|
There is no doubt that the people of the sub-continent have been led into a great betrayal. People of both countries were promised a better deal when they set out on their separate paths after independence from British rule more than six decades back but they still suffer from exploitation, poverty, illiteracy and social discrimination. Both India and Pakistan may have crossed many milestones of development over the past sixty years, but it is a fact that while both nations declared themselves as nuclear powers just a year after they turned 50, over the past six decades, the socio-economic condition of people in both nations has not seen much improvement.
It is this that makes people of the subcontinent feel betrayed. The vision presented to them has not been fulfilled and the promises made have not been kept. In both countries, there is still a yawning gap on all key fronts of social development - from basic health, education and provision of utilities to equal employment opportunities, rule of law, good governance and social justice. India and Pakistan are still at the bottom of the Human Development Index. Can we get to understand our present situation in all its complexity by studying the past? The answer to this question is simple and obvious. We can - in fact, we should - benefit if we make a deep analysis of the past. By looking at the way the subcontinent has evolved since its partition more than sixty three years ago, we can understand not only why we have reached where we have arrived today, we can also begin to see what we must do to better our future. The subcontinent's revolutionary Urdu poet, Habib Jalib, portrays the sacrifices made by the people of the subcontinent and their sense of betrayal after attaining independence from the British Raj, in the following couplet: Kahaan qatil badaltey hain, faqat chehrey badaltey hain ajab apna safar hai fasley bhi saath chaltey hain (Criminals do not change, only their faces change. Strange is my journey where the distances also move with me.) Ever since its birth, Pakistan has faced numerous fiascos ranging from the death of its beloved Quaid to the fake degree scandals of its elected representatives that is currently in the focus of public attention. In the last sixty three years, there have been many experiments and dissections that this nation has undergone. From the Marshal Law administrators to the Khadim-e-Aalas, everyone has played a pivotal role in stripping the nation of its jewels. In this trauma, if one cannot help the country out of this mayhem, one still wants to know the root cause of the current state of affairs. In other words, even if the disease is incurable, one still wants to diagnose. It must not be forgotten that this country has been a victim of treachery right from the beginning. There are two myths about our history that we should expel in order to understand more fully the way we have developed over the last seventy years, for it was in 1940 that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, by getting the demand for Pakistan articulated, launched the history of Pakistan. The first of the two myths deals with Jinnah's role not only in shaping Pakistan but also in influencing the history of all of South Asia. When those who write conventional history analyze the circumstances that led to the demise of the British Raj in India, they give much credit to Mahatma Gandhi and some to Jawaharlal Nehru as well. Gandhi is revered but Jinnah is ignored, if not reviled. Gandhi is said to have succeeded spectacularly in ridding India of the British while Jinnah's role is seen as that of a spoiler who prevented the British from presenting the gift of an undivided India. In this way, if one views the combined history of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, Jinnah emerges as the man who really shaped the future of South Asia. It will not be an exaggeration to say that if the stature of a historical figure is measured in terms of the magnitude of the change he or she brings about, then Jinnah is a much more significant figure in South Asia than either Gandhi or Nehru. The second myth is about the nation-building role of religion. When we read Jinnah's two-nation theory superficially, we conclude that it was based entirely on religious differences among the subjects of the British Raj in India. In reality, Jinnah was considerably more subtle. Speaking of two nations, he placed emphasis on cultural and social differences and not on religious practices. To quote his very lucid words from the speech made to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947: "You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state." If religion could unite, the Arab world would not be divided into so many nation-states. We should have recognized this when the Muslims of East Pakistan sought to preserve their separate cultural and social identity within the state of Pakistan. But the leaders found the Bengalis' claims repugnant. In spite of Jinnah's beliefs and actions, in spite of the circumstances that led to the experience with East Pakistan, we seem to have persuaded ourselves once more that religion is the glue that will overcome cultural and social disparity in what is left of Pakistan. A significant segment of the Pakistani leadership continues to believe that Islam alone will fashion a nation out of Balochis, Muhajirs, Pathans, Punjabis and Sindhis. Comprehension fails and logic ends when one sees how the two states that were established on the basis of religion have charged ahead on different courses in an equally unique and distinct manner. The state of India, despite claiming to be secular, is predominantly governed by religious parties. On the other hand, Pakistan, the state that chose religion as the basis of its existence, has never in its history given a chance to any religious party to govern. Does this not sufficiently prove that success lies in moderation? However, the student of history still asks that while India is making significant forward strides, why and where has Pakistan gone wrong? There were a number of factors that harmed the very roots of the nation. The ones who specialized in this were the Kala Saabs. It is an irony that we got rid of the Gora Saab but fell prey to their brown successors. From the very beginning of the independence movement, there was a league of men who had mastered the art of boot-licking the British. They offered their resources to serve their masters and betrayed the whole nation in the process. After independence, the same class fought and regained entry into the political arena. From the perspective of a historian, they were the minor players just like night watchmen in Test cricket, deserving to be mentioned as no more but footnotes. But they still hold significance as they opened the portals of power for the discredited Kala Saabs and the sidelined landlords. They straddled two horizons, that of the bureaucrat and of the politician. The edifice was further fortified with ‘political indigenization' introduced by Ayub Khan which brought the remaining Kala Saabs and landlords into the coalition of interest groups that was to govern Pakistan. Having cleared the historical slate of some of the myths that have dominated the story of Pakistan, it would be useful to ask a few questions about the factors that shape a country's development. In writing history, should we focus on the contribution made by the individuals who have dominated the political scene at various points or should we also emphasize the interaction among various social groups that were prominent in these sixty three years? How much significance should be assigned to the external factors to which the country's leaders may have responded? What is the influence of religion on the state of affairs and what are the influences of the state on religion? One factor that addresses all these questions is the leadership. There is no doubt that it is the people who shape events but people are not led by mere motives but by leaders who unite them. Leaders can act to preserve the status quo, to preserve order in society, or they can become revolutionaries and seek to change the order within which some sections of society have lived comfortably while others have suffered. The use of force can produce change but to sustain change, leaders need the active support of a large number of people who may be uncomfortable in the current state of affairs. An effective leader - in particular one leading change - must have the power to persuade and must not just swim with the tide. Some historians call this charisma. The masses in both India and Pakistan are frustrated after having been betrayed by their leaders through all these years. Today Pakistan and India need leaders who can understand the demands of the times by comprehending the nature of the extraordinary change that is occurring both inside and outside the region. If they do not manage to overcome the great problems South Asia is facing, they will set future generations on a dangerous future course. The following words of Habib Jalib depict the frustrations of the masses who have been betrayed by their leaders all through the years: Kisi rahber ko ab zehmat na doon ga maen khud apni qiadut mein chaloon ga (I will not bother any leader with the burden of leadership; I will become my own leader.)  The writer is the Founding Chairman, Moderates, a private sector think tank strengthening tolerance, interfaith harmony and democracy.
Syed Jawaid Iqbal is the Editor-in-Chief of Southasia Magazine. He is also the Founding Chairman of Moderates - a private sector think tank committed to strengthening tolerance, interfaith, harmony and democracy.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
