many that he was out voted-it would be uncharitable to say that it was a failure of Gandhi’s moral leadership, he probably felt that Nehru, Patel and others would not listen to him any way- by others that Patel convinced him that Pakistan would collapse in a few months and would come begging to be re-admitted into the Indian Union. There was thus not much wrong with accepting Pakistan as a transient and ephemeral phenomenon. They would accept it back in fold on their and not Jinnah’s terms. Patel made public speeches predicting the collapse of the land of the pure with in weeks or at the most months.
And this would probably have come to pass, Indian Government withheld Pakistan’s share of assets under the patently unfair pretext that it will use them to promote the insurgency in Kashmir. The perfidious Mountbatten went along. Pakistan Government had no money to pay its employees or as a wit put it even to buy stamps to post a letter to India to ask for its share. Pakistan Government was virtually on the verge of collapse when the Nizam of Hyderabad came to the rescue and “lent” a billion rupees (equivalent to 10 billion or equivalent to two billion US dollars now). Patel was cut to the quick. Many believe that if he had not bailed Pakistan out he would still be the Nizam. Then Gandhi Ji went on hunger strike to force Indian government to release Pakistan’s share of assets.
Indian Government was further bolstered in their resolve by Mountbatten who openly sided with them. Jinnah had spurned his desire to become the joint Governor General of India and Pakistan. Many on both sides of the divide believe that if Jinnah had acceded to his desire Mountbatten would not have been able to be so openly partial, border may have been demarcated with more deliberation and not with such indecent haste and dishonestly as it was, he may not have advised India to demand accession from the Kashmiri ruler as the price of intervention; Nehru mindful of law had demurred. But Pakistan would have lost some semblance of sovereignty, which Jinnah feared the most. There are no limits to conjecture.
Mountbatten behaved in many ways as a jilted courtesan, manipulating the Government machinery to thwart Jinnah. What role did the affair of Pandit Nehru with his wife play-she confessed to the affair in her letters released posthumously- in all that happened, the way he altered Radcliff boundary awards, the way announcement of awards was with held up till several days after independence, it is impossible to say. (I recently read a book in which it was strongly implied that Mountbatten was bisexual and was aware of the many and frequent amours of wife Edwina. Nehru’s affair was only the most known one. Jinnah offered a bunch of letters Nehru and Edwina wrote to each other contemptuously rejected the proposal to publish them as beneath his high principles. I wonder what would have been the aftermath. Mountbatten would have been discredited and almost certainly sacked. Pakistan would have benefited, but may be not even formed. I also read a rather off color joke. Sirdar Abdur Rab Nishtar told of the sexual orientation of the viceroy offered to “bend” him towards Pakistan. Jinnah was not amused).
In any case Pakistan survived. In the meanwhile, the ruler of Kashmir had been vacillating between a). Joining India b) joining Pakistan c) becoming independent- the options all the major rulers had been given. He was veering towards independence when his hand was forced by the invasion of his state by tribal fighters. He asked for help from India, Nehru and Patel hesitated, and as noted earlier Mountbatten advised them to demand accession to India as the price of support. The ruler gave in. Jinnah ordered his British army chief to intervene who refused to obey the orders of the head of the state. India appealed to the U.N. The rest is history.
I have given this brief outline of the event leading to Partition of India, as with out understanding this history one cannot explain the genesis of the Two-nation theory. Jinnah was left with no choice but to accept even a “moth eaten” Pakistan, as he was to put it ruefully. Gandhi though had a valid point when he asserted that one doesn’t become a separate nation by adopting a different religion. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans have converted to Islam. Should they be stripped of their citizenship?
But the problem facing Muslims of India was not just the religion. It was a profound feeling of uncertainty. They had lost their primacy to the British whom they had come to regard as their protectors and to whom their leaders had submitted petitions. Now the prospect loomed of being subservient to their one-time subjects. Should they passively accept this ultimate humiliation? Would they not be relegated to the lowest class in a society, which openly professed and practiced a caste system? Wont they lose their culture, language and eventually their religion? For all kinds of reasons, which would form a separate study, they had been left far behind Hindus in Education and could not compete on a playing field, which was obviously not level. They needed tangible safeguards. True or not this was the perception and I clearly recall my elders subscribing to the notion, though we had close and cordial relations with Hindus and lived in U.P. where Muslims had more jobs and assets than their number warranted.
This is the perception that congress failed to come to grips with. Nehru the visionary liberal had a firm conviction that once Indians had complete control, they would deal justly with each other. Patel the pragmatic Tammany Hall type politician gleefully expressed the view that Muslims would get what they deserved. Gandhi Ji a rare mix of saint and shrewd politician regarded good observance of religious rites as the solution. Maulana Azad patrician and scholarly adhered to the sublime belief that there would be a tremendous ground swell of good will, which will overcome all problems. Congress leaders could not breach the wall of Jinnah’s supreme self-confidence. They were also tired of the struggle and wanted to settle into governing even at the cost of conceding Pakistan.
The riots that followed were the result of Mountbatten’s crass indifference and incompetence, lack of fore sight and criminal negligence of his sworn duty. Uncertainty in both communities as to where they would be the next day, if their homes would be in India or Pakistan led to unprecedented blood letting as each side wanted to drive the other out and in many cases found itself on the wrong side of the eventual border. That led to further senseless slaughter. British security forces lacked clear directives and with out the support of Indian policemen were clearly not up to the job. Indian police were divided in their loyalties; their British officers did not give a damn. At times they in fact incited riots (in Quetta the British superintendent of police is known to have shot down a Muslim as a provocation). Combine this chaos with the simmering hatred between the communities, bigots on both sides ready to kill and rape in the name of their respective gods, and rapacious miscreants waiting in the wing to loot and plunder. Catastrophe was inevitable.
Mounbatten as supreme overlord failed miserably and ignominiously in organizing an orderly transfer of power, making proper security arrangements, in clearly defining boundary lines or, deploying troops in sensitive areas. On his doorstep lies the responsibility of the unprecedented carnage, bestiality and mayhem that followed partition of India. He was a small man in a big job, arrogant beyond belief, inordinately proud of his royal birth and convinced of his omniscience. He only wanted to secure his position in history-he selected August 14 as the Independence Day because the Japanese had surrendered to him on the date- as the person who had with surgical precision and expediency cut India into two countries. Instead like a novice he let India and Pakistan bleed.
In order to understand what has happened in Pakistan since requires critical analysis. Jinnah occupied a more dominant position in Muslim league than any combination of congress leaders did in their party. He followed parliamentary rules, always referring to the party executive for decisions or ratification of decisions he had taken. But the party looked up to him as a semi divine figure. He could get away with telling a public meeting in Bengal that Urdu will be the only official language. He could tell Sindhis that Karachi would no longer be a part of Sindh. After having achieved Pakistan in the name of Muslim nation and not having repudiated his followers when they invoked Islam as the reason for Pakistan, he could tell the parliament that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state, that all citizens would enjoy equal rights and that religion would be a private affair with no business in the state.
But he was dealing with material, which was in socio- historical terms, far behind its Indian counterpart. India had well developed industry, commerce, education and administration. Pakistan had little by way of industry. The only worthwhile asset at the time, Jute, was grown in Pakistani East Bengal while the mills were in Indian west Bengal. When non-Muslim teachers, bankers, shop keepers and industrialists left for India, all organized life ground to a halt till teachers and administrators could arrive from India. Congress leadership consisted of lawyers and businessmen supported by a capitalist class. Muslim league was feudal in character with only Jinnah and a few other lawyers in position of leadership. No wonder Jinnah’s vision did not survive him. Feudal lords and their henchmen in the armed forces, administration, and clergy lost little time in subverting his heritage. The latter were the most strident in demanding a religious state even though most of them had opposed the creation of Pakistan, calling Jinnah, (what else) a Kafir.
With a thousand miles of hostile territory between the two wings Pakistan was physically at a disadvantage too. Class character was a greater handicap. Bengal had the larger population and except for Khwaja Nazimuddin and a few others, had a non-feudal character. It had little representation in bureaucracy and less in the army. Immigrant army officers and bureaucrats quickly aligned themselves with west Pakistanis where the center of power lay and further distorted the tilt against the eastern wing.
Indian constituent assembly had expeditiously passed and adopted a constitution. Its Pakistani counter part could not, as West Pakistan politician were not prepared to give East Pakistan representation proportional to their population. There were no countrywide general elections. The only worthwhile attempt at electoral politics resulted in virtual annihilation of the ruling Muslim league in East Pakistan. India abolished Zamindari in 1948. It still survives, thrives and flourishes and has Pakistan in its stranglehold. Constituent assembly had lost its representative character. Instead of holding new elections the governor-general dissolved it and appointed a nonentity as prime minister. A ridiculous spectacle of politicians changing their loyalties and governments followed. Heads were actually broken during an assembly session.
A constitution was passed only after East Pakistan politicians had given up their just demand for representation in the national assembly commensurate with their numbers.
At any rate things were settling down a bit. National elections were scheduled in January 1959, political parties were campaigning vigorously and it was expected that an all Pakistan political party would win majority of seats to form a stable government.
But the west Pakistan ruling class could not stomach the idea of a freely elected stable democratic government presided over by a middle class party. A national government would focus on social services, industry, job creation and infrastructure. Bureaucrats would not be able to dismiss the orders of ministers who enjoyed public support. Mullahs would no longer be able to invoke the name of Islam at the drop of their headgear. Army was waiting in the wings. Its bloated ranks were dependent on the finances provided by a weak government. They justifiably felt that no government with a national mandate would countenance spending better part of exchequer on the military.
Aided and abetted by the other three components of the Quad, (Feudals and bureaucracy and clergy) the, army took over. There after followed ten years of intellectual stagnation. Meaningful political activity was suppressed, restricted or proscribed, newspapers taken over and even student organizations banned. There was no outlet for grievances. In the aftermath of the stolen election in 1964, the disillusionment of 1965 war Ayub regime weakened and was brought to its knees by a popular protest led by students. Not ready to give in yet, the quad engineered a coup against Ayub. Ayub Khan abdicated and flouting his own tailor made constitution handed over the reins of the Government not to the speaker of national assembly but to the army chief. It became an explosive mix Genie could no longer be contained in the bottle.
The Quad felt that a general election would be the lesser risk and the parliament would anyway be hopelessly hung. They may well have been right in their calculation but a major political party (Maulana Bhashani's NAP) withdrew from the race because they felt that dealing with the after math of hurricanes was more important. Mujib’s Awami league a middle class party swept the polls in East Pakistan winning enough seats to form a government on its own. With the support of a few smaller parties from West Pakistan they commanded enough votes to pass a constitution of their choice. Now the cat was properly among the rats.
The Quad scrambled to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. They indulged in subterfuges, procrastinated and when they had transported sufficient number of troops launched a campaign of oppression and brutalization, which far surpassed the 1947 communal riots in ferocity. A Pakistani commander Lt General Tikka Khan, better known as the butcher of Bengal publicly claimed that he was interested in the land and not the people. Another of the butcher’s infamous declarations expressed the intent to change the genetic make up of Bengalis. I have not come across even a remotely similar intent to use rape of women as a measure of public policy. And these were Muslims terrorizing other Muslims.
Untold millions fled to India. Indra Gandhi the Indian prime minister after a skillful international campaign (Pakistan sent a foreign ministry official in her wake. He had difficulty getting appointment with even mid level officials) sent her army into East Pakistan and it ended in a rout of Pakistan army.
Bhutto, who had actively aided and abetted the heinous outrage in East Pakistan, emerged as the strong man of West Pakistan and his repugnant role in East Pakistan debacle notwithstanding, worked with great finesse to restore stability and common sense in what was left of the country. He got 90,000 POWs out of India without conceding much else than that all issues between India and Pakistan would be settled bilaterally- without third party intervention.
Bhutto was the scion of a feudal house and true to his class he established a personal dictatorship reminiscent of middle ages. He emasculated the nascent Pakistani capital by nationalizing industry and commerce wholesale, crushing whatever little prospect there was of a potent capitalist class emerging and overcoming the feudal class. He had pretensions of International leadership too and was lionized by Muslim rulers during the conference of Islamic states he had convened to boost the morale of the people. That also gave him the fig leaf to cover the acceptance of Bangla Desh. In his euphoria he overlooked the cardinal rule that you may crush your subjects under your heel but may raise your head to those in higher authority at your own peril. He stood up to the International capital. Even after the drastic set back and humiliation of the army in East Pakistan the Quad aided and abetted by International capital managed to oust and hang him. This time clergy played the leading role. What followed is the sickeningly familiar pattern of weak government between military rules.
Now we come to poverty, non-development and illiteracy in Pakistan. No doubt Kashmir, debacle in East Pakistan, adventure in Afghanistan, which introduced Klashnikov and heroin in Pakistan (prior to that the only heroines Pakistanis knew were the likes of Noor Jehan and Rekha), ethnic riots in Karachi, smoldering insurgency in Sindh and Baluchistan, the medieval tribal and clan misogynist social system and general break down of law and order played havoc with Pakistan’s economy. Population explosion eroded whatever little development had been achieved.
But these are all symptoms of an underlying disease and the disease is very chronic. It is compounded of bigotry, illiteracy, feudal system, lack of industrialization and socio/political un-awareness.
Let us tackle the prime parasite first. I call the army the prime depredator because they now control seventy five percent of commerce, trade and industry of the country and a good bit of land and real state. It needs Kashmir for its existence. It should be clear even to the meanest intelligence that the army cannot in any conceivable circumstances defeat India militarily and take over Kashmir. They could not even hold their own territory- East Pakistan. They are hard put to controlling the insurgents in Baluchistan. All they are capable of is that given an unarmed-lightly armed crowd they can mow them down-in an open field. They consume more than half the budget. Pakistan spends the least on health and education among even the least developed countries.
Feudals need the army. A truly representative government would swiftly take away their privileges and redistribute land. They were quite happy to serve under military dictators and would accept Mickey mouse as one US ambassador pithily put it, as long as they can continue with wine, women, murder and mayhem.
Bureaucrats need the feudals and army to sustain, support and nourish them. They would not in a democratic set up, be able to plunder the national wealth at will. (A few years ago Pakistan Link an expatriate UD based newspaper published the names of Dollar billionaires in Pakistan. Accompanying Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were the names of some army generals and two civil servants. Nawab Hoti had offered to swap his estates for one month’s take of Lt general Fazal Haq the military governor of NWFP’s one month take of drug and arms money).
Mullahs need all the above to impose their vision on all. A democratically elected stable Government would not let them trample upon women’s rights and permit unchecked and unregulated conversion of young men into raving maniacs. Nor would they be allowed to get millions of dollars from a degenerate Middle Eastern monarchy to run twenty two thousand schools to churn out zealots to propagate their brand of (intolerant) Islam.
True in acute conditions, one has to deal with the symptom first. If you have a fever of 106 it has to be brought down before making an attempt to diagnose the disease. Restoration of electoral process to the level it obtained after Zia’s dictatorship would be tantamount to giving aspirin for high fever and let it rise again and again. It will not even bring the social temperature down long enough for the country to recover even to a modest degree. It would not permit definitive treatment, as the disease carriers will remain in the seats of power. Drugs poured into the country would end up in the pockets of bureaucrats and army officers. Cure will depend upon diagnosis and definitive treatment.
A functional representative democracy cannot take root in Pakistan till feudal holdings are abolished, till there is far greater literacy, till there is industrialization, till fanatics and bigots are suppressed, till army is cut down to size. A representative government even as mediocre as that of Nawaz Sharif did try to develop friendship with India. India a Capitalist country would naturally be attracted to the potentially rich market that Pakistan is. It will help rejuvenate Pakistan’s capital. But would the quad accept it? Would they not fight to death? The recent show of friendship towards India is I am certain a subterfuge to ease the tremendous western pressure and an effort to escape the punishment likely to be meted out for indulging in nuclear proliferation and black market. After all the current army chief overthrew an elected government for trying to get his chestnut of Kargil out of hot coals. He of course does not say so. But Kargil was a devilishly clever plan. A military adventure, a few gains, international community forcing the civil government to order withdrawal, cries of betrayal, military coup – all finely turned and orchestrated.
A stable civilian government would have reached some kind of settlement on Kashmir many decades ago. It would hot have accepted the invitation to participate in big power clash in Afghanistan. At any rate it would not have wasted scarce national resources on a “commercial” army. It would have launched a vigorous family planning program. It would pay attention to education, health, industry and development of resource.
Confronting and overcoming the deeply entrenched and powerful interests is a tall order. It may never be filled. The quad will fight it rather than withdraw. They fought in East Pakistan to the bitter and humiliating end. They did not even tolerate the puny attempt by Karachites to develop a middle class party (it regrettably turned into a fascist group) and wiped out a whole generation of young men. When economic interests are involved religion, nationality, law and justice can all be set aside.
S.Ehtisham.
__________________________________
_________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)