Powerful Shurafa groups from Bengal, UP (supported by Bihar, Central Provinces and so on) and Punjab (lined up with the NWFP — now called Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa — and Sindh) had been jostling for power and clout within the leadership of the Muslim League (as in the Muslim political and social domain elsewhere in the northern subcontinent). This tussle was expressed not only in the nominations on key positions in the party, but also in public pronouncements about, for example, which language would be adopted as the ‘official’ language of the expected new state. As we know, UP and Punjab came out as clear winners in this manoeuvring for power and it was due to the relative political power of these two united groups in the Muslim League that Urdu was declared to be the dominant language in the face of fierce opposition from Bengal. Jinnah, coming from the western province of Gujarat and also being excessively anglicised, was agreed upon by these competing groups as a neutral arbiter. (After the Partition, as we all know only too well, he was to announce in Dhaka that Urdu and only Urdu would be Pakistan’s ‘national’ language, triggering protests which would be violently suppressed.) Bengal’s relative position within the Muslim League weakened further due to the decision to give Calcutta to India as a result of political negotiations between the Muslim League and the Congress.
We can see, with the benefit of hindsight, that the decision of declaring Urdu as the single Muslim League-supported (and later as the single state-supported) language had more political reasons than those related to linguistic, governance, educational or other considerations. In brief, this was the expression of the victory of the united elite of UP and Punjab over other groups, mainly the one representing the elite of Bengal. (It is another matter that in the initial years after the founding of the new state, these two powerful groups developed tensions with each other and a new bickering began which, in one way or another, still continues.) Given the multi-linguistic and multicultural milieu of what became Pakistan in 1947 (and what remains of it after 1971), this insistence on a ‘single’ language was unfortunate because on the one hand it gave a clear indication that the new state would have no patience with ‘regional cultures’ or ‘sub-cultures’ and, on the other, it encouraged a misplaced sense of political superiority among those who were born into the dominant culture or grew up in an ‘Urdu environment’, so to speak. All the groups using other languages and living other cultures were required to acknowledge and submit to this supremacy. Bengal had developed a powerful expression of its distinct language and culture during the colonial era and it was naïve to expect the Bengalis to accept this unreasonable demand in a state where they found themselves constituting a numerical majority. However, a few communities — ‘community’ here meaning a collection of biradaris — representing other languages and ‘subcultures’, felt themselves politically weaker than the group dominating the establishment of the new state. They found it pragmatic to accept this demand and carve out a place for themselves in the newly-founded state.
I got a chance to look into the mind of an observer belonging to one such community when, during one of my Sunday morning strolls in the second-hand book bazaar near Regal Chowk, I discovered and bought an Urdu book with a twin title — Bilwani ka Andaz-e Bayan and Main ne Dekha Suqoot-e Dhaka — by Mohammad Siddiq Bilwani. The latter title refers to a longer piece placed near the end of the volume comprising assorted writings — essays, articles, letters to newspaper editors — by the author who by profession is a noteworthy businessman, based in Karachi. That he writes only as a hobby is clear from the fact that the book is officially priced at Rs0. (The expenses of publishing the book have apparently been met through the several four-colour advertisements included in the volume.) Hailing from the Muslim princely state of Bantva-Manavadar situated in Gujarat, Bilwani migrated with the better part of his biradari to Karachi after 1947. As his Guajarati-speaking Memon family ran businesses in places as far south as Kochin and Mysore, it continued its tradition of starting new businesses in various towns of West and East Pakistan. His personal account of the events of 1971, seen in the perspective of what happened around and after 1947, is therefore worth exploring in our quest to know what brought the mindset into being which made it possible for the rulers of this country to formulate and pursue the disastrous policies that they did. That is what I intend to do in the next column.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 10th, 2011.
COMMENTS (35)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@G. Din
I appreciate your optimism.I hope you will be proved right.
@Hariharmani: "I can honestly say in next 50 years,it will not look like today,it will split in more managegable nations" I would like to offer the following for you to chew on. When India got its independence how many political units -kingdoms, principalities, fiefdoms, states apart from what was British India - was India divided in? How many linguistic and cultural groups were in existence then? Yet, how and why did they all coalesce into one grand India? What was the motivational force underlying the idea of India that after centuries and centuries of separation from each other, they came together and made it not only possible but to endure till date. You are talking about 50 years; the Indian Union has already endured 64 years and counting. All our vulnerabilities are now behind us. It is going pretty strong by any one's standard. Answer, ironically, to all that can be found in what happened to a seemingly monolithic, mono-religious people who were given (didn't earn!) a country at the same time. Its internal contradictions tore it asunder in less than a quarter of a century. Then, what kind of an creature is a "manageable nation"? What criteria do you believe should form the basis of "manageability"? I agree, with the explosion of population, we will have to have smaller geographical units for better administration as the population density rises. There is the proposal of the Chief Minister of UP to split her state into four states for easier administration/ manageability, but no one is talking about nations.
Sub-continent is too varied,too large in land mass,to many different cultures,even divided in 3 nations,it is too un welding,to large even at the present way,I fear and I can honestly say in next 50 years,it will not look like today,it will split in more managegable nations,I predict,we may not live to see it further splits,signs are all there,population explosion,riots,political instability,terrorism,very little respect for police and law and order,it is more law and disorder,uncontrolled corruption,unity,political parties in disray,no strong central power to hold things togather,all sure sign of disintegeration,in what form and what will triger this is no one knows,only it is sure to happen,it has already started in Pakistan.Bengaladesh and India sooner than later,to happen.It is sad,but unavoidable.
@K B Kale: A very few understand what it means to merger,people with differant national aspiration,culture,religion and destiny of mind set should never form a political union.It is a huge mistake and misunderstanding of real differences in mind set.Mexican can not merge with usa and Cannada should never opt for merger with USA.India wisely decided not to encourage then or now if ever,same ditto Pakistan,but some how Pakistan does not understand on purpose,India will never opt for undoing the partition,it was good for India on hindsight,it did not work out for Pakistan,that is the real reality,Mr Jinnah,not really intended to do Congress a favor by spliting.It just worked for best.Nice thought,for once.Thank you.
Bangladesh should join India since the people have similar customs, culture and appearance.
@G Din, I agreed some i think same way why is like that????
Cynics look upon todays political and security landscape in S Asia and thank Mr Jinnah for dividing subcontinental Indian muslims into 3 political forces ( Bangladesh is still demanding an apology from West Pakistan for the events leading upto 1971 and war crime trials are proceeding in Bangladesh ) and marginalizing them , while leaving a more manageable, pluralistic, democratic India as the centre-piece . People who say India should thank Jinnah , have a point.
Whatever that was, two or three nation theory, it is irrelevant to us Indians, because, today, as an Indian, I profoundly thank Mr. Jinnah for dividing the sub-continent and giving us, the real Indians, an opportunity to reclaim our lost glory. We, Indians must be more thankful to Mr.Jinnah than Mahatma Gandhi for giving us this great opportunity. Pakistanis, often say that India is about to grab Pakistan, I would like to tell them that, even if Pak or BD, ever request a merger with India, the vast majority of Indians, including Indian Muslims, would oppose the idea tooth and nail. I shudder at the very thought of a united sub-continental India!!
@M Ahmed
The Bengali political stalwarts of 1947 era should have raised the Bangladesh issue in 1947. Did they lie low out of prudence?
Now that you mention it, I think it is Muslim League and its 'hallowed' leadership that should have raised a couple of issues before 1947.
A, It should have told Ahmadis, specifically Zafarullah Khan, the author of the Pakistan resolution, not to bother as Pakistan was not meant for them.
B. It should have asked Shaheed Huseyn Suhrawardi not to launch 'Direct Action' for Pakistan as Bengalis were not welcome.
C. Muslim League should have asked the Muslims of UP/Bihar specially the Shias, to stay put as they were not going to be accepted.
D. And it should have told all minorities to run for their lives.
Why did the 'Leadership' lie- low, high or whatever?
@ Bangladeshi,
It is not so simple as you imagine.
Do you think Bangladesh can merge with India any time it wants, when large majority of Indians look at Pakistan and Bangladesh as "good riddance", and would never support the idea of merging back ............. !
@Bangladeshi: Brilliant ! Just you forgot to add the two pieces of BD and Pakistan and make a Nation once again. Try to remove Nepal from the map , since its existence goes against two nation theory ! Why muslim Arabs and christian Europeans have so many countries I wonder ! But this has little to do with Two Nation theory, strictly meant for south asia and certain other planets like Mars and Neptune.
@M.Ahmed
Bengalis of Bangaldesh had a distinct language and culture. Then their alignment with All India Muslim League was not only unnatural but an easy ride to get out of the British clutch.
Not only the Bengalis of East Bengal but Muslims of UP, Punjabis of Punjab(East and West) , Sindhis and the Pakhtuns all had their own distinct language and culture. In fact they still do have their distinct language and culture. All of them came together on the promise of a homeland for ALL Muslims of undivided India. They, in fact, constituted the majority of the population of Pakistan in at the time of independence. They felt betrayed when they were told that Pakistan was only for Urdu speaking Muslims.
In case you did not notice the whole of undivided India got 'out of the clutches of the British', yes, even those who did not believe in the Muslim League.So get rid of the notion that No Muslim League equals No Independence, it may equal No Pakistan though. And how many leaders of the Muslim League were ever jailed by the British for demanding independence? Any idea?
It is foolish to believe that two nation thoery is not a reality. However, just because something is real does not make it good. Living together despite differences is any day much grander and soulful idea than living separately, which is at best a practical compromise. In the case of India, thanks to some great leaders in the early years, the grander idea has survived and borne some fruits. For Pakistan, it appears that some people, now Bengladesh, decided that it was still more practical to mutate further and leave separately.
If 2 nation theory is correct, what about Muslims who opted to remain within present day India, and are equal in number to those in Pakistan or Bangladesh. What about Bihari muslims stuck in no-man's land in Bangladesh. Nobody seems to want them. Muslims were biggest losers of 2 nation theory and partition. All Hindus got concentrated within present India but Muslims got split into 3 parts. In India they have to live under the goodwill of majority community. In Pakistan and Bangladesh they are no more in a position to challenge India in any sphere. They are left lamenting about Indian hegemony. Sub-continent muslims it seems are their own worst enemies.
Bengalis of Bangaldesh had a distinct language and culture. Then their alignment with All India Muslim League was not only unnatural but an easy ride to get out of the British clutch.
The Bengali political stalwarts of 1947 era should have raised the Bangladesh issue in 1947. Did they lie low out of prudence?
@Imran: According to 'two-nation theory' muslims were ONE nation. If this theory is right, then, why Bangladesh separated from Pakistan?????????
Consequence of a sick mindset of just freed slaves to politically, culturally and economically enslave / colonize / marginalize and exploit a more advanced and developed, cultural, social, educational, political and educational, society. Which was also numerically in majority. Bad for the west wing but good for the majority i.e. the Bengali. The tragedy was the way the separation and liberation happened, it also showed the hollowness of the misguided " two nation theory".
Reply to Imran: You say in these comments: "Also, if the 2 nation theory was wrong, bangladesh would have merged into india." Following Two nation theory (of Hindus and Muslims being two separate nations), Pakistan was formed as a nation comprising West Pakistan and East Pakistan. According to this theory, muslims were ONE nation in this subcontinent. I would like to know that If this theory was right, then, why East Pakistan separated itself from Pakistan and became a separate nation, Bangladesh??????
The independence movement of the then E.PAK started with the 1952 Language movement and it was really stupid of the punjabi elite to force Urdu as the only national language on the majority Bangalies And the final nail in the coffin was "operation search light". Whoever planned this operation was utterly naive & stupid.
TO all indians, two nation theory is the basis of BD & PAK existence, Without two nation theory BD would not have come to existence & would have been merged into INDIA just like occupied KASHMIR. Two nation theory is not a theory anymore but a well established reality.
A nation is not about religion, language or culture. It is about bonding between majority of people, who are willing to work together for combined betterment, economic growth and welfare. Nation is a social contract, where every citizen lets other live with his freedoms (Cultural, linguistic and Religion) as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. Constitution and Law are an overt definition of such social contract, giving more detailed definition to foundational idea of a nation.
If a lump of territory doesn't have such a social contract, then it isn't a nation at all.
Jinnah himself never spoke much Urdu. It was duplicity on his part to force a foreign language on Bengalis. The history proved his action wrong without a doubt. I am not sure when he imposed Urdu on Bengalis did he deliver his speech in Urdu or his first language English?
Muslim League leadership through a process of consensus building adopted Urdu as their language of choice, had this not been the case Bengali Muslim League leaders would have opposed this decision which they did not and conceded to democratic principles. Post partition had State of Pakistan been allowed to follow the same ideals of democratic principles where decisions were based on debate and consensus building issues of language could have been resolved, the democratic way. Sadly, we all know that is not the case, democratic principles were not allowed to prosper and the country became hostage to the whims of establishment led by military dictators. Not much has changed.
Even if 'Bongobandhu' had made such a request, I doubt if India would have welcomed them with open arms.
@Babloo: Urdu is the official language for the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The tendency to have a national this and national that including national language, national dress , national bird(??) , national color ( green blue) and so on is destructive and is exploited by the numerical majorities in societies to impose their own language, dress or favourite bird(?) on other people. Having said that, there are some basic things which a nation should have like a flag and an anthem. But societies should be very careful in adding more to this national list and adopt a principle that this list should be as small as possible. A practical question would arise about what language should the govt use for communication if there is no national language as such. The language of the majority can be choosen to overcome this practical difficulty with the understanding that this language is not the "national" language but a language used for administrative convenience and the govt should not be in the business of promoting this language over any others.
The whole outcome was the result of this 'two-nation theory' and the search for commonalities in 'divergent-us' and then building the nation on those commonalities. The diversity in us was/is impaired by this theory and we are still reluctant to grant provincial autonomy to the federating units (only the current PPP-coalition government did grant some!) . While we should have achieved the objective of strong Pakistan through strong federating units, but instead we tried to have a strong Pakistan through a stronger centre at the expense of weaker federating units. Alas we have still not yet learned from history! A good read, indeed.
To fully appreciate the shock, horror and idiocy of going to Dhaka and declaring that Urdu would be the only official language of Pakistan ( Bengalis out numbered West Pakistanis ) you have to understand how you would have reacted if 'Bango-Bandhu' Sheikh Mujibar Rehman came to Lahore and declared that henceforth Bengali would be the only official language of East and West Pakistan and all Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans would be required to study Bengali and official business of the state would be conducted in Bengali.
Please take a moment and think about it.
An otherwise good, scholarly article is marred by the author's repeated suggestion that only Bengali "elites" cared for their language. This is totally untrue.
Bangladeshi historians have extensively documented how the ML elite starting with Jinnah himself were utterly contemptuous and dismissive of Bengali sensibilities.
The major cause of liberation movement of East Pakistan was the suppression of the language of Bengalis by declaring Urdu as the official language in East Pakistan, By Mr Jinnah. In contrast, each India state has the local language ( yes Kashmiri for Kashmiris and Bengali for Bengalis ) as an official language of the state. Its the celebration of diversity that has made India stronger and more unified today than at any time of its history.