Why Pakistan is not a nation and how it could become one : Pervez Hoodbhoy

[sparklingway]

Had Islam not been central to the creation of Pakistan, Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul would not have been able to invoke it for garnering support for a Muslim caliphate and they would not have been the darlings of our middle and upper class educated youth, we would not have had the Objectives Resolution as a guiding principle of our constitutions, Ziaul Haq would never have been able to pass retrogressive laws against women and minorities, our intelligence agencies and army would not have been suspected of links with the various jaishes and lashkars — not to speak of their well-documented grooming of the Taliban, our public schools would not have been a tool of retrogressive propaganda and we would not have had tens of thousands of religious seminaries, many of which produce violent jihadists.[/B]

It should have read that had ZAB been strong and net reached a compromise with the Islamic parties, had he been strong to rely on policies and not India-bashing and Islamist rhetoric, had he not been toppled and Zia not destroyed the country in the name of religion, and had there been no Farhat Hashmi, had this country been on a successful path to development and thus not creating delusions of grandeur amongst the minds of its people then there would not have been any Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul invoking support for a Muslim caliphate and they would not have been the darlings of our middle and upper class educated youth.

 

[toxic_pus]

It should have read that had ZAB been strong and net reached a compromise with the Islamic parties, had he been strong to rely on policies and not India-bashing and Islamist rhetoric, had he not been toppled and Zia not destroyed the country in the name of religion, and had there been no Farhat Hashmi, had this country been on a successful path to development and thus not creating delusions of grandeur amongst the minds of its people then there would not have been any Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul invoking support for a Muslim caliphate and they would not have been the darlings of our middle and upper class educated youth.

The wishful ‘what ifs’ aside, the blame lays squarely with Jinnah. He was the one who provided the ideological, as well as moral excuse to the latter generations to run the State in a slipshod manner that they are running it.

Jinnah ruled Pakistan, befitting a dictator. In the summer of 1947, he summarily dismissed the legitimately elected government in NWFP, of Dr Khan Sahib, the brother of Bacha Khan, and installed his own party. When this government failed to secure a vote of confidence, he simply had the dismissed members of Khan Sahib’s government arrested, and created an artificial majority. He then proceeded to dismiss another elected government; this time of Sindh, run by his own party. All these, and plenty more, had happened in barely 13 months of his rule.

Jinnah’s arrogance, condescendence for this peers and complete disregard for Constitution was captured by one of his comments to Mountbatten. After independence, Jinnah made himself the head of Muslim League, the Constituent Assembly and the Governor General, hardly the right way to go about when building a nation was of utmost priority. The post of Governor General was merely ceremonious, and was technically a post under the Queen. When Mountbatten reminded him of this, he is reported to have commented, ‘In Pakistan, I will be the Governor-General and the Prime Minister will do what I tell him’.

As Tarek Fatah laments in his book, Chasing A Mirage, ‘If Governor General Jinnah could dissolve provincial legislatures, surely, his successor argued, he could dissolve the federal legislature.’ You can hardly blame ZAB, Zia and all the later generations to follow the great patriarch’s footsteps.

 

[sparklingway]

The wishful ‘what ifs’ aside, the blame lays squarely with Jinnah. He was the one who provided the ideological, as well as moral excuse to the latter generations to run the State in a slipshod manner that they are running it.

He died before he could do anything substantial. No religious orders were passed, no Objective Resolutions. He clearly did not approve of and did not oversee any induction of religion in the matters of the state.

Jinnah ruled Pakistan, befitting a dictator. In the summer of 1947, he summarily dismissed the legitimately elected government in NWFP, of Dr Khan Sahib, the brother of Bacha Khan, and installed his own party. When this government failed to secure a vote of confidence, he simply had the dismissed members of Khan Sahib’s government arrested, and created an artificial majority. He then proceeded to dismiss another elected government; this time of Sindh, run by his own party. All these, and plenty more, had happened in barely 13 months of his rule.

The Coalition in NWFP represented a ruling party that was against the very creation of the state. The Sindh nationalists had entered into a big feud with ML and not just Jinnah. They viewed that Karachi had been "taken away" from them leaving them with nothing.

A nation created in haste, without any significant resources and suffering from a serious lack of political presence of the ruling government which rallied for its creation demanded a very challenging political environment and this led to some utterly unavoidable yet inherently right political acts.

Jinnah’s arrogance, condescendence for this peers and complete disregard for Constitution was captured by one of his comments to Mountbatten. After independence, Jinnah made himself the head of Muslim League, the Constituent Assembly and the Governor General, hardly the right way to go about when building a nation was of utmost priority. The post of Governor General was merely ceremonious, and was technically a post under the Queen. When Mountbatten reminded him of this, he is reported to have commented, ‘In Pakistan, I will be the Governor-General and the Prime Minister will do what I tell him’.

One can certainly question the decision of not letting Mountabatten be the Governor General and whether Jinnah's role as both head of the ML and Governor General set a precedent of kingmakers holding political office in Pakistan, it is ironic that you try to label it as something inherently wrong for Jawaharlal Nehru was the first PM or am I wrong?

Jinnah was no saint and should not be treated like one. However, I don't even care to provide a reply because this is the typical Bharat Rakshak vomit that I'm tired of replying to. I've read these words and statements originating time and again and after rebutting them thousands of times, everybody is so sick of them that they don't befit a reply.

As for the last quote from Fateh's book, and quoted most often in Indian books, it has no primary narrator that a historian could rely upon. An oral narration perhaps or even a intentionally misquoted statement.

 

[toxic_pus]

He died before he could do anything substantial. No religious orders were passed, no Objective Resolutions. He clearly did not approve of and did not oversee any induction of religion in the matters of the state.

Not my argument.

My argument, which you have conveniently evaded, is that he had provided ideological and moral basis.

The Coalition in NWFP represented a ruling party that was against the very creation of the state. The Sindh nationalists had entered into a big feud with ML and not just Jinnah. They viewed that Karachi had been "taken away" from them leaving them with nothing.

So?

Those were still publicly elected governments. In fact by justifying such unconstitutional dismissal of elected governments, you are loosing your moral ground to oppose any military take over in your country.

A nation created in haste, without any significant resources and suffering from a serious lack of political presence of the ruling government which rallied for its creation demanded a very challenging political environment and this led to some utterly unavoidable yet inherently right political acts.

These 'right political acts' (if dismissal of democratic governments can be called 'right political acts') created precedents for later generations to emulate, which is what my point is.

One can certainly question the decision of not letting Mountabatten be the Governor General and whether Jinnah's role as both head of the ML and Governor General set a precedent of kingmakers holding political office in Pakistan, it is ironic that you try to label it as something inherently wrong for Jawaharlal Nehru was the first PM or am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. In more ways than one.

The point is of subversion of power through encroachment of authority.

Jinnah was no saint and should not be treated like one. However, I don't even care to provide a reply because this is the typical Bharat Rakshak vomit that I'm tired of replying to. I've read these words and statements originating time and again and after rebutting them thousands of times, everybody is so sick of them that they don't befit a reply.

First time I heard of BR was when I started lurking here. May be those BR guys should make some donation to this forum for handling their PR with such efficiency.

I don't know what those BR guys yap about, but I sure realize, that you didn't get any head or tail of my post. I also understand, that equating every dissenting voice with BR, gives some Pakistani a sense of superior feeling. Best of luck with that.

As for the last quote from Fateh's book, and quoted most often in Indian books, it has no primary narrator that a historian could rely upon. An oral narration perhaps or even a intentionally misquoted statement.

And hence I qualified it as being 'reported', as in 'alleged'.

 

[thetomcruise]

How can Jinnah be secular. He was totally against the marriage of his daughter with a non-muslim (Parsi).

 

[muse]

How can Jinnah be secular. He was totally against the marriage of his daughter with a non-muslim (Parsi).

If proof was required that "deep thoughts" can be a disservice, see above. the thread makes for excellent, fun reading - What is this Nationhood so many speak of? In a multiethic, multi historical, multireligious polity such as Pakistan, what ought to be "nationhood"? Is it this "One___' fill in the blanks? Is there a mould Pakistan ought to fit into? Is Pakistan something new or some sort of recreation of something old?

Dr. Hoodboy says we need "economic justice" -- what is that? who and what can deliver that? If it's equality of opportunity I'm all for it, on the other hand, if it is yet another utopian device to assure equality of outcomes, lets not have any more of those failed ideas.

Personally I see Pakistan and in particular Pakistanis as a most refreshing and a very free society - don't get me wrong, I like to think I'm among the first to point out it's warts and short comings, but there another side to the coin as well, lets do be mindful of that.

 

[Solomon2]

If proof was required that "deep thoughts" can be a disservice, see above. the thread makes for excellent, fun reading - What is this Nationhood so many speak of? In a multiethic, multi historical, multireligious polity such as Pakistan, what ought to be "nationhood"? Is it this "One___' fill in the blanks? Is there a mould Pakistan ought to fit into? Is Pakistan something new or some sort of recreation of something old?

Dr. Hoodboy says we need "economic justice" -- what is that? who and what can deliver that? If it's equality of opportunity I'm all for it, on the other hand, if it is yet another utopian device to assure equality of outcomes, lets not have any more of those failed ideas.

Personally I see Pakistan and in particular Pakistanis as a most refreshing and a very free society - don't get me wrong, I like to think I'm among the first to point out it's warts and short comings, but there another side to the coin as well, lets do be mindful of that.

Do you have a song for us, muse?

 

[somya]

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever about wether Pakistan comes first for me or Islam... I am a muslim first and Pakistani after that . My faith (Islam) is not like any other faith but is a complete style of living which is more important to me then being a Pakistani , and also adding to that my faith (Islam) orders me to obey the laws of the land anyway. But if the state of Pakistan expects me to protect and give my life for a 'drunk politician' ...I ain't doin it.

some more like you and see your beloved country disintegrated.

If Pakistan is there then you exists and then your religion.

Soppose if Pakistan is invaded by some country of religion xyz, it will either kill you or simply you have xyz religion.

 

[Dance]

some more like you and see your beloved country disintegrated.

If Pakistan is there then you exists and then your religion.

Soppose if Pakistan is invaded by some country of religion xyz, it will either kill you or simply you have xyz religion.

I don't know why people compare religion to nationality, they're totally different things. I mean do ever hear Americans say I'm Christian first and then American, or even a person from any Muslim country? All I know is that I'm Pakistani first and last