All people, communities and nations create or identify heroes in history. A hero is admired by the followers as a person of exceptional calibre and achievements. He is viewed as possessing superhuman qualities enabling him to make an outstanding contribution to history, the society and the nation. Such men or women of excellence and extra-ordinary capabilities can be in all walks of life.
The nations and states, especially post-colonial states, have a tendency to create heroes. These heroes are needed as symbols of nationhood and they also serve as instrument for political mobilisation. The shared heroes and villains help the nation or a community to develop a sense of collective identity and cohesiveness.
Every nation rewrites history after attaining independent and sovereign status. Naturally, the historical events are interpreted in a manner to justify the existence of the nation-state. The focus is on describing and interpreting the events in a manner that serves the national agendas or the perspective of the writer. Some personalities and their contribution are highlighted while that of others is criticised or downplayed.
Invariably, it is the dominant elite in a nation-state or the society that endeavours to control the parameters of writing history i.e. how the historical developments are analysed and presented in a time-line series to justify certain developments and reject others. However, there is always divergent writing of history which may not completely agree with the interpretation of the dominant elite. The alternative perspectives on history help to recognise the richness and multi-dimensional nature of the past. The availability of new documents and evidence also changes interpretation of history.
The differing interpretation of historical events is best illustrated by comparing the histories of freedom movement written by Indian and Pakistani writers. The events like the Partition of Bengal (1905), the Nehru Report (1928), Congress rule in the provinces (1937-39), the Lahore Resolution (1940) of the Muslim League, and various constitutional proposals for the future of India, are interpreted differently by Indian and Pakistani historians. Indian writers view the Nehru Report as the leading document on the road to Indias freedom.
Most Pakistani writers are extremely critical of the recommendation of the Nehru Report and highlight Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnahs famous speech (1929), labeled as Jinnahs Fourteen Points, as a Muslim League rejoinder to the Nehru Report and a charter of Muslim political and constitutional demands. Similarly, the rest of the events, especially the developments immediately before and after the Partition of British India, are described differently by Indian and Pakistani writers. The British writers have their own views on these developments.
Pakistani historians view Mahatma M K Gandhi as the leading Hindu leader and invariably make critical comments because of what they describe as his anti-Muslim disposition and opposition to the establishment of Pakistan. Most Indian writers are critical of Jinnah and his close associates, often describing Jinnah as a communalist leader who caused the partition of motherland India.
All this makes the writing of history very important. Whether the writings are based on solid research or they reflect strong biases caused by inability to rise above personal and group political considerations, poor research and a lack of capacity for history-writing, and an ideological or political overload.
The writing of history is somewhat controversial in the nation-states where the parameters of nationhood are not fully shared by the politically informed people. The absence of a broadly shared consensus on the essential features of nationhood often cause controversies about interpretation of history and the role of different personalities and events. Invariably, the political and social controversies at a given time often influence the interpretation of history because those who want to assert them in the current context often try to control the past. Thus, history-writing is often biased by the on-going competing political and societal conflicts.
In Pakistan, the emphasis on Islam and Islamic order on literalist and orthodox lines in history writing increased after General Zia-ul-Haqs military government sought the cooperation of conservative and orthodox religious groups for legitimising military rule. Pakistans active participation in building Afghan-Islamic resistance against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan strengthened these trends. The international community, especially the United States, was supportive of these policies. Therefore, the process of selective use of history was initiated to justify this tilt. The resolutions of the All India Muslim League (1940-47) were often ignored and the religious slogans raised in connection with the 1946 provincial elections in Muslim majority provinces and the referendum in the Frontier Province in 1947 were highlighted as the key to Pakistans political and cultural profile. There were many efforts to project Jinnah as a highly religious person who wanted to create an Islamic-religious state.
In the current Pakistani situation, the conflicting visions of heroes and villains can be found in Karachi. Three political parties, the MQM, the PPP, and the ANP are competing to sustain and expand their political domains. Each party describes its activists as heroes. The activists of the rival political parties are described as villains, rogues and devils that extract money from the common people and engage in killing sprees. Consequently, these three parties have their exclusive heroes and villains and the MQM is often at war with the PPP and the ANP or vice versa. Unless these three parties develop a shared notion of who is hero and who is villain or rogue, the agony of the people of Karachi will not come to an end.
Talking of heroes and villains, one interesting episode is how of Pakistan and Bangladesh picked up different heroes from a single incident. In August 1971, Pakistans trainer pilot Rashid Minhas foiled the attempt by his Bengali instructor Matiur Rahman to take the trainer aircraft to India. The aircraft crashed and both died. Rashid Minhas was awarded the highest Pakistani gallantry award Nishan-i-Haider. Naturally, the Bengali trainer got projected as the villain.
However, in June 2006, on the request of the Bangladesh government, Pakistan returned Matiur Rahmans remains which were received at the Dhaka airport by the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and highest civilian and military officials. He was awarded the highest military award and buried with military honours. His heroic attempt to defect Pakistan was officially acknowledged by Bangladesh.
It interesting to note how heroes and villains are created and sustained but all nations and communities need a favourable historical account as well as heroes and villains to justify themselves and address some of the present day problems.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.
