THIS is with reference to the article ‘No clear direction’ (Nov 2). I was away from Pakistan, and, hence, could go through it only on my return. Owen Bennett-Jones, the writer, says: “There is no escaping from the fact that the country came into being as a result of a decision by a British aristocrat.” Now, both ‘British’ and ‘aristocrat’ need some explanation.

Lord Mountbatten’s father, Prince Louise, was dismissed from the British Navy for being an alien (Mountbatten: The Official Biography; p.36). And Mountbatten would not be taken as an aristocrat by even the British, as can be seen in the words of Sir Ian Scott (A British Tale of Indian and Foreign Service: The Memoirs of Sir Ian Scott; p.153). “A British aristocrat would give more attention to his decorations and finery than the affairs of the state. At a small dinner party in the viceroy’s house one night, my wife was seated next to Mountbatten and he spent the whole meal telling her how he was the first viceroy to be a Knight of the Garter before becoming the viceroy.”

The two factors now out of the way, let us move on to Mountbatten’s political acumen and decision-making skills. “An inordinate amount of time was later spent by Mountbatten on the ceremonies for the transfer of power. Discussion of them, and flags for the New Dominion, often came far higher on meetings’ agenda than, say, the situation in the Punjab,” wrote Andrew Roberts (Eminent Churchillians; p.84).

As regards the ‘decision’ mentioned in the said article, we have the word of Mountbatten’s private secretary that it was not a voluntary decision. “Partition of India had never been any part of British plans for independence; it was forced on us and onto the Hindu Congress by the insistent, and in the end overwhelming demand of the Muslims for a separate state.” (The Memoirs of Sir Ian Scott; p.150).

As for the said article’s assertion about the Bhuttos, starting from Doda Khan Bhutto in the mid-19th century, it is beyond mortal comprehension as to what these people had to do in a discussion revolving around the 9/11 affair. How is that even remotely relevant? With regard to the invasions of Afghanistan, says the writer, “Western governments are accusing Pakistanis and their forebears of exploiting their relationship with the West to make money”. The infamous 9/11 was perpetrated by the Arabs; how could Pakistan have even anticipated that it would be inducted in the now-lost war?

If the writer really wants to focus on money, and not on lives lost, he would do well to calculate for Pakistan the Western refusal to let us buy gas and energy from Iran. The impending gas loadshedding would not have been necessary had this interference not been there.

As far as the element of duplicity mentioned in the article is concerned, there is the report of United States ambassador at the time, Ann Patterson: “Fear that the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] mission in Afghanistan will end without the establishment of a non-Taliban-led government friendly to Pakistan adds to the Pakistani establishment’s determination not to cut its ties irrevocably to the Afghan Taliban. General Kayani has been utterly frank about Pakistan’s position on this.”(Dawn, May 29, 2011).

On the contrary, we see duplicity on the Western side. The US, a strategic nuclear ally of India, expected cooperation from Pakistan even while subjecting its non-combatants to drone attacks. The human cost paid by Pakistan is not being counted at all. The said article, in fact, makes one wonder whether the English East India Company is still ruling. Perhaps it is still listed in the London Stock Exchange.

The tone and flow of the article suggests — wrongly, lest it be misunderstood — as if the Muslim League had invited the British. M.A. Jinnah was the first Indian politician to complain against the Salt Tax, calling it “iniquitous and unheard of in any country” while speaking in London on Feb 17, 1896, according to Bal Ram Nanda (Road to Pakistan: The Life and Times of Mohammad Ali Jinnah; p.6). It was Jinnah who “introduced a resolution that the Government of India be allowed to buy its vast and valuable ‘stores’ through rupee tenders, suited in India, rather than only through sterling bids made in London”, as noted by Stanley Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan; p.81).

As far as the current prime minister is concerned, the writer of the said article must remember that in cricket — “the most English of games” — people may play against one another in county and league matches, but play as a team representing a nation in Test matches. I am not a political supporter of Imran Khan, but I resent the writer’s depiction of him which is in utterly bad taste.

Dr Muhammad Reza Kazimi
Karachi

Published in Dawn, November 21st, 2021