Pakistan Today

The past that wasn’t

Before Pakistan makes the cultural choice of going back to the glory of its mythical past, it must remember that that past never existed

Nationhood is a cultural artefact. It mixes political thought with literary expression to define geographical and ideological boundaries in which a people reside. With time, the factual historical content becomes irrelevant. What remains is a myth.

We celebrate March 23 as the day on which the “Pakistan Resolution” was adopted in Lahore in 1940. It is irrelevant now that the resolution was renamed and made no mention of “Pakistan”.

Textbooks are an important method of disseminating that myth. “India is our traditional enemy and we should always keep ourselves ready to defend our beloved country from Indian aggression,” 11-year-olds are taught.

The creation of Pakistan is justified with the two-nation theory – the idea that Muslims and Hindus in the subcontinent were two separate nations. India is the Other, without which there is no We. This national narrative defines a goal (security) and an enemy (India) and in doing so makes possible a meaningful co-existence of a diverse people who refer to themselves as a nation.

“As a general rule, Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows delivered at the right time and the right place,” said a directive by president Ayub Khan to General Muhammad Musa, the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Army, on August 29 1965 just before we began a war with India (Annexure G to GHQ Letter 4050/5/MO-1). To the utter surprise of then foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had drafted the text of the order, that turned out to be false.

By that time Pakistan had already begun Operation Gibraltar. On August 5 and 6, hundreds of poorly trained ‘mujahids’ were into the Indian-held Kashmir with no clear goals with the expectation that Muslims of Kashmir will join them and revolt against the Indian government. That would legitimise a Pakistani troop movement into Indian-held Kashmir (like a similar situation legitimised the movement of Indian troops in 1971 into what was then East Pakistan). Unfortunately for them, that did not happen. Muslims of Indian-held Kashmir did not share the same narrative as Muslims of Pakistan. It took them another 35 years of oppression to realise they needed to rebel.

India’s attack on Lahore on September 6 was therefore not a sudden act of aggression on an unaware neighbour, as Pakistani textbooks claim, but an unexpected retaliation. A plan approved by the Indian Cabinet in 1949 for such a situation, said “Indian troops in Kashmir would seek to contain the opposing forces while the main Indian field army made a determined and rapid advance towards Lahore and Sialkot.” That is exactly what they did. “The primary aim of this strategy,” according to A Wright, “was to inflict a decisive defeat on Pakistan’s field army and, along with the possible occupation of Lahore, to compel the Pakistan government to seek peace.” In the ensuing see-saw battles in and around Lahore and Sialkot, the Pakistan army did a very good job at defending its territory, but they did nothing that could even be remotely regarded as a victory.

Instead of learning lessons from tactical and strategic mistakes in the war, Pakistan responded by spiritualising its military objectives – an approach that led to the eventual goal of pan-Islamism and the belief that the Pakistani army was destined to restore Islam’s lost glory.

Muhammad bin Qasim is revered as the first Arab Muslim to arrive and conquer Sindh. Hardly anyone knows that he was called back, tortured and put in prison, according to one group of historians while the other group says he died while being transferred to Syria, wrapped in animal hides. Muslim conquerors did not arrive in the subcontinent with a common goal of propagating Islam, but got thousands of people killed in mutual battles for power.

Before Pakistan makes the cultural choice of going back to the glory of its mythical past, it must remember that that past does not exist. If we return to it, we will only serve kings and emperors who claim divine support and exterminate thousands of Muslims who do not agree with them.

The writer is a media and culture critic and works at The Friday Times. He tweets @paagalinsaan and gets email at harris@nyu.edu

Exit mobile version