What’s wrong with Pakistan?

December 14, 2013

260

The difference between rhetoric and scholarship is creativity. True scholarship is neither a chronology of incidents nor a memory test for the readers yet it coerces readers to consider ‘out of the box’ elucidations. That is why it is always said that originality is essence while creativity is soul for a scholarship. Comprehending a process from mere results or ends is an old Machiavellian way in which conclusions are always used to explain the past. Keeping in view some admired popular books with catching titles published in the last 5 to 8 years under the influence of post 9/11 circumstances; one can easily differentiate between rhetoric and scholarship.

Babar Ayaz in his book ‘What’s Wrong with Pakistan’ talks about the genetic defect Pakistan is born with; a separate nation based on Islam. He argues that the leaders of this nation had formed Pakistan to gain their own ulterior motives, to keep the powerful minority in power. Jinnah and his comrades used religion merely to win support for the two-nation theory, even though many religious authorities at that time were against partition and in fact stood for a united India together with the Indian National Congress.

Linking the rise of Taliban or religious extremism with creation of Pakistan is an old rhetoric and from Mr. Kanji Dawarkads (Ten years to freedom) till Jaswant Singh (Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence) many Congress leaders and Indians have themselves deconstructed such saga. But in Pakistan we still have followers of such a myth and Babar Ayaz’s book is the best example to understand it. Although, the author used new references in this work, he missed important footnotes in many cases. He quotes on page 216 of his book, about a severe pressure from the owner of a leading Pakistani English Newspaper to down play the success story of the Geneva Accord (1988) on its Editorial. While commenting on the past, the author often did not bother to give any reference in support for this argument which is very strange. At page 108, the author claims that in 1951, out of total 95 federal government bureaucrats, 40 were from Punjab. At that time the total population share of Punjab was 27.7%. On the other hand, out of a total of the 95 bureaucrats, 33 were the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs who represented merely 3% of the total population of Pakistan. These officers did not have any personal affinity with Urdu but only exploited it to gain domination in the center.

Ayaz says that till 195, 35% of the top military elite were Punjabis and 40% were Pukhtoons. The author refers to Dr. Tariq Rehman to substantiate this argument, but fails to mention any reference from his book or paper.

From Pakistan movement, objective resolution, till Zia and the post-Zia era, the author tries to cover 65 years of Pakistani history yet his emphasis remains there to establish the initial ‘defect’ on the basis of which Pakistan was formed. He talks about how the Islamists pushed the weak Liaquat Ali Khan government into accepting the Objective Resolution which was biased against religious minorities. So he smartly not only pinpoints the Islamists in this case. It was the Finance Minister Ghulam Muhammad of Mochi Gate Lahore who opposed the Objectives resolution yet Liaqat Ali Khan, Moulvi Tammezudin Khan, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, Mowlana Shabir Ahmad Usmani, Sir Zufrullah Khan, Abdur Rab Nishtar were its staunch advocates. In the house of 75 members, only 31 participated in the historic voting, 10 people were against and 21 were in favor. In his interview, Chaudhry Nazier, Minister for Industries openly criticized Ghulam Muhammad for opposing Objective resolution by tooth and nail. Even influential people like the Editor of Dawn, Altaf Husain and Mowlana Mawdudi were against the Objectives Resolution.

Criticism against the Jihadi mindset is the main theme of the book, but instead of checking on it in the era after the 1965 war between Pakistan and India, he has usual love to find it somewhere else. He criticizes secular National Awami Party for objecting to the 2^nd amendment but did not even question the Islamic laws imposed in N.W.F.P by NAP’s handpick Chief Minister of Jamat-e-Ulema-e-Islam in 1972. In fact, ever since the defeat of India by China in 1961o up until the partition of Pakistan in 1971 from its Easter wing, Pakistan and India shared a decade of defeatist nationalisms (1961-1971) which jeopardized both states from within and only increased their reliance on non state actors. Indian leftist leader Mrs. Shabnam Hashmi accepted this fact in 2004 when she visited Lahore and Krishan Kumhar mentioned the rise of anti-peace mindset during the early 1960s in his famous book “Pride & Prejudice: school histories of the freedom struggle in India and Pakistan” in 2002.

But Ayaz clearly has no interest in such facts because it only renders his thesis of ‘genetic defect’ weak. On the one hand he is against military dictatorship and criticized General Zia but instead instead of criticizing General Pervez Musharaf, another military dictator, he draws similarities between Jinnah and Musharaf. The book seems to be written and published in haste as it has so many errors, incomplete sentences and even wrong foot notes. It does rightly point out the hypocrisy of Pakistani leaders, yet fails to be completely honest itself.

Book Excerpts

Excerpt 1:

“There is broad consensus amongst the intelligentsia that for years the establishment has supported and nourished the extremists. Saudization of our otherwise tolerant Islam in Pakistan has nourished intolerance in the country. They agree that all sects have a right to believe in their own interpretation of Islam, but nobody should have the right to preach hatred against another sect.”

Excerpt 2:

“What Jinnah did not understand was that Bengali was the language of 54 percent of Pakistanis and had a history older than that of Urdu. It was naive to think that Bengali could be relegated to a secondary position while Urdu, the language of 3 percent Pakistanis, could be given the status of the national language.”

Excerpt 3:

“All the Sindhis were looking for, by supporting the cause of Pakistan was autonomy, the right to rule their province. But soon after Pakistan was made, they were in for a rude shock. The Muslim League leadership, which was dominated by the Punjabi and Urdu-speaking elite, did not accept the fact that Pakistan is a multi-ethnic country…”

Excerpt 4:

“The demand that NWPF, which was just a strategic name given by the British, be changed to Pakhtunistan or Pakhtunkhwa was a red-herring to the establishment that felt that it would be a step towards seccession.”

Excerpt 5:

“The anti-Ahmadi laws were inserted into Pakistan’s Constitution by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and further expanded by General Zia by amending the Penal Code. Zia’s hand-picked Parliament amended the Criminal Procedure Act of 1886 by introducing Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1986 under which the expanse of the blasphemy laws was broadened.”

Excerpt 6:

“That Afghanistan is Pakistan’s neighbor has been a blessing for the military dictators, smugglers, drug mafias and gun-runners. For the people of Pakistan the ramifications of these ‘blessings’ have been prolonged dictatorships; increasing terrorism; rising extremism; large number of drug addicts; weaponization of the society to the teeh; above political instability and colossal economic loss…”