Its quite obvious liberals like Pervez Hoodbhoy would not have supported the creation of Pakistan in 1947. While its true that religious scholars differed on creating Pakistan, but each of their views were based on what they thought would have been the most beneficial for the Muslims of the subcontinent , for example many pro-Pakistan ulema abandoned supporting Pakistan after 1947 and similarly many anti-Pakistan ulema who had opposed Quaid e Azam previously supported creation of Pakistan after 1947. These changes of opinions were each scholars personal assessment of whether Pakistan was more advantageous or more disadvantageous to Muslims.
However liberals by definition can never support or be loyal to the concept of Pakistan and therefore they can be expected to utter trash like Hoodbhoy. We also must remember that Hoodbhoy has been a staunch supporter of the secularisation of Pakistan, but even he has to admit Pakistan's religious basis and ideology.
Sabrang Alternative News Network
Pak was born in a state of confusion: Hoodbhoy - Times of India
HYDERABAD: Pakistan is a nation that was born in confusion, is still in confusion but will move out of it in the future - hoped eminent nuclear physicist and author Pervez Hoodbhoy who has, for long, been a champion of the "secular state" notion. "Though I know that it is not welcome in my country and people who deviate from the notion that it is an Islamic state, are looked upon disapprovingly, I strongly feel that's what we need to head towards," Hoodbhoy reiterated.
He was speaking at a session on 'Reimagining Pakistan', organised as part of the ongoing Hyderabad Literary Festival. The Pakistani scholar was joined by Venkat Dhulipala, a US-based professor, historian and writer, on the dais.
The conversation about a secular Pakistan, took both the authors back in history - to the time of partition and Jinnah's fight for a separate "Muslim" nation. While Hoodbhoy spoke of Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a "confused" man whose idea of separating a Hindu nation from a Muslim one fell flat when "east Pakistan broke away in 1971" to form Bangladesh, Dhulipala, quoting from popular theories, painted the founder of Pakistan as a "secular person". "It has been a broadly accepted axiomatic truth that Jinnah wanted it (Pakistan) to be a European style nation state based on secular democracy. And if only he had stuck around longer, he would have been able to nurture that dream. Pakistan would have then emerged as a mirror image of India," the author of 'Creating a New Medina' stated.
Hoodbhoy politely disagreed. Elaborating on his views of Jinnah, the author said how "he didn't have a clue" about what he said or wanted. "On the one hand he spoke of all citizens - irrespective of religion - being equals
and on the other he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic State. Sadly, neither he nor anybody till date knows what an Islamic State is," the 66-year-old scholar said, pointing out to his co-panelist how his country, at one point, was indeed a mirror image of India.
"When I grew up in Karachi (he was born three years after partition) our neighbourhood comprised Parsis, Christians and Hindus. We all shared perfect goodwill - as was true of many other neighbourhoods. There were wine stores all over the city. It was actually just like Bombay (Mumbai)," Hoodbhoy reminisced, ruing how his country then "was very different from the country that it has become today".
Harping on the 1947 incident being an "unspeakable tragedy" that "separated people who at one time could live together in peace", the Pakistani writer sincerely prayed that Pakistan, one day, grows into a country where "every citizen has exactly the same right and privileges as of any other, irrespective of their religion, language, class or race".
Quote:
On the one hand he spoke of all citizens - irrespective of religion - being equals and
on the other he wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic State. Sadly, neither he nor anybody till date knows what an Islamic State is
