Author: Irfan Husain
Publication: DAWN, Karachi
Date: November 4, 2000
OF late, there has been
much discussion of the Two- Nation Theory in the national press.
Politicians, especially those from the three smaller provinces, have made
critical noises about this principle that was the basis for the partition
of India.
Basically, the theory
postulated that the Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent constituted
two distinct nations and therefore needed separate states to pursue their
respective destinies. The problem with this vision was that it treated
the people of South Asia as two homogeneous groups of Hindus and Muslims,
making no allowances for the vast cultural, ethnic and linguistic differences
that contribute to the colorful and vibrant mosaic that is the subcontinent.
This theory sought to
bind a Muslim in Dhaka with one in Dharampura, and a Hindu in Sukkur with
one in Simla. The reality was very different. A Muslim Bengali
had far more in common with a Hindu from Calcutta than a Punjabi Muslim,
while a Pushtun from Durra is much closer culturally and ethnically to
his cousin in Jalalabad in Afghanistan than he is to a Muslim in Chittagong.
These very real differences were glossed over by the over-simplifications
on which the Two-National Theory is based.
And although millions
of Muslims and Hindus migrated in both directions in 1947, millions of
others chose to stay where they were. The fact that even after partition,
India continued to have a significant Muslim population weakened the principle
on which Pakistan had been created. This questionable premise was
further eroded by the separation of East Pakistan in 1971. We now
have three states in the subcontinent, each with roughly 150 million Muslims.
Detractors of the Two-Nation Theory point out that had India not been partitioned,
there would have been around 450 million Muslims living there. Such
a large population can hardly be termed a persecuted minority.
However, these are the
ifs and buts of history. The bottom line is that for good or bad,
right or wrong, Pakistan came into being over half a century ago, and need
no longer justify its existence to India, the rest of the world or to its
own citizens. Over a period of time, a state acquires legitimacy
and a certain momentum just by virtue of its existence. It does not
have to explain time and again why it was created.
Unfortunately, our leaders
and self-appointed ideologues have consistently taken upon themselves the
impossible and exceedingly boring task of defending a defunct theory.
To do so, they have gone through bizarre and tortuous intellectual contortions
that might have been amusing were it not for the strains they have placed
on the fabric of the Pakistani state. First and foremost, the defenders
of the so-called ideology of Pakistan have tried to establish the geographically
untenable position that we are part of the Mid-East and not South Asia.
To sustain this fiction, they have done their wicked worst to purge our
culture of sub-continental influences. Thus, classical dancing is
under a virtual official ban while theatre and music exist on sufferance.
Students are taught Arabic (badly) at an early age and indoctrinated todespise
everything India.
The other fiction that
underpins this official doctrine is that history began for Pakistan when
Mohammad Bin Qasim landed on our shores and conquered and converted much
of Sindh. The flowering of the Gandhara civilization and the magnificent
earlier achievements of the Indus Valley civilization are largely glossed
over except in the tawdry publications we produce for the benefit of the
few foreign tourists who venture here. Unfortunately, many of these
attitudes are mirrored across the border in India.
These contortions have
resulted in a major identity crisis that has robbed at least two generations
of their creativity: by cutting them off from their real roots, our ideologues
have produced a nation that is unsure of its position in the region and
the world. One reason why we are so full of doom and gloom is that
we are constantly subjected to long-winded and fatuous explanations about
why Pakistan came into being. It is almost as if we were being constantly
asked to prove our legitimacy at every step.
Instead of getting on
with life, much of our energy and vitality have been dissipated in this
sterile and pointless debate: after all these years, what does it matter
why Pakistan was created? What matters is that it was created, and we need
to stop justifying its creation. Scores of nation-states have come
into being after 1947, and most of them do not feel the compulsion to defend
their existence. The world is not asking us to produce a certificate
of legitimacy; it only wants us to join the rest of the human race and
accept reality as it is.
Another distortion the
Two-Nation Theory has produced is the compulsion to define ourselves in
terms of India: we have tried to show how different we are from our neighbor
at every turn. Inevitably, an Indian misfortune is seen as our good
fortune, and every Indian gain as our loss. This zero-sum game is
a debilitating exercise and has resulted in tunnel vision in which our
large neighbor has become our only horizon. Our internal and external
policies are largely aimed at somehow countering real and perceived Indian
threats and hegemonic designs. Any theory that seeks to promote separateness
denies our humanity and the ability of civilized people to live together
despite differences in color, caste or creed. As somebody said recently,
"First we Muslims said we could not live with Hindus and created Pakistan;
then we said we could no longer live with Bengalis, and Bangladesh was
the result. Now Sunnis are saying they cannot live with Shias.
Where will it all stop?" Where indeed?
There is considerable
evidence to suggest that the demand for Pakistan was a bargaining position
initially adopted by the Muslim League. Ultimately, it was Congress
obduracy more than Muslim League insistence that resulted in the creation
of Pakistan. Whatever the reality, it is certain that the bloodletting
that accompanied partition shook the founder of the new state and probably
caused the decades of suspicion and rancor that have marked Indo-Pakistani
relations ever since.
There has been a demand
to try Altaf Hussain of the MQM for criticizing the creation of Pakistan.
This is the knee-jerk reaction of our ideologues who have already inflicted
so much damage in the past. It would be far better to debate these
issues openly, and if that is the consensus, lay to rest the Two- Nation
Theory. We no longer need defunct theories to justify the creation
and existence of Pakistan.
