What is Pakistan like? This question coming from an Indian national seems quite odd as one would expect everyone who is Indian to know the country born in 1947 and which is right next door to it. In fact, India was flanked on both sides by Pakistan before 1971. Yet, ideological leanings have created a strategic misnomer for those who reside in India. Only those who visit Pakistan themselves get an idea of what this state next door is actually like.

The second question that follows is, “Then what is the difference between us and why did it all have to happen”? Then how does one explain partition which occurred nearly 65 years ago? The Indian citizen’s answer to that comes automatically as “it was all the politicians doing, then!”

On a recent visit to India, it felt strange to be confronted with questions like these and also to receive an idea of what the general perception is as to why partition took place — we are alike but power hungry leaders wished to divide us. Indians may think like this but what do Pakistanis perceive as their ideological take? Pakistan Studies textbooks written in the ’80s paint the Hindus as all bad and that there was no survival for the Muslims in India under them. Unfortunately, writers of textbooks have rarely been able to express truths in evidence-based scenario and used language that never links to the “other” in ways that explain the partition of India with clarity and understanding.

The term ‘ideology’ is invariably misunderstood and misrepresented when writing for school textbooks. Ideology is a modern word form and often is linked to nation states forming an ‘ideology’ of their own. In this sense the meaning will be a “system of social beliefs, i.e., a closely organised system of beliefs, values and ideas forming the basis of a social, economic or political philosophy or programme”.

Nation states can adopt this for a purpose as in the case of Hitler but it cannot become part of a historical narrative for young students at middle and secondary level unless the “other” is accepted and portrayed in historically-correct facts. The other sense of the word is in a “meaningful belief system, i.e., a set of beliefs, values and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts and understands the world”. This meaning may be more appropriate to textbook writers as it does apply to the “Two Nation Theory” concept of the partition of India — a belief system with a set of beliefs, values and opinions of which Hinduism and Islam adhere. Textbook writers have to be wary of not translating this into a one-sided dogma for history learning goals and outcomes in the classroom.

However, in a modern world, nations are a reality and the international body, United Nations, is made up of independent and sovereign nations that exist today. The use of the word ‘nation’ within India became the norm under British colonial rule who inherited the concept of a Hindu nation and Muslim nation within India’s boundaries. The 1909 Act accepted separate electorates for Muslims as a nation within a nation.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s views on Hindu-Muslim unity are well known. He described the two communities of India in the following terminology “India is a beautiful bride whose two eyes are the Hindus and the Muslims, and the beauty of the bride depended upon the luster of the eyes if they shone with equal luster”. However, he eventually realised that these two peoples had nothing in common — they were completely opposed on the basis of their religion, culture, language and traditions giving rise to his advancing the ‘Two Nation Theory”.

Mr Jinnah, hailed as the “Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”, remarked after the Round Table Conferences of the 1930s in London, “But I received the shock of my life at the meetings of the Round Table Conferences. In the face of danger the Hindu sentiment, the Hindu mind, the Hindu attitude led me to the conclusion that there was no hope of unity.” (Speeches and Writing, Vol. 1, pg 43). Mr Jinnah’s despondency at this situation made him give up politics and return to England only to return in 1934 to lead the Muslim League.

Echoing Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Mr Jinnah further elaborates, “The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different philosophies, social customs and literatures. They neither inter-marry or inter-dine together and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based on mainly conflicting ideas and conceptions … it is clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspirations from different sources of history ... to yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that might be built up for the government of such a state.” (Speeches and Writing, Vol.1, pg 178).

The struggle for political power between the Congress and the Muslim League started after 1937 when absolute Congress rule tried to bring Muslim constituencies within the fold of the Congress. This mass contact movement by the Congress did not bear fruit but it strengthened the League to double its efforts in making the League agenda clear to the Muslim masses. It highlighted the Congress Ministries’ one-sided rule of hoisting of the Congress tri-colour flag, the compulsory singing of the Bande Matram (Hindu prayer to Mother Earth), the wearing of home spun cloth and the worshipping of Mahatma Gandhi’s portrait in schools.

The Muslim League protested against the use of Hindi, instead of Urdu, as the lingua franca of the country, the Vidhia Mandir (Temple of Learning) educational scheme, the prohibition of cow slaughter, the boycott of Muslim business, and the prevention of the use of wells used by high caste Hindus. (Indian Politics by R. Coupland, pgs102, 103, 191). Three reports were undertaken by Provincial League Ministries on the grievances of Muslims in Hindu majority provinces — Pirpur, Shareef and Kamal Yar Jung Reports — all published after 1938.

Mr Jinnah highlighted the actions of Congress majority rule as being an exclusively Hindu organisation whose deeds and policies had defined clearly that the Muslims could not expect justice or fair play at the hands of the Hindus. The passing of the Lahore Resolution in 1940 (popularly called the Pakistan Resolution) stated the policy position that Muslims had a right to their own independent state in any future settlement. Mr Jinnah declared, “We are a nation. And, a nation must have a territory …

Nation does not live in the air. It lives on the land, it must govern land and it must have a territorial state.” (Speeches and Writing, Vol. 1, pgs 247-8). The 1946 Elections showed a clear divide of Muslims voting for the League in Muslim majority provinces and Hindus voting for Hindus in Hindu majority provinces.

Partition happened for both countries with exchange of populations for those who found themselves on the wrong side of the border and fled to avoid communal violence. All these and why Partition took place are facts of history that were recorded and documented in a period that spoke of magazines, journals, newspapers, books, radio and telegraph. Communications were fast enough for news to travel and be recorded on tape as well. How all of this is projected as simple ideology is the crux of the matter. There is no place for polemics in a history text for young minds. Even language skills of history textbook writers have to be competent to portray facts in an unbiased way.

However, “What kind of state?” which has added to our confusion about identity whether Islamic, secular or liberal is because historical facts have not been told correctly. Pakistan was made on the premise of a state for Muslims to lead their way of life. It did not say that people of other religions will be unwelcome there. Congress leaders and Mr Jinnah knew sizeable minorities will be left behind in each country and his speech of August 11, 1947, to the first Constituent Assembly speaks of treating minorities as equal citizens of the state, i.e., Muslims will cease to be Muslims and Hindus, etc. Let us not play with the minds of future generations and make them apologetic about Pakistan’s creation as an independent nation through low-quality one-sided textbooks.

The writer is an educational consultant basedin Lahore

ismatriaz@yahoo.com