ESL Blogs

Thanks Arif, Anah, Mishaikh, Humza and others who commented on my last blog with emotions, distorted factual comments and Arif with logic and reasoning. It has inspired me to write the next blog in the sequence of Pakistan's ideology as a nation. 

Arif, rightly said that Jinnah was a secular initially (which India is today), but wrong circumstances (as Jinnah perceived) made him communal and a hard line Muslim politician i.e not by will but because of Hindu domination he chose to convert into a muslim leader. He quit to be an Indian public leader and became "Indian Muslim's leader", how wise was the decision, I do not know!

But in this transition he compromised with the ideology. The ideology that makes difference with time, the basic notion, belief and trust for with the two country people having same origin kill each other brutally. I never doubted Jinnah's wish and will, there is no doubt that he wanted the development of Muslims and its not a question at all. The bigger question is what was the instrument used by him, and what the consequences of that instrument (the instrument is fear and I have discussed about it in my last blog). 

Before jumping to the Jinnah I want my reader to understand the significance of ideology in a nation's life, and how it can change the course of history and future. Gandhi, Bhaghat Singh and S.C. Bose all of them were freedom fighters. All wanted to make country independent from Britishers. But all of them had different ideology. Bhaghat Singh wanted a revolution from within the country and get the power. Bose wanted to get help from outside as WWII circumstances were not favorable for Britishers and Gandhi wanted to educate people by mass movements like 'Quit India', 'Non co-operation (with Khilafat)', 'Civil Disobedience', 'Swadeshi movement'. 

All three want the same goal with different paths. Which one path is right? lets think over it. If Gandhi had supported Bhaghat Singh, Chandra Shekar than our history of peace and non violence would not be written in history but it would had been about revolutions and coup. The tools that are used against Indian government today like "satyagraha, fast until death, civil disobedience" would have been replaced by "revoloution", "liberation by violence", Killing those who are against people/nation. 

What my point is that once you change the ideology you change the whole path. No doubt we could liberate the country with a revolution against "white", but can we further run a country with same ideology. What if the civilian government is not yielding? People will ask for revolution again! And here comes the problem, we cant have revolution every time. The solution comes from a system of government in which people have right to go against the govenment, make the government realize that the path you are running is wrong and a smooth transition of power. As happened in our independence. People should be democratized not supposed to be revolutionary by the influence of ideology.

So Gandhi was a leader and others were freedom fighter. Gandhi gave a vision to fight in a way in which we can put our voice. A way in which there is transition of power but not abruptly but smoothly. A way in which there is less chaos and more predictability. This is the reason why India is still democratic, because it chose the way of Gandhi.  

Now lets come to Jinnah, the initial ideology and how it changed and what are its consequence today. In the elections of 1936, when there was separate electorate (which means only muslims were allowed to vote on reserved constituencies), Muslim League was not able to get even 2 seats from Punjab (The home land of most of the Muslims). All the seats were won by the Congress. What does it mean it means that congress was very famous there. The ideology of Jinnah until this election was "security and welfare of Indian Muslims". (The same ideology as Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who founded Aligarh Muslim University for muslim's welfare). And Punjabi Muslims did not show faith in Jinnah in 1936. But in the elections of 1946 all the votes of Punjabi Muslim area went to Muslim League. Now the bigger question is what changed in these 10 years?

The change in ideology. From "the welfare of Muslims", the narrative was changed as "Islam is in danger". The change idea from "rise of Indian Muslims" to "Indian Muslims in danger because of Hindu majority." From "hope" to "fear". And Paksitan was eventually founded on that fear not on the hope. 

Had it been on hope, it would have thought of sub continent Muslims that were going to be divided into 3 parts. Its was basically the partition of Indian Muslims that can be a big force together. United we stand and divided we fall. And fall of idea that  Muslims as "political class" rule the India, as its divided now in 3 parts. Remember, Manmohan Singh was Sikh and they constitute less than 2% of the population, but he ruled country for 10 years and no one raised the question on his religion.

But the trust deficit that was created among Hindus when 1/3 of muslims left the country, saying that we are different (essence of 2 nation theory). The muslims left in India are still struggling to convince RSS and like minded people (who are less than 5% of total population) that we are not different. In the search of a better home Liquat Ali Khan (of UP) and Jinnah (of Gujarat) left their illiterate brothers in India. And no wonder the case of today's Gujarati Muslim is weakened because their own brother (Jinnah's kind of people) left them. Today's Indian muslim feel betrayed from Pakistani Muslims

But the ideology of Gandhi, helped them to survive here and they are still 20% in India. And the ideology of fear in Pakistan eliminated 20% minorities to less than 2%. 

Jinnah wanted to win the elections, Jinnah wanted the Muslims to be in policy making, but the way he chose to win the election had an impact on the Pakistan, which is hard to be remove even today. The fear! A false fear. I called him hypocrite because he knew that he was changing the basic narrative and then even he chose to do so (For better or for worse)! Just for short term gains he sowed the seed of Religion+Politics  that never existed in history. And now the roots of that tree are so deep that its hard to cut them. 

Jinnah was a lawyer basically. A successful lawyer. The one who did not want to defeat and definitely win the case by getting a separate nation. But life is not a "single case". Life is a sequence of cases, in each step we meet different problems and if you had taken a wrong ideology in past to win a case you have to pay its price in future. 

Jinnah realized his mistake when he said, "They used to call me 'Quaid-e-Azam' and now they are calling me 'Quatil-e-Azam'." These were the lines uttered by Jinnah when he saw a refugee camp in Karachi of people coming from India and leaving all property there, being killed in riots, raped by criminals and feeling betrayed. 

I personally think that Jinnah should have helped Gandhi and Abdul Kalam the only rare leader trying to extinguish the fire of hatred. He should have joined the constitution assembly and talked about reservations, political protection of Muslims there, like did by Ambedkar the leader of bakward castes. Ambedkar won 27% reservation for backward tribes and castes in jobs, educational institutions and in parliament. There are constitutional mechanism and way to get power. Division of country is not the solution. Democracy is the solution.

In a diverse country like India, where Tamilians, Telegus, Bengalis, Punjabis, Malyali etc think that Hindi people can dominate the country. Where dalits, backward castes of all the states fear that Pandits and Brahimins will rule the country. Where poor laborers think that Ambanis and Tatas will take all the wealth. Where the black of south India thinks that they can be discriminated by the white north Indians. Where women accuse the society of being Patriarchal. There muslims can also fear that may be Hindus will dominate the country.

But try to understand the India. Its the most diverse country of the world. Where many forces acting simultaneously. All forces are equally powerful and they fight for power, eventually everyone gets his share of power and then they make a coalition government in which every voice is heard. The beauty of democracy is that you have to hear all the voices. And if you neglect a voice you will have to pay its price.

Muslims! they live in every street, every colony, every city and every state. I can't imagine India without Muslims because muslims are in the gene of India. The "ideology of fear" that we cant live together is very much flawed and proves wrong in every street of the country. 

I called Pakistan "an artificial nation", because it has no vision. The founder died without giving any formula and goal and left with legacies of fear. The "Kashmir problem" got genesis from the ideology of "two nation" and India never accepted it, because the moment we accept it there will be riots in every city. The fanatic Hindu organisation like RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena will ask 18 crore Muslims to leave the country, with the same logic on which Pakistan demands Kashmir. The moment India gave Kashmir it will be lost in fire and domestic war.

Can Paksitan ever get Kashmirt. No, it cant. Because we are same people divided by border and we both are very much patriotic. Paksitan can never win form a country whose economy is 10 times bigger and in population 7 times. Each and every Indian will be solidly aligned behind the army if war happens.

Conclusion - The "two nation theory" is a theory of fear given by Jinnah (a hypocrite who changed the narrative for political gains). Neither can Pakistan win Kashmir (because of less power), nor can Pakistan forget it (its against the basic ideology of Pakistan's 2 nation theory). So it will remain in this "self denial mode" and the problem will persist until it does not change the narrative and come back to the old system. The system on which "Deobandi's" differed with Jinnah. The system for which Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi) talked about. The system for which Abdul Kalam Azad fought for. 

Dear Pakistani friends no one is bigger than truth (not even Quid-e-Azam). Lets judge the leaders and their decision, appreciate their achievements and understand their mistakes. Gandhi one said "To err is Human, to forgive is divine".

Your comments are welcome.