Beyond the Enemy Lines
@ srijansinghai
Two nations so diverse yet so alike, people with similar genetic codes, common gods, similar language yet a Line of Control. The Story of India & Pakistan is like that of two estranged brothers in the demographic dimensions. Then, what is the difference between India and Pakistan. Well, other than religious preferences it is really difficult to chalk out one. We are common brotherhood whether we like to acknowledge it or not.
I often wonder why despite of no difference there is so much animosity between the counterparts. What makes a nation to foster terrorism to harm other on civilian front? Why does a nation that has a pacific image have to develop nuclear weapons to threaten the other nation? Why did one land mass face partitions twice? Why so much of hatred? And most importantly who is to be blamed?
Let alone all spooky claims, the paradox of two nation theory was clearly the assassin. What makes Pakistan so different from India is the mere idea of its existence. Pakistan was woven around the arid sands of Inferiority Complex. Jinnah hath professed a nation on the basis of a faulty notion that Muslims cannot live as equals in Hindu majoritarian India. Senior Muslim leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other prominent Deoband Ulemas did read the repercussions of the idea beforehand and never took part in it, claiming that Islam was a brotherhood and not the nationhood. The aforesaid argument seems so true when you look at a number of Muslim countries on the world map. If religion could be the line of country, then instead of so many Islamic Republics there would definitely have been only one. It was never about religion or rights, a separate nation is always about power; power to some and suffering to many and this was always the case with Pakistan.
Ironically, Jinnah the founding father of the two nation theory was actually the first person to realize the perils of the idea he had created. Gandhi perceived a united India as a “Secular Republic” whilst Jinnah hath always perceived Pakistan as a mirror image of Gandhi’s India i.e. a “Secular Republic” with a Muslim majority. Jinnah had at least on a couple of occasions shown his concerns for the style of state Pakistan was turning out to be prior to the partition. One such occasion was in second week of March 1947, where in his first speech in front of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly he said that Pakistan is to be a “Secular State” moreover coming to his famous speech given in a school of Lahore (which is believed to be notoriously removed from Pakistan’s history) Jinnah said that this state (Pakistan) has nothing to do with religion and people are free to go to their temples, mosques and churches, because it is their personal matter. During the third and fourth decade of twentieth century the hostility had become common and as a matter of fact Congress and Gandhi were negotiating for an independent India whilst Jinnah and Muslim league bidding for a free state with Muslim majority i.e. Pakistan. British acted as brokers and left India only after taking away their due commission. The Point is that there was a gap between conception and ideology of Pakistan and that could never be filled.
Another major factor that over the years did lead Pakistan to these fateful days is incongruity and lack of four-cornered Constitution. The Indian State had become a republic in 1950 with one of the best and definite written Constitution, unlike Pakistan which took 9 years to draft a Constitution which was to be overthrown twice in quick successions. The Pakistani State built on Islamic lines wanted a Constitution close to Shariyat but amazingly remained indecisive, regularly giving room for coups and anarchy.
Now take for account the term “Islamic Republic.” What do you mean by it? Who defines it? Answer is, No-one; none at least in Pakistan. The widespread agitation and robust dislike for Ahemadiya Sect of Islam led Pakistan to its ill-famous Lahore Riots of early 1950s. The Justice Munir Commission set up in 1950s after the aforesaid Riots on the question of who shall be termed as a “Muslim” advised: An Islamic state is a mirage, and under no circumstances it is business of state to define who a Muslim is. As a matter of fact, a typical state like Pakistan, to which M.J. Akbar gives his popular title of a “Jelly State” needed a very strong law to be out of chaos, instead it was never bestowed with the same. Independent Judiciary is what Pakistan’s need at the juncture is; and recent intrepid decisions taken by likes of Justice Iftakar Chaudhry will thus go long way in strengthening the threads of Pakistani Being.
Political standstill and turmoil has been the third and probably worst hitting factor for Pakistan. Jinnah may have been the founding father of Pakistan but as a matter of fact it was always the Godfather of Pakistan Maulana Madoodi, the founder of Jamat-e-Islami who abstracted the line of Pakistani acumen towards the extremism. Such leaders could not have had fertile grounds in the electoral politics as voter does not trust Mullah for Governance but did always act as an appendage in the Pakistani politics. The post Lyakat Ali phase of Pakistani politics was mastered by Socialists like Hussain Sohrawardi but after that Pakistan had been under Radar of dictators. Right from Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq to Parvez Musharraf years of tyrannies hath hurt the sense of a nation terribly.
Since Independence, Pakistan conceived India’s amalgam of religions as an idealistic bubble that was to explode by a couple of decades. But the time, the cold judge has shown that despite of the complexity of the Indian model of existence and the rampant red-tapist corruption India is still closer to what its founding fathers perceived it to be. But it is not only about being better than Pakistan; it is about being better with Pakistan.
Someone told me that ‘ifs’ is not an option in history. India had been partitioned 65 years ago to form Pakistan and then Pakistan to form Bangladesh. No Akkhand Bharat is a possibility today. But at the heart of it all Pakistan is always going to be our close-blood neighbor and over this obscure wall and eerie silence we have a common future. No war is good. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar Brutus tells Cassius;
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; …
… And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
@65 from Independence peace is for both India and Pakistan the only option and this may be the last chance. India and Pakistan are young nations, in the pre-adolescence phase we need each other for common perpetuity. Leadership is one aspect but “we” the next blood in India must understand the Paradox of Pakistan, overlooking all the hatred we have acquired for Pakistan in our sub-cautious over these years of our existence. The next line of leadership has to ensure that next fifty years don’t see any more wars; they don’t see any more of blood either in Mumbai or Rawalpindi. Devious Ideologies and civil hatred force the crack between the nations to deepen and heights of barbed wires on LOC to go up, Liberals to agonize and Common to suffer. The dialogue is only option till then hold your head up peer over the border beyond the enemy lines you are sure to find friends; friends with similar name, common genetic codes, similar strengths and collective weaknesses. I simply love the last two lines of the Piyush Mishra classic “Hussna” which says
…Heeron ke, Ranjhon ke, Nagme kya ab bhi sune jaate hain wahan;
Aur rota hai kya raaton ko Pakistan bhi waise hi, jaise ki Hinhustan…
