A Flawed Idea - M J Akbar

[cochise]

Interesting article: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=79699

A flawed idea M J Akbar INDIANS and Pakistanis are the same people. Why then have the two nations moved on such divergent arcs over the last six decades? The idea of India is stronger than the Indian, and the idea of Pakistan weaker than the Pakistani. Multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular, democratic India was an idea that belonged to the future; one-dimensional Pakistan was a concept borrowed from the fears of the past. India has progressed into a modern nation occasionally hampered by backward forces. Pakistan is regressing into a medieval society with a smattering of modern elements. Pakistan was born out of the wedlock of two inter-related propositions. Its founders argued, without any substantive evidence, that Hindus and Muslims could never live together as equals in a single nation. They imposed a parallel theory, perhaps in an effort to strengthen the argument with an emotive layer, that Islam was in danger in the subcontinent. Pakistan's declared destiny, therefore, was not merely as a refuge for some Indian Muslims, but also a fortress of the faith. This was the rationale for what became known as the "two-nation theory". The British bought the argument, the Congress accepted it reluctantly, the Muslim League exulted. The Indian state was founded on equality and equity: political equality through democracy, religious equality through secularism, gender equality, and economic equity. Economic equality is a fantasy, but without an equitable economy that works towards the elimination of poverty there cannot be a sustainable state. India, therefore, saw land reforms and the abolition of zamindari. Pakistan has been unable to enforce land reforms. India and Pakistan were alternative models for a nation-state. Time would determine which idea had the legs to reach a modern horizon. The two strands within Pakistan's DNA began to slowly split its personality. The father of the nation, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, thought he had produced a child in his own image, but his secular prescription was soon suppressed. His ideas were buried at his funeral. His heirs began to concede space to mullahs like Maulana Maudoodi who asked, in essence, that if Pakistan had been created to defend Islam, then who would be its best guardians? After some debate, the first Constitution in 1956 proclaimed Pakistan as an "Islamic" state. It was an uneasy compromise. No one cared (or dared) to examine what it might mean. The principal institutions of state, and the economy, remained largely in the control of the secular tendency until, through racist prejudice, arrogance and awesome military incompetence it was unable to protect the integrity of the nation. The crisis of 1969-1971, and the second partition of the subcontinent, which created a Muslim-majority Bangladesh out of a Muslim-majority Pakistan, forced Pakistan to introspect deeply about its identity. Perhaps the last true secularist of this Islamic state was the Western-Oriented-Gentleman Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who came to power in 1971, preached emancipation from poverty and did not mind a spot of whisky in the evening. By the end of his six years in office, he had imposed prohibition. The ground had begun to shift even before the coup that brought Gen Zia to power. Zia had the answer to his own question: if Islam was the cement of Pakistan, how could you expect the edifice to survive if the cement had been diluted. Islam became the ideology of the state, not as a liberal and liberating influence, but in its Wahabi manifestation: compulsory prayers in government offices, public flogging, the worst form of gender bias in legislation, the conversion of history into anti-Hindu and anti-Indian fantasy, a distorted school curriculum, with "Islamic knowledge" becoming a criterion for selection to academic posts. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided the excuse for the adoption of "jihad" as state policy as well as a medley of irregular forces, liberally funded by American and Saudi money. The madrassas became not only the supply factories for irregular soldiers, but also the breeding ground for armed bands that are holding Pakistan hostage today. If it had been only a question of an individual's excesses Zia's death could have been a swivel moment for the restoration of the pre-Zia era, particularly since his successor was Benazir Bhutto. But in the quarter century since his sudden death by mid-air explosion, no one in Islamabad has had the courage to change the curriculum or challenge the spread of the madrassas. There are now over 20,000 of them, with perhaps two million students, most (not all) of them controlled by extremists. Worse, prompted by thoughtless advice, Benazir engineered the rise of the Taliban and helped it conquer Kabul. The children of Gen Zia are now threatening Islamabad. Sometimes a simple fact can illuminate the nature of a society. During the 2005 earthquake, male students of the Frontier Medical College were stopped by religious fanatics - their elders - from saving girls from the rubble of their school building. The girls were allowed to die rather than be "polluted" by the male touch. For six decades, power in Pakistan has teetered between military dictatorship and civilian rule. When the credibility of civilians was exhausted the people welcomed the army; when the generals overstayed their welcome, the citizen returned to political parties. Pakistan is facing a dangerous moment, when the credibility of both the military and politicians seems to have ebbed beyond recovery. How long before the poor and the middle classes turn to the theocrats waiting to take over? The state has already handed over a province like Swat to Islamic rule. Men like Baitullah Mehsud, Mangal Bagh and Maulana Faziullah are a very different breed from the mullahs who have already been co-opted and corrupted by the system. They have a supplementary query, which resonates with the street and the village after 9/11: why is Pakistan's army fighting America's war against fellow Muslims? Any suggestion that Pakistan might have become a much larger base for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was is met with the usual response, denial. On the day that terrorists attacked Sri Lankan cricketers, I had a previously arranged speaking engagement at a university in Delhi before largely Muslim students. I began with the suggestion that every Indian Muslim should offer a special, public prayer of thanks to the Almighty Allah for His extraordinary benevolence - for the mercy He had shown by preventing us from ending up in Pakistan in 1947. The suggestion was received with startled amusement, instinctive applause and a palpable sense of sheer relief. M.J. Akbar is Director, Covert Publications.

[Lurker]

You should check MJ Akbar's website www.mjakbar.org if you like his articles. The first paragraph is the most powerful to me The idea of India is stronger than the Indian, and the idea of Pakistan weaker than the Pakistani. Multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular, democratic India was an idea that belonged to the future; one-dimensional Pakistan was a concept borrowed from the fears of the past. There is also an inherent line that should make every Indian think, where exactly we stand on the on basic premise of India - multi religious, multi ethnic and secular nation. xxx

[suraj]

India has progressed into a modern nation occasionally hampered by backward forces. Pakistan is regressing into a medieval society with a smattering of modern elements. This is a brilliant description of where the 2 nations stand today- those in denial across the border search, find and exalt with pride on the stumblings in India instead of focussing on the bigger problems in their own country and the backward forces from our side are keeping us from taking the final leap into a great society

[seedhi]

Interesting article: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=79699

Its all very well to compare ourselves to the dysfunctional state of pakistan and then rejoice. We might as well compare ourselves to Zimbabwe and declare India to be an economic superpower. But how much of a success has secularism been in India? IMO it has simply degenerated into appeasement politics. The Indian Constitution did not have secularism in its preamble, it was only added into it by Indira Gandhi. And since then it has become a euphemism for anything goes in the name of not hurting religious sentiments. What sort of "secularism" is it that stands against common civil code? This is the same MJ Akbar who stoutly opposed the Supreme Court judgment on Shah Bano case, and he has the gall now to trumpet the "success" of secularism. Some honest introspection would do no harm.

[punjabi_khota]

Its all very well to compare ourselves to the dysfunctional state of pakistan and then rejoice. We might as well compare ourselves to Zimbabwe and declare India to be an economic superpower. But how much of a success has secularism been in India? IMO it has simply degenerated into appeasement politics. The Indian Constitution did not have secularism in its preamble, it was only added into it by Indira Gandhi. And since then it has become a euphemism for anything goes in the name of not hurting religious sentiments. What sort of "secularism" is it that stands against common civil code? This is the same MJ Akbar who stoutly opposed the Supreme Court judgment on Shah Bano case, and he has the gall now to trumpet the "success" of secularism. Some honest introspection would do no harm.

:two_thumbs_up:

[THX_1138]

i think the statement that suggested that the early proponent of pakistan concluded, without adequate that hindus and muslim could not peacefully coexist is incorrect. the subcontinent has seen far too many hindu muslim riots from the very period islam was introduced to the region. the invasaions of ghauri and ghaznavi had a communal tinge to them, and it was often incumbent on the rajputana states to defend the honor of hindus from the marauding muslims. furthermore, never did india pass through a period when there weren't skirmishes between hindus and muslims. incredibly, while the muslim statesmen were guilty of oppressing the hindu population, the later was guilty of aggression against the minority muslim population. both relgions have strong ideologies, and while hinduism has greater room for peaceful coexistence, its tenets are such that it will remain at conflict with islam. one preaches a vegan diet, the other celebrates animal butchering as an annual ritual... one urges respect for tangible idols, the other abhors the idols, but yet condones reverence for a meteor fragment... the division of india was inevitable. unfortunately for india, not all of its muslim population left. while i have nothing against muslims, well i do, but then again i have a lot against hindus... it begins and ends at their religion, i have little tolerance for either; i do feel that had india been a unversal hindu society with fragments of bhuddhists and jains, and the occasional christian, communal harmony would have been achieved with a lot more ease. maybe MJ Akbar must consider the plight of the north east. there is no communal conflict there, but yet a considerable opposition to the indian union. can he trivialize that situation along communal lines? india is not better today because of hinduism, and nor is pakistan any worse because of islam. both nations suffer, and shall continue to suffer the wraith of fictitious ideologies as long as they substitute logic with fiction. if there were no islam, consider the conflicts that would end. if there were no hinduism, consider the wealth plundered from poor farmer for accumulation in temples, which in turn were plundered (in an almost justifiable case of irony) by western colonists, would have been invested in local economies. we continue to build edifices honoring characters from poor literature written over three thousand years ago at the expense of libraries, schools, hostels, food banks... whereas our neighbors continue to destroy the edifices of the past and simultaneously destroy the few remaining bastions of knowledge and secular progressive thought in their state and the instant neighborhood.

[THX_1138]

Its all very well to compare ourselves to the dysfunctional state of pakistan and then rejoice. We might as well compare ourselves to Zimbabwe and declare India to be an economic superpower. But how much of a success has secularism been in India? IMO it has simply degenerated into appeasement politics. The Indian Constitution did not have secularism in its preamble, it was only added into it by Indira Gandhi. And since then it has become a euphemism for anything goes in the name of not hurting religious sentiments. What sort of "secularism" is it that stands against common civil code? This is the same MJ Akbar who stoutly opposed the Supreme Court judgment on Shah Bano case, and he has the gall now to trumpet the "success" of secularism. Some honest introspection would do no harm.

sex, and democracy are identical... if not available without restriction, without objection, and without hesitation... it can be of little use and is considerably frustrating. democracy is still not available to most of india. vote bank politics, and oppression and disenfranchising of the 'undesirable' voters has only contributed towards a perception that democracy is failing, when indeed it us those responsible for extending democracy are the ones who have failed. if indeed indira gandhi inducted the secular statement into the constitution, she could have only done so with a 2/3rd majority and i for one am for a fluid constitution rather than one set in stone which does not last long before being outdated. nevertheless, while she did achieve the above, she was also guilty for escalating the predicament in punjab and kashmir where a timely concession of power could have prevented the ugly state of affairs we find ourselves in today.

[youngindia]

But how much of a success has secularism been in India? IMO it has simply degenerated into appeasement politics.

RSS/BJP are not even original. they are just like our nontalented film makers. steal ideas from elsewhere,"indianise" it with poor quality. See right wing propaganda anywhere. you will often find "appeasement of this and that" and all that garbage. Not worth a moment's consideration. The communalists of the sangh and its supporters are not taken seriously outside their world of lunatics . :)

[youngindia]

india is not better today because of hinduism, and nor is pakistan any worse because of islam..

That's not what akbar was talking about at all. first of all, you have to understand there is religion at a personal level and there is usage of religion for poltical purposes. Its perfectly compatible to be relgious at a personal level (depending on indivdual interest) but not bring religion into political field. That's what seperation of religion and state is all about. Secular democracies either preach that seperation(western countries) or equidistance from all religions( which has been the unoffical understanding in India) The islamic world still largely depends on usage of relgion as a politcal tool with a few exceptions like Turkey.Pakistan is a symptom of that.Sangh parivar also follows a similar model of organised faith and blatantly mixing poltics and religion. This is the big divide between west and islamists. and also between sangh and the rest in India. Akbar mainly dwells on the postives of multiculturalism and how the lack of it hurts countries like pakistan. Ideally in a secular democracy , people should proceed on shared socio political interests ,wavelength and ideology, independent of petty considerations like relgious identity. The sangh way of "politcal mobilisation based on religious identity" only perverts a secular democracy and has no place whatsoever in India's future.

[seedhi]

That's not what akbar was talking about at all. first of all, you have to understand there is religion at a personal level and there is usage of religion for poltical purposes. Its perfectly compatible to be relgious at a personal level (depending on indivdual interest) but not bring religion into political field. That's what seperation of religion and state is all about. Secular democracies either preach that seperation(western countries) or equidistance from all religions( which has been the unoffical understanding in India) The islamic world still largely depends on usage of relgion as a politcal tool with a few exceptions like Turkey.Pakistan is a symptom of that.Sangh parivar also follows a similar model of organised faith and blatantly mixing poltics and religion. This is the big divide between west and islamists. and also between sangh and the rest in India. Akbar mainly dwells on the postives of multiculturalism and how the lack of it hurts countries like pakistan. Ideally in a secular democracy , people should proceed on shared socio political interests ,wavelength and ideology, independent of petty considerations like relgious identity. The sangh way of "politcal mobilisation based on religious identity" only perverts a secular democracy and has no place whatsoever in India's future.

Why dont the supposed "secular" parties support the Uniform Civil Code? Why dont they support equal rights for Hindus to start educational institutions to promote Hindus like muslims and christians have these rights? Why dont they support Hindus regaining control of temples like muslims control mosques and christians control churches? Why dont they support abolishing all subsidy for pilgrimage like Hajj? Basically the "secularism" practised in India is bogus, it is just appeasement of anyone but Hindus.So Shah Bano can be denied alimony granted to her by the Supreme Court by a bloody constitutional amendment. This MJ Akbar supported denying muslim women alimony for the sake of his version of "secularism" which entails unequal laws for different communities. And now he is singing praises of multiculturalism. What a hypocrite.