The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and author of the book Jinnah: Myth and Reality (Vanguard). He specialises in cyber laws, internet freedom and public interest litigation and tweets @therealylh
Furthermore, did Partition solve the Hindu-Muslim problem and serve the interests of those who had demanded it in the first place? The answer to that question depends on the individual’s perspective. Many Muslims benefited from the creation of Pakistan, many of whom may not have demanded Pakistan or were at best ambivalent towards its creation. A new bourgeoisie class emerged in what is now Pakistan out of the lower peasantry. The Muslims of what is now India were the net losers (even though they initially gained so long as borders between Pakistan and India remained permeable). Not only did they lose their best and brightest to the new nation, but have been viewed with suspicion having put their lot entirely behind the creation of Pakistan. Hindus who were forced to leave Pakistan following riots also lost considerably. It must also be said that while a new Muslim bourgeoisie class emerged, the loss of the existing Hindu bourgeoisie and capitalist classes hurt the region that is Pakistan.
India — though it does not like to admit it — was as a whole better off without the northwest regions. This allowed India to have a more manageable Muslim minority while it remained free to follow its destiny with minimal losses. This is the real reason why the Congress had torpedoed the Cabinet Mission Plan, which would have been the best solution to keep India united.
It is time we revisited and at any rate, reimagined our national identity. First and foremost must come the realisation that all nation-states are borne out of accidents of history. One could argue that the inability of the Congress and the Muslim League to agree on a constitution for a United India played a major role in the eventual creation of Pakistan. That means we should see that date as a historical milestone when the modern nation of Pakistan came into existence. The idea of Pakistan and Pakistaniat must transcend the limited nationalism which may or may not have created it.
We should not remain wedded to ideological myths and canards promoted by people who ironically had opposed the creation of Pakistan. Furthermore, to suggest that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam is a historically inaccurate narrative. Without a sense of rootedness in the land, we may never be able to develop a sense of unity and purpose.
Iqbal’s dream is not linked to the idea of a territorial Pakistani nationality. Of the two founding fathers of Pakistan, Jinnah as a man of action remains more relevant as he understood more than anyone else that Pakistan had to separate religion from the state in order to survive. To him the idea of Pakistan was a horizontal division to end the vertical division in the subcontinent and not some vague and undefined faith-based utopia. So let us celebrate August 14, 1947 both as a starting point and an ending point. Let us fashion a state that instead of being wedded to the past looks towards the future.
Each generation faces its own challenges. Ours is a particularly tested generation. We face religious extremism, terrorism, political instability and separatism. We need to rise up to the challenge. Therefore this August 14, we ought to pledge ourselves to the idea that Pakistan is a territorial nation state, man-made and temporal, which can survive only if we let go of pipedreams and shadows that we have been chasing for the last 66 years.
Happy Independence Day.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 14th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (45)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Jinnah's leaning isas important today as ever since his death. Regardless of that he was a liberal he was no secular at all. 1946 general elections remind us how Jinnah capitalised on the Islamic slogans to get more seats especially in Punjab. And his words for Pakistan as a "premier Islamic state" during his address to the people of US tell a distinct side of his in the struggle for Pakistan. Pervez Hoodboy's journal "Jinnah -- setting the record straight" is a good read in regards.
@ US Centcom: Thanks for your good wishes for all Pakistanis. Perhaps your comments are the best amongst all. A hope and directions against confusion and chaos I see in other comments.
On this historic day of joy and celebration, U.S. Central Command would like to extend warm wishes and say, “Jashn-e-Azaadi Mubarak” to each and every Pakistani living in and outside Pakistan. We hope that this day brings with it a sense of joy, pride and unity among all Pakistanis. We honor the sacrifices and the struggles of your founding fathers, from motivational poets like Allama Muhammad Iqbal to prominent statesmen like Muhammad Ali Jinnah. We hope to see a strong and stable Pakistan leading its way towards prosperity and peace. Pakistani Zindabaad, Pakistan Paindabaad.
Abdul Quddus DET-United States Central Command
@Zalim singh: India — though it does not like to admit it — was as a whole better off without the northwest regions. absolutely right. Add East Bengal to it. . East Bengal (Bangladesh) lets us live, unlike West Pakistan (Pakistan).
Typical liberal. Standing ashamed in front of the Indians. And, he is quite apologetic for the freedom Kashmiris are fighting today.
@I am a Khan: Those innocent kashmiris also included some 2-3 lakh Hindus & Sikhs who were first subjected to a series of massacres and have now been entirely cleansed out of the Valley.
@wonderer:
this tarek guy is confused he says in 1947 pakistan's navy was called 'her majesty' navy, how could that have been when her majesty didn't even become queen until 1952.
I wish you remember (i am sure you must have read that) the chapter on 1945 elections and the way AIML fought that campaign.
Happy Independence Day! Pakistan saved us from the Hindus, otherwise all of us would have been massacred like the innocent Kashmiris!
Tiberius, you are right in that CMP does not contain the literal word "secession", but it is "implied" in that whereby any Province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 yearly intervals thereafter <\quote>. So decision making in the fate of nations is not done via wishful thinking but by taking the worst case scenarios into account. India with a weak centre and too many forces pulling in the opposite directions would not have avoided balkanisation and would've spent most of its energies paying attention to the perpetual sword hanging over its head rather than towards development. And especially after Mr Jinnah made his intentions pretty clear in his address on June 5 when he said "Let me tell you,that Muslim India will not rest content until we have established full, complete and sovereign Pakistan."
Does it truly matter now? The Pakistan that Jinnah created ended in 1971, when majority Pakistanis decided that they wanted to do nothing with Pakistan. Now all that matters is what the present day so-called Pakistanis want. The majority will decide the direction that Pakistan takes.
I don't think many of the people commenting on Cabinet Mission Plan have actually read it. Read the text:
It did not contain any reference to secession. It may have been part of a preliminary proposal but the final plan did not have an opt out clause.
Congress President Azad was the biggest supporter of the Cabinet Mission Plan. In his Jamia Masjid address where he criticizes the creation of Pakistan, he goes on to say that CMP was the proposal that would have kept India united and that he had supported it because it preserved what was good in Pakistan demand while keeping India united.
Zareer Masani's article in Outlook India "If Atlee hadn't partitioned India" has already answered some of the comments made here.
GP
My source is India Wins Freedom in which the same Azad calls the rejection of the CMP a himalayan blunder.
Had you read closely your source you would see that this was a letter in response to ML proposals. The final shape of cabinet mission plan came on 16 May which both League and Congress accepted and which contained no reference to secession.
So please read your own source carefully
"India — though it does not like to admit it — was as a whole better off without the northwest regions."
I would state in a different way:- "Indians are a lot better off without the northwest part of India, and are extremely thankful to Mr. Jinnah for making this possible, however they do have a feeling of loss for the geographic area (land not people)!!!! When some people talk about "Akhand Bharat" they talk only about the historical land area......................
Without a sense of rootedness in the land, we may never be able to develop a sense of unity and purpose.
This was a problem with Jinnah's Pakistan. He should have asked for a homeland for the Muslims of the Sub continent in a truly Muslim homeland of their forefathers - Arabia and Turkey, instead of lands that were of Hindus, who were not pure enough. This would have been similar to the creation of Israel. Imagine if the people had settled in Arabia, all of them would have been rich with the oil resources, instead of having to fight with India and be at their mercy for water.
There would have been a better sense of rootedness in Islam's holiest place and there would be no sectarian conflict.
The author would be well advise to learn more about Jinnah and his Pakistan. Pakistan was created for a purpose which has been served. There is no one who still needs Pakistan. A conversation between two Ex-Palistanis on the following link will be illuminating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIjydcEHnFA
You became independent on 14th August 1947; have you learnt what to do with this independence since that fateful day? Food for thought! an happy independence day!!
I wonder if the author has understood the crux of the Cabinet mission plan. It implied an option of secession every 10 years for the 2 Muslim majority parts plus all the princely states. Which means there was a good chance of there being a Pakistan after 10 years but worse, a possible 500 other independent states. So it was a non-starter and thankfully the Congress leadership was pragmatic enough to back out. Mr Jinnah was happy to accept a moth-eaten Pakistan but Congress refused to accept a moth-eaten India.
GP65
Congress accepted the Cabinet mission plan and then tried to get out of it. What you say was never an issue raised by Nehru and nothing in CMP talks out rightly of 10 year secession. What it speaks of is a reconsideration of terms of constitution. Big difference.
@author: "... Without a sense of rootedness in the land, we may never be able to develop a sense of unity and purpose. ... "
Your people lost that rootedness when you gave up the faith and philosophy of your glorious ancestors and for whatever reason decided to take up the ways of invaders.
India — though it does not like to admit it — was as a whole better off without the northwest regions.
absolutely right. Add East Bengal to it.
@manish rohera: i partially agree with u,,,,,SARDAR VALLABHA BHAI PATEL""" is the hero of modern united india,,,,,
Jinnah was a great guy. Let's not waste time on praising and criticising him. . Work for development of your country. That is what he would have wanted.
@C. Nandkishore: I wish you had pointed out a few of those "inventions." I usually enjoy your comments and find them instructive. Though I may not always agree with your opinions I feel they are written with good intent.
the biggest ideology of all is economics, that is the why thousands of indian busunessmen are voting with their feet to live in uae, kuwait, hong kong etc. that is the reason why you see thousands of muslims on their rickety boats trying to get to europe, australia etc. economics is the reason why switzerland and Norway don't want to become members of the EU, because they don't want to share their wealth with others. how mean is that?.
economics is the reason why oil rich arab states had no arab spring. economics is the reason why we see azadi movement in kashmir.
@all great to see pragmatic comments on jinnah and mostly true not just blatant lies of our textbook jinnah was an envious minded person,nehru a man who was a selfish one and gandhi an over idealistic fool the only pragmatic politicians were patel who built a united strong india and abul kalam who predicted pak's future(today's pak) in those days
"Without a sense of rootedness in the land, we may never be able to develop a sense of unity and purpose." - this sentence truly highlights a key solution to our ever growing sectarianism
We are what we are in large part because of the circumstances of our birth. Independent should have meant a liberation of the spirit, a broadening of our mental horizons.
Jinnah Pakistan was not supposed (even without Objective Resolution), Mullah and Islam) to be progressive nation instead an outpost of reactionary thinking for colonial collaborators.
The leadership of the Muslim League (including Jinnah/Iqbal), was composed of colonial benifitier, urban elites, plodding and lustreless, nawabs and sardars drawn mostly from the aristocracy and the landed class. Such a leadership could never ever result a progressive Pakistan. Our faults are deep in our history and in our birth.
Before 47, Jinnah used religion as basis for his politics and separate home land. After 1947, all of sudden he start preaching/professing a secular state. As if there is ON/OFF switch from religion to secularism. Jinnah vision and his Pakistan is political mess that has hypocrisy and confusion by default.
@YLH:
Though I don't agree with you on some major points of debate on Pakistan's formation, you are right in calling for Pakistan to reinvent itself. Without rooting itself in territory and calling everyone inside as simply Pakistani, this bloodshed and radicalisation will not end. In this, if Jinnah's vision is found to be ambigious, then better dump it. We should not be slaves to the thinking of our elders, be it wrt religious books or with regards to our national identity.
@Anas Abbas @SM
Astute observation.
@sid You are pretty close to what Girilal Jain (Ex Editor of Hindustan times) once said about Jinnah, i.e. "Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the greatest benefactors of the Hindus, if not a Hindu in disguise." How prophetic!!!
@sid: "Mr Jinnah was the best thing that happened to India………..Short term pain for long term gain……..He is the real father of India……. "
From now on for every Indian it should be in this order;
Bapu Gandhi Chacha Nehru and Chacha JinnahSo,According to u Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus are net loosers by leaving and India and they should be like pakistan.......killing each other.........I thank jinnah more than gandhi for creating pakistan and prey for him.......that we got rid of mullah's and low ground relegious mentality.........
Adding my two pennies worth to SM's comments; Jinnah was never a constitutionalist too or he would not have dismissed Dr Khan Sahib’s ministry in the first week of independence.
Repeating, Jinnah was neither secular nor islamist, he was just an opportunist politician who used religion as a tool, primarily for ego gratification only.
Great job as usual YLH. There is still time for a course correction in Pakistan.....
Mr Jinnah was the best thing that happened to India...........Short term pain for long term gain........He is the real father of India.......
Jinnah was a lawyer who won his biggest case in life called - Pakistan. He was no scholar, no moderate, no Islamist, no secularist, no democrat, perhaps constitutionalist, but then the constitution itself was British during his time. Greatest of all he was not a Statesman that he needs to be discussed any more than it has already been done. He was a petty minded lawyer who in his competition with Nehru, and just to spite him create the ill conceived nation called Pakistan. Therefore, forget about what he wanted because he was dying and he knew it, and he still did not had any plans for the new country, and Pakistanis should think about what they want to make it of now that they have the country and somehow have to make do with it. Spending billions on military and militancy is however, definitely not the way to go for it. Enjoy the day. Happy Independence.
@Author, I agree with all you say with some reservations. Pakistan should look to the future as a state where religion plays no part in the affairs of the state. Deal with the world as respectable people not as Muslims. "Therefore this August 14, we ought to pledge ourselves to the idea that Pakistan is a territorial nation state, man-made and temporal, which can survive only if we let go of pipedreams and shadows that we have been chasing for the last 66 years." Happy Independence Day. @Anas Abbas, Your view of Jinnah is somewhat confused. Jinnah was no doubt a secular leader who got blinded by the lure of personal power and demanded Pakistan that he could rule. Having achieved his personal ambition he reverted to his true self and declared his secularism. You are correct about him creating the Kashmir issue. Kashmir would have been solved had Gandhi not been assassinated or Jinnah had lived a little longer.
@Author, I agree with all you say with some reservations. Pakistan should look to the future as a state where religion plays no part in the affairs of the state. Deal with the world as respectable people not as Muslims. "Therefore this August 14, we ought to pledge ourselves to the idea that Pakistan is a territorial nation state, man-made and temporal, which can survive only if we let go of pipedreams and shadows that we have been chasing for the last 66 years." Happy Independence Day. @Anas Abbas, Your view of Jinnah is somewhat confused. Jinnah was no doubt a secular leader who got blinded by the lure of personal power and demanded Pakistan that he could rule. Having achieved his personal ambition he reverted to his true self and declared his secularism. You are correct about him creating the Kashmir issue. Kashmir would have been solved had Gandhi not been assassinated or Jinnah had lived a little longer.
So many new inventions in this article.
Jinnah was neither secular nor an islamist. He was just a pragmatic politician who exploited both sec/islamists. Its totally ridiculous to promote jinnah as a secular leader. Scholar Ishtiaq ahmed has written comprehensive piece on this defining the real jinnah. Jinnah infact is the real we have kashmir issue today because he ordered the invasion of kashmir by tribals that eventually culminated into a total mess.