Print This Post 
Email This Post
A book in India that praises Pakistan’s founder is being celebrated in Pakistan. Pakistani commentators appear apologetic in seeking approval. The book argues that Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not want Pakistan as a first choice. This is a common mistake made both by Indian and western writers, and even some Pakistani intellectuals. Pakistan was destined to happen, a result of ten centuries of Pakistani cultural, political and military presence in the region located between India, Iran and Afghanistan. The Quaid-e-Azam, as Pakistanis reverently call their Great Leader, understood this and became the instrument for a cause larger than him. The Indians need to correct one more fallacy: there was no ‘partition’ in 1947.
By AHMED QURAISHI
Wednesday, 26 August 2009.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—While we should thank India’s former foreign minister for his courage in praising the charismatic leader of Pakistan’s independence movement, we should stop behaving as if we are seeking validation and vindication. Mr. Jaswant Singh’s book is not a Pakistani victory. It is a sincere attempt by an Indian citizen to probe what is commonly known as partition, which itself is based on the false notion that a sovereign India was wrongly divided. For us in Pakistan, we should realize that our independence – and not ‘partition’ – is steeped in both modern and old histories and requires no explanation.
Pakistani intellectuals continue to be afflicted with low self-esteem that prevents them from fashioning an interpretation of history supportive of the idea of Pakistani nationalism. In this, our intellectuals are far behind the thinkers in Israel, for example, who achieved the impossible by reviving a 2,000-year-old dead language to gel a nation of diverse peoples.
Our politicians and thinkers failed to make something out of Pakistan in the past six decades mainly because of the lack of pride that comes from a sense of being, a sense of destiny, a sense of history. This discussion is also important because we have seen brazen attempts during the last two years, especially in the US media, to promote the idea of Pakistan’s balkanization.
Finding a nationalistic motivation, a sort of PakNationalism, is essential.
The first thing Pakistanis need to know is that Pakistan was destined to happen. Our leader, Mr. Jinnah, made it happen through his sheer brilliance because he was there. But Pakistan was going to happen anyway, in some shape or form and at an opportune time, because of the force of history. Pakistan was not a historical coincidence that the common historical version suggests and which Mr. Singh reinforced. There is no coincidence in the fact that a quarter of a century before Quaid-e-Azam’s rise, a poet who wore a Turkish tarboosh (hat) and wrote Persian poetry predicted such a country. Pakistan’s rise came exactly 90 years after the formal fall of the Mughal empire, Pakistan’s predecessor, which was the only India the world had known for centuries. Except for that 90-year-long gap, Pakistan had existed in several shapes and forms and for at least ten centuries or more.
Pakistan’s Quaid-e-Azam was a Pakistani nationalist. He was the istrument that helped Pakistan fulfil its destiny, a destiny preordained because of the force of history.
Our Indian friends have the right to debate the question of India’s supposed division. But today’s India, born in 1947, was never divided or partitioned. It a historical fallacy to think that Pakistan was ever part of any united and sovereign Indian state. The only thing that was divided in 1947 was a British colony that in turn was based on a defunct Muslim empire. The Indian grievance about the ‘partition’ that is at the core of Indian animosity toward Pakistan is without base.
What is more surprising is how Pakistan’s intellectuals were drawn by Mr. Singh’s book to conclude that Pakistan’s founding father was an ‘Indian nationalist’ who did not want Pakistan as a first choice. This is incorrect because it negates the force of history that favored Pakistan. Tens of millions of people wanted to be future Pakistani citizens before the country even existed. The timely and superb leadership of Mr. Jinnah was an instrument, not the cause.
Sixty-two years later, Pakistanis shouldn’t be discussing details. We know there was a Pakistan independence movement. We know it was anchored in history. We know that the fourth and fifth generations of today’s Pakistanis are more integrated than ever, sharing similar ethnic and cultural roots spread over three dynamic regions that surround Pakistan.
This is the reality of Mr. Jinnah’s PakNationalism. And this is the only thing that matters.
The News International & PakNationalists.com
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
After having studied the history about the creation of Pakistan, I am 100% convinced that Jaswant Singh has narrated the true facts as to how Pakistan was created. We should not be prejudiced. As to the fact that Pakistan was destined to be established, is a different matter. I know it was the WILL of ALLAH ALMIGHTY and Pakistan will exist till eternity.The battle for Muslim rights in India was single handedly fought by our Quaid who was in fact the greatest statesman of the 20th century. He strived hard for Muslim rights within India till1944 but it was Hinduism and parochial feelings within the hardliner Congress party leaders like Nehru and Patel which changed Quaid\’s mind. Let us not distort history.
a VERY THOUGHT PROVOKING IDEA, ALTHOUGH I PERSONALLY FEEL IT SHOULD HAVE HAVE HAPPENED MUCH LATER, PROBABLY IN EIGHTIES. PAKISTAN WAS DESTINED TO COME INTO BEING, AND ALL THOSE WHO ARE TALKING OF BALKANISATION SHOULD KNOW THAT IDEA OF PAKISTAN IS THERE TO EXIST FOR EVER. LONG LIVE PAKISTAN.
I have been trying to put forward the reality of history that Pakistan is the new name of Sindh. Anyone in doubt shoud read up about Indus Vally civilization and that will lead him/her to know that for 6000 years there has been an identity by the name of Sindh. The Ancient Sindh even if intrupted by Aryan invasion in 17th century BC continued to exist until Muhammad Ghori at the start of 12th century after taking Islamic Sindh and Delhi put Islamic Sindh( bar presnt Sindh provence of Pakistan which continued to be a separate country until British took it in 1843 and disloved it altogether. Later when it was reconstructed the region of Kuch and Run of Kutch was removed from it jurisdiction)in India. The ancient Sindh was bassed on many geogaphical areas which are now part of Afghanistan, Iran and India but the Islamic sindh was roughly the area of present day Pakistan plus whole of Kashmir and Run of Katch and Katch.
Indeed when I was child we will identify ourselves by Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtun,Baloch, Kashmiri, Makrani and Siraeki. The rest we called Hindostani.
Indeed had the British left British India today we would have librated or would have been in the proccess of librating our ancient fatherland Sindh.
This brings me to a further point that during the Islamic centuries Indian confedrates contless times tried to invade Sindh but wre not successful. Muhammad Ghaznawi alone 16 times fought to save Sindh from Indians and finally he had to invade India 17th time and destroy their military basses.
In my view now that Bangla Desh is no longer with us we shall rename Pakistan with our ancient name. In Isalmic Sindh leadership came from present day Sindh to Kashmir and people spoke all the different languages they speak now. By renaming our country Sindh we will oblitrate all the differences that are being used by the opportunists to devide us.
I have been trying to ut forward the reality of history that Pakistan is the new name of Sindh. Anyone in doubt shoud read up about Indus Vally civilization and that will lead him/her tknow that for 6000 years there has been an identity by the name of Sindh. The Ancient Sindh even if intrupted by Aryan invasion in 17th century BC continued to exist until Muhammad Ghori at the start of 12th century after taking Islamic Sindh and Delhi put Islamic Sindh( bar presnt Sindh provence of Pakistan which continued to be a separate country until British took it in 1843 and disloved it altogether. Later when it was reconstructed the region of Kuch and Run of Kutch was removed from it jurisdiction). The ancient Sindh was bassed on many geogaphical ares which are now part of Afghanistan, Iran and India but the Islamic sindh was roghly the area of present day Pakistan plus whole of Kashmir and Run of Katch and Katch.
Indeed when I was child we will identify ourselves by Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtun,Baloch, Kashmiri, Makrani and Siraeki. The rest we called Hindostani.
Indeed had the British left British India today we would have librated or would have been in the proccess of librating our ancient fatherland Sindh.
This brings me to a further point that during the Islamic centuries Indian confedrates contless times tried to invade Sindh but wre not successful. Muhammad Ghaznawi alone 16 times fought to save Sindh from Indians and finally he had to invade India 17th time and destroy their military basses.
In my view now that Bangla Desh is no longer with us we shall rename Pakistan with our ancient name. In Isalmic Sindh leadership came from present day Sindh to Kashmir and people spoke all the different languages they speak now. Bu renaming our country Sindh we will oblitate all the differences that are being used by the opportunists to devide us.
I must confess that I was guilty of thinking Jinnah wanted a united India at first, although I never though of it as Indian nationalism.