The making of Pakistan: A hermeneutic reflection on nationhood and identity – The Financial Daily

In the modern history of South Asia, the creation of Pakistan is one of the most debated topic that often triggers ideological justifications by the scholars, historians, and sociologistson the one hand, andwitnesses colonial counter-narratives supporting undivided India on the other hand.

Many academicians have answered this ambiguous question in multiple ways. The most prominent writing in this regard is that of K.K. Aziz. This article pays tribune to his excellent ground breaking work and is based on the ideas he developed though his multiple writings, predominantly in his landmark book “The Making of Pakistan” where he goes beyond the traditional ideological justification preceding the creation of our beloved homeland.

Famous as a K.K Aziz, Khursheed Kamal Aziz was a Pakistani historian and a barrister. He wrote various books on the history of India and Pakistan, but got tremendous fame for his book “The Murder of History”. His unique style of writing inspired many modern-day writers and helped millions of students to deeply analysethe complex subject of history with enthusiasm.

Something that makes his work stand out is the fact that he compares the same event (the creation of Pakistan) with that of the Western World to legitimize the actions of Muslims. Importantly, he didn’t try to justify the creation of Pakistan on ideological grounds. Rather, he had his own analysis of the subject matter. Moreover, his books, according to his own words, are his kids and had been written with utmost care and devotion. His work is popular not only among the Pakistani population but also among Indians, British, and the critical thinkers.

The book under discussion is divided into various chapters and each of these covers a unique aspect that led towards the creation of Pakistan. In the first chapter, which highlights the relations between Muslims, Britishers, and Indians, he presents an overview of the post-mutiny era (post-1857). Unlike other pseudo-intellectual historians who oppose Sir Syed Ahmad khan and suggest that there must have been a different approach to dealwith Britishers, he looks at the situation minutely.

He justifies his actions (he suggested to Muslims at that time) on various grounds: First, he says, it helped Muslims gain credibility and confidence. Secondly, it paved the way for partition of Bengal and separate electorates in the lateral years. Lastly, by not participating in politics, Muslims got a chance to win the trust of the Britishers. They wouldn’t have succeeded if they had opposed Britishers, as did by the Hindu leaders.

On Political grounds, he says, it isn’t the fact that Hindus and Muslims were always foe to each other. Rather, they cooperated on various incidents i.e. Khilafat movement, but what turned them against each other was the behaviour of Hindus during the Bengal partition. Moreover, discrimination against Muslims during Congress rule and opposition on the matter of separate electorates added fuel to the fire. These were the primary reasons which resulted in a conducive ground for the creation of Pakistan. Moreover, he says that the Congress was only a Hindu representative party and he proves it through various references and quotes from the recorded literature. Non-cooperation movement, round table conferences, and opposition on the stance of Muslim representation ended up creating Muslim nationalism, he says.

He further highlights that Muslims were the rulers for hundreds of years. It forced their leaders to think of their independence in the later years as it was not feasible for them to become second-class citizens. On the other hand, Hindus were habitual of serving others. They had not been the ruling class for at least a thousand years. Changing dynamics, democratic tilt in the sub-continent, and the Hindu’s long-lasting animosity against the aliens (Muslims) threatened the Muslim league to lobby for the future of Indian Muslims. Hindu- Muslim rift, he says, was so intense that even the Britishers were concerned about the future of undivided India. Hence, a separate homeland was compulsory for the Muslims to safeguard their interests.

While talking about religion and politics, the author says, pure separation between the both is a quixotic concept and has not been seen anywhere in the past. Even in Europe, nationalism was linked with Christianity and the religious leaders played a significant role in the development of nationalist movements. Indeed, national consciousness is a religious concept. So is the case with the Indian version of nationalism: Leaders united people on political grounds but also used religion to pursue their goals. He criticizes historians for associating Muslim nationalism with religion as there were multiple incidents where Congress used the same to strengthen its vote bank. For instance, they included Hindu texts in the syllabus, politicized the concept of cow slaughtering, and restricted Muslims from participating in their religious chorus during their self-government in colonial India.

However, Muslim on the other hand were forced to read the text and follow the rules as the literacy rate was at the lowest point among Muslims at that point, women were uneducated, and there were no solid grounds for unity. Given this scenario, religion was left as the only tool to be used to strengthen their national feelings. However, they have to struggle, unlike their counterparts, to justify their claim as many Muslim Ulema opposed religious interference into politics. He also talks about those Muslims who were left behind in India. He, by referring to historical records and documents, says that the Liaquat-Nehru agreement was signed to protect the minority in each country and migration was not restricted in the initial years of partition. To wrap it up, religious motives were genuine and justified.

Culture was another reason for dissatisfying Muslims and leading to the demand for a separate country. Culture, he says, is a prominent element that plays a decisive role in politics and is an essential component of nationalism. By historical and contextual analysis, he concluded similar to that of what Samuel P. Huntington mentioned in his book “The Clash of Civilizations”.

Yet, he looked at civilization as a concept that is based on cultural norms. He says that Islam has its unique culture and it can’t be separated from public life. This is the primary reason that Muslims maintained their separate identities since their arrival in the sub-continent. Similarly, language and tradition were important for Muslims. Former has its association with Arabic and was widely spoken among Muslims and lateral was also different from that of Hindus.

The uniqueness of Philosophy, art, architecture, and education were also the factors that made Muslims think of a separate place to practice their beliefs. By amalgamating two distinct civilizations, the author says, there would have been a total annihilation of peace and prosperity in the society.

Psychological nationalism was another blow to the ambition of Akhand Bharat. It was not a language, religion, territory, and culture that, in the lateral years, craved for the separation. Instead, it was a mental consciousness of the people that foresaw the circumstances and diverted their path towards the partition.

The author says that leaders were well aware of the fact that Hindu nationalism, which lacked a glorious past for a millennium, would not only be a threat to the cultural and historical values of Muslims but would be a trouble for the economic well-being of Indian Muslims. Moreover, Aziz writes that minorities were easy to curb and it was prominent from the hypocritical manifestos of the Hindu leaders, particularly that of Gandhi and Nehru, that the Hindu Raj would be established after the independence. It would have been a nightmare for Muslims. For example, their ambitions to glorify some historical characters (i.e. Shiva ji Maharaj) while discarding others (i.e. Ghaznavid) was the first step towards totalitarianism during their 1935 to 1937 ministries.

Muslims believed that within a separate country, there would be the chances of brotherly relations with other Muslim countries like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, leading toward Pan-Islamization. But, if they subordinate themselves to Hindus, their ambition would be on the verge of total collapse.

About the Two-nation theory, the author holds a critical opinion that Sir Syed, although, laid its foundation earlier, would not have manifested if the demands of the Muslim leaders –  separate electorates, proper representation, Bengal partition, significant share in the government services and the constitutional protection of rights – were accepted in the initial years. Hence, it was the behaviour of the Congress Leadership that compelled Muslims to get a separate homeland.

For instance, Nehru’s shameful remarks about Muhammad Ali Jinnah were the reflection of their thought process that Muslims are inferior to us. Additionally, the author argues that conspiracy over the fact that Britishers created Pakistan on religious lines (following their divide and conquer policy) is also unjust due to many reasons: First, Nehru’s ask for the quick migration of Bengali Hindus is a proof that minorities were not safe in either side in that particular circumstances. Secondly, there were a lot of struggles Muslim leaders did to gain the loyalty of the Britishers which resulted in favouring them in the lateral years. They participated in the British army in the World Wars, didn’t turn against them like the Hindus, and maintained a constitutional and peaceful way for the solution. Thirdly, it was not only Muslims who demanded a separate country, but also there were rising voices from Europe and other continents that the amalgamation of the two distinct nations would end up in bloodshed.

For instance, the books written on this subject matter – the doctoral thesis in Cambridge and Oxford, and articles in all the leading magazines and newspapers – underpin this claim that partition was inevitable. Interestingly, the author says, these debates have been ongoing since 1930, long before the Lahore Resolution was initiated.

This Book, unlike other literature on Pakistan’s creation, provides a compressive analysis and at the time of reading, it feels that you are a part of the story and things are going on in front of you. This time travel is very rare and not all the authors have this ability to generate a content of this calibre.

Moreover, after reading this book, one can get a complete understanding of the background of all the incidents in a short and to-the-point way. Mostly, the books try to justify the Ideology of Pakistan and consider it the only reason for which it was created. But the dynamics are changing nowadays as people are more into logic and critical thinking instead of believing in abstract values and concepts. This book fulfils these requirements in a true spirit. As it is written after the two decades of the creation of Pakistan, there is no shortage of references and original documents in this book. Another point is that it restricts itself to its subject matter. At the time of its publication, there was a lot of chaos in Pakistan and material law had already been implemented, but the author didn’t mention these events to nullify or object to the pre-partition debate which shows the professional attitude of the author.

As the writer was a professional academician, the use of language is academic and is enriched with vocabulary; however, Jorgensare rarely used throughout the book. What makes this piece extraordinary is that it justifies its stance by comparing similar scenarios with those of Western ones. Doing so broadens its audience as, for instance, it becomes easy to understand the territorial nationalism of Indian Muslims when the following paragraphs draw an analogy with German, French, and American nationalism.

This book is relevant for those who objectively want to study our past and the actual reasons that paved the way for the creation of Pakistan. However, a general understanding of the history is necessary before starting this book as few chapters are based on philosophical discussion and advanced argumentation. So, it is suggested to read some easy books like “Trek to Pakistan” before starting this to get the maximum benefits from this masterpiece. Moreover, critics of the creation of a separate homeland must read this book to overcome their biases and broaden their horizons of understanding.

 The anti-state elements often seem to give references of the other books of the author, i.e. “The Murder of History” while arguing upon the flaws of our historical understanding. However, the same author logically debates and justifies the creation of Pakistan while holding this opinion that post-partition issues exist. So, it is an interesting combination to read both of these books.

To conclude, this book is one of the best books ever written on the history of Pakistan and the author tries his best to not include its subjective biasness to maintain an academic discourse in his work.