SOROOR AHMED takes elitism as one of the factors responsible for the problems Pakistan has been facing since its creation.
Pakistan , which is once again in the news for all the wrong reasons, is apparently the only nation in the Muslim history to be established in the name of Islam by a group of elites. Even Madinah evolved from below to emerge as an Islamic city-state during Prophet Muhammad’s time (peace be with him) and not created hurriedly from the above, like this country in the subcontinent.
It was from Madinah that the expansion of this faith began. Apart from that Islam was either spread by the proselytizers, traders and navigators. However, there are instances where Islam spread after the particular region was physically conquered or annexed by Muslim rulers. But that was not always true. For example, India remained largely a Hindu country notwithstanding the Muslim rule for such a long period. Similar was the case with Spain . Even Lebanon, Greece, Yugoslavia and many other Balkan states largely remained Christian despite a long-time Muslim rule.
Pakistan is the only country whose founding fathers consciously chose a very puritan-sounding name for it. Coincidentally, it was born on one of the most auspicious days of Islamic calendar, that is, 27th of Ramadhan.
Apart from these special features, there are very few things Islamic to boast about in the six decades of its history. Its role in the retreat of Soviet Union from Afghanistan , which subsequently led to its dismemberment, can be cited as an achievement. But even that move by the then ruler General Zia-ul-Haque was stiffly opposed by the Left-leaning intellectuals, the landed gentry and media of the country.
However, that too was more possible because of the defiant and brave stand taken by the Afghans. As high as 1.3 million, that is 13 lakhs, Afghans died in the eight years of relentless struggle against the Super Power of the world. Ironically, the world has forgotten this rare achievement of the 20th century.
But how can it be that the nation founded in the name of Islam witnessed the killing of 40 people in its largest city just because the dismissed Chief Justice of the country, Chaudhary Iftikhar, was about to deliver his speech against the government. Islam and massacre of people can never go together. However, this is not the only instance of big violence in the history of Pakistan . It saw its dismemberment more than 35 years ago. Its largest city Karachi had been rocked by many ethnic earthquakes. And the North Western Frontier Province and Baluchistan often remain in turmoil. If a government carries on crackdown on madrasas and bombs the one in Bajour, the CIA and Mossad-aided agents target the refugee camps on Afghan borders or the assembly of Ulema in Karachi . The weak government fully knowing the real culprits dismisses these acts by stating that they are the handiwork of the terrorists and suicide bombers. It is the same country, which is today playing into the hands of Islam’s number one enemy, the United States of America .
The problems of Pakistan can be traced to its origin. It is paying the price of elitism. The very idea of creating a country for Muslims – as if there was no Muslim country left for them in the world – sounds something like the Zionist state for the Jews. A true Islamic state comes into being after a struggle by the people from below and not by the English-speaking elite as in the case of Pakistan . All the big changes or revolution gather momentum from below.
Here the elite used the word Islam only to emotionally attract the common masses. For a moment they did succeed. True, a lot of people of different communities died in the riots which took place at the time of partition, but that does not mean that Pakistan came into existence after a long struggle by the downtrodden and common masses.
It is not that Pakistan is out and out a failed state. It did make some progress and survived heavy odds at the time of its birth, after the creation of Bangladesh and during the Afghan war years. There are a large number of dedicated, committed and honest people in that country, but since its very foundation is weak the country failed to yield the desired result.
The Pakistan movement was led by affluent Muslims of North India. No doubt, a section of common mass did respond, but the leadership was more or less elitist. Save in Bengal , where the movement was of mass nature, in rest of the country the subalterns of the Muslims were largely ignored. No movement can claim that it is Islamic by ignoring the downtrodden and weaker sections of the society. Islam stands for the entire humanity. It always inspired and attracted the poor cutting across the religious line. But in the case of Pakistan movement the entire leadership up to the block level was either led by barristers, lawyers, Aligs, ex-Nawabs or local Zamindars. If they ignored the weaker sections of Muslims, there was absolutely no question of lending a helping hand to the Dalits and say that there is a message for them in Islam.
True, the Congress too was led by the elite and the landed class but unlike the Muslim League there was a substantial presence of non-elite class people at the second and third rung of the leadership.
If some Congressmen were getting impatient and wanted to rule the country the Muslim elite too wanted to have their say in power. They perhaps failed to realise that the world has covered two centuries between mid-18th and mid-20th century.
It is the tussle between the Congress and the Muslim League which led to these developments. Islam was nowhere an issue, nor was the Muslim security so much under threat as it became later. In fact, it was the elite-centric Pakistan movement which played into the hands of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and helped vitiate the atmosphere. Before 1946 very few communal riots took place in the country. The demand of Pakistan instead of providing security led to the gruesome massacre of lakhs of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs.
The supporters of Pakistan movement raised the bogey of Hindu-domination in the independent India though they failed to realise that many Muslim elite from Sir Sayyed to Mohammad Ali Jinnah at different points of time eagerly joined hands with the Christianised British. They have no problem in aping the Englishmen and women.
If it was the affluent class Muslims of North India who initially provided leadership after the creation of Pakistan, it was the Waderas and Jagirdars of Punjab and Sind who became powerful. The only place where elite Muslims were not so much in control was in Bengal, later East Pakistan . It was the arrogance of North Indian elite which caused language riots in Dhaka just after five years of the creation of Pakistan . The elite, who had no experience whatsoever, of handling the people’s movement made a mess of that movement. They were stupid enough not to realise the strength of the mass movement. Twenty-four years after the creation of Pakistan , its non-elitist part got separated.
The trauma of partition of the sub-continent which led to the creation of Pakistan and the regional security situation compelled this new nation to always keep disproportionately large army. Thus, unlike in India , army emerged as the most powerful institution. Whenever there is some major crisis the army intervenes or carries a crackdown in the name of the country’s security. Thus the army rule became a constant phenomenon since 1958. The constitutional making process was delayed till 1973.
The elite-cum-army combination still calls the shot in Pakistan . It is because of this reason that people’s movement and democracy seldom succeeded in Pakistan . And if a people’s movement succeeds there is always the threat of dismemberment of the country as it happened in 1971.
The founding father of Pakistan lacked the wisdom and statesmanship. They never realised that from the day one their country would have to work as a frontline against the Soviet Union and will have to rely on another Super Power, the US . On the other hand it had to keep the India bogey always alive to have a tight leash on the power. Pakistan has over the years emerged as the best case of status-quoism.
It is not that everything is hunky-dory in India or with democracy. It has an advantage of being a big nation. But notwithstanding all these demerits it is in India that people like Mayawati, Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Ram Bilas Paswan, K R Narayanan, etc. reached to the top. The irony with Pakistan is that it has held only one free and fair election and that was in 1971, which led to the dismemberment of that country. The elite refused to accept Mujib-ur-Rahman as the leader of the country.