Pakistan — born in confusion?

Nation-states is a post-colonial concept. Before colonial invasions the world was mostly dominated by empires that spread right from one end of the world to the other — with the British Empire and the Empire of Japan on two ends and several in between. It was post-WWII that nationalist movements arose in most colonised lands and people attained their independences as ethnic majorities of their lands. In this, Pakistan is said to be unique, as our independence was not sought as an ethnicity of Punjabis, Balochs or Bengalis, rather we were a nation of Muslims as opposed to the Hindu nation.

Why was this so? For instance, the Ottoman Empire was broken down by an array of nationalist movements that had ethnic coloration. In fact, all Young Movements, like the Young Egypt Party, Libyan Youth Movement, Young Tunisians, Young Algerians, Young Turks, Al Fatat (young) of Syria and Iraq and others, had all propped up for their freedoms as Libyans, Algerians, Syrian, Tunisians etc, who were all strains of one Arab ethnicity, and who had previously been free and one under the Ottomans. Ironically, all these movements had the backing of France and Britain, the colonials, who wanted to give back these lands to their people as permanently divided entities defined by their ethnicities. So that there would be no chance for a reunion under the single flag of an Ummah, like it had been for centuries.

So, how was Pakistan to become a nation-state with no major ethnic nationality, rather a state joining several diverse ethnicities, in the name of one religious identity? To find that out, it would be useful to compare the Subcontinent with the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, at their peak, had united the lands from Morocco to Iraq, and from Azerbaijan to Bosnia, as its provinces; these were diverse people but the Arabs were a dominant ethnic majority in most of them. What the British had promised the Sharif of Mecca in return, if the Arabs would revolt against the Ottoman, who were of Turk ethnicity, was that they would recognise ‘Arab’ independence — something that would mean that the Arabs would be free to unite after getting rid of the Ottomans! But the naïve Sharif of Mecca could not assimilate the power of the so many nationalist movements in the land that were creating divisive identities in the people. So, the Arabs could never reunite under one flag again, as the nation-states had divided the power into several different polities that were immediately engaged in ‘divide and rule’ politics via UN agencies.

Apart from the Ottoman Empire, there were two Muslim power centres — the Persian Empire and the Muslim empires of the Subcontinent, the largest and most conclusive one was the Mughal Empire. The Mughals united under them all the land from the Himalayas to the Palk Strait (Sri Lanka), and from the lands west of the Indus to the lands east of the Brahmaputra. In these lands were a sundry of ethnicities, over two thousand, speaking over 200 mother tongues — and thus many strains of ethnicities converting to Islam as their choice of belief system. So, when the Mughals came to their demise, this became a disintegrated land in terms of a single nationalism based on ethnicity.

And the uniting force, the basis for identity politics, that could be played was a Hindu majority, calling for the Subcontinent to be freed as Hindustan! The idea of a nation-state where power was to be distributed according to the number of votes in the ballot box — something unheard of pre-colonialism — shook the Muslims of the Subcontinent awake from their slumber.

All of a sudden, 92 million Muslims, 44% of the Subcontinent’s population, were going to become a minority — one considered even below the social status of the scheduled castes by the majority Hindus. So, the whole Muslim leadership, including Mr Jinnah, got together under the slogan of a Muslim nationalism verses a Hindu one. Unlike one Arab ethnicity with one belief system in the Ottoman Empire, that could be further divided into Syrian Arabs, Libyan Arabs and so on, and still be substantial nations; the Muslims of the subcontinent could not afford to be diffused further into ‘ethnicities’ that would later be ‘scheduled’ further by the Hindu majority, on the basis of the colour and tongue. Islam would be recognised as a strain among the numerous strains of belief that are gathered as one under the Hindu umbrella.

But the Muslim of the Subcontinent wouldn’t have it that way. There were two majority nations in the Subcontinent, Muslims and Hindus — and the Muslims needed to be free not only of the British but also of the Hindus.

Surely, there were Balochs, Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Bengalis, but there were Biharis, Uttar Pradeshi and Hyderabadis too; but the movement for freedom in the Subcontinent was such that all identities were willfully given up for one uniting identity, in Islam. If that was not so, the Bengalis, who are the world’s second largest ethnic group, would have opted to go alone right at that time, but the spirit of the movement had woven them in the oneness.

So, the question is: was Pakistan born in a state of confusion? Was there a reason why there were no ‘young movements’ in the Subcontinent when they had reached right up to Afghanistan as the ‘Young Afghans’. Because the British wanted to leave the Subcontinent as one big ‘Old Hindu’, because they did not want to see another Muslim stronghold emerging when they had just gotten rid of the Ottomans — and they were trusting that the Hindu majority would ensure their permanent suppression. But once Pakistan was made, plan-B was to work on its disintegration. All the reason why the separation of Bangladesh was eased by India; and why the Baloch separatists get a hearing in the UN, UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization), while neither the Kashmiris, nor the Rohingyas, or the Blacks of America ever get such a luxury.

So, were the Muslims of the Subcontinent confused when they came out in every city, in every province, gathering around the Quaid and the Muslim League leadership, in droves, stamping their vote for an independent Muslim state, even when many of them knew they would never be able to enter it? Were the people confused when they voted for the Muslim League in the 1945 Elections, getting them 30 seats where Congress got 59? Was that a democratic choice of a people who identified themselves not with their colour or creed, but with their ideology, their belief? Or was that a confused, directionless mob?

Yes, some of them may have been confused, those some still are today!

Published in The Express Tribune, June 17^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.