Urdu Section
20 May 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com
Objectives Resolution and Secularism-Part 19
20 May 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com
Objectives Resolution and Secularism-Part 19
The founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, wanted a separate
country for Muslims but his political upbringing in a pluralist society
prevented him from declaring Pakistan an Islamic state. Contrary to the general
perception in India, Mr Jinnah was arguably a secular and liberal Muslim who
wanted a Pakistan where all citizens would be equal in the eyes of the
constitution irrespective of their religion, caste or creed. But leaders like
Liaqat Ali Khan and power hungry opportunistic religious leaders wanted it to be
otherwise. In this beautifully written series titled, "Objectives Resolution and
Secularism", Mr Wajahat Masood delves deep into history to find out how Jinnah's
dream of a secular and democratic Pakistan was shattered. –Editor
If you want to
know more about Gandhiji’s association with non-violence and secularism, you
should read about his peace mission in Bengal and Bihar in the autumn of 1946.
Read about his maran varat (fast unto death). When Sardar Patel withheld Rs 55
crore of Pakistan’s share, Gandhiji again went on a fast unto death. The biggest
proof of his unflinching association with higher moral principles is his tragic
death as he was killed by the Hindu Mahasabha extremists for raising his voice
in the interests of Pakistan and the Muslims. -- Wajahat
Masood
Objectives Resolution and Secularism-Part
19
By Wajahat
Masood
(Translated from Urdu by
Sohail Arshad)
Barrister Asaf Ali has also been
a favourite target of the jabs of the Muslim League historians. It is the same
Asaf Ali whose inclusion in the interim government by the Congress had made the
Muslim League induct Joginder Nath Mandal into the cabinet. Dr Fakhir Hussain
writes that when he met Asaf Ali after the partition, he had said, “Now when you
have established Pakistan, try to manage it properly”.
The basic difference between the
democratic and feudal mentality is that the former believes that through
dialogue you can find a solution that is beneficial for all the parties which is
called a win-win situation. On the other hand the feudal mind thinks that if one
party benefits, the other one is bound to lose—a situation which is called ‘zero
sum’.
You can make out from the
discussion carried out here whose actions among the parties were based on
democracy and who was a prisoner of feudal mentality.
If you want to know more about
Gandhiji’s association with non-violence and secularism, you should read about
his peace mission in Bengal and Bihar in the autumn of 1946. Read about his
maran varat (fast unto death). When Sardar Patel withheld Rs 55 crore of
Pakistan’s share, Gandhiji again went on a fast unto death. The biggest proof of
his unflinching association with higher moral principles is his tragic death as
he was killed by the Hindu Mahasabha extremists for raising his voice in the
interests of Pakistan and the Muslims.
On August 14, 1947
Muslim-majority Lahore was burning. Millions of non-Muslims had reached refugee
camps in their own city. Non-Muslim majority Amritsar was burning. Muslim
localities had turned into abbatoirs. In Delhi, the capital city of independent
India, the fire of communal frenzy was raging. The Purana Qila of Delhi had
turned into the last refuge of the homeless Muslims. On that day, Calcutta, the
non-Muslim majority city of India presented a unique scene. Here is an excerpt
from ‘Freedom at Midnight’:
“Calcutta which should have
erupted like a volcano of revenge was passing through such a period that was
surprising. A procession was taken out in the evening which was participated
equally by both Hindus and Muslims. The procession reached Gandhi’s residence
Haidari House. It changed the atmosphere of the city. Hindus and Muslims put
their swords back in their sheaths and got busy fixing the national flag in the
balconies and electric posts. The doors of the mosques were opened for the
Hindus while the Hindus welcomed the Muslims in the temples with love. The
people who had been killing each other only 24 hours ago were roaming the
streets happily hand in hand. Hindu and Muslim women and children forgot their
religious differences and served sweets to each other.”
That was the difference between
Calcutta and other cities. Rising above their religious identities and risking
their lives, Gandhiji and Hussain Shahid Suherwardi were trying to establish
peace. A great historian of modern India and the professor of History at Chicago
University Professor Emirates C M Nayeem writes, “ With the exception of
Suharwardi, no prominent leader of the Muslim League visited any riot affected
area.”
You have already read about the
testimony of Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi to Pandit Nehru’s efforts to stop the
violence. Now have the testimony of the distinguished poet and prose writer Josh Malihabadi whom a
‘noble’ minister of Pakistan Mahmood Azam Farouquee turned into a living dead
with the help of his official powers and by going back on his
promise:
“Shortly after the partition,
Sardar Patel, though did not suspend the then Muslim chief commissioner of Delhi
who was the son of Aftab Ahmad Khan of Aligarh, seized all his powers through
his oral instructions and transferred the powers to the deputy commissioner Mr
Randhawa. Muslims were being killed and looted at a large scale. If, during the
horrible days, Jawahar Lal (Nehru) had not come out and gone around in the
dangerous lanes and by lanes of Delhi slapping the Hindus to stop the riots, not
a single Muslim would have survived in the city.
Adul Wali Khan used to say that
history was not synonymous with digging old graves but it was a useful tool.
With the help of history we get the wisdom that helps us brighten the paths of
the future. The preferred policy of the higher leadership of the Muslim League
was to focus on the one point programme of the demand for Pakistan avoiding the
details and not adopting a fixed point of view. This is the mode of action of
the popularity-hungry politics.
With the help of this kind of
politics, the support of divergent groups, schools of thought and sections can
be made sure. But it has its shortcomings as well. Politics is the name of
shaping human collectivity. Human society is a very complicated, fluid and
compact phenomenon. Bringing politics under a one point programme inevitably
results in ignoring many real and important factors. When one-point politics
succeeds in achieving its goal, the aspects which had been ignored raise their
heads and give birth to such complications which one could not even have
imagined.
One aspect of the shortcomings
is that due to its limitations, one-point politics is unable to yield desired
results. One of the dangerous outcomes of this kind of one-sided and partial
politics is that the political leadership instead of practicality falls in the
habit of playing with the emotions of the public. To explain this, a long
excerpt from Akhlaque Ahmad Dehlvi’s book ‘Yadon Ka Safar’ is presented here
which will give an idea of how vague ideas the higher leadership of the Muslim
League had about the nature of Pakistan before partition and how irresponsibly
it was playing with the emotions of the people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment