The Decline and Fall of Pakistan

Extract from ``A Thousand Suns - Witness to History``. Dominique Lapierre writes in the Chapter - The last Proconsuls of Victoria`s Glorius Empire. (Page 358-359) on creation of Pakistan. He feels if Jinnah would have died earlier there would have been no Pakistan.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a sort of Asia de Gaulle an inflexible and arrogant individual, who managed to procure Pakistan for the Muslim minority of India. Lord Mountbatten did not the divide of India because only the Urdu speaking people were wanting it. During their research they found a Doctor`s note on Jinnah`s health.

`` We never failed to discuss the often unexpected findings of our research with Lord Louis. One day we showed him a report of our meeting with the Indian doctor who in 1947 had treated the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Reading it made him blanch suddenly.

``I cant believe it !`` he gasped. `` Good God!``.

When he looked up again, the blue eyes tgat were usually so calm were shining with intense emotion, He swiped the air several times with our sheets of paper.

``If I`d only known all this at the time, the course of history would have been different. I would have delayed the granting of independence for several months. There would have been no partition. Pakistan would not have existed. India would have remain united. Three wars would have been avoided ...``

Lord Loius was astounded.

The report described in detail a chest X-Ray report we had discovered with Jinnah`s doctor. The plate confirmed the advance stages of tuberculosis. In the spring of 1947 Jinnah, the inflexible Muslim leader, who had quashed all Mountbatten`s efforts to preserve Indian unity, knew that he had only a few months to live. (Page: 358, 359)

Hudhud sahib:

please tell me who is this `elite` in pakistan? How do I recognize this `elite` if I see him, talk to him, etc.

Feroz,

I stongly disagree with you regarding your anlysis of Islamic identity, democracy in Pakistan, etc. I am sorry to observe that you suffer from the same `hangover`(a 47 + year old) concept of `only if the father of the nation had survived a few more years!` I am short of time right now, and, hence, come back at a later date to expound on this. Meantime, as the following news as reported in TOI, I do not think, the way Islamic identity is defined and practiced in Pakistan, any semblance of democracy, or even civility (a prerequisite for democracy), is possible in a foreseeable future, if ever. The subject report,btw, is understandably absent in Dawn. I am posting the here, hope it works.

http://www.timesofindia.com/today/13worl14.htm

A very familiar theme, among the Pakistani elite !

The viability of Pakistan etc...

Mr Khan expresses sorrow for the passing away

of the father of our nation so soon after the nations birth, a young lad in Pakistan of a less

fortunate background is quoted ina recent National

Geographic as saying ``Maybe God wanted us(Pakistanis) to find our own path and thus took

away the father of our nation at such an early stage``

A refeshing perspective, unfortunately one finds

little refreshment among our drawing room bound elite. We have collectively failed to interact

with the common man in our country, our perspectives have served only us, thus the

youth of our country turn to the Taleban like elements...

An anthropologist who lived in

Pakistan made the following statement at the University of Pennsylvania: ``Nowhere in the world

have I seen a country with more potential, yet nowhere in the world have I seen an elite so distanced from its own people, and unconcerned

with their fate``

Same person: ``Pakistan is definitely a nation,

a very distinct identity, its a pity the elite

of Pakistan don`t realize it. I have not come across one politcal commentator for example who

keeps up with what the Urdu press writes.``

I also heard with great sadness of the death of

Eqbal Ahmad ...whom I only recently became a fan off for his brilliant style of writing .I`m sure that his family have all our prayers in getting through this difficult period .

As far as the article ..as usual the writer has put across his usual insightful point of view ...( careful some Indian chowk walla might be reading this and you could get arrested for anti-pakistan ..remarks !)

I have a few crticisms though ...it comes across in the article that you believe that if Jinnah had survived ..Pakistan would have been a great country ..one of Jinnahs first acts as Governor General was the dismissal of the Provincial govt.she didn`t like ...he set the precedent that the gov general had all the powers ( setting the system up for Nazimuddin`s dismissal )

The language controversy was another legacy ..which was instrumental in causing the 1970 secession ..the imposition of Urdu as the national language ..is something which has effected us till this day ( despite jinnahs inability to speak more then a few words of the language )

Another serious question is about secularism ...I think the belief that secularism is agood way ..and the Pakistan way is wromg ..is not true ..look at Turkey ..the Islamist parties women members are fighting for the right to cover their heads !

About this question of identity ..it is funny that except for probably the Army there is no other instituition where ppl can ave frank discussions in Pakistan without killing each other ..Islam does not give a sense of a nation state ..since Islam transcends that concept ..after all every Pakistani doesn`t ahve to be a Muslim ..

I read a similar essay in last Friday`s New York Times by Rosenthal, an arrant Zionist and an Islam hater. He tries to prove that democracy cannot be established in an Islamic state and presents the U.S. as model of a secular democratic perfection that is humanly achievable and then cleverly inserts Israel in the same category. I can understand Rosenthal`s hatred for an Islamic system since he is a non-Muslim who has an insolent attitude towards Islamic thought and scholarship.

However, it surprises me the see same things coming from people who seem to have Muslim names. I do not know why God let people like Mr. Khan born in ``Muslim`` families; they might be happier to be Rosenthals. But at the same time He has done so many other things that are incomprehensible to me. Sometimes, it is also funny to see people with no or little intellectual training and severe bias say something and then showered with adulation by their likes--sort of self-congratulatory phenomenon goes on there.

All Mr. Khan is able to prove is that he hates Islam. I do not think that Mr. Khan has seriously searched through Islamic scholarship, though he might have looked at Talibanic ideology as Islam. The other flaw comes from completely missing the real problem in Pakistan which is a total break down of values. I think at this point any kind of values system including a secular one will help. However to say that Islam is the problem is an absurd notion. Islam has never been established in Pakistan in a true sense so how could it be the problem. Mr. Khan has ignored the historic phenomenon of the feudal system, the colonial relic of a snobbish bureaucracy and ethnic inequalities. There he could have found real problems that is trickling down Pakistan. Mr. Khan, it is the people not just a system of beliefs that make a society. Bad people make even a good system bad and Pakistan`s problem is that it has just too many bad people, ``religious`` or ``non-religious.``

Pakistan was never meant to be an ``Islamic`` or a ``theocratic`` state. It was always meant to be a ``homeland`` for the Muslims of India, not any different than Israel. That was the intent of its founder, M A Jinnah.

That Pakistan is a ba_tard child of the result of Muslim invaders screwing Mother India is how one can view Pakistan. It should matter not (in fact, Mother India should love Pakistan just as any mother loves her child whether legitimate or not!).

Pakistanis, while being aware of their history, have absolutely no choice but to look forward, and make Pakistan a part of the modern and enlightened world. Look at Australia: a Land of the Criminals. Does anyone care about that? No! And why is that?

On another note and not to distract the readers
from this article but:

The BBC Urdu Service has reported with sadness that
Eminent Pakistani Scholar, humanitarian and fighter on behalf of the oppressed Dr. Eqbal Ahmed passed away in Islamabad today.

It is with great spirit that this great crusader of peace from Pakistan
served the just causes of Algeria, Palestine and the Left in the USA and ALL of South Asia.

On a more personal note I want to add that I learnt a lot from the
writings of this great Pakistani and join in saying a prayer for
his departed soul and join in the sadness of his family.

A leading light of the free thinking movement in Pakistan has gone out.

Ras H. Siddiqui

Feroz:

Quite a tour de force. Wonderful read, and good analysis highlighting the various ills.

Your lament is all to simple too answer. The ``Pakistani political leadership`` does not have the political courage to save Pakistan.

In the next millennium the battle will be fought out in the open between the hardliners led or influenced by the Talibaans and hopefully by a forced coalition of pushed-too-far-once-too-often alliance of moderate forces. In my wishful scenario the moderates would prevail but the cost to de-construct the last half century my prove to be insurmountable.

Caveat-my track record of hopeful dreams coming true is not too great!

regards

A very interesting article. However I feel that

you are not ascribing enough weight to sheer

inertia: the very fact that Pakistan has existed

for fifty years should have been enough to allow

a new Pakistani identity to develop, one which

transcends the dilemmas about the states origins

and nature, that you have highlighted. I don`t

know how important this factor is, but I sure do

hope that it is true. Only then can the

sub-continent be at peace with itself and with

the rest of the world.

narain

Well-written Feroz. However, in my opinion, this whole debate of secularism versus theocracy is premature in the Pakistani context. Secularism is not something that one can impose from the top - it creeps up on a nation insidously, when most people realize that an ideology based on love and respect of fellow human beings is much more powerful and compelling than one based on worship of an omnipotent and fierce diety. And we can only get on that road with education - the ability to read - that is the crying need of the moment!

In this context it is ironic that the Internet is widening the differential between the literate and non-literate, and spawning a new kind of poverty - information poverty. This is why the arrest of someone like Najam Sethi will never start mass protests. The common person in Pakistan does not see his value because the common person in Pakistan does not read. And those who can, do not have the numbers or the courage to start anything.

Also, did you come across the Dawn report from May 8, reporting that UNESCO rejected the government`s findings on the state of literacy in the country, implying that most of the data were cooked, to please donor agencies that enough is being done.

It is imperative upon us, the citizens of Pakistan to take public education in our own hands, form organizations like the Citizens Foundation, and the rest will follow.

AZ

A very interesting and thought provoking article. Ironically mistakes of past are admitted every few years. Every government expounds on the evils committed by the previous government. I understand that this was not the main theme of the essay; however, the author`s categorization of Pakistani system of government as either secular or theocratic is a little misleading.

On one hand the founders of Pakistan didn`t want Pakistan to be a theocratic state. On the other hand the ``moulvi`s`` wanted something other than a system of government that resembled the colonial masters. That does not mean that the people wanted either a theocratic or a secular government.

It seems like Pakistan has tried almost kinds of systems of government out there. I believe that we will come out of our current situation, not by discarding previous practices, but by learning from each system. All of us (conservatives, liberals, capitalists, socialists, etc.) need to look beyond ideologies (or terminoligies) and figure out a system that incorporates what we want.

Many may say that there is no such thing as ``the system we want.`` I agree, that is why one needs to be created. Dictatorship is bad because it takes away the ``people`s rights.`` One may argue that ``people`` don`t have any rights in our democracy either. More than anything, dictator ship provides security and stability; who cares about freedom of expression when you are afraid of getting shot walking down a street in Karachi.

``Basic democracy`` was a bad idea because it took power out of people`s hands and placed it in selected few. But one could argue that in a society like Pakistan, majority don`t know the least bit about what qualities are required for a good government. Isn`t it better to pick some respected people from each community...

A theocracy is better than what we have now, just look at the society of the first four caliphs, was that not ideal?

My point above is not to convince people to give up democracy, but to make them think that perhaps sticking to systems of government, established years ago by different societies is not going to cut it for us any more.

As mentioned before, we need to invent our own system of government; because the British parliamentary system, dictatorship, any oligarchy will not work for us. I think most of the liberal elites (such as the patrons of this forum) system based simply on the will of the majority, constrained by a constitution (such as America`s) would be the ideal system for Pakistan. However, the religious ``class`` will never agree to a system that does not involve scrutinization of laws according to the tenants of the Quran and Hadith--probably rightly so. On the other hand, using the ``clergy`` to run our affairs according to their interpretation of divine law would be against the founders` vision of Pakistan--as well as against Islam itself. Obviously a compromise needs to be worked out. I am not too familiar with the role of sharia courts in Pakistan, but I would think that the final solution will not too different from the current one. Ironic, isn`t it. Except that our ``final solution`` will have to be implemented in a planned fashion; instead of the haphazard and arbitrary manner it exists now. The new system will have to formed by cocensus. If it is formulated by a small majlis of alams, or a committee of western educated scholars, the solution will not be a lasting one.

In order for Pakistan to out of current hell hole, it, indeed, needs to stop using old rhetoric and formulate a society as a nation. Although, that may just mean that we come back to our old idea of Pakistan. I don`t believe that will be a problem, as long is it is done through national dialog--instead of subjugation of one group or another.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head after a quick read of the essay. This essay deserves to be read more carefully and deserves well thought out responses. I`ll try to do that later :)