The drawbacks of over-idealism by Afzal Tahir
 |
| Afzal Tahir |
The partition of British India during 1947 was thought to be the
perfect prescription to settled-down the contesting ideologies and arguments
with the expectations for peaceful future of the region, paving the way for
progress and prosperity of common people, the ultimate goals and objectives of
the freedom. The facts on ground after almost 63 years telling a different
story, which by no mean reflect any real change to the common people on the
streets.
I wonder how one would divide history
of a land except to recognize its historical stages. The term, “The India”, or
“the Hind” originate itself from the very land presently known as Pakistan .
The historical accounts are very clear: “The etymological roots of the
term ‘India ’
lie in a Sanskrit word, sindhu, meaning river frontier. The earliest
sacred text of India ,
the Rig-Veda, speaks of a land called Sapta-Sindhava, which can be identified
as the province of Punjab India to
refer to the land around and beyond the river. So ‘India ’ is actually a Greek expression: no native
in ancient India would
have thought of using this term.” There fore the term hindu originally coined
as people of India rather
than a religious community.
The land always remain the same,
carry its history forward, but the people may change, their faiths, cultures,
habits might evolved to a new shape, but they can not change the history
of the land. The India remains
same; Sindh remain same; Hijaz remain same and the Egypt remains
same in spite of the fact that these political entities had or has been
remain parts of political arrangements of the Empires for more then
thousands of years.
The people come and bring along
with their cultures, faiths, habits, prejudices, knowledge and skills enriching
the new land, and learning from their new homeland and new people. Their
previous lands become history while the present become a reality of their new
ID, except those who had come for their temporary assignments to safe-guard the
interest of an alien powers. The Arabs came to Sindh, had contributed to
it, and been benefiting from it. So, it is always both ways.
Robert Trivers, in his book
[Social Evolution:1976] while expanding his evolutionary theory of
self-deception: “hiding the truth from the conscious mind the better to hide it
from others. In our own species we recognize that shifty eyes, sweaty palms
and croaky voices may indicate the stress that accompanies conscious knowledge
of attempted deception. By becoming unconscious of its deception, the
deceiver hides these signs from the observer. He or she can lie without the
nervousness that accompanies deception.”
“By becoming unconscious of its
deception, the deceiver hides these signs from the observer”. This is more true
to those Pakistani writers, intellectuals, educationists, politicians,
campaigners and journalists, popularly known as ‘gharrit brigade’. Though there
is a section in India , the
opposite side of the same coin, the ‘gharrit brigade’ but to my knowledge, they
do not carry any weight among the general masses of the Indian society.
A person is a product of his/her
atmosphere. I would be certainly the product of my daily observations; the
newspapers I read; the radio I listen; the TV I watched, the workplace, my
community and the level of socialization. Therefore, the writers,
intellectuals, educationists, politicians, campaigners and journalists are the
main contributors in the process of making and shaping of a society. To prove
the point to a specific political landscape such as Pakistan , the
opinion makers are equally responsible for its downward trends and
backwardness.
The debate attracted by Nawaz
Sharif’s speech on August the 13th, 2011 at the Safma seminar “Building Bridges
in the Subcontinent”. The leader of Pakistan Muslim League (N) and
ex-Prime Minister, while promoting his idea of historical and cultural
similarities for better understanding of the people of both countries for their
mutual gains and benefits, in opposition to the policy of conflict and
confrontation, that is been tried and tested for last 63 years, offering
nothing in content and substance, but promoting and strengthening a policy of
self-defeating and self-destructive.
It is difficult to argue
the case in a situation where the artificial norms been styled and exhibited by
the forces of vested interests from behind the curtain, contradicting the rules of
their own statue books, leaving no space for a debate that must reflect the
balance picture of a society. The culture of prejudging the opposing argument
by evoking and attracting the emotions and sentiments of the innocent masses,
always contribute to the forces of stagnation, and, eliminating the natural
trends of creativeness and innovation, ultimately leading towards anarchy and
destruction. Poor Nawaz Sharif landed into a hot-water just because he
tried to speak his mind which do not fit with the forces of the status queue.
The hostility between India and Pakistan directly producing
strength and benefits to those, who always has been the champion in favor of the so-called ‘ideological borders’ rather than the reality of the day.
Is it possible for someone to deny the fact that both India and Pakistan do
own the same culture and civilization, of course with variables of its own
nature? There is no such evidence to support that the sectarian
prescription of Indian Sub-Continent deprived one party of its historical
heritage against the other or either one opted out of its own indigenous
civilization. The late Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Z. A. Bhutto, once
while reacting to the question of his Country’s intention to go nuclear, said
to his interviewee by questing: “Is it possible that we will destroy our own
civilization? Is it possible that we will destroy Taj Mhal or Red Fort?”
Even I had seen politicians in Pakistan while
addressing public rallies, still use proverbially the entire India as
one political entity, “the people are united with us from Kanya Kumari to
Khabir.”
The irony that both countries own
the same civilization and cultural heritage, yet constantly failed to discover
new fields of cooperation and friendship. On the contrary, they discovered the
recycling-process-of-fuel for a hate-machine, and to keep this machine running,
a ready-made tool, an “ideology-of-Pakistan’s” rhetoric. The subject ideology
has proved to be a slow poisoning of the masses, particularly in Pakistan , so
that the vested interest could continue plundering of their resources by
creating a fear of national security.
There is no rational to
understand the benefits out of the subject position, which is by keeping
themselves limited to the stated positions and contested issues. The innovative
and creative aspects in bilateral relations always demand to avoid contested
issues by focusing on non-contested sides so to make the bilateral relationship
more result oriented. It is a tried and tested strategy in the field of conflict resolution. There are hundreds of examples, such as US-China ,Saudi Arabia -UAE , IRAN Pakistan !
If we rely on an empirical evidence, one would notice no benefits at all except to promote hatred against all those who happened to be none-Muslims
Pakistanis; those Pakistanis, who do not subscribe to any fake
ideology; to block any rational thinking among masses; to create conditions so
to keep the masses constantly in fear of terror, intimidation, ignorance and
poverty.
As early as late 1920,
British was planning to built railways from Madras to Peshawar, which mean they
were having proper understating of the future economic trends and growth. On
contrary, the successive governments always played in the hands of
reactionaries, depriving the people of their mutual benefits and gains, a
drawback in the partition prescription rather then complementing.
The fact that millions [7249000
from Pakistan and 7226000 from India] had been migrated during 1947 from
each side, leaving behind relatives, properties, graveyards of their loved ones
and the memories of their childhood, but, are unable to meet each other
freely. In addition, instead of reducing the hardship for the citizens of both
countries, the successive governments has been busy in erecting further
artificial barriers, in spite of the fact that there is no visible benefits to
the people for last 63 years, except to build military machines which are the
main reasons for mismanagement, underdevelopment and poverty.
One would certainly recognize the
fact that Nawaz Sharif has finally reached to the conclusion by identifying the
facts: where the problems lie? And instead of playing to the stage-manage
so-called popular galleries, stood-up to face the challenge, so to explore the
polices that have been constantly dictating and distorting the facts by taking
refuge among the forces-of-hatred, and, instead, want to take the debate to the
men on streets.
 |
| N.Sharif shacking hand with Mushraf |
The true emergence of a
leadership is through the process of creativity and innovations. In this sense
Mr. Sharif proved to be ready to walk through the thorny path, so to lead his
people out of the stalemate-of-hatred by introducing new narratives of
inclusive-thinking on the national, regional and international level which
undoubtedly would guarantee the fruits to all people of the region.
It is an encouraging sign by
observing the evidence of a wide spread support in favour of Nawaz Sharif’s assertion, both among general masses as well as intelligentsia. The writers,
intellectuals and journalists while supporting his argument are of the view
that, “Nawaz Sharif has truly interpreted Islam and the ideology ofPakistan in
the right perspectives, and by rationalizing the bilateral relationship which
is his duty as the leader of the second largest party” (Nazir Naji, Atul. Huq
Qasmi). "The Country that still lingering on of its creation
question! almost 63 years now, could be only ours: The Islamic Republic of
Pakistan" (Ayaz Amir).
There are those of ‘gharrit
brigade’ who had attacked Nawaz Sharif by suggesting that
he is withdrawing from the “ideology” of Muslim League and betraying the
guidelines that had adopted by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azad Muhammad Ali
Jinnah, which is, as they claimed, is the ideology of two nation theory. They
are of the opinion that our “Allah” “Prophet” and “Qur’an” are different
from them ignoring even the fact that there are more Muslims living in India then in Pakistan . There
fore they demanded from Mr. Sharif, to withdraw his statement and to apologize
from the people of Pakistan (Cross
Fire of Dunya TV).
A piece published in The News
International (Pakistani daily) with the title ‘no way to build bridges’
(Asif Ezdi, August 29, 2011) required a detailed response, both from
political and theological stand point. The points in his piece are as
follows:-
1: “Media attention has focused mainly on some of his observations which seem
to question the basis of Pakistani nationhood.”
2: “- his statement is offensive. And it is untrue because, though the Muslims
and Hindus lived on the same soil for centuries, they inhabited two different
spiritual worlds. Nawaz was in fact repeating many of the points made by
the Congress Party of India – and refuted by the Quaid-e-Azam – during the Pakistan movement.”
3 “The Quran says something very different in Surah al-Kafirun: The believers
worship not that which the non-believers worship, nor do the non-believers
worship that which the believers worship. Nawaz should also know that the
Muslims do not perform puja, as the Hindus do, but ibadat.”
The above traditions tells us
some thing about nations and narrations, because Prophet called Ansar a Nation.
What was Ansar? A socially and racially group of a people who had evolved
together may be over a period of thousands of years. So, in a primitive
societies, people identify themselves with their own tribes, as nation. This is
the case even today. Waziri Qoom, [Wiziree Nation] Shanwari Qoom [Shanwari
Nation] etc. The Sindhis, Pashtoons, Punjabees and Blooch are nations and Pakistan is
a state of these nations in the shape of federation. British India was divided in to two states not two
nations. There fore, in my opinion, the correct term is two states solution,
not the two nations theory or the ideology of Pakistan . There fore both India and Pakistan are
states, one is a Union which is
comprises of different nations and the other is a federation comprises of
different nations too. The believe system of a people and the objective
realities which are directly accessible to human sensory tools to be verified,
are two different aspects and can not be mixed together.
Mr. Ezdi’s second point
shows a lack of his understanding of a society in its proper context. To study
a society one has to rely on sociology and anthropology. Living on the same
soil: is an anthropological and sociological question. Mr. Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal
to the best of my knowledge never demanded to change the basic laws of
physics. When he himself suggesting “living together”, means they are a
social group. The point is that no group of a people is absolute in terms of
its unity and separation. There is a degree of unity and separation between
husband and wife, between brothers and sisters and between the members of the
UN. This is where the utopias and fanatics go wrong. Living together is a
socially grounded life with its own diversity. The diversity of faith or
religion is one. Like race, colour and gender, religion is an exclusive aspect
of human life. Its membership and association is voluntarily. It can not be
limited to a geographical or political entity. There fore it is
international in nature. The State and Nations are inclusive narratives,
socially grounded, and confined to a specific geographical location. Its
membership is limited to its citizens only and it is an inclusive
institution. This is modern world we are living in. It is not the Empires
and the subjects. There fore the problem is that there are those of the
Pakistanis still confused because of the writers like Ezdi. They are
living in the reality of a-state-and-citizen relationship, yet believing as
a-subject-of-an- Empire. Let us see what Mr. Jinnah himself was of the view:-
 |
| Mr. Jinnah the founder of Pakistan |
"It is Business of Every
Nationalist to Find Solution of Hindu-Muslim Problem said Mr. Jinnah. (From
our special Correspondent)
Mr. Jinnah at first declined to
say anything in the interview but after a prolonged conversation with the
correspondent, in which the political situation was discussed closely and
minutely, he made the following statement to the special correspondent:-
“At present I do not want to say
anything” said Mr. Jinnah, “more than what I had already said in my
recent interview, that I have placed my views before His Excellency the Viceroy
before he left for England and
I have also taken the liberty of communicating them to the Prime Minister
personally. Under these circumstances you will not expect me to say
anything more than that a great deal will depend upon what decision His
Majesty’s Government come to with regard to the serious deadlock that is
created in India at present”.
“I want the public to look upon
the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement,” added Mr. Jinnah, “not as
communal question, but as a national problem. And to find a solution of
this problem is, in my opinion, the business of every Nationalist, be he a
Hindu or a Muslim or of any other community. It is question purely
of safeguarding the minorities which is causing anxiety and trouble, not only
in India but
the world over. As you must have observed the league of Nations is at
present seriously engaged with regard to minority questions in various States
of Europe. Every country where there is a minority question, it had
to tackle it in a manner which gave a sense of security to the minority.
The fitness and successful working of any constitution depends upon how far the
majority is able to carry the minority with them and thereby give them a sense
of security in any constitution that may be framed. And we have to
solve the problem in our country according to our conditions, so that the path
of progress on democratic lines may be smooth and lead us to the goal of true
representative Government in India .”
Mr. Jinnah left tonight for Bombay by the
Frontier Mail. Before he left he was entertained to a dinner party at Lahore by Diwan
Chaman Lal M.L.A."
[The Tribune Lahore , Wednesday, July
17, 1929, British Library SM-13 ]
One can see how futuristic and
forwarding looking was Mr. Jinnah. “It is question purely of safeguarding
the minorities which is causing anxiety and trouble, not only in India but
the world over”. To see Mr. Jinnah’s argument and today’sPakistan and
make your own judgement.
The Qur’an can not be interpreted
literally. Those who try to interpret literally, are known as literalist, where
as we all know that the main steam Islam is non-literalist. The exegesis
strictly based on texts do not solved the problems. There is a long history of
intellectual reasoning which involved many aspects including the linguistic
exegesis. The term ‘Kafir’, means to hide where as the term believers can not
understood without taking into consideration historical linguistic evolution
and objective conditions of the time and the specific verse for specific
purpose or specific time [asbab-al-nazool-al-Qur’an]. The time and again, the
term ‘believers’ repeated itself in Qur’an. The commentators and jurists
are not enlightening us, though few exceptions. It was the counter argument to those
of that time who were constantly disputing Prophet’s claim of prophesy and
calling him the blasphemer. So the Qur’an was trying to make a distinction
between those who believe in Prophet in opposition to those who were claiming
to be the guardian of religion of the time and the self-righteous-one like many
now-a-days among Muslims, especially in Pakistan .
Every thing is subject to change,
evolve, adjust and accommodate. “On account of his dualistic and
contradictory nature, man, this dialectical phenomenon, is compelled to be
always in motion. … How disgraceful then, are all fixed standards. Who
can ever fix a standard? Man is a ‘choice,” a struggle, a constant
becoming. He is an infinite migration, a migration within himself, from
clay to God; he is a migrant within his own soul.” [Ali Shariati, On the
Sociology of Islam]
Let us now see the question from
purely a theological angle. Linguistically speaking what is the difference
between ‘puja’ and ‘ibadat’? Mr. Jinnah himself used the same language
while addressing both Mr. Gandhi and Moullana Azad, ‘gentlemen have you
finished your prayers so that we could move for the business’. He never
called, differently to Moullanas and other worshipers. As we speak, we call all
the religious people of their prayers. So what is the fun between ‘puja’ and
‘ibadat’?
Theologically speaking, the
fundamental of Muslim believe system rest squarely on the notion that there is
only one God. One for Muslims, one for Hindus, one for American and so on
is directly in opposition to the Muslims’ believing system. In Islam any one
believing more than one God is come under sehrik (more then one God). The
question that how one would express his/her relationship with God is totally a
different matter, and so far Muslim believes system is concern; there is only
one God for every one. Similarly, among Muslims, no one believes that
there is any other prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I think Mr. Red
Hat (Cross Fire), might do because he himself is Caliph of his prophet, late
Yousuf the Kazab. There fore, Prophet of Islam is, too, for the
entire universe, that is why the title for the prophet is
“ramut-o-lil-alimeen”. Not for one community or two. The point that how one
would choose to express it, is, up to the individuals, and to my knowledge all
Muslims believes that Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and for all universe
and all people. So far the question of holly Qur’an is concern, it too
claims itself the last book, recognizing all the previous scriptures. How do we
know the previous books? There are books with Jewish, Christians,
Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, yet, our claim is that there had been more
then hundreds of thousands of Prophets before the last Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Where are the rest of the books then? Certainly we are not
suggesting that the Prophets without books?
The early Muslims, historically
speaking, were always flexible and rational when ever encountered the question
of interpretation of scripture, faith, values, norms or moral questions. They
along with Jewish and Christian also Sabians been recognized as the people of
book. Similarly, they appreciated that the Zoroastrians of Iran and the
Hindus of India, both people with their own extensive scriptural heritages,
should also qualify for that status. Muhammad al-Qasim wrote to Hijaz and he
replied him after the approval of the Caliph that they, too, are same like
Jewish and Christians and should be treated with same yard-stick.
There were some critics who tried
to use Kashmir issue to criticise Nawaz Sharif by suggesting that his
statement received very negatively at Srinagar .
This position is mostly taken by people from Jamat-e-Islami or pro-military,
ignoring the fact that Kashmiri do not believe in racism. The basic of
their struggle is the restoration of their historical political entity.
Their claim is not because of an ideology or faith. All Kashmiri believe
that the State belong to all its citizens, regardless of colour, ethnicity,
gender or faith. They want Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu Kashir to
be reunited and make it an independent state. As I have mentioned
above that the religion is “an exclusive aspect and expression of human
life, voluntarily in association and membership, can not be limited to a
geographical location” where as “the State is must to a define geographical
location, must inclusive to all its citizens. The association and membership is
limited to its citizens only”. There fore Kashmiri do not mix religion
and politics. Both are necessary to human life but both play a different role. The
American Muslim can not be a Saudi, India or Pakistani. Similarly
the Indian can be a Pakistani, Saudi, Irani, French but all of them could be
Muslims.
Finally, the question of separate
hero, is a variable term and can not be used out of its specific context. If
one is suggesting of a separate hero, does not legitimize the basis of an
absolute separation or unity. For example Imran Khan was Captain of Pakistani
team when they were able to won the world cup. The Pakistani team from
Pakistani domain went to contest world cup, so after winning, the team and the
captain automatically emerged as a world hero. The hero of the people of the
world, but certainly the persons belongs to a specific location.
 |
| Dr. Iqbal |
I would like to end with the
Qur’anic verse ‘Verily God will not change the conditions of men, till they
change what is in themselves.’ [13:12] “If he does not take the
initiative, if he does not evolve the inner richness of his being, if he ceases
to feel the inward push of advancing life, then the spirit within him hardens
into stone and he reduced to the level of dead matter.” [Interpretation of
verse (13:12) by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in
Islam P-12]
No comments:
Post a Comment