Come August 14, and it is nostalgia time. But, instead of wasting our energies in looking back, we should look forward and work for a bright future. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah saved us from the tyranny of an antagonistic majority, and now only we can save ourselves from our own self-inflicted tyranny

ADMITTEDLY, I am an old fashioned Pakistani. The question, whether creation of Pakistan was right or wrong, never crossed my mind. It may be intellectual bravado or a fashion to ask such questions these days. But to me, it is nothing more than a ploy to cover up one’s own passivity. No one in the world asks this question about his country, not even the inhabitants of Uruguay and Djibouti. So, why should I? This country is laden with bounties of nature. Its children are energetic and bright-eyed and have intelligence writ large on their faces. All the good material is there, only good management is lacking and we are responsible for it. But right or wrong, good or bad, this is my country — period.

However, I do believe strongly in looking hard at what went wrong in the past, how we behave at present, and what can we do to set things right in the future. Come August 14, and I make a beeline to the Quaid’s mazar, which refreshes my nostalgia of those heady days of my youth when teenage rallies raised slogans, offering blood for Pakistan and girls climbed the government buildings to hoist green flags. It inspires me to an introspective mood that brings back all the regrets of the years bygone and spawns new resolves for times to come.

On my last visit, it was nearing midnight when this old gentleman walked up and sat next to me on the bench. Immaculately dressed in a three-piece suit, with a stick in hand, he had a far-away look as he responded to my greeting. By this time, I was overwhelmed by the anomalies in my stream of thought, and spilled out my concerns somewhat inappropriately. I reproduce the conversation as a scribe:
 

Scribe: “Sir, I hope you will excuse me for my intrusion in your solitude, but I presume that you have seen and lived through much of what we only read about and often fail to understand. Can I ask you a few questions about Pakistan Movement? (He looked at me with interest and nodded in affirmative.) People are now asking how did the founding fathers see the future of Indian Muslims when they visualized Pakistan?”

Gentleman: “While democracy works well in homogeneous societies, it fails in protecting the interests of minority against the overwhelming vote of the majority when the two have divergent ethos of cultures and beliefs.

“The borders of the proposed Pakistan were originally designed to include the whole of Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab, which included large Hindu population, but were strongly integrated cultural entities in their own right. We never expected that the two countries would not be friendly and free of inter-community conflicts and anticipated that each would reciprocate the other in taking care of their minorities.”
 

Scribe: “But Sir, was it not natural for the Hindus to be wary of a state to be created in the name of Islam?”

Gentleman: “It was never meant to be a theocratic state, but a homeland of Muslims, where they could practice their religion freely but without depriving others of the same right. Islam is the only religion which acknowledges other religions and respects other prophets, offering them equality and freedom of worship. Had Muslims not practised what they preached, the Hindus would not have emerged as a prosperous majority, with their religion and culture intact, after centuries of Muslim rule in India.

“The real problem was, and remains, their perception that India belongs exclusively to Hindus and other faiths must merge with theirs in order to coexist. The expulsion of Buddhism from India, which was embraced widely elsewhere, is a case in the point.”
 

Scribe: “It appears that the Congress adopted the same logic for division of Punjab and Bengal that justified partition, although they did not subscribe to it. In doing so they disregarded other issues of vital importance and put in jeopardy the in-built balance and integrity of the independence package proposed by the League. Could we not re-negotiate or turn down the plan?”

Gentleman: “Mohammed Ali agreed to several other alternatives, which addressed the Hindu fears and were even acceptable to the British. The Congress, however, persisted with its covert agenda, which had prompted him to leave the Party long ago. They colluded with the British in planning a motivated but unnecessary haste in their withdrawal, thus leaving no room for further negotiations.

“The Congress further betrayed its designs by making it difficult for Pakistan to get its fair share of assets and even denying the transfer of treasury. Obviously, their first attempt was to let the new state fall before it could stand on its feet, failing which they hoped would happen sooner or later, when the whole of India would fall in their lap. This explains why they obstinately refused to discuss more practical and accommodating solutions and were in a hurry to concede a compromised Pakistan. Fortunately, their hopes were never fulfilled but their bad faith has continued to create serious problems, not only for the Muslims in India but for the entire population of the subcontinent.”

(He was obviously referring to Quaid-i-Azam, but surprisingly without the title or the surname!)
 

Scribe: “Sir, looking back, how will you sum up the whole confrontation?”

Gentleman: “It was a dispute over a territory shared by two people. While one party was determined to dominate, the other struggled to free itself of that domination. A dishonest broker manipulated to win the favour of the larger prospective market in his own long-term commercial interest. He gave a parting kick by altering the Radcliff Award on the sly, before taking down his flag, which has continued to cause untold misery on the people and sap the energy of the two fledgling nations in their formative stages.

“But you should know that borders of countries are often cut and carved by wars and accidents, and not by wishes. This was nothing less than a war that you have survived as free Muslims against the designs of a strong enemy. Your sovereignty in two countries, comprising of contiguous Muslim majority areas, vindicates the original vision of your forebears. Much smaller countries with much less resources are doing exceedingly well, and there is no reason why you should not achieve even greater heights. You should not be wasting your energies in looking back, but looking forward and working for a bright future.”
 

Scribe: “We may be a free nation, but, much to our shame, we are still engaged in disputes over such basics as our ideological identity, our system of government and sharing the national resources. How can we devote to progress when our energies are whittled away by internal friction.

“Take the demand of bringing the existing laws in conformity to Islamic laws on the advice of Islamic Ideology Council and Shariat Court. Can you tell us what the founding fathers had in their minds?”

Gentleman: (Showing visible signs of annoyance). “Look! The dominating concern of those people was to give Muslims a chance to fulfil their aspirations of economic and cultural growth in a democracy of their own, and to follow their faith without the restraints of a hostile majority.

“ know that there are religious teachers and preachers who opposed the creation of Pakistan during the movement, but now want room at the top to tell everybody what Islam is and how to run a state. Unfortunately, they isolated themselves in the seminaries too long, divorcing from the mainstream of progressive knowledge and skills required in modern-day life and statecraft. It is not surprising that the electorate rejected their politics.

“We should know that Pakistan is a democratic society comprising good Muslims. Given an opportunity, good Muslims will naturally make good laws, which will be in accordance with the Islamic values and also in keeping with the times. All you have to make sure is that people are enable to elect their representatives freely, who can genuinely reflect their will. Laws framed by the councils, approved by the courts and imposed by the rulers from the top, cannot force people to become good Muslims or accept their interpretations under compulsion.”
 

Scribe: “Sir, you talk of democracy; the feudal lords we found sitting on the morning of August 14, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly are still there monopolizing politics, getting richer and stronger at the cost of the people. They, or their progeny, preside over the jagirs the British gave them as rewards for their loyalty, and refuse to hand over the lands allotted to their tenants. They occupy the school buildings in their areas and turn them into stables. They brutalize the peasant to get their votes and return to power again and again. When their excesses go beyond the tolerable levels, their next of kin in the Army march in, ostensibly to set things right, but, in reality, to turn their brass into gold. The perception of the smaller provinces that the largest province exploits them, remains a great hurdle in the way of national solidarity.”

Gentleman:: (Looking embarrassed) “Mohammad Ali, had to rely on this landed class for practical reasons as there was no other medium of contact with the down-trodden masses, that Muslims were at that time. They must either change themselves or go. The Army has no business outside their barracks and away from the borders. Provincial autonomy has to be judiciously established.

“It appears as if the British have handed over power, but the people of Pakistan have not taken over so far. What kind of people you are to let all this happen and do nothing about it? I understand that a large majority of Pakistanis do not even take the trouble of casting their votes. If that is the case, you have to accept any government that foists itself on your heads and to endure whatever it inflicts on you.

What happened to your unity and your voice of protest that shook the whole of subcontinent in the forties? History offers many other examples when the law-making, the executive authority and wealth had gone in the same hands, leaving people hopelessly poor and powerless. But people always threw up new leaders who raised their voice on the streets that was denied to them in the Parliament. The English society was in a similar situation in 1880s, when reformers like Annie Besant led the poor and deprived in their peaceful struggle against oppression of the elite class. Mohammed Ali saved you from the tyranny of an antagonistic majority, but only you can save yourself from you own self-inflicted tyranny.

“History has shown that it takes generations for the enslaved nations to change the centuries old pattern of behaviour and adopt the ways of freedom. I am sure you will be able to turn the page in not too distant a future. The political inaction you have exhibited so far is a hangover of the past, when people depended on their rulers and waited for their mercies to change their fate. The sooner you shed that attitude the better. You, the people of Pakistan, are now your own masters in a democratic order and must learn to assert your will....”

As he continued with his stern reprimands and promises of a bright future, I wondered who he was. I had never seen him before, but similarities were uncanny. Before long, the clock struck twelve, he took out a pocket watch and fixed a monocle to look at it. The gesture sent a chill down my spine. As he stood up without ceremony and started moving towards the mazar, I was too dumbfound to ask him his name and where can I find him again!

 

An activist par excellence NOT long ago, only five per cent of the population, who were adult males of significant means in Britain, were eligible for voting. The lawmakers, who came from the privileged class, were the beneficiaries of their own laws and excluded others from consideration. Majority of the Parliament did not even care to know about the miseries of the people, particularly the factory workers who were mainly women and children working 12 hours a day, subsisting only on tea and bread and often dying of consumption at a young age. Annie Besant, the young reporter of the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, saw that there was no possibility of self-correction in the system. Politicians would not lead or plead for the poor because they had no vote and could not help them win the seats. Legislators would not make laws to ameliorate their misery as it went against their own interests. Editors of newspapers would not displease their employers by taking up such issues in the Press. The Church would rather not speak for the ‘meek of the earth’ and risk losing the largess of the rich it lived on. Each one failed to realize that their respective apathy, when added together, can bring disasters like bloody revolution upon the entire society. The answers she found and acted upon, laid the foundation of what is now known as social and political activism. She concluded that people who know and feel for humanity, should not stop at lip service but go beyond the norms of their callings, take risks and shout aloud in public. Only by building a culture of protest can the vested interests, who are always scheming to deprive the common man, can be exposed. The lawyers should find time to march with the dispossessed; intellectuals should tell those in power that their unabated injustices will bounce back and demolish their own ivory towers one day; journalists should not be satisfied with filing a good report but should pick up the placards and lead processions raising slogans against oppression. This is exactly what she did when she saw the abysmally sub-human working conditions of 1400 girls working at the largest match factory in London. Not only did she provoke them to go on a strike, she published appeals and collected funds to sustain them when they lost wages. She exposed the powerful owners till they were forced to take all the girls back on job and vastly improve their conditions. She compelled the Parliament to take notice of the abuse and make laws that improved the lot of the working class of Britain forever. The Match Girls strike made history. She had the vision, the courage and the energy to promote militantly the causes of the wretched of the society as she stepped on the toes of the state, the church and the Victorian morality. It would be contraception today and women’s rights tomorrow; free lunches for the famished school children here and employment for the jobless there. Not surprisingly, she was kicked, spat upon and jailed for her intervention, but succeeded. Not content with her battle against injustice in England, she travelled all the way to India in the later part of her life, to give courage to the Indians and initiate a home rule movement. When imprisoned for her activities by the British in 1917, young Mohammad Ali Jinnah agitated for her release in Bombay, (Gandhi being too junior to figure). Not long after she was fighting for the freedom of Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali in Punjab. Annie, as an intrepid campaigner for liberation of the oppressed humanity, died in 1933 at an age of 86 after touching upon millions of lives with compassion. Her indomitable spirit has blazed a trail for the coming generations to cherish and draw inspiration from.— S. A. Abidi