This article is based on a book review and is the second in the series which aims to simplify the complex yet useful academic text regarding the history, politics, and the policy framework of Pakistan.
Written by Christophe Jaffrelot, the book “Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience” provides a comprehensive overview of the pre-partition struggle for the independence of Pakistan. Coupled with the post-partition dynamics, controversy over the political leadership, the entitlement of being a savior of the democratic values, a dichotomy that whether the state of Pakistan consists of a ethno-social entities or the religion has the key role to conjoin them, a critique on the one-nation theory and, above all, the rhetoric theme of one national language which resulted in the separation of East Pakistan, this book presents well-articulated arguments in the multifold domains encompassing the subject matter.
The author hails from France. At present, he is an academician at king Indian institute of London, with keen interests in the politics of sub-continent, the origin of nationalism, and the state formation divided on the basis of religious-ethnic and social domain. His famous work, in addition to the book under review, include “India’s First Dictatorship”, “Gujrat under Modi”, “The History of Pakistan and Its origin” and “Modi’s India”.
There are different chapters in the book, but, in abstract terms, the entire book can be divided into three different themes that revolved around the title of the book: Instability and Resilience. Throughout the book, the author reinforces the idea of the survival of Pakistan despite in a state of dialectics; continuous troubles and solutions. In general, three paradoxes are being inked. The first one is related to the definition of Pakistan on the religious and lingual basis. Many historians and scholars try to establish a connection between Islam and the Urdu language but it is a narrow concept with multifold criticism, he says.
The second paradox incorporates the notion of centrifugal and centripetal forces in Pakistan after Partition. Due to the inability of the state and its institutions to provide the masses with the pre-partition promises, and the rigidity to understand the demands of provincial autonomy, there emerged separatist notions in the different regions of Pakistan. (Here he does not mentions the foreign involvement in the insurgency and fails to incorporate those movements which were later suspended by the leaders and public).
He tries to showcase the picture of nationalism that emerged in people without being a part of a nation before the creation of Pakistan. In this particular domain, the author mentions how different groups existed in the society during the period of Mughals and later under the British rule. He describes that Muslims are nothing other than aliens to the local population (a title he used for those who are not native in the Sub-continent). Ashraris are the Arabic and Turkish Muslims only settled during the Mughal period and were highly prestigious at that time. He links the spread of Islam in the post Qasim’s invasion period with the effortsundertaken by the Sufis and shrines (that were developed during the era of Mughal Emperor Akbar).
Then, he describes the politics of each province of Pakistan separately. In this realm,he argues, Balochistan is the only place where solidarity exists among the people and they are united against the external threats. Punjab and Sindh, he says, have historically entertained cost system, with Syed, Sheikhs and Boras are considered high prestigious groups in these areas, something comparable with the Brahmans in Hindus. Then, he delves into the history of Balochistan and mentions that FATA and KP region were tribal areas that were indirectly ruled by the British though their handpicked “Wadairas” and “Panchayat”. He makes a point that although the society is united by Islam, there exist various differences among the population (i.e. enthno-lingual) that is undermining the unity of the nation.
Moreover, in the second part, he explicitly argues regarding the Pakistan’s status as a buffer state between the Autocracy and Democracy. Untraditionally, he avoids the traditional debate of civil-military relations and compares the two segments: these who made Pakistan and were elites and hailed from the Muslim minority areas, and the ones who established a notion of civilian dictatorship. Here he says thatthe Muslim majority regions were threatened by the notion of being permanently ruled by the Hindutva dominated parties. This was propagated by the Muslim league after watching their Swathi educational schedule after the 1935 elections.
The attention was also paid on the suppression of the minority Muslims in a Hindu dominated society who’s rulers at that time were against the concept of autonomous provinces. This debate however concluded with a pivotal shift as the provincial autonomy and the distribution of resources were contested in the post-partition period too, with Federation holding more than 40 subjects in the federal list. It was perceived as a threat from those who are in the support of a strong Federation, with maximum powers delivered towards the principal heads. The second issue he highlights, in the second part of the book, was that of one-unit system, and the third one was regarding Jinnah’s oath as a Governor-General instead of being a Prime Minister in a parliamentary form of government.
The third and the last part deals with the concept of Islam as a territorial versus Pan-Islamic identity. The former was propagated by Iqbal, Sir Syed and the other modern scholar as they know that the equal rights for the citizens can only be ensured if the state is a sovereign entity and is governed by the elected people. In contrast, the group of Ulema, those who were frustrated from the distortion of Khilafat movement, were supporting the idea of a collective Ummah with multiple countries formating the common Amir, until the Khalifat would be established. Different important personalities were the follower of this notion but it did not succeed and ultimately Pakistan was established.
This book provided a scholarly analysis but it comes with some biasness as the writer criticized the idea of a narrow Muslim elites leading the separatist movement. By analyzing the socio-temporal context of that time, the separatist movements all around the third world countries were being dominated by the educated elites. So, this was something one can found quite strange while reading this book. Otherwise, the analysis and research is worthy of praise.
In conclusion, one can say that despite all the issues that prevail in the society, Pakistan exist and is moving with the multiple paradoxes which are hindering its path on one hand, and are the triggering factors behind different aspects on the other. Although, the provincial autonomy, separatist notion during the British Period, and the ethic difference are the popular themes of every book written under the cult of Pakistan’s title, the unique insights of the author in this book make it useful to indulge into these domains with a comprehensive analysis.
The post Fragile foundation, enduring spirit: Pakistan’s odyssey of survival appeared first on The Financial Daily.
