Since 9/11, the need to redefine the nationalist ideology has shown signs for emphasising the importance of territoriality and globality within the widespread religious imagination of Pakistan. Along with redefining the power structure of the country, the significant constitutional steps led by 18th amendment increased the emphasis on the voices of the provincial heritage. The need is addressed, although largely strategically, by giving larger spaces for the display of the provincial heritage even at the national level. One can see activities at length at sites such as Lok Virsa Heritage Museum, Pakistan National Council of Arts, Heritage Museum and Pakistan Ideology Councils. The swift changes along with and across the borders, enforces the need for territorialising national identity although cautiously.

One can observe a shift in narrative that portrays historical characters in modern and less religiously monumentalised form. Especially the portrayal of Muhammad Ali Jinnah is ubiquitously giving a decisive shift to the debate between Islamic and/or Anglicised (modern) Muhammad Ali Jinnah as displayed at Pakistan Monument Museum, Islamabad established in 2010. Similarly, a study of the Army Museum Lahore suggests that the territory and the control of territory are the most important elements for defining Pakistan. The shift engenders a need for an articulated narration that could highlight the instrumental and pragmatic aspects of the story of the creation of the state of Pakistan. Thus, after reading ‘A Leadership Odyssey: Muslim Separatism and the Achievement of the Separate State of Pakistan,’ written by Professor Sikandar Hayat, one feels this need is met considerably.

Interestingly, the book weaves its thesis by combining the two strands into a larger synthesis for understanding the creation of Pakistan: one is to focus on the efforts of Muslim leaders who worked discreetly for the betterment of Muslim community of India; second is to encapsulate the discreet efforts into the grand narrative of the separatist politics teleologically directed towards the creation of Pakistan in British India. The first suggestion builds on the theory of instrumental approach towards the history of Muslims separatist (identity) politics in British India. It focuses on the biographical narration of six significant Muslim leaders ---- Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1898), Agha Khan III (1877-1957), Ameer Ali (1849-1928), Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931), Allama Iqbal (1877-1938) and Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948). It draws on the distinction between primordial politics, realising fixed goals for ethnically singular community and instrumental politics, change of goals in the changed context. It considers the birth of Pakistan, not as an outcome of civilizational clash between Hindus and Muslims, but rather as the instrumental engagement of the Muslim leadership for realising the developmental goals. It is “through the conscious, careful and deliberate role in promoting and securing Muslim interests in an inherently biased system of representative government…” in British India that the separatist movement found a way towards a separate state of Pakistan.

However, the second approach, that is to present the creation of Pakistan out of the discreet ‘separatist’ (identity) politics turns out to be both a success and a shortcoming. It provides the opportunity to defy the position of writers, on the one hand, those who emphasise religious and civilizational reasons for the partition and, on the other hand, from those reducing the importance of Muslim separatism (identity). It also provides an opportunity to make a case for the politics that employed Islam as a tool for achieving the desired political goals for the community. To accomplish its goals, the book however seems to sacrifice its own critical standards by reemploying teleological explanations of the past, fixed and primordial categories, and anachronistic interpretation.

The argument of the book spreads out in the seven chapters including a chapter for the precolonial history of Muslim and non-Muslim relationship and six chapters for the biographical narration of the leadership in a chronological manner. First chapter provides a detailed argument for the distinct Muslim identity even during Muslim rule in precolonial India, especially focusing on the Mughal period. It refuses to accept the theory of civilizational conflict, distanced from the shared traditions, and chalks out the case for the peaceful coexistence between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, however emphasising the condition of ‘under the Muslim rule’ in India.

The second chapter makes a case for the foundation of separatist politics by showing the uncomfortable Muslim position as reflected through the life of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. It shows that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan has given a unique direction to the development for Muslim community after the destruction of the political centre of the Mughal empire. It claims that his emphasis lays on the loyalty to the British government, stress on taking modern or British education and disliking for political activities for the Muslims. It is revealing to read Sir Syed’s speech, ‘The Present State of Indian Politics,’ as quoted extensively in the chapter, that shows his disliking for the representative system, competitive examinations for civil services, Congress and the Muslim leaders taking part in the Congress.

The Muslim separatist movement grew and consolidated through the efforts of Agha Khan and Ameer Ali further, as the third and fourth chapters explain. One finds interesting details of life and politics of Agha Khan, the religious leader of Ismaili community and Ameer Ali, the most influential anglicised Bengali Muslim elite, Judge, and a scholar. However, one wonders about the chronological placing of Agha Khan (1877-1957) before Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928) who was around 30 years senior to the Agha Khan. One can guess that because of Agha Khan’s handling of the Muslim question in line with Sir Syed Ahmed Khan placed him before Ameer Ali in the book. On the other hand, Syed Ameer Ali developed Central National Muhammadan Association to the point of annoying Sir Syed. However, the complexity increases with the discussion of the politics of Syed Ameer Ali who charted his Bengali, Westernized and orientalist path towards the politics of the Muslim identity as a Muslim Leaguer. The consolidation of Muslim Separatist Political Movement, notwithstanding the claim of chapter four, appears, however more as a different shade of the separatist (identity) politics.

The discussion of Muhammad Ali Jauhar, in the fifth chapter becomes a critical juncture for the argument of the book. Two important strands of the argument, that Muslim leadership was against the (Hindu) Congress, and the Muslim identity was trans-territorial, comes to collide with each other. The life of Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar becomes a moment of disillusionment for those having close connection with (Hindu) Congress and stood for territoriality for Indian Muslim identity at the same time. Earlier chapters portray both Ameer Ali and Agha Khan for developing a trans-national Muslim identity to the point that Agha Khan convinced, although unsuccessfully, the Turkish revolutionaries for saving the seat of Khilafat as a symbolic title of trans-national Muslim identity. On the other hand, Maulana Jauhar fought for the Khilafat Movement in comradeship of Gandhi, suggesting that he was conscious of his territorial nationalism and worked for the trans territorial identity for religious reasons. However, Maulana Jauhar got disillusioned from (Hindu) Congress in his last years of life and started showing more sympathy for the politics of separate identity, the chapter concludes.

The sixth chapter discusses the biography along with the claim that the politics of separatism received the formulation of separate state for the Muslims in India in the ideas of Dr Muhammad Iqbal. The chapter discusses Iqbal’s ideas of Muslim nationalism and maintains that Iqbal gradually becomes critical of European nation state rooted in ethnic identity. Iqbal was conscious of minority position however he develops Muslim nationalism in universal and abstract terms. The chapter highlights the conflict between the ideas of Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah especially in the context of Simon commission. However, it emphasises that the Nehru report of 1928 and the beginning of the politics of 1930s brought these two figures closer to each other, and especially after 1937, when Allama Iqbal demanded for the autonomous state in the Indian federation for implementing the reformed Sharia. It however claims further that Iqbal wanted a completely free state of Muslims.

The last chapter of the book on Muhammad Ali Jinnah further stressed on the role of instrumental politics for achieving the separate state for Muslims of India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah however appeared not only as a kind of ideal type for the instrumental leadership but also as a gaze to read into the biographical survey of the Muslim leadership stood for the separatist politics. Dividing the life of Jinnah in multiple stages, the chapter emphasises that the earlier nationalist-Congressite Jinnah, who was energetic for Hindu-Muslim friendship, however reluctantly moved towards the separatist politics because of Hinduization of Congress. The chapter points out that the diverse and conflicting Muslim voices, meanwhile became the reason for Jinnah’s disillusionment from the overall politics. Only after the elections of 1937, Muhammad Ali Jinnah found the clear way for the separatist politics and started playing a leadership role for the Muslim minority in British India. The chapter concludes with the claim that the charisma of Jinnah, and the animosity of (Hindu) Congress more than anything else led to the birth of Pakistan.

Drawing upon the distinction of primordial and instrumental mode of politics, this book concludes that the birth of Pakistan was an outcome of instrumental politics of Muslim leadership using religious symbols for protecting and securing the interests of the community. Overall, the book is a valuable contribution for the historiography of separatist politics and provides very interesting primary sources for the biography of the significant Muslim leadership. It is, although not easy to digest the larger argument of the book that connects diverse historical interests of the Muslim leadership into the singular strand of the politics of Muslim separatism teleologically driven towards the construction of Pakistan. However, the emphasis on instrumentality by this book not only opens a new dimension for answering a lot of questions surrounding the existence of Muslims in the politics of this region but also provides justification for the centrist politics of the Pakistani state to secure its existence and chart new identity in the face of growing cultural and global forces for diversity.

Dr Umber Bin Ibad is a Associate Professor of History at FCC University, Lahore and is also author of the book, ‘Sufi Shrines and the Pakistani State: The End of Religious Pluralism’.