Pakistani Identity's Claim On Indian Heritage

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistani identity’s claim on Indian heritage | Pak Tea House

December 14th, 2011

By Amaar Ahmad:

There is a vociferous debate surrounding Pakistan’s national identity. Let there be no doubt that there will not be a Pakistani today more patriotic than the founder of Pakistan – Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On the 11th August, 1947, Jinnah addressed the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as the man who had led and inspired the Pakistan Movement. In his historic address, he does not shy away from mentioning “India”, in relation to the “Pakistani Identity”. In fact, his entire speech hovers around the task of building the Pakistani Identity. In his speech, he mentions “India” at least 10 times, very deliberately, very positively and very unapologetically.

We need not try to be more loyal than the king. In view of this unchallenged status of Jinnah, it may be prudent to examine his understanding of the identity of the country he made.There is a feeling that people are looking to construct a new identity for Pakistan. Some may describe Pakistan simply as the Anti-India as if the reason for Pakistan’s existence today needs a hostile India. But Jinnah clearly had a different understanding.

Following are ten quotes from the speech of Jinnah:

1. “…the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this Sub-continent.

2. “This mighty Sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled.”

3. “One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering – I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse – is bribery and corruption.”

4. “I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India…”

5. “…it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’sconstitutional problem.”

6. “Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”

7. “We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish.”

8. “Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago.”

9. “No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this.”

10. “…history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today.”

Let these words guide the objective reader to reflect. If one thing is evident from these quotes from the famous 11th August 1947 speech, it is the fact that “India”, the word, the name, the region, the culture, the history and the nation, are all very much part of the “Pakistani Identity”. Regardless of what name we give it – British India, United India, Undivided India, Pre-Partition India or the Indian Subcontinent – the fact remains that Pakistan was born out of it, as was today’s Republic of India. It appears that Jinnah almost identifies Pakistan with India.

In the ninth quote above “No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this” Jinnah treats the Indian Subcontinent as one nation about to be politically partitioned into two states. He clearly speaks of “a nation”, defining it by its strength of 400 million – the population of the Subcontinent rather than that of the emerging Pakistani state alone.

We need not search for any new Pakistani identity as the job has clearly been done by the founder of Pakistan. Pakistan is simply a country comprising the Muslim-majority states of the Indian Subcontinent. Pakistan is as much heir to the thousands of years of history and culture of the Indian Subcontinent as our neighbor Republic of India itself. This recognition is perhaps necessary to defang the extremists in both sides of the border.

 

[raavan]

pakistan does need some serious introspection . clearly it has not gone where jinnah expected it to go

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

6. “Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.

But still I wish both pakistan and India prosper and develop into worlds most powerful twin nations.

 

[Pakistanisage]

pakistan does need some serious introspection . clearly it has not gone where jinnah expected it to go

That may be true my Indian friend but then again neither is present day India a country that Gandhi Ji dreamed about. Is it now ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

pakistan does need some serious introspection . clearly it has not gone where jinnah expected it to go

Quite possibly; however, a comment on PTH goes as follows, and it is recommended to your attention:

sta brings us back to the proper theme, the shared heritage, which need not be rejected, nor be re-invented. The fault lies on both sides. On one side, there is this shrill insistence on the falsity of the premises on which Pakistan was created; on the other side, the knee-jerk, unthinking response which tries to implement a peculiar kind of cultural hijack, on insisting in equally silly manner that a part of this heritage is distinct and separate from the rest of it, and always was and always will be. Amaar Ahmed’s post is a timely reminder that these issues were foreseen and dealt with years earlier, by one of the clearest intellects on the sub-continent. No revision for the sake of revision is necessary.

 

[ares]

“Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”

How could you have known, when you never gave it a chance!!

Only disaster here was your idea to partition the country ..an act in which more than a million people died, ten million were left without homes(thousand time more than the people who have died riots in both the countries since partition...so for argument sake if there were riots in a united India, every singe year for next thousand years ...still you would not have been able to match the disaster which was partition.

 

[Pakistanisage]

“Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”

How could you have known, when you never gave it a chance!!

Only disaster here was your idea to partition the country ..an act in which more than a million people died, ten million were left without homes(thousand time more than the people who have died riots in both the countries since partition...so for argument sake if there were riots in a united India, every singe year for next thousand years ...still you would not have been able to match the disaster which was partition.

There are many in Pakistan who would whole heartedly agree with you along those lines, my friend.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I like your signature Joe.

 

[Joe Shearer]

“Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”

How could you have known, when you never gave it a chance!!

Only disaster here was your idea to partition the country ..an act in which more than a million people died, ten million were left without homes(thousand time more than the people who have died riots in both the countries since partition...so for argument sake if there were riots in a united India, every singe year for next thousand years ...still you would not have been able to match the disaster which was partition.

An example, without intending to be abrasive, of the kind of rhetoric that inspires myth-making by the other side.

There is little doubt that Congress intransigence at the time of the discussions on the Cabinet Mission Plan, and its going back on its commitments to the Mission and to the Muslim League, led to the reluctance adoption of partition as the only way left to be taken.

It is difficult to understand what is meant by "...your idea to partition the country..."; who, here, is 'your'?

---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 AM ----------

I like your signature Joe.

Unkil Google tells me to say 谢谢!

 

[Jade]

However it seems, at least to me, that both Pakistan and India have already chosen different paths. We are not 'twins' any more

 

[ares]

An example, without intending to be abrasive, of the kind of rhetoric that inspires myth-making by the other side.

There is little doubt that Congress intransigence at the time of the discussions on the Cabinet Mission Plan, and its going back on its commitments to the Mission and to the Muslim League, led to the reluctance adoption of partition as the only way left to be taken.

It is difficult to understand what is meant by "...your idea to partition the country..."; who, here, is 'your'?

"Your" in above refers to the Muslim league and its leaders for holding the nation to extortion ie "if you do not reserve certain seats based on religion..we will divide the country"..that is not..how democracy works!!

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

However it seems, at least to me, that both Pakistan and India have already chosen different paths. We are not 'twins' any more

Yes more like brothers in indian movies.

One becomes police inspector and other becomes a misguided gangster, but in the end ...........

But still India and pakistan are twin brother, born on successive days, just like twins are born with few minutes difference.

---------- Post added at 08:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

"Your" in above refers to the Muslim league and its leaders for holding the nation to extortion ie "if you do not reserve certain seats based on religion..we will divide the country"..that is not..how democracy works!!

Blame has to share equally by congress leaders who were also stubborn.

 

[ares]

Yes more like brothers in indian movies.

One becomes police inspector and other becomes a misguided gangster, but in the end ...........

But still India and pakistan are twin brother, born on successive days, just like twins are born with few minutes difference.

---------- Post added at 08:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------



Blame has to share equally by congress leaders who were also stubborn.

There are certain things in which one has to be firm..upholding democratic principles is one of them.

 

[Pakistanisage]

"Your" in above refers to the Muslim league and its leaders for holding the nation to extortion ie "if you do not reserve certain seats based on religion..we will divide the country"..that is not..how democracy works!!

With due respect, all Jinnah was asking was to protect the 35% status of Muslims that was a reflection of Muslim population in undivided India. Btw, many nations have this kind of arrangement where they find a formula to protect their rights based on their proportional representation ( Lebanon is a good example ).

Jinnah wanted to protect the Muslims from being runover by the Hindu majority as is the situation existing in present day India. Muslims are between 18 to 20 % of Indian Population ( I know India officially claims only 13.64%, but everyone knows that is an understatement) and yet they have fewer than 4% jobs in Indian Federal Govt ( Source: Sachar report ). It was this well justified fear of being overrun that reluctantly pushed Jinnah and Muslim league to demand Partition. Nehru could have prevented that by providing the constitutional gaurantees to Muslims, but he was more interested in breaking up the country to dilute Muslim voting power through partition. This is my 2 cents.

 

[ares]

With due respect, all Jinnah was asking was to protect the 35% status of Muslims that was a reflection of Muslim population in India. Btw, many nations have this kind of arrangement where they find a formula to protect their rights based on their proportional representation ( Lebanon is a good example ).

Jinnah wanted to protect the Muslims from being runover by the Hindu majority as it exists today in India. Muslims are between 18 to 20 % of Indian Population ( I know India officially claims only 13.64%, but everyone knows that is an understatement) and yet they have fewer than 4% jobs in Indian Federal Govt ( Source: Sachar report ). It was this well justified fear of being overrun that reluctly pushed Jinnah and Muslim league to demand Partition. Nehru could have prevented that by providing constitutional gaurantees to Muslims, but he was more interested in breaking up the country to dilute Muslim voting power through partition. This is my 2 cents.

My question is why??Why should there be reservation based on religion..why only for Muslims, why not for Hindus, Sikhs , Christians, Buddhists?

For thousand years Muslims kings ruled over Hindu majority India..we did not see any Hindus asking reservation of ministerial posts in Akbar's court.

Reservation is against principal of democracy ...if you are worthy leader ..you will be elected into power irrespective of religion...Electing a minority leader to parliament does not ensure the rights of minorities.