Smokers’ Corner: Lost in transition
In the late 1960s, an intense public debate erupted between intellectuals belonging to the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and those belonging to various progressive literary movements.
At the time the political and cultural milieu of the country had found itself at a crossroad. With a fierce youth-led movement taking place against a military dictatorship (Ayub Khan), many Pakistanis had begun to ask what it meant to be a Pakistani.
Maoists, Marxists, progressives, provincial autonomists and left-democrats gathered together on platforms erected by political outfits such as the PPP, the NAP, the Bengali nationalist Awami League, and various small Sindhi, Baloch and Pashtun nationalist groups. They began defining the Pakistani culture and polity as a fusion of various ethnic, religious and sectarian expressions which they insisted could be harnessed (to produce collective economic, political and cultural goodwill) only through the imposition of social democracy and the granting of wide-ranging democratic rights to the ethnicities that were not considered to be part of the ruling elite.
The intellectual champions of the progressives and the left wing in this respect were men like the poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Sindhi nationalist and scholar GM Syed, Pashtun nationalist Bacha Khan, and writer Safdar Mir.
As Faiz authored a detailed study and commentary on what is and should constitute ‘Pakistaniat’, Mir took it upon himself to scholarly rebuke the challenge posed against Faiz’s thesis by Islamic scholar, Abul Ala Maududi.
In his commentary, Faiz declared Pakistani culture to be a pluralistic mixture of cultural rituals and beliefs of the many ethnicities, religions and Muslim sects that resided in the country. He also concluded that each one of these aspects were further influenced by the cultural traditions inherited by Pakistanis from Hindu, Muslim and British regimes in the region over hundreds of years.
But the point that got JI intellectuals fuming the most about Faiz’s thesis was when he declared that Islam was just one aspect of the Pakistani culture and that Pakistanis do not have a monopoly over it.
Maududi and his supporters in the shape of conservative (but pro-West) lawyer and writer, A K. Brohi and Urdu novelist Naseem Hijazi, attacked Faiz’s study and conclusions as being anti-Islam and (thus) against the ‘ideology of Pakistan.’
The term Ideology of Pakistan was first used by Maududi in the late 1960s. This is ironic because he had vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan in 1947 and thought that the country’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was a deviant Muslim.
Maududi tried to transcend the progressives’ idea of the culture of Pakistan by describing his understanding of Pakistaniat as an ideology. He defined this ideology to be based on a system founded upon so-called Islamic principles, values and laws. Not only did Maududi reject Faiz’s emphasis on ethnic, religious and sectarian pluralism, he also accused the progressives and the leftists for using arts such as music, dance, painting and theatre ‘like a Trojan horse to infiltrate and change Pakistan’s Islamic complexion.’
The fiery debate finally came to a pass when JI and its conservative supporters lost both the intellectual as well as the political battle in the 1970 general elections that were overwhelmingly won by secular parties that had the backing of the progressive intelligentsia.
But just when it seemed that the Islamic narrative regarding the culture of Pakistan had been buried, East Pakistan happened.
With the breaking of Pakistan and defeat of its armed forces at the hands of their Indian counterparts in 1971, power fell into the hands of PPP’s Z A. Bhutto.
As a strategy to lift the remaining part of the country from the despair and humiliation of defeat, Bhutto began formulating cultural and education policies by actually fusing Faiz’s pluralism-friendly and secularist thesis with those of Maududi’s.
For example, folk cultures and the arts of various ethnicities were patronised by the new regime along with constitutionalism as well as a populist emphasis on Islam.
Pakistan’s defeat in the 1971 war was explained away as a conspiracy by superpowers against Pakistan because it was the ‘bastion of Islam.’
The Bhutto regime continued to harness this narrative by balancing its secular and liberal cultural policies with its somewhat paranoid rhetoric against the many (largely perceived) ‘enemies of Pakistan.’
So in 1977 when the reactionary General Ziaul Haq toppled Bhutto, he simply took the latter’s post-1971 ideological narrative, cut out its secular and pluralistic aspects but retained the Islamic rhetoric.
Not only did Zia further build upon it by imposing draconian and controversial laws and policies, he handed over the right to define Pakistani culture to conservative historians, educationists, politicians, judges and media personnel.
Hence ever since Zia, the doctrinal, judicial and intellectual exercise of defining Pakistaniat has remained in their hands. Over the decades so much has been piled upon in this context that this humongous and largely concocted pile has become the resource for both Pakistanis as well as those on the outside trying to figure out what it means to be a Pakistani.
This pile gives ready-made answers, but the way Pakistan’s politics and society have suffered under the tyranny of this one-dimensional narrative, one can suggest that, more than ever, it is ripe to be politically and intellectually challenged by those who are willing to question its claim to be the sole blueprint of the ideology and culture of Pakistan.
NFP….Undoubtedly your effort to bring to light important historical facts into light. But may I dare to request you to emphasize that we muslims need now to revisit our history, politics, culture and religion.
We have to be prepared to write a fresh narrative for the coming generations.
The rascal Maududi, ZAB & Zia are in large part responsible for whatever is wrong with Pakistan today.
When I look at 2012 and remember the 40s, 50s and 60′s — If it were not for the influence of those progressive literary writers and poets of those beautiful bygone days — I myself would have been an illiterate literalist blowing up girls schools — in pursuit of 72 virgins.
Zia was truly someone that Pakistan could have done without but this is what happens when you make a mockery of one’s religion by making it an excuse for everything we do. Pakistani liberals and progressives need to rise up to the occasion and defeat the so-called conservatives who think they are authority on the religion.
Zia was the curse of the persecuted Ahmedis.
I think the author exaggerates the role and importance of the secular / leftist parties. They had some limited appeal in the urban educated classes but hardly reflected mainstream thinking of the average Pakistani. This should not be surprising, given the fact that Islam was the sole reason for creation of Pakistan. Had there been no Islam ( or limited Islam ) in the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Bengal, etc, there would have been no demand for creation of a separate homeland for muslims of the subcontinent. It is intellectually dishonest of secular – leftist persons like Faiz , Sajjad Zaheer and others of their ilk to pretend that a secular society is possible in a nation created under the banner of Islam. Older readers would remember the popular refrain from the sixties – Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Illaha I’ll Allah. The ease with which Islam has permeated all aspects of Pakistani national life is indicative of the fact that for the vast majority of Pakistanis, there was never any doubt that Islam is the defining part of the Pakistani identity and that secularism is close to blasphemy, Faiz’s brilliant poetry notwithstanding.
That was some thoughtful review of the article.
Thanks Ammar for your kind words. Regards.
Spot on.
I understand Paracha’s dislike of Zia’s policies. One thing I don’t understand about his depiction of ZAB as mostly secular:
ZAB was one of the strongest voices for having the army go over to Bangladesh to perform Operation Searchlight. Yahya Khan may have been Martial Law Administrator but Bhutto was saying the same things that he was.This was despite the fact that he had lost the election fair and square to his Bengali counterpart. Not something that you would expect from a secular, pro democracy leader.
Previously he had egged Ayub Khan to attempt the Kashmir takeover in 1965 in Operation Gibraltar – something that ended with the Indian army at the gates of Lahore.
In both cases, he profited from the failure of the army and came out smelling like roses.
That is quite interesting. I have read a bit about it on BBC and some war related historical documents but this aspect of ZAB’s workings doesn’t come out unless you have lived through it.
self concocted analysis by NFP…………just keep on blaming and hoping
Wah Chacha khwamkhuah wah.
why don’t you say something instead of only levelling allegations?
did Muhammad Ali Jinnah give only one speech in his whole political career and that on 11 august 1947?? please dont try to become a historian while u live in 2012!
No, but this speech is given just as a reference. You brought this point, so can u point to any other speech where Muhammad Ali Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as a state of fanatics.
Technically if you are only allowed to comment on present then you are a contemporary writer not a historian. Historians tend to comment on events that occurred hundreds or even thousands of years earllier. Whats wrong with commenting on events from 1947.
I like your name.
Whenever I think about Partition and the Present of Pakistan, I cannot help thinking of the interview Maula Abul Kalam Azad gave in 1946: http://www.newageislam.com/books-and-documents/maulana-abul-kalam-azad–the-man-who-knew-the-future-of-pakistan-before-its-creation/d/2139
I followed your link to an interesting reading. Notwithstanding the precision of Abdul Kalam Azad predictions It is appalling to note that he was also preoccupied with the idea of spread of Islam. Abdul Kalam was clever like Jinnah in his own way. He too was concerned with the Muslim welfare rather than India in his opposition to partition. He was very unlike the other Abdul Kalam who followed him 55 years later – APJ Abdul Kalam. If Muslims had thrown leader like APJ Abdul Kalam the Muslims in the subcontinent would have been a beacon to the Islamic world and would have saved them from savagery. Secularism and Islam cannot go hand in hand. That explains why Pakistan will meet the fate of their Arab brethren,
Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for providing the link. What prophetic words?