Why My Father Hated India :- Aatish Taseer

[ravishingravi]

Aatish Taseer, the son of an assassinated Pakistani leader, explains the history and hysteria behind a deadly relationship "Ten days before he was assassinated in January, my father, Salman Taseer, sent out a tweet about an Indian rocket that had come down over the Bay of Bengal: "Why does India make fools of themselves messing in space technology? Stick 2 bollywood my advice." My father was the governor of Punjab, Pakistan's largest province, and his tweet, with its taunt at India's misfortune, would have delighted his many thousands of followers. It fed straight into Pakistan's unhealthy obsession with India, the country from which it was carved in 1947. Though my father's attitude went down well in Pakistan, it had caused considerable tension between us. I am half-Indian, raised in Delhi by my Indian mother: India is a country that I consider my own. When my father was killed by one of his own bodyguards for defending a Christian woman accused of blasphemy, we had not spoken for three years. To understand the Pakistani obsession with India, to get a sense of its special edge—its hysteria—it is necessary to understand the rejection of India, its culture and past, that lies at the heart of the idea of Pakistan. This is not merely an academic question. Pakistan's animus toward India is the cause of both its unwillingness to fight Islamic extremism and its active complicity in undermining the aims of its ostensible ally, the United States. The idea of Pakistan was first seriously formulated by neither a cleric nor a politician but by a poet. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal, addressing the All-India Muslim league, made the case for a state in which India's Muslims would realize their "political and ethical essence." Though he was always vague about what the new state would be, he was quite clear about what it would not be: the old pluralistic society of India, with its composite culture. Iqbal's vision took concrete shape in August 1947. Despite the partition of British India, it had seemed at first that there would be no transfer of populations. But violence erupted, and it quickly became clear that in the new homeland for India's Muslims, there would be no place for its non-Muslim communities. Pakistan and India came into being at the cost of a million lives and the largest migration in history. This shared experience of carnage and loss is the foundation of the modern relationship between the two countries. In human terms, it meant that each of my parents, my father in Pakistan and my mother in India, grew up around symmetrically violent stories of uprooting and homelessness. But in Pakistan, the partition had another, deeper meaning. It raised big questions, in cultural and civilizational terms, about what its separation from India would mean. In the absence of a true national identity, Pakistan defined itself by its opposition to India. It turned its back on all that had been common between Muslims and non-Muslims in the era before partition. Everything came under suspicion, from dress to customs to festivals, marriage rituals and literature. The new country set itself the task of erasing its association with the subcontinent, an association that many came to view as a contamination. Had this assertion of national identity meant the casting out of something alien or foreign in favor of an organic or homegrown identity, it might have had an empowering effect. What made it self-wounding, even nihilistic, was that Pakistan, by asserting a new Arabized Islamic identity, rejected its own local and regional culture. In trying to turn its back on its shared past with India, Pakistan turned its back on itself. But there was one problem: India was just across the border, and it was still its composite, pluralistic self, a place where nearly as many Muslims lived as in Pakistan. It was a daily reminder of the past that Pakistan had tried to erase. Pakistan's existential confusion made itself apparent in the political turmoil of the decades after partition. The state failed to perform a single legal transfer of power; coups were commonplace. And yet, in 1980, my father would still have felt that the partition had not been a mistake, for one critical reason: India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster. Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine. But in the early 1990s, a reversal began to occur in the fortunes of the two countries. The advantage that Pakistan had seemed to enjoy in the years after independence evaporated, as it became clear that the quest to rid itself of its Indian identity had come at a price: the emergence of a new and dangerous brand of Islam. As India rose, thanks to economic liberalization, Pakistan withered. The country that had begun as a poet's utopia was reduced to ruin and insolvency. The primary agent of this decline has been the Pakistani army. The beneficiary of vast amounts of American assistance and money—$11 billion since 9/11—the military has diverted a significant amount of these resources to arming itself against India. In Afghanistan, it has sought neither security nor stability but rather a backyard, which—once the Americans leave—might provide Pakistan with "strategic depth" against India. In order to realize these objectives, the Pakistani army has led the U.S. in a dance, in which it had to be seen to be fighting the war on terror, but never so much as to actually win it, for its extension meant the continuing flow of American money. All this time the army kept alive a double game, in which some terror was fought and some—such as Laskhar-e-Tayyba's 2008 attack on Mumbai—actively supported. The army's duplicity was exposed decisively this May, with the killing of Osama bin Laden in the garrison town of Abbottabad. It was only the last and most incriminating charge against an institution whose activities over the years have included the creation of the Taliban, the financing of international terrorism and the running of a lucrative trade in nuclear secrets. This army, whose might has always been justified by the imaginary threat from India, has been more harmful to Pakistan than to anybody else. It has consumed annually a quarter of the country's wealth, undermined one civilian government after another and enriched itself through a range of economic interests, from bakeries and shopping malls to huge property holdings. The reversal in the fortunes of the two countries—India's sudden prosperity and cultural power, seen next to the calamity of Muhammad Iqbal's unrealized utopia—is what explains the bitterness of my father's tweet just days before he died. It captures the rage of being forced to reject a culture of which you feel effortlessly a part—a culture that Pakistanis, via Bollywood, experience daily in their homes. This rage is what makes it impossible to reduce Pakistan's obsession with India to matters of security or a land dispute in Kashmir. It can heal only when the wounds of 1947 are healed. And it should provoke no triumphalism in India, for behind the bluster and the bravado, there is arid pain and sadness." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576445862242908294.html And this man was considered a liberal. Tells you how different the definition of liberal is on both sides of the border.

[Brainfade]

Thanks for sharing; the key statement in the article: In the absence of a true national identity, Pakistan defined itself by its opposition to India.

[flamy]

Good read. tfs.

[Temujin Khaghan]

do we care what pakistanis think of us. failed state citizens pfft....

[Prakat]

nice article.

[WC2011INDIA]

Great article.

[Guest Gunner]

To those who don't know who he is, this guy is the son of Salman Taseer and Tavlin Singh (Indian Journalist). I read the article a few days ago, very good write up. He succinctly points out the factors which affect the Paki psyche.

[flamy]

Yep, very good points made. The anti-India identity, Arabic Islam instead of subcontinental Islam. I don't think the Arabs give a poop abt Pakistan.

[Lurker]

A few thoughts: a) I have to wonder what happened with Allama Iqbal. In the sub-continent history his role would perhaps be more pivotal than Jinnah in two-nation theory. What baffles me is this is the same guy who wrote Roman, Mishra sab meet gaye jehan se..kuch baat hai ke hasti mitti nahin hamari, sadiyon reha hai dushman daur-e-jehan hamaara...saare jehan se accha hindostan hamaara. Clearly when he wrote about Roman and Mishr(Egyptian civilization), there was no such thing as Islamic civilization so Iqbal must be talking about the great Indian civilization, and definitely Hindu-Buddhist religions. What would change the writer to completely disown it and then create two-nation theory? And we are not talking of some rabid right wing loony here, the man was clearly learned and one of the great intellects of the region. 2) Quite odd as to how the author, and many others actually, tend to dismiss India's achievement till 90s with how poor we were and how Pakistan was a much better nation (economically). This notion of dismissing about 50 years (1947 to 1990) is as retarded as celebrating 20 years of so called prosperity (1990-2011). If the writers truly beleive in it maybe they should learn a lesson from Pakistan and not celebrate? I mean if Pakistanis were indeed right look where they landed them into? xxx

[punjabiplaya]

Very interesting...seems hes one of the educated ones!!!!! they seem rational,they realise pakistan sadly is in a mess corrupt upto the eyeballs,the countrys so hypocritical,lets be honest pakistanis have helped make muslims hated so much more in the world!!

[Guest Gunner]

A few thoughts: a) I have to wonder what happened with Allama Iqbal. In the sub-continent history his role would perhaps be more pivotal than Jinnah in two-nation theory. What baffles me is this is the same guy who wrote Roman, Mishra sab meet gaye jehan se..kuch baat hai ke hasti mitti nahin hamari, sadiyon reha hai dushman daur-e-jehan hamaara...saare jehan se accha hindostan hamaara. Clearly when he wrote about Roman and Mishr(Egyptian civilization), there was no such thing as Islamic civilization so Iqbal must be talking about the great Indian civilization, and definitely Hindu-Buddhist religions. What would change the writer to completely disown it and then create two-nation theory? And we are not talking of some rabid right wing loony here, the man was clearly learned and one of the great intellects of the region.

Extremely good point there Lurker. I have thought about this quite a few times and I can't come up with an answer. From what I have read about Iqbal although he pioneered a distinct state/region for muslims from Hindu India, I don't think he had much clarity about a sovereign country on its own. Secondly, I believe that he was one of those who was happy with continuing the Sub-continental islamic tradition mixed with sufism and had no intention of swinging towards the arabs. What I do believe happened were the following: A) Jinnah in the quest for political power took the idea of a distinct muslim region and converted into a distinct sovereign nation. B) Since Jinnah died very quickly after the establishment of a Pakistani nation, there was no one with any coherent ideas and in their general urge to differentiate themselves from the Indian identity they pushed towards the arabs and C) Lastly, General Zia-ul-haq, his role in the radicalisation of Pakistan cannot be stated enough.

2) Quite odd as to how the author, and many others actually, tend to dismiss India's achievement till 90s with how poor we were and how Pakistan was a much better nation (economically). This notion of dismissing about 50 years (1947 to 1990) is as retarded as celebrating 20 years of so called prosperity (1990-2011). If the writers truly beleive in it maybe they should learn a lesson from Pakistan and not celebrate? I mean if Pakistanis were indeed right look where they landed them into? xxx

I think he is dismissive of India's economic stature and not her achievement in other fields. I am one of those who believe that India could have done economically far better with a few more insightful policies but then that is history and cannot be changed.

[Rajiv]

Very interesting...seems hes one of the educated ones!!!!! they seem rational' date='they realise pakistan sadly is in a mess corrupt upto the eyeballs,the countrys so hypocritical,lets be honest[b'] pakistanis have helped make muslims hated so much more in the world!!

>>nail on the head, I have some very close Iranian friends, they don't like them as well

[Utalk]

Don't believe everything media feeds you. Normal folk in Pakistan are not obsessed with anti India sentiment. I grew up in Pak and trust me ordinary Pakistani is not an india hating lunatic. Yes kashmir issue brings dislike and frustration but its nothing more then how many Indians come across on Internet forum with their views of Pakistan.

[flamy]

Don't believe everything media feeds you. Normal folk in Pakistan are not obsessed with anti India sentiment. I grew up in Pak and trust me ordinary Pakistani is not an india hating lunatic. Yes kashmir issue brings dislike and frustration but its nothing more then how many Indians come across on Internet forum with their views of Pakistan.

Of course, man. I have met some Pakis at Uni, and we get along just fine, albeit a lil awkward sometimes. All this brouhaha is some strange internet phenomenon.

[Clarke]

Don't believe everything media feeds you. Normal folk in Pakistan are not obsessed with anti India sentiment. I grew up in Pak and trust me ordinary Pakistani is not an india hating lunatic. Yes kashmir issue brings dislike and frustration but its nothing more then how many Indians come across on Internet forum with their views of Pakistan.

Maybe you're right, the trouble is this was supposed to be among the top 10 most powerful people in Pakistan, relatively secular and what's more, at the end of the day he's a bloody internet warrior :haha: I still cannot believe that he tweets this statement:

Salman Taseer, sent out a tweet about an Indian rocket that had come down over the Bay of Bengal: "Why does India make fools of themselves messing in space technology? Stick 2 bollywood my advice."

The @$#* ? Pakistan doesn't even have an automobile industry of its own, they just assemble cars with ancient carburetors and no effin emission standards. How on earth does he have the fortitude to mock at India's space program ?

[Silva]

You guys should youtube Pakistani journalist Najam Sethi. He's opinion on Pakistanis views on India is similiar to Atish Taseer except he gives more in depth examples and is more knowledgeable on the subject.

[ravishingravi]

Don't believe everything media feeds you. Normal folk in Pakistan are not obsessed with anti India sentiment. I grew up in Pak and trust me ordinary Pakistani is not an india hating lunatic. Yes kashmir issue brings dislike and frustration but its nothing more then how many Indians come across on Internet forum with their views of Pakistan.

Dude, I just ask you to watch the Talk shows which are run in Pakistan from from 7 to 11 which are basically dictating public opinion. I am not saying all Pakistanis are this way, but it is a fact that Pakistan as a state is trying to distance itself from its cultural identity which is essentially from an Indian sub continent. This therefore requires certain degree of antagonism to be generated against India ( i.e Hindus )

[punjabi_khota]

Why my father hated Pakistan ? Bad umpiring in home tests.

[Mariyam]

A few thoughts: a) I have to wonder what happened with Allama Iqbal. In the sub-continent history his role would perhaps be more pivotal than Jinnah in two-nation theory. What baffles me is this is the same guy who wrote Roman, Mishra sab meet gaye jehan se..kuch baat hai ke hasti mitti nahin hamari, sadiyon reha hai dushman daur-e-jehan hamaara...saare jehan se accha hindostan hamaara. Clearly when he wrote about Roman and Mishr(Egyptian civilization), there was no such thing as Islamic civilization so Iqbal must be talking about the great Indian civilization, and definitely Hindu-Buddhist religions. What would change the writer to completely disown it and then create two-nation theory? And we are not talking of some rabid right wing loony here, the man was clearly learned and one of the great intellects of the region. xxx

Good point. The following three stanzas from "saare jahan se achcha" make their way into any secular Urdu publication. Overused, but still relevant. mazhab nahi sikhata aapas main bair rakhna Hindi hai hum, hai watan Hindustan hamara Yunan, misr aur rom, sab mit gaye jahan se, ab tak magar hai baaqi naam o nishan hamara Kuch baat hai ki hasti mitt ti nahin hamari sadiyon raha hai dushman, daur e zama hamara These were from his idealistic days when he was a proponent of the one India theory. After that he spent a few years in the UK, and when he returned he had completely transformed. Proving the age old theory that the more time you spent in a Western country, the more likely you are to be retarded. When he returned he wrote a poem called "Tarana e millat" which used the same form and rhyme scheme as Saare jahan se achcha. Cheen o arab hamara, hindustan hamara Muslim hain hum, hai watan saara jahan hamara ........ Duniya ke but kado mein, pehla woh ghar khuda ka hain uske pasbaan hum, woh pasbaan hamara Don't remember much more. But verse for verse, he tried to negate his more famous (and better written) Saare Jahan se achcha. The transformation was complete. :((

[ganeshran]

The mid to late 30s was a strange period in undivided India's history. Both Jinnah and Iqbal who were previously asking for dominion status or reservation for the community changed their demand to a separate homeland and started to preach communalism. IMO, it was the 1937 provincial elections which changed their strategy. Muslim league had nothing to offer the Muslim community that the congress didn't in 1937. The League was beaten in the elections. But the later demands and communal preaching sought to unite Muslims under the banner of faith and tried to convince them that their faith would be in danger in united India. It is unfortunate that a secular politician like Jinnah decided to use this route to further his political ends. He might have thought that he would be able to shape Pakistan into a secular nation after independence even though it was formed on the basis of religion, but he died too soon to make an impact. Pakistan continues to pay the price till date.