Pakistan Resolution or Muslim League’s Search for Survival

I actually wanted to go through a phase of introspection and make some important confessions to myself yesterday. Foremost being that I should stop finding footsteps in the mire; realizing for good the futility of my persistant infatuation with the infamous ideology question. There are number of reasons for this desperate conclusion. Firstly, Pakistan Studies in my view, is merely an academic exercise having no objective influence on present state of affairs as well as future course of our collective action. Secondly, we are a nation (if it is accurate enough to be identified as such) purposefully failing to make sense of our past and being proud of this relentless obliviousness, we are always ready to be duped by petty slogans and sleazy shibboleths. Last but not the least, the above two observations have now become conventional wisdom and there is no reason one should remain stuck forever in one’s own stubborn optimism.

Nevertheless, while I was getting fagged out by PTV’s high-sounding portrayal of Lahore Resolution and trying to find my misplaced patriotism where I usually discover it (i.e in Mukhtar Masood’s brilliant essay Minar-e-Pakistan), I couldn’t resist taking Brother Adil Najam’s excellent advice and once again read the resolution myself; only this time with a side by side exposition of Dr Ayesha Jalal.

In my humble opinion, the argument that the resolution somehow delineated the demand for Pakistan per se, as seen in the political realities of 1937-40 in Sub Continent, is not very accurate. And albeit its contextual importance vis-à-vis creation of Pakistan in 1947 has now become debatable in the light of fresh research, its textual importance cannot be undermined at all. A close look at the text itself and politics which environs it tells us so much about the bitter realities of Muslim politics in mid 30s and may further help us to investigate our failure in becoming a nation intrinsically, without founding its cornerstones on our enmity with Hindu India.

The foremost thing that breaks the presumable sacredness of the document is the fact that it miserably failed or was intentionally obfuscated so as not to point slightly towards a possible partition. The third and most sacred paragraph

Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units’ are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute Independent States in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.

did not even consider the wispiest proposition for a center. The concessions were obviously given to get backing of majority provinces in the form of proposing independant sovereign states. The language insinuated that there was a single common national voice speaking for the collective ineterest of Muslims of Indian Sub Continent. However, there were inherent contradictions between the interests of Muslim majority and minority provinces. An apprehension to resolve these contradiction are self evident in paragraph four which states that:

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultations with them and in other parts of (British) India where the Mussalmans (Muslims) are in a majority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

The ostensibly complicated phraseology probably represents the political quandaries of All India Muslim League at that time. The question of safeguarding the interest of Muslims in provinces in which they were in minority could not have been left unaddressed and territorial readjustments (as mentioned in third paragraph) were deemed necessary. On the other hand it was blatantly obvious that there would be as many Muslims left outside the soverign independant states as there would be inside. What would than be the best options available?

Not many I guess, except to keep the dialogue open ended to some extent by carefully balancing and trimming the text, avoiding to resolve contradictions and hoping for some constitutional arrangement which may ultimately safeguard the interests of all Muslims of India.

This did not happen unfortunately and Muslim League finally had to settle for less i.e. to safeguard the interests of Muslims in minority provinces by trading off security of non-Muslim minority in Muslim dominated provinces; textual base of which was already there in the fourth paragraph.

What happened finally to the proposition of territorial readjustments? These were never really on the cards; as Choudhry Khaliquzzaman wrote to Jinnah on 7th October 1942 and Ayesha Jalal cites in a footnote on page 59 of her excellently researched book:

One of the basic principles lying behind the Pakistan idea is that of keeping hostages in Muslim Provinces as against the Muslims in Hindu Provinces. If we allow millions of Hindus to go out of our orbit of influence, the security of the Muslims in minority Provinces will greatly be minimised

The phrase mentioning territorial readjustments was finally removed in the revised version of Lahore Resolution of April 1946.

There is no point going too far with this and as I said in the begining, the aim can be nothing objective except academic satisfaction. We can keep on reading the resolution for different reasons, searching different motivations and reaching different (and sometimes contradictory) conclusions.Our strictly theoretic approach towards history cannot make us more or less Pakistani. Certainly not less than those who took part in drafting and expressing that resolution. In fact, the subsequent positions of those founding fathers would come as a great surprise for many young Pakistanis, if made part of history text books.

On second thoughts, I do not necessarily consider those poitical realities as bitter. Though subjected to a completely different ball game, those politicians were as pragmatic politically as we are now. Sikandar Hayat Khan, a staunch Unionist and the one who actually drafted the constitution, later denounced it openly in Punjab legislative assembly after being exposed to and pressed by Khalsa Nationalist Party’s provincial concerns. The Bengal Tiger In 1941, after the creation of National Defence Council, attacked Jinnah for being an ‘omnipotent authority over the destiny of 33 million Muslims in the province of Bengal’. Jinnah himself did not care to expand upon the Lahore Resolution till the arrival of Cabinet Mission in 1946.

On the whole, I tend to agree with the view that Lahore resolution was principally put as a political card of Jinnah and Muslim League’s search for survival and the claim that it was representing the consentaneous, realistic and coherent demand of a Muslim nation has very little backing from political history. And this realisation does not, in any way, scuppers my patriotism.

Filed under: Land of the 'Pure'

Centenary of Some Quixotic Ideas

Being the ardent lovers of Urdu verse, this ghazal was automatically retained by our young and imaginative memories when we were in 8th grade. I didn’t realise the significance of that month in those days and wasn’t sure why Iqbal chose to title this composition as such. Here is a tolerable translation by Dr M.A.K Khalil:

MARCH 1907

Time has come for openness, Beloved’s Sight will be common
The secret which silence had concealed, will be unveiled

now O’ Cup‑bearer! Time has gone when wine was taken secretly
The whole world will be tavern, everyone will be drinking

Those who once wandered insane, will return to habitations
Lovers’ wandering will be the same but deserts will be new

The Hijaz’ silence has proclaimed to the waiting ear at last
The covenants established with desert’s inhabitants will be re‑affirmed

Which coming out of deserts had overturned the Roman Empire
I have heard from the Qudsis that the same lion will be re-awakened

As the cup‑bearer mentioned me in the wine‑drinkers’ assembly
The tavern’s sage said, “He is insolent, he will be disgraced”

O’ Western world’s inhabitants, God’s world is not a shop!
What you are considering genuine, will be regarded counterfeit

Your civilization will commit suicide with its own dagger
The nest built on the frail branch will not be durable

The caravan of the feeble ants will make fleet of rose petals
However strong the ocean waves’ tumult be it will cross the ocean

The poppy, roaming in the garden, shows its spots to every flower-bud
Knowing that by this exhibition it will be counted among the Lovers

O’ Sight! That was the One you showed us as a thousand
If this is your state what will be your credibility?

As I told the turtledove one day the free of here are treading on dust !
The buds started saying that I must be the knower of the garden’s secrets!

There are thousands of God’s Lovers, who are roaming in the wilderness
I shall adore the one who will be the lover of God’s people

This is the world’s custom, O Heart! Even winking is a sin
What will our respect be if you will be restless here?

In the darkness of the night I shall take out my tired caravan
My sigh will be shedding sparks my breath will be throwing flames

If there is nothing but show in the aim of your life
Your destruction from the world will be in a breath like spark

Do not ask about the condition of Iqbal, he is in the same state
Sitting somewhere by the wayside he must be waiting for oppression!

These poetic reflections, though seemingly surreal, are very absorbing in terms of efficaciousness and as far as poet’s life and developement of thought is concerned. These were Iqbal’s last days in Cambridge and the true nationalist within him was facing complex paradoxes at the end of his two year stay in Europe. Though it is extremely difficult to sift the gradual development of his philosophy from poetry, the scholars on Iqbal agree that early 20th century political developments in Europe, for instance the Triple Entente, forced him to reconsider his nationalistic views and ultimately led him to drop his stand on Hindu-Muslim unity in Sub Continent.

This versification by a 30 year old Muslim Indian student was an ad lib outburst against European nationalism. I now realise why Iqbal, who was paying tribute to Giuseppe Mazzini’s patriotism while passing through Italian shores on his way to England, was remembering 100 years of Muslim civilization in Italy on his way back. However one thing that the poetic theme fails to express is why Iqbal resolved his philosophical paradoxes by way of Islamic political philosophy rather than subscribing to cosmopolitanism, humanism or socialism, each of which was equally against nationalist imperialism in those times?

In my view, although having been gone through a good deal of economics, rationalism and tasawwuf, Iqbal could not find a meaningful expression of his romantic political ideas by 1907. This composition in March 1907 was a prelude to that later idealistic vision that Tawhid can be the basis of all polity.

Filed under: Iqbaliat, Islam & Modernity

Can a person refuse to fight?

…if called upon by the government to do so. Thomas Hobbes would concede this right with some limitations and John Locke would probably deny. And even though Lockean tradition is superior in terms of social contract theory, I tend to take refuge behind Hobbes, considering the Leviathan I am subjected to in my part of the world. But I am still not sure how to tackle this question, which albeit still at some distance, is moving towards me while staring ceaselessly on my face . While the angst is becoming unbearable and the masochist within me is yet again alive after so many years, I ramble inveterately in search of judgment.

For me, to fight or not to fight is not simply a question of making difference to the world by making use of one’s inherent belligerence. Whether metaphysical or ethical, the problem inevitably boils down to the ultimate motive of taking others’ lives by sacrificing your own. I may resist the sovereign in order to preserve myself but how can I justify my resistance in defending others. I am still skeptical about the question, but if the sovereign is equally egoistic, is it ethically culpable to deny defending others?

While I engage my self with the sovereign’s, he gives me another good reason to fight: National interest. Number of questions pop up in my mind. In this context, the raison d’être of my nation’s existence is still debatable. Is it religion or something beyond – or something obscure enough to even care for? Can it be that national interests are similar to citizens’ interests? All citizens or few – or most? But while I am busy unbracing these gordian knots about liberty, sovereign is only obsessed with questions related to property. An onlooker makes me realise that war is already on and interests of nations are unified. But the war is against terror and terror begets no one’s interest – only more terror. Can it be that one nation’s war terrifies other’s existence. Desperately wanting answers, I feel dejected and discombobulated. In my befuddlement, I turn to revelation.

Revelation preoccupies me better; probably, because I have never been a profound realist – always interested more in things metaphysical. While I am sure to exist briefly, I search through revelation and find allowance for fighting. It prescribes by qualifying it as a last resort to stop anarchy and calls it justice; – the only reason to fight for. I focus my mind to this life and start philosophizing about just war theories. The Book also delineates moral and ethical principles for the sovereign to rule – and to fight for. The revelation does not allow me to doubt his intentions and though his voice seldom reaches me, I know that he is a pragmatist. Albeit he wears his intention on his face, I ask him whether he intends ruling by these principles. He ignores my question and defines justice for me instead. I am not sure if fighting anybody else’s war is justice; even if interests appear to be unified. Revelation does not make a mention of interest; whether self, national or international. The sovereign atlast reminds me that I am falling a victim to religious anachronism.

Ceaselessly asking myself if revelation is bounded in time, I am not sure if God would judge me according to borders. I am not even sure if its a valid question to ask. In my suspension, I wait patiently for the actual question to come closer and look back into its eyes.

Filed under: Philosophy, Reflections, Suspended Judgments , Philosophy, Reflections