April 10, 2005

‘The Founding Fathers were, perhaps, the only leaders in Pakistan who had a sense of history and were willing to learn their lessons. Everyone else had chinks in their armour,’ says Sharif al Mujahid

RESPECTED researcher and historian Sharif al Mujahid struggled to pinpoint the reason behind the general attitude of indifference in the Islamic world towards social sciences, conceding that he was “not ready with an answer”. However, he was ready with proper and frank answers to a multitude of questions when Dawn Magazine recently called on him. The following are excerpts from the interview:

Q. History repeats itself. Does it?

A. It is basically the social determinist view proffered by Marx when he said, “men make history, but do not make it as they please.” To Toynbee, history repeats itself in its general framework, but not in its particulars. However, Bernadette Croce points out that writing histories is one way of getting out of the weight of the past. Put another way, the writing of history liberates us from history. Yet another view was provided by George Santayana, who said those who fail to take the lesson of history are condemned to repeat it.

Q. But what about your own view?

A. I will go with Croce.

Q. Compared to the developed world, what do you think is the future of social sciences in countries like Pakistan?

A. The future appears to be bleak, and there are two major reasons for that:

One, there is a lack of social sciences tradition and an established and recognized community of social scientists. There are only individual scholars, but no peer groups to evaluate the work of individuals in various disciplines.

Two, there is a lack of training in social sciences methodology, which means theoretical underpinning in Pakistani works is at a minimalist level. There is more fetishism than factualism. Historian is neither the master nor the slave of facts. He has to interact with them, process them with the aid of documents to either accept them or discard them as historical documents.

Q. The way things have progressed — or degenerated — in the last five or so decades in the country, do you think history really matters?

A. Despite degeneration, history does matter if you take — and want to take — a lesson from history. Without such an exercise, you are bound to repeat it. For instance, if we had an authentic reconstruction of what had really happened in the erstwhile East Pakistan during the 1960s and ‘70s, culminating in its secession, politicians and observers would never have cavalierly likened any crisis in Pakistan to the 1970-71 situation in East Pakistan. We need history and need to know history in order to find out what really happened.

Q. As a historian, where and when in your opinion did Pakistan go wrong?

A. I am a student of history rather than a historian. I have earned my living teaching journalism for most of my life, and most of my colleagues in the History department would recognize me only as a journalist, or, at best, a journalism educator. After all, professional jealousy is not confined to historians alone, and, then, there are no free lunches either. In any case, we shall not forget that journalist does precede the historian.

Coming to the question itself, things went wrong in the mid-1950s, after Liaquat. Working against us was the Indian advantage, but while Nehru did commit mistakes, he was smart enough to learn his lessons and, as such, didn’t repeat his follies.

In Pakistan, the most epochal event after Liaquat was the rout of the Muslim League in 1954. The refusal of the establishment to accommodate the newly elected regional elite in the power structure harmed the concept of an integrated body politic. This negative approach dogged our footsteps all along and culminated in the 1971 crisis and the dismemberment of Pakistan.

The lesson, however, was still not learnt, with Bhutto repeating it in Balochistan and the NWFP. Benazir, Nawaz and everyone else who got a chance, went for contrived majorities in the assemblies, which is naturally no substitute for the political credibility and clout that is provided by the regional elites. But the concept of contrived majorities cropped up in the ‘50s, and that is when the trouble began.

Q. In your long interactions with government functionaries of various hues and shades, did you ever come across an individual who may have been sincerely interested in learning lessons from history?

A. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were.

Q. But there was no history in front of them in the Pakistani context?

A. You are right, but still they were perhaps the only one. Everyone else had chinks in the armour.

Q. In neighbouring India, things are not that bad in the realm of social sciences, so it can’t be a regional phenomenon. In Pakistan, and, indeed, in the Islamic world at large, history seems to have no place in the scheme of things. Do you think it has something to do with Muslim psyche?

A. It is not regional, for sure, but it has nothing to do with Muslim psyche as well. Social sciences did flourish in the classical Islamic period. Then there were the sultanettes and the mughals. Even Shibli, Sir Syed and Sharar were there among the Indian Muslims. Then why this degeneration? You have posed a question that calls for some thought, some cogitation. Frankly, I don’t find myself ready with an answer.

Q. How is it like in the Arab world and, say, Malaysia which is one of the more enlightened and forward-looking states in the Islamic world?

A. Among the Arabs, there have been a few Arab Christians who made their mark in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but no Muslims. In terms of Malaysia, the advancement has been more technical than in the realm of humanities and social sciences.

Q. Isn’t it unfortunate that the name of Ibn Khaldun has been kept alive by the West, while most Muslims don’t know anything about him, except, taking cue from his name, that he was a Muslim?

A. It, indeed, is.

Q. Pakistanis settled abroad have generally fared well as historians and social scientists. Why is it so?

A. The answer is quite simple: in the modern world there is no idea of research without proper funding which is available abroad, but is non-existent in Pakistan.

Q. We have not been able to produce a proper biography of Jinnah in more than a half-a-century. Why?

A. The lack of documents can be the only plausible reason. While I don’t want to speak on behalf of the community, I can state my position on the matter. Back in 1981, my book, Jinnah: Studies in Interpretation, was an effort in this direction, stating Jinnah’s views and stands on major events during his life. Z.A. Suleri led a nasty campaign against the book, and used his influence to involve Ziaul Haq in the controversy. As it turned out, I could save my skin only when I pointed out that the book had a foreword by Sharifuddin Pirzada, who at the time was head of the Jinnah Biography Committee. It was a close call, and I decided to stay away from the project.

Q. How do you view the role of official historians, like, for instance, Abul Fazl?

A. Official historians in modern times are not among the genres of historians looked at favourably. By their very definitions, they are not supposed to be objective, and project a particular — in this case, official — viewpoint. But for Abul Fazl’s age, the 15th century, that is, official historians did contribute a lot to the craft and discipline of collecting tons and tons of empirical data. They also contributed to the transformation of teeming facts from scattered sources into historical facts.

Q. There are people who consider you to be a historian who projects a particular point of view. What is your take on that?

A. Back in the 1940s, famed writer Khwaja Ahmad Abbas used to write a column, ‘I Write As I Feel’. That has remained my motto as well. I don’t write for anyone. I write my formulations on the basis of documentary evidence available at any given time. Like everyone else, I have the right to grow and I have no qualms about exercising that right. What I feel is that people have generally not read my work, like the part related to the de-mytholization of Jinnah and Iqbal. As a result, the non-conformists label me as one of the conventionalists, while the latter don’t own me at all. On my part, I have no option but to continue to grow, keeping the communication channels open with both the groups.

Q. The manner in which we have been teaching Islamic history and Pakistan Studies to students has been a matter of much contention. Will you call it a conscious effort at indoctrination?

A. Of course, but it needs to be seen as a sub-strand of the British colonial legacy in historiography that we have been heir to. The British stood for producing ‘a continuous history’, as a sort of Grand Narrative. In the words of Geoffrey Elton, such an exercise calls for “a unified subject matter, consecutive narrative, familiar landmarks and well-marked periods in a sequence of causes and effects”. The British themselves had undergone such a phase in their own national existence. The British Historical Association’s guidelines of 1909 lay down that the teachers of history “should interpret the national character, the national ideals, and educate their pupils in the ethos of their own race”. The British influence left a deep impression on the Indian mindset.

The tragedy, however, is that while the British have consigned their guidelines to the dustbin, we are sadly still stuck with them.

Q. Do you agree with the kind of changes that are now being brought in text books? Also, is Pakistan being forced to make these changes, as is the general belief?

A. I am not up to date on them, and would rather refrain from making a comment. However, I do hope that they do take care of ‘Ancient Pakistan’, and do not begin with 711.

Q. A quick word about your contemporaries. How do you rate them?

A. First of all, you have to draw the line between historians and history teachers. They are two different categories and people shall never confuse the two. I guess your question is related to the former category, and I can straightaway name people like I.H. Qureishi, Aziz Ahmad, S.M. Ikram and Moinul Haq. Among the latter generation, Dani and Abdur Rahman made a name for themselves, being the only two who have contributed to Unesco’s History of Mankind. Raizul Islam is another. K.K. Aziz also comes to mind, but, in my view, he goes for the Grand Narrative, making a fetish of facts in the 19th century tradition.

Further down the line, Ayesha Jala, Hasan Askari Rizvi and Mohammad Waseem are noteworthy social scientists, but the most promising of them all is Sikandar Hayat. He really is brilliant. However, no such discussion can be complete without a mention of Mubarak Ali, who has made a major contribution by taking history to the common man, and, in the words of Eric Hobsbawn, nothing can work without popularizing history. But one hopes that he de-ideologizes his writings a bit, while accusing others of being ideologically-oriented.

Q. And, finally, what are your frustrations as a historian in Pakistan? Is it a life wasted?

A. There are several, to be frank, but, basically, two. One is about the lack of an academic community or peer group with which you could discuss your thoughts, your projects, your formulations, your theses etc., and get a fruitful feedback.

The second is about the missing element of a comprehensive library with easy access so that the researcher may not have to run from pillar to post. I tried my bit when I was with the Quaid-i-Azam Academy, but since my departure no one seems to have taken the project forward.

As for the second part of the question, no, I don’t consider it a life wasted. When I first read Toynbee’s A Study of History way back in 1957, it was clear to me that history opens a vast vista of thoughts, concepts and formulations which, if you are interested in reading, cogitating and wrestling with problems, could keep you engaged throughout your life. Indeed, through several such lifetimes.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)