|
But for our old bungling bureaucrats like Shahid Javed Burki, who are still immersed in the traditions and mindset of the old raj and a united British India being the progeny of the servants of the old raj but unfortunately still delegated by our GOP to represent our ''nationhood'' in the lands seven seas across still fail to perceive that sindh wa hind have been two different entities, since times now lost in the human memory but very much so alive in the old books of reference.
It was never a question of a two nation theory based on the religious factor of a Hindu Muslim divide, rather had 'SJB' (Shahid Javed Burki) taken some time out in his past life and had burnt some mid night oil to read and taxed his eyes too and not the ears and entered the lanes of a library well stocked, still with books and an inquisitive mind to seek the information required and bothered to educate himself and studied the old chronology of our lands much distorted by the Hindu Brahman and his friends of the seven seas beyond, SJB would have been surprised to find that we became Muslims only 1200 years back and yet have a distinct past which can put to shame all other civilizations much hyped today.
SJB too must read that our language is totally distinct from the rest of British India and the dialects too are all based on one mother tongue, our dress and insignia too, the customs and traditions too, but, for the act of 1935 and it's clause of federation imposed on us which still lingers in all our constitutions without any rhyme or reason, the question is who created and imposed on us, the geographic entities? Sindh became Sindh after the annexation by British East India Company. Punjab was so named after the annexation of 1849.
Baluchistan first became British Balluchistan then the whole chunk earlier it was the Nizamate of Kalat, a break up of old Multan suba in 1740 by Nadir Shah and part of the Iranian empire till 1747. NWFP is only of recent past 108 years ago. As for our heart of the Sindh valley the Northern areas, it still adheres to the British prescribed name but the books, the ready reckoner's of past tell a different history. The books I refer to are those on the historical geography of our lands which speak a contrary story to the recently created epic of Mahabharata by the Hindu Brahman and what do these ''Burki'' know of our past themselves, but the recent immigrants from Jullendar? And the still lording over us but for a well endowed legacy which refuses to end, bestowed upon themselves by themselves, by well entrenched bureaucrats of their own kinship.
Unfortunately we have been victims of having been taught history in reverse order. The fault lies with our past governments who failed to retrieve our past. They seconded this task to those who where as clueless as the persons who had entrusted them with the jobs, the likes of 'SJB', themselves the products of English medium schools, a system which has failed to infuse what is called the motivation for a nation which has just had a re-birth after a long hibernation. Though we the old tribes of the Sindh valley which have lived in all the ''vicissitudes'' of time have yet to shake off the slumber and reclaim what is ours and defend it, we must too, do away with the imposed schooling system much endowed by the donors. A a certain class which reaps its rewards have now become their masters voice in defending it as such.
The GOP too, is requested to send in future to all such like forums person well versed in our past history and our ideology to counter the allegations on our nationhood by the clever & cunning Hindu intellectuals and the unwitting Westerners who are as always be fooled by the fallacious gib twin tongue of the Hindu. A request to 'SJB' please read before you blunder to write on us in future.
The idea of Pakistan
By Shahid Javed Burki
THERE cannot be any doubt that Pakistan is experiencing a difficult period. The crisis through which the country is passing in its sixth decade as an independent state is perhaps the most difficult it has seen in its exceptionally turbulent history.
The economy is in a state of freefall. It is hard to tell when and where it will stabilise. The political situation is defined by problems that show personal ambition prevailing over national interests.
It is hard to tell where this conflict will take the country. There is a war raging in the country's northwest between the government's forces and those who have an entirely different way of looking at the way Pakistani society and state should evolve.
The state's response is understandably restrained. It does not wish to harm those who are caught for reasons of geography in the middle of this conflict. The other side, motivated by an ideology in which it places total faith, is not inhibited. On the international front, 'contempt' and 'extreme unease' are perhaps the best way to describe how the world sees Pakistan. How it would react to the development taking place in Pakistan is hard to predict especially when the reins of power will be transferred soon in Washington from one group of leaders to another.
As a student of Pakistan's history "” the evolution of its economy, its politics and its society "” I have written extensively on this subject. I don't recall a period that equals the present. Not even 1971 when the country was split into two. In its original form, Pakistan was perhaps a non-sustainable political creation. It was an artifact that responded to a particular situation that developed under the long British rule.
There is no reason why the two 'wings' of the country should have stayed together. The very fact that they were called 'wings' suggested that the country's body existed somewhere else. They had more differences than commonalities. It was economics that made the two wings go their separate ways. The body to which these two wings were attached was Islam but that did not prove to be a strong cohesive force. But what about what is left of Pakistan after 1971, a union of fairly disparate people who are still searching for some common ground?
I was invited to participate in a workshop on Pakistan's future in Washington a few weeks ago. An anthropologist of Indian origin raised the question about the 'idea of Pakistan', which was the theme of a recent book by Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution in Washington. According to him, the idea centred on the belief that a separate political entity was needed to protect the separateness of the Muslim community in British India. This was the basis of Mohammad Ali Jinnah's two-nation theory according to which British India was inhabited not by one Indian nation but two, one Hindu, the other Muslim.
This notion was countered by what Anil Khilnani of Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) calls the 'idea of India'. According to this, the concept of nationhood in an extremely diverse South Asian populace should be based on shared history rather than shared culture or religion. Given these differences, the participant in the workshop posed a legitimate question: had the idea of Pakistan failed? She implied that the idea of India had succeeded.
Since the question was directed at me "” one of the three Pakistani participants at the workshop "” I responded by asking another question. I asked if states need an idea "” whether we could find an 'idea of Nigeria', an 'idea of South Africa', an idea of 'Malaysia'. My counter question as an answer drew a sceptical response. It was suggested that it was fair to raise that question for the states that were founded on the basis of 'ideas' rather than on that of colonial heritage.
Nigeria, South Africa, Malaysia "” the three examples I had used "” were all products of colonial history. The same is true for a number of countries in the Middle East. Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia are all the products of colonial history. They are not the consequence of 'ideas'. Saudi Arabia may be an exception since its statehood does promote an ideology.
Given the current state of affairs in Pakistan, given some of the observations made in the opening paragraphs of this article, it is legitimate to ask the question: what is now the idea of Pakistan. Institutional economics "” a relatively new discipline pioneered by Douglass North, the Nobel Prize-winning economist "” postulates that a great deal of human activity is governed by what it calls belief systems. These systems are the product of historical accumulation. They are not static but, instead, are exceptionally dynamic. How would I apply this reasoning to the case of Pakistan?
The creation of Pakistan was indeed based on an idea "” Jinnah's two-nation theory "” but many years have elapsed since that postulate was first put forward. The concept that Pakistan was needed to preserve the separate identity of the Muslim community of British India, may not have worked to keep together the two wings of the country that were attached to the body of Hindu India. But history produces its own imperatives.
Jinnah's two-nation theory is now 70 years old. It resulted in the partition of British India and the creation of two separate political entities. One of those split into two and what was once British India is now three separate states with their own histories and their own imperatives. Two of them "” Bangladesh and Pakistan "” are still searching for answers that would help them forge the meaning of nationhood. How should Pakistan define itself at this critical juncture in its history?
Notwithstanding the bloody campaign launched by some stateless groups, religion can't be the basis of Pakistan's nationhood. There are too many different interpretations of what can be called an Islamic state for Pakistan to risk its future on that concept.
For the same reason, ethnicity can't be the defining concept. We have to be pragmatic: we need to define the Pakistani identity and the Pakistani idea on the basis of geography rather than on the basis of culture and religion. What is Pakistan today is a piece of real estate occupied by more than 2.5 per cent of world's population that must find a way of pursuing economic, political and social objectives that serve the entire citizenry. This is the only way forward.
|