25 January 2005
Fresh debate on two-nation theory
By Anwer Mooraj
Few political themes have excited so much controversy in recent times as the two nation theory that has suddenly emerged as the country's mid-life crisis. Hardly a week passes without some newspaper or the other publishing letters on this subject.
The approach ranges from the cloyingly parochial, with the occasional knee-jerk leftist reaction, to the pragmatic, expressed in a stifling intellectual smugness which suggests that something surreptitious and dangerous is going on and that the people are being unnecessarily drawn into an issue which should have remained buried.
The first politician to have sounded the death knell of the two nation theory in the last 35 years was the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, shortly after Pakistan lost its eastern wing in the 1971 war. The issue simmered for a while, but discussion, though often angry and inflammatory, was largely academic.
People in the former western wing of the country were given the distinct impression by the newly formed PPP government, backed by the bureaucracy, the military and members of the feudal class who were terrified that the Bengalis might make claims that East Pakistan had always been something of a liability, and that the westerners were far better off after having cut the umbilical chord.
In the heat of the moment, a number of issues were cheerfully forgotten. Issues like which wing had been earning more foreign exchange; where were most of the earnings being spent; and why was Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, whose Awami League had emerged as the majority party, not appointed prime minister of a united Pakistan.
The pertinent question that was asked at the time was: do language and social customs provide a more potent force than religion in forging cohesion and national unity? In fact, it was generally felt a chapter had been closed in the history of a country that constantly lived from one crisis to another. Except for an occasional article in an esoteric foreign journal, the two nation theory remained more or less dormant.
That is until the MQM leader rekindled the issue in his recent speech in New Delhi, contending that the purpose of the creation of Pakistan had not been served and the spirit and ideology of the two nation theory stood defied as protection and security had not been provided to either immigrants from India or to Muslim Indians in their own country.
Predictably, the speech stirred up a hornet's nest, evoked mixed reactions in parts of Pakistan and triggered a flow of letters in the press that ruffled quite a few feathers.
Kunwar Khalid Yunus asked the pertinent question: why was the Meo community that wanted to migrate from Rajputana, forcibly sent back to India? Syed Ahsanul Haque wanted to know why the Pakistan government never approached the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to secure a reasonable subsistence allowance for the Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh.
And Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed pointed out that the crucial election of 1946 was based on limited franchise, and only those who paid a certain amount of income tax, land revenue or possessed minimum educational qualifications were entitled to vote.
Non-immigrant members of the upper class, who are beneficiaries of the current system, made most of the rebuttals, like the comprehensive one offered by A.H.Mir from Lahore Cantonment.
Expressed in simple language, the two nation theory states that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations with distinct religious and cultural identities, and Muslims should have a separate homeland in the Muslim majority areas of the subcontinent.
After partition, learned tomes were written pointing out why this did not happen and how events conspired to the eventual establishment of the first sovereign ideological Islamic state.
What is interesting, however, is the frequent use that is made of quotations from the founder of the nation by current advocates of the two nation theory. "History has presented to us many examples, such as the union of Great Britain and Ireland, of Czechoslovakia and Poland.
History has also shown us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the subcontinent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula."
Fakir Ahmed Paracha writing from Peshawar made the astute observation that the two-nation theory is not of recent import and can be traced back to the 11th century. According to the distinguished scholar Al-Beruni Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature.
They have different views of life and death. The foe of one is often the hero of the other. They do not inter-marry or dine together and belong to two different civilizations, based on conflicting ideas and conceptions.
Surprisingly, none of the letter writers pointed out that the two-nation theory surfaced early in Sindh when G.M. Syed introduced the Pakistan Resolution in the Sindh Assembly on March 3, 1943.
But it would be germane to mention, without taking the reader through a fearsome array of political arguments that in 1972, G.M. Syed repudiated the two-nation theory by proposing the formation of a secular, multi-ethnic republic in which those who subscribed to the concept would become citizens of Sindhudesh, irrespective of when they migrated to Sindh and where they came from.
He also prescribed remedies similar to those that existed in the Soviet satellite states for the removal of social injustices. This possibly explains why a close affinity existed between the leaders of the MQM and the Jeeay Sindh movement, both of whom vehemently opposed feudalism.
As M.S. Korejo pointed out in his fine book on this historical figure, Syed was a staunch believer in secular politics and opposed the theory that Islam and politics were inseparable.
He firmly believed that a state based on religion would encourage sectarianism, as each sect would seek the enforcement of its own laws of Shariah. If the majority sect tried to impose its will on the minority sects, this would result in alienation.
And if separate laws governed each community there would be chaos leading to fragmentation, bloodshed and civil strife. Religious elites would have the upper hand in preparing and enforcing codes and laws - which would create tremendous problems within the judicial system.
Syed traced the roots of sectarian turmoil to four major events: basing the creation of Pakistan on the two-nation theory; the suppression of Jinnah's speech made in the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, declaring secularism as the guiding principle of Pakistan's Constitution; the introduction of the Objectives Resolution by Liaquat Ali Khan; and the declaration of Pakistan as an Islamic state by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto under pressure from the Muslim clergy.
Syed's concept of nationalism also repudiated Dr Iqbal's concept of Islamic socialism, which as any student of philosophy or religion would point out is a contradiction in terms.
The main thrust of the letter writers in the current dispute centres on four controversial issues. If Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent, why were so many sent back in the early years after partition? Why was selective criteria employed to decide on the province from which they should be allowed to migrate to the land of the pure?
Continuing the same argument, why are Indian Muslims not given sanctuary in this country and imprisoned when they overstay their visit? And, why are the Pakistanis who were left behind in Bangladesh, and who have been stranded for 33 years in camps, for committing no crime other than that of supporting the Pakistan army, not being repatriated to this country? After all, weren't captured Pakistani soldiers and other personnel sent home after being released, and don't Afghans, who are not Pakistanis, enjoy indefinite right of abode in Pakistan?
These are compelling and seductive arguments which no apologist for the Pakistan government has been able to satisfactorily counter, and which those that did manage to get away and cross the great divide and have subsequently prospered in industry, business, government and the armed forces, would rather not discuss.
The imprisonment-on-overstaying argument is particularly irksome. Letter writers have repeatedly quoted the case of Israel, another state created on the basis of religion, which has an open door immigration policy on Jews, irrespective of the colour of their skin and the country in which they are currently residing.
For the present, Dr Ziauddin Ahmed's terse observation that 1947 marked not only the partition of India but also the partition of the Muslims hasn't been contradicted. It certainly looks like things are going to continue in the same strain.