|
The Tale of Two Gujrati Saints
(Part II)
by Anwar Shaikh |
"Hazrat Qaid-E-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Alehe Rahmat" is the title of the other Gujrati saint, who was born as
Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Karachi during December, 1876.
This description bestows a greater dignity on him than
that of a Muslim saint. It is an outcome of the Hindu tradition, which makes
ancestor-worship an integral part of Dharma, and clearly shows that the Muslims
of the Indian subcontinent share a common culture with the Hindus and are
racially the same people. Without this unity of background, Jinnah could not
have been treated by the Pakistanis as if he were one of the spiritual
luminaries of Islam.
A title of the Prophet Muhammad is "Haadi-e-Azam"
i.e., the great guide. Jinnah's title: "The Qaid-E-Azam" means very
much the same. Again, the use of "Hazrat" as prefix and "Alehe
Rahmat" as suffix, further add to his devotional splendor.
He has been honored as such for being the founder of
Pakistan. It is only the success that should be saluted; failure cannot be
applauded because it eliminates the difference between fortune and fiasco.
Such a great political hysteria was whipped up during
the second decade of the 20th century that the mutual Hindu-Muslim hatred
assumed inhuman proportions. Using Dr. Iqbal as a scapegoat, the Muslim League
led by Jinnah, claimed that the Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations; as
they could not live together, India must be partitioned to create a separate
homeland for the Muslims. This was considered the panacea for all the Muslim
ills - religious, economic and political.
Should Jinnah be allowed the saintly title that he has
come to possess? This is an honest question, and can be answered sincerely only
if one can establish objectively that Pakistan has solved the major problems of
all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. If it has, then Jinnah was certainly
one of the greatest saints that ever lived, but if it has not, then his status
must be reviewed in light of the results that the partition has produced.
To start with, let us weigh up the concept of Pakistan
itself. It meant that the Indian provinces (Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, N.W.
Frontier, Bengal and Bihar) where the Muslims were in majority, must be treated
as the Homeland of the Muslims, and separated from India as an independent
state. This was a crazy idea for several reasons:
1. There was a distance of about one thousand miles
between East and West Pakistan. It was impossible to reach Karachi from Dacca by
land, sea or air without consent of the Indian government, which was bound to be
hostile for the simple reason that Pakistan would serve as a symbol of the
Muslim hatred against the Hindus. This being the truth, diplomatic relations
between the two states could not remain cordial, and they would exist only to
demolish each other. It also meant that their budgets would be dedicated to the
national defense instead of public welfare, resulting in poverty with its
concomitant vices such as bribe, nepotism, tyranny, injustice and
mal-administration.
History shows that one can have a far-flung empire, but
it is impossible to think of a homeland whose parts lie a thousand miles away
intercepted by a long hostile territory. The leader, who thinks of such a plan
as the elixir for national ills, does not know the difference between mirth and
misery, fruition and fiasco, delight and disaster. Yet, Mr. Jinnah insisted on
the formation of Pakistan!
His followers have, no doubt, offered mitigating
factors to support his soundness of judgement, but this is an exercise in
futility. The fact is that he did secure Pakistan consisting of Eastern and
Western wings, which in essence, is a proof of political incompetence. The man,
obviously, wanted to be a hero at the expense of innocent people.
2. As I shall explain later, nationhood is not founded
on religion but blood ties, a common culture and homeland, yet he insisted that
the religion was the corner-stone of the Muslim nationhood. If this were true,
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. would have been one
state. As we know, it has never happened, and these countries are as independent
from one another as England is from France, and China from Russia.
However, if Jinnah had some secret knowledge of history
or some special powers to mould the Muslims of India into a separate nation, he
should have spent his energies to this effect. After all, the Prophet Muhammad
had devoted his life to welding the various warring Arab tribes into one nation.
Genghis Khan had also spent considerable time in uniting the Mongolian hordes
into one nation. But Jinnah did nothing to forge one nation out of the Muslims
scattered throughout India. Delivering occasional lectures from a high pulpit,
canopied by an unswerving loyalty to the British Crown, was totally insufficient
to accomplish this task. In a nutshell, he did not go through the laborious
rehearsal, which is absolutely essential before staging the play. Either he did
not realize or deliberately ignored the fact that the secret of Muhammad's and
Genghis Khan's success lay in the fact that their people were already racially
one nation, who had become divided into clans. Of course, the Muslims of India
were racially and culturally Indian, but Jinnah had undertaken an entirely
unnatural task of splitting it into two nations based on religion. It has never
happened in this world because religion is not the natural unit of nationhood.
The force of his argument was emotional and
exploitative. He used the religious appeal as a bait to bring Muslims into his
political net. He played upon the religious susceptibilities of people to make
them believe that the Islamic state is the sure guarantor of peace, prosperity
and plentitude, but he never explained the complexity, nature and purpose of the
Islamic Law, the main vehicle of bringing about this Divine Revolution. Being a
lawyer, it was his foremost duty to do so. This was the only way to make people
realize what was required of them. The fact that he did not do it, makes him
less than honorable.
One must bear in mind that Jinnah was not a practicing
Muslim, yet he advocated the establishment of an Islamic state. On the contrary,
the formidable Muslim divines such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hussain
Ahmad Madni, Sayyad Ata Ulla Shah Bukhari, Maulana Abut Ala Maududi, and many
more, opposed the concept of Pakistan and the Two-Nation Theory.
There is no evidence whatever that an Islamic state has
ever exited according to the Koranic principles. Nor can it be proved that Islam
requires establishment of a single state for all Muslims to share its bounties,
benefits and blessings. The Indian Muslims boast a good deal about the
"Islamic Welfare State" established by the Second Caliph, Umar, the
Great. Yes, he did invent the system of giving social benefits to the Arab
children, but where did the money come from? The finances were raised by robbing
the newly converted Muslims of Egypt and Iran, whose children cried from hunger
and disease. There is no record, whatever, to show that the Egyptian and Iranian
children were given any stipends from the Arab funds; it was for the Arab
children only!
The truth is that the much-vaunted Muslim Law falls far
short of the universally accepted legal standards. What is law?
The law is a set of enforceable principles, which seek
to establish rights and duties between person and person, an individual and
society, as well as people and the state. The following peculiarities give the
law its true distinction, deference and decency:
a. The law is never made for the benefit of one person.
It is enacted for a whole group of people.
b. The law is strictly neutral in its application, that
is, it applies to the low and high and great and small with equal force.
Incredible it may seem but the truth is that the
Islamic law has nothing to do with the public good because it revolves around
the convenience of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Koran lays it down
that a Muslim can have no more than four wives at the same time, but this law
did not apply to the Prophet:
And any woman, believer, if she gave herself to the
Prophet and if the Prophet desires to take her in marriage, for thee, apart from
the believers. (The Confederates, 33: 45)
It clearly states that the Prophet can have more than
four wives at the same time, and this law applies to him only at the total
exclusion of all other believers! This is the reason that he had nine wives at
the same time!
Also bear in mind the following Koranic law, pertaining
to polygamy:
" .....marry such women as seem good to you, two,
three four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one....."
(Women, 4: 1 )
Thus, the clause of equity is the pivot of having more
than one wife. It is well known that the Prophet could not maintain balance of
fairness among his wives. As the Koran witnesses, it led to a lot of acrimony in
the household. Instead of enforcing the clause of equity, Allah gave Muhammad
dispensation from it:
"You (Muhammad) can suspend any of your wives as
you will, and receive any of them as you will: and whomsoever you desire of
those whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you." (The Confederates,
33: 50)
In simple English, it means that the prophet is not
bound by the Law of Equity, the basic condition of polygamy: he can treat his
wives as he thinks fit. Since it is Allah, who makes the law a play-thing for
Muhammad, one wonders if Allah and Muhammad are not one and the same person. It
certainly led me to this conclusion.
The law, which is exclusive to a person for serving his
convenience, or if it is flexible at will, it ceases to be the law. In this
context, I ought to remind the reader that the Prophet was at liberty to marry
the widow or divorcee of another person, but nobody was allowed to marry his
widow (or divorcee). All his wives were raised to the status of
Ummahaat-ul-Momineen (Mothers of the believers) so that nobody could marry them.
When the Prophet died, his wife Aisha was only 18, and lived to be 73 as a
lonely widow!
One can find many more examples to this effect, but I
think that I have said enough to illustrate the purpose and nature of the so-
called Islamic Law. However, I may add that the poverty-stricken Muslims of
India believed that the Islamic Law stood for economic equality. We all were led
to think that way. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto openly equated the Islamic Law with
the Marxist concept of nationalization, for this reason, whereas the truth is
that Islam allows unlimited accumulation of wealth in any form, including land,
and is the only source of feudalism in the modern age.
It is this ambiguity about the Islamic Law, which has
become the bane of Pakistan. Half a century has elapsed but Islamic Law has not
yet been enforced in Pakistan despite the fact that India was divided for this
reason. The truth is that there is no Islamic Law to be enforced. What is called
the Islamic Law is the result of the far-fetched interpretations of the Koran
and Hadith; it also includes the vestiges of the legal contrivances that were
developed by the Arab and Turkish rulers to meet the demands of their times.
In fact, the Islamic Law is the biggest myth that the
Muslim divines have dreamt up all over the world. It is because, the Prophet
Muhammad declared himself to be the Behavioral Model for the believers:
"You have a good example in God's Messenger (
Muhammad ) for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day." (The
Confederates, 33: 20)
As seen above, the Prophet was not bound by any law.
This is the essence of his being the Behavioral Model. Therefore, there is no
such thing as the Islamic Law. Since Jinnah did not explain this point including
the Islamic Economics, he was leading the Muslims of India to the God that did
not exist. As he did not live an Islamic life, and only talked about it, one can
easily see that he only wanted to elevate himself, and was least interested in
the Islamic ideology..
3. It is difficult to believe that Jinnah even believed
in the integrity of Pakistan itself. Eventually, when the Hindus agreed to the
partition of India, they sprang a surprise on him. They demanded that certain
parts of the Punjab and Bengal, which were to constitute Pakistan, must also be
divided. Instead of defending the integrity of the yet unborn Muslim state, he
succumbed to the Hindu pressure and accepted its truncation as if it were a
play! It was the Muslims of these provinces, who suffered untold loss of life
and property.
It is not surprising because the man who had no loyalty
to his Motherland (India) how could he care about the integrity of Pakistan,
which was still in a notional state.
4. While assessing the personality and intentions of
Jinnah, one should also bear in mind that he accepted Pakistan without knowing
its exact boundaries and without agreeing to the division of assets that were to
be shared between India and Pakistan.
The Boundary Commission that was headed by Radcliff,
delivered its verdict after the declaration of Pakistan. Though the Hindus
failed to have Lahore included in India despite their frantic efforts, they did
succeed in securing Ferozepur. This arbitrary demarcation is the fountain of the
Kashmir problem, which has become the bane of Pakistan. Had Jinnah made sure
that these affairs were settled before the Partition, the trail of murder and
loot that ensued from this folly, would not have occurred. Why was he in such a
hurry?
The true reason was, his search for personal glory. He
had been seriously ill for a long time but hid it successfully even from his
closest colleagues to avoid a challenge for the leadership of his party. He
suffered from tuberculosis, which was a fatal disease at that time. He could see
the specter of death hover over his head. So, he was in a desperate hurry to
create even a truncated Pakistan as quickly as possible to glorify himself. It
is not surprising that he died within two years after the Partition. His
admirers say that he died of hard work. The truth is that he did not have the
physical capacity for hard work; he died of tuberculosis, which had reached its
climax by then.
That he did not care a jot for the Muslims, is proven
by his treatment of the Indian Muslims. As Jinnah left for Karachi to be the
ruler of Pakistan, in a valedictory message, he wished his Indian followers well
and told them to be the loyal citizens of India! These were the people who were
his most zealous adherents, but were now in a horrendous situation. The Hindus
had come down on them like a ton of bricks. Their life, property and honor were
under siege. Fancy the Qaid-E-Azam leaving them in their hour of need to become
the Governor General of Pakistan! He should have stayed with them in India and
let someone else govern Pakistan. This was the minimal demand of loyalty and
sincerity. He deserted them most ignobly, yet he is considered a Saint.
Judging by his actions, Gandhi was a greater friend of
the Muslims than Jinnah, who claimed to be their leader.
5. Finally, I may discuss the most lethal theory that
nationhood is formed by religion. When deserted by Jinnah, the Muslims of India
realized that they had been deceived by him because until the last moment they
thought that they would be treated as Pakistanis within the boundaries of Bharat,
the divided India. Simply stated, they believed, the two-Nation Theory meant
that they would have the same political rights in India as their fellow-Muslims
in Pakistan. Nobody ever explained the whole truth to them. They were used by
Jinnah as pawns in the political game.
It is high time that somebody states boldly that people
of the Indian subcontinent are One Nation and not Two, just because they have
different religions. It is quite clear from the split of Pakistan that
nationhood is not formed by religion. If it were true, the fifty-two countries
of the world that claim to be Muslim, would have been One State, but it has not
happened, and there is no chance of its ever happening because the factors that
constitute a nation, are opposed to the theory of religious nationhood, which is
just an emotional mumbo - jumbo.
What are the components of nationhood? Such components
are many but the major ones are the following;
1. Homeland
It is a matter of common observation that children born
in good homes fare better than those, who are born in caravans, or on the
roadside. History shows that Civilization means gradual shifting from nomadic
ways to sedentary life. It clearly demonstrates that man has a natural tendency
to move away from wandering in search of a home. In fact, homelessness is a
great curse. Ask any homeless person looking for asylum, and he will confirm
that no blight is worse than homelessness.
What a home is to an individual or a family, a homeland
is to a group of people. Since homelessness fosters a sense of insecurity and
acts as a barrier to one's personal development, one yearns for a home. This is
the reason that fighting homelessness has always been an integral part of every
social revolution. Thus desire for a home is a natural instinct and acts as the
fountain of love for one's home.
The geographical tract, which provides home to a large
number of people inhabiting it, counts as their homeland. As without proper
care, an individual's home is likely to become derelict, creating nasty problems
for its dwellers, without constant vigilance, a homeland is bound to fall prey
to the designs of the foreign predators. This is the reason that every modern
state spends tremendous sums of money on its defense. Anyone, who does not take
part in protecting one's homeland or behaves in a way, which is derogatory to
the safety or dignity of the homeland, is considered a traitor.
2. Lineage:
It refers to the common ancestry of a group of people
and therefore, it is an expanded form of a family. As blood ties make the
members of a family father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles,
aunts, grand-parents, etc., and foster mutual love, consideration and respect in
them, exactly the same way they create a nation, which is an enlarged form of
the family. Of course, mankind is the ultimate form of humanity but it is too
large a unit that can be administered socially and politically. The dedication
to humanity is the greatest virtue but there are only a few who can live up to
such an ideal; for 99% of all people, it is not a practicality. The size of a
nation is eventually determined by the boundaries of the homeland .
As everyone is born into a family, exactly the same
way, we all are members of a nation, whether we like it or not. Of course, one
can emigrate and adopt a new nationality or one can come to live among other
people and become a part of them by naturalization, but these are exceptions and
do not affect the basic role of sanguinity i.e. blood ties.
Frankly speaking, I ought to add that Civilization is
not possible without recognizing the sanctity and significance of the blood-
relationships. Without it, there will be no father, no mother, brother or sister
in the sense we know it. There will be no concepts of morality or law of
inheritance, no ancestry, no family life and so on. In view of this fact, it is
mad to deny the natural existence of nationhood.
3. Language:
May be nobody is born with a language, yet the truth is
that we are usually allotted the language of our parents. It is their language
which serves as the means of communication between children and parents, next
door neighbors, the city-dwellers and people of the country. This is the reason
that a common language arouses feelings of oneness, intimacy and friendship.
This is why that two strangers, say, an Arab Muslim and an Indian Muslim cannot
speak to each other during a journey but two Indians irrespective of their
religions, shall talk to each other with a sense of intimacy and friendship.
Here is a small episode which appeared in the Daily Sang, London, on second May,
1997:
In 1986, the Punjabi language stopped the imminent war
between India and Pakistan. The negotiation for peace, was being conducted
through the English language, and was heading towards a stalemate. During the
tea break, the Pakistani General, who came from the Punjab, started speaking in
the Punjabi language to his Indian Counterpart, who also belonged to the Indian
Punjab. The warmth of the language mellowed their attitudes, eliminating the
looming threat of war."
Again, language creates poetry and literature, which
represents the culture of the people, whose tongue it is. It, thus, creates a
bond of common kinship.
Of course, a nation can adopt a foreign language, and
can maintain its national spirit, but it is a rare occurrence. Even then the
adopted language represents the culture of the nation that has adopted it. As a
general rule, every nation has been endowed with its own language, which acts as
the vehicle of communication.
In the Indian context, Arabic has never represented the
Indian culture. Therefore, it cannot form part of the Indian nationhood. Its
influence on India has been anti-national, anti-social and anti-rational.
Urdu, on the contrary, is an Indian language, having
its grammar, idiom and ethos like any other Indian language such as Hindi,
Punjabi, Bengali, Madrasi, etc. It is an offshoot of Sanskrit and not Arabic or
Persian though it has been made to look as such through a foreign script and
abundance of Arabic and Persian words.
4. Culture:
It is the geographical conditions, the general
traditions, and the lingual influences that basically act as constituents of
nationhood. One cannot exaggerate that it is culture that shapes the destiny of
a nation. Pride in one's own culture makes a nation great, grand and gorgeous,
but indifference leads to disunion, diminution and devastation. Of course, great
nations willingly accept foreign influences when they are likely to prove
beneficial but the second class nations such as Indians, Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis do so for lack of dare, determination and dourness. Owing to
absence of respect for the indigenous culture, they become docile, dastardly and
despondent. As time goes on, they become blind imitators, for having no cultural
backbone of their own. Take for instance the Arabs. They have lost their
political pomp for the last 1,000 years and are one of the developing nations,
yet they are the most revered people in the whole world because they practice,
not only their own culture known as Islam, but have been marvelously successful
in imposing it on the Muslim nations, who have been completely brainwashed in
the name of religion. The Arab excellence shines like a major star every year
when millions of pilgrims perform Hajj, which is essentially an Arab Cultural
rite, at the same time displaying their own national inferiority by spending all
they had saved during their life-time.
Culture represents the character of a nation. The
nations which give up their culture, lose their national ethos.
5. Religion:
It is a great folly to think of religion as an
ingredient of nationhood. Religion in this context, is like a garment but
lineage is a person's skin: the former can be discarded but the latter cannot.
Since blood-relationship is the foundation of nationhood, a son maintains his
kinship with his parents and family even when he changes his religion. It is for
this reason that a Jew remains a Jew even when he no longer believes in Judaism.
The Arabs are one nation because they are racially one people having the same
culture. They preach Islamic nationhood because it is extremely beneficial to
them at the expense of other Muslim peoples. If Arabs really believed in Islamic
nationhood, they Would share their oil-wealth with them and make their land a
free zone for Muslims of foreign lands. in fact, they treat Muslims from other
countries as foreigners like any other nation.
Why did Bangladesh break away from Pakistan despite the
fact that the Bengali Muslims have a greater devotion. to Islam than the
Pakistanis? It is simply because religion is a mythical element of nationhood.
Muslims all over the world have never been able to form one government or come
under the same banner for any length of time. The hysteria of
"One-Muslim-Nation" is generated by those who specialize in fooling
the Muslim faithful to promote their own interest.
6. Economic Interest:
As in any partnership, the pursuit of profit unites its
members and they try for its success and survival, the common economic interest
creates love for the geographical boundaries of a homeland. It may lead to the
union or confederation of the adjoining lands whose economic interests as well
as liberties are better served this way. Great Britain and the United States of
America are some of the examples. However, it must be borne in mind that the
economic interest in no way negates the value of the ingredients of nationhood
already discussed; it serves as a complementary national factor only when people
have a lot in common such as cultural values.
7. Color:
Color is not a significant factor of nationhood; it is
one of the means of identification, say, in an all-white or all-black country.
From the above discussion, one may conclude- that I
believe in racism or fanatic nationalism, such as Nazism or Fascism. This type
of nationalism is a form of mental illness, and borders on inhumanity. To me,
nationalism is an expanded form of family, which serves as the basis of mutual
love and consideration. There is no internationalism without nationalism. As
one's love of family is not a rational cause for hating other people's families
but a source of respect for this institution, the love of one's nation must
inspire reverence for other nationalities because it is the sum total of
nationalities, which constitutes the overall concept of humanity. The
nationalism which does not achieve this goal, is the fountain of moral
degradation, leading to inhumanity. All nations are equal and entitled to equal
rights.
This is the type of nationhood that I adore, and I
adore it because this is the foundation-stone of social organization, and the
fountain of innumerable benefits. The person, who thinks of his nation, has the
collective consciousness and acts nobly. On the contrary, a religious fanatic
believes in his own salvation and whatever he does, he does to promote his
personal end; his acts of piety are no more than a veneer of hypocrisy.
Even the animals have what is called "herd
instinct," that is birds of a feather flock together. The only exception to
this rule seems to be the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. To gratify their
inferiority complex, they pretend that they are children of the foreign Muslim
invaders, and to make this claim good, they have given them Arabic and Persian
names whereas the truth is that 95% of them are Hindu converts, and are thus
racially Hindus. The remaining 5%, who have lived in India for several
centuries, do qualify as Indians through permanent domicile and adoption of the
Indian culture. The person who claims to be an Arab, Iranian or Mughal, despite
having lived on the Indian soil so long, has got to be grossly misled or
mentally retarded.
This inferiority-complex of the Indian Muslims was
exploited by Jinnah and his troupe. The plain truth is that the Muslims of the
Indian subcontinent share the same nationhood with the Hindus because:
1. They have the same homeland.
2. They have the same lineage i.e. blood ties.
3. Their provincial languages, including Urdu, spring from Sanskrit, and not
Arabic.
It is a false assumption, indeed, that the Muslims of
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh practice a common Islamic Culture.
The basic social principle practiced by both the Hindus
and Muslims is the Caste System, which is considered Vedic. Most rites performed
at birth and death are also Vedic except circumcision and burial, which are the
result of the Arab dominance. Dowry, ancestor-worship, the joint family system,
monism, general way of dressing, speaking etc., are very much the same, and are
totally different from those of the Arabs. One can tell an Arab from an Indian,
but it is not easy to tell an Indian Muslim from a Hindu.
An equally important cultural fact is, that the Muslims
of the Indian subcontinent practice the Vedic fine arts such as poetry, music,
drama, dance, painting and sculpture, which are presided over by the Vedic
goddesses Ila, Saraswati and Mahi. These arts are expressly forbidden by Islam,
yet the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent learn and enjoy them because it is a
part of their cultural heritage, which they hold in common with the Hindus.
Why did Jinnah advocate the Two-Nation Theory despite
the opposition of the Muslim divines? The first reason is that he was a highly
ambitious person and wanted to go down in history. Secondly, it was in his
family background to hate the Hindus, and he sought revenge to appease his ego.
Louis Fischer has stated on page 151 of "Gandhi":
" ......Jinnah was a Khoja Muslim. The Khojas were
recent converts to Islam. Many Khojas maintain the Hindu joint family system and
carry Hindu names in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Khojas
attempted to return to Hinduism but were repeatedly rebuffed. This may have been
an unconscious factor in Jinnah's hatred of Hindus .... "
This is highly likely. The belief that a person can be
Hindu by birth only and all non-Hindus are untouchable, has wrought the
ruination of Mother India. Pakistan, which is the Muslim symbol of hatred
against the Hindus, is the creation of these unsocial and inhuman Hindu
attitudes.
Stated politely, the third cause is Jinnah's own
unhappy disposition. He was a sad person; hardly anyone ever saw him laugh. When
he was forty-two, he married an eighteen-year-old Parsee girl (Dina). The
marriage broke down after seven years in such a manner that he never felt the
desire to marry again. As his daughter grew up, he stopped her marrying a man of
her own choice on religious grounds, and threw her out for good. He also ruined
the life of his sister, Fatima, by forbidding her going through a nuptial
ceremony with a non-Muslim despite the fact that he himself had married a Parsee
woman! Possibly, it was a deliberate manipulation. Having lost his family, he
wanted his sister to remain his companion for life. And so she did. It is likely
that he treated his daughter and sister harshly to restore his reputation as a
sincere Muslim for enhancing his political career. His character had been
tarnished by the fact that he had married a non-Muslim woman against the Islamic
behest; he also ate and drank what Islam expressly forbids.
Obviously, the man who had lacked personal happiness,
could not care much about the happiness of others and wanted to vent his grief
by making others unhappy. This is the reason that one million Muslims suffered
carnage at the inception of Pakistan, and are still getting deeper into misery,
malice and malevolence. Yet this man is called Qaid-E-Azam!
Everything has been misinterpreted to create the
Two-Nation Theory for turning the Muslims against the Hindus: Take for example,
Dr. Iqbal, a great intellectual and poet, who believed in the integrity of
India, but has been projected as the thinker of the concept of Pakistan. So
great has been the force of propaganda that I myself thought of Iqbal as the one
who had initiated the notion of Pakistan i.e., a separate homeland for the
Muslims of India. This is what led me to some wrong conclusions about him. I was
pleased to read in the Daily Jang, London, of 8th May, 1996, the statement of
Muneeb Iqbal, the grandson of the late Dr. Iqbal. He said: " ...Dr. Iqbal's
financial condition was not very sound. Once he had expressed his desire to be
appointed as a judge, hoping that it might cure his financial ills, but the then
Chief Justice Sir Shadi Lal turned him down. Had Dr. Iqbal been made a judge, he
would have pressed some other hobby, and the concept of Pakistan would have
receded into oblivion."
Continuing his statement, Muneeb stressed: "Dr.
Iqbal had never dreamt the partition of India. He only wanted to see the Muslims
of India economically happy, but they are still in the same pickle as they were
at that time."
Even in the much-quoted Allahabad session of the Muslim
League in 1930, he did not advocate a separate homeland for the Muslims of
India. He did express his desire to amalgamate into one state the provinces of
the Punjab. North West Frontier, Sindh and Balochistan, but it was to remain a
part of the federal India.
As far as I know, Iqbal was the first Indian national
poet of any consequence. He believed India to be the best of all homelands; he
taunted at the Brahmin "who observed God in the statutes only" whereas
he (Iqbal) could see God in every particle of the Indian dust. Of course, this
is also true that later his poetry took an Islamic turn, but even then it seeks
an ideological grouping of the Muslims as Millat i.e. general brotherhood of the
Muslims-of various countries. He had begun to think of the concept of homeland
as a symbol of profanity. How could he have advocated the idea of a separate
homeland?
People quote Iqbal as anti-Hindu. This is a malicious
propaganda to widen the Muslim-Hindu rift. Iqbal had Hindu blood in his veins.
It was his grandfather, Sahaj Ram Sapru, a Kashmiri Brahmin, who adopted Islam,
and settled in Sialkot. How is it possible for one to forget the culture of
one's grandfather? Thus he was culturally Hindu as well. In fact, he believed
in, and preached the Hindu philosophy. Let me give two examples:
1. As Mard-E-Qalandar or Sufi, he believed in the
monism (Hama Ost) of "Pir Raumi," which is strictly a Hindu doctrine,
explicitly described in the Rgveda and several Upanishads .
2. His philosophy of "Khudi" (self) is
nothing but a copy of the Hindu doctrine known as Atman. It is a pity that his
overzealous anti-Hindu annotators go out of the way to ascribe it to the
influence of Nietzsche and Bergson. These European thinkers might have
influenced Iqbal in some other ways, but his concept of Khudi or Self is nothing
but the Hindu doctrine of Atman. To understand its meaning, we must realize that
the Hindus believe in "an uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent and
all embracing principle, which being the sole reality, is the source and goal of
all existence. This ultimate Reality is called Brahman. Since everything
emanates from Brahman (God), He is in every thing and is the Self of all living
beings." It appears in Iqbal's poetry as "khudi" i.e. the self of
every human. Only the naive interpret Iqbal's concept of Khudi as self-respect.
It is the spiritual ego, whose development raises man's status to that of
Divinity.
Now add to this description, the mystical approach
which is the essence of Hinduism, but a blasphemy in Islam. It says that the
ultimate goal of man is to seek the union of Self (roughly translated as soul)
with that of Brahman (God). This Hindu doctrine has been copied by the Muslim
mystics all over the world as soul's union with God, without ever acknowledging
its source. Since in Islam, God is the Master and Man is slave, the union
between the two is unthinkable. This is the reason that Mysticism i.e. Tasawwaf,
that Iqbal preached, has been held as un-Islamic by the orthodox Muslims .
Iqbal's famous verse:
"KHUDI KO KER BULAND ITNA KE HER TAQDEER SE PAHLE;
KHUDA BANDE SE KHUD PUCHCHE BATA TERI TAZA KYA HAI" is an echo of the Hindu
doctrine i.e. union of man's self with God because this verse suggests that man
must raise his self to the height that man's will becomes God's will. This is
another description of man's union with God, and can be understood with
reference to his several other poems on the subject.
Iqbal was neither anti-Hindu nor a separatist. He seems
to have been offended by the rejection of the Hindu Chief Justice, Sir Shadi Lal,
and the chagrin thus engendered might have led to his extreme pro-Islamic
proclivities.
Pakistan as a separate homeland for the Muslims of
India was a brainchild of Chowdhry Rahmat Ali. As his name (Chowdhry) clearly
demonstrates, he was a man of Indian descent, yet he preached that the Muslims
were not the natives of India, but had come from abroad as invaders. Further, he
stressed that India was not a country but a continent inhabited by several
nations, and each nation had maintained its separate identity until the British
advent on the Indian scene. Thus Muslims of India were a separate nation,
entitled to an independent homeland, which ought to be named as Pakistan. This
is the theme that Jinnah took up, and publicly declared in August, 1942:
"Before the coming of the British, India had never been under the rule of
one government. India is divided among more nations than Europe is. Therefore,
we (the Muslims) want a government of our own. "
Though a man of Hindu lineage, Rahmat Ali, harbored a
special grudge against the Hindus. I do not know its exact cause but am inclined
to put it down to the evil Hindu doctrine, which refuses to accept back
non-Hindus into its fold. Through the slavish mentality that they have developed
over the many centuries, the Hindus have become mule-headed, and lost their
sense of national honor, which requires patriotic unity at all costs.
Of course, it has been remarked lately that it is not
Chowdhry Rahmat Ali, who had dreamt the concept of Pakistan but Khwaja J. A.
Rahim, who coined the term Pakistan and made a demand for it, but being a civil
servant, could not take part in politics. True it may be, but Rahmat Ali's name
has come to be associated with the concept of Pakistan so strongly that it
cannot be removed without a cogent proof to the contrary.
What did Rahmat Ali want? Exactly the same thing that
Jinnah desired. He sought immortality through India-bashing. In a letter
published in the Daily Jang of April, 1997, the correspondent revealed:
"Owing to his efforts for the creation of Pakistan, while he was in
England, Chowdhry Rahmat Ali wanted to be appointed the President of the Muslim
League, but when this dignity was bestowed on Jinnah, he became a bitter enemy
of both Jinnah and Muslim League." So great was his disgust that he decided
to live in England permanently, and made a will to the effect that his bones
must be interred in the English soil.
What a love for the land of Pakistan this man had! And
can he be taken seriously as the messiah for the Muslims of India?
There is no genuine reason to believe that Pakistan was
created for the benefit of the ordinary Muslims. Of course, the Hindu doctrine
of untouchability was derogatory to the Muslims, but so was the Muslim
conviction that held Hindus as the Kafirs. There is no doubt that the Hindu
Baniyas had become leeches to the Muslims, but they were even greater leeches to
the Hindus themselves. A Baniya is a Baniya; he is a businessman; his Dharma is
making money; religion is no part of it. The truth is that the Hindu- Muslim
hatred had been manipulated by the politicians of both faiths for their personal
gains. The Muslims had won almost all the battles against the Hindus, and in the
United India, they would have secured a commanding position. Even now, the
Muslims of Bharat are more affluent than their Pakistani counterparts, and the
same applies to civil liberties. In fact, the Bharti Muslims enjoy a favorable
discrimination against the Hindus. This truth is quite conspicuous in the fields
of education and religious privileges such as Hajj.
The real fear of the Muslim League was not the
degradation of the Muslim populace but the fact that in the Undivided India,
democracy was bound to prevail as the form of government, which would be in a
position to attract Muslim votes by passing legislation favorable to the
ordinary people, including the Muslims, who were practically enslaved by their
own feudal lords. The undivided India meant the same thing to the Muslim feudal
lords and business magnates what deposition is to a hereditary ruler; the law of
monogamy is to a polygamist or loss of blackmail-money is to a scoundrel .
There is no exaggeration in this point of view. The
history vouches for this truth: all the Muslim feudal from the Punjab, for
instance, aligned to the Unionist Party, promptly switched over to the Muslim
League. Feudalism in Sindh, the land of the Bhuttos, is the worst in the world
even today.
The Muslims were led to believe that the Islamic
concept of equality, also applies to economic sharing, whereas the truth is that
Islam is the patron of feudal because "Allah gives unlimited wealth to whom
He likes." This deliberate connivance of the truth also applies to the
post-partition Indian Muslims, who believed that they would be treated as
Pakistanis living in India, having the same rights as the Pakistanis themselves.
Fancy, the man given the title: "Qaid-E-Azam" by these zealous fools,
deserting them when their life, property and honor were threatened with
annihilation. Jinnah's act of deserting the Indian Muslims in their most
critical hour of need is no different from that of a bridegroom, who runs away
with his mistress on his wedding night, or the sentinel, who sets fire to the
building he is supposed to guard, or the insane mother eager to boil her own
baby to satisfy her hunger. The fact that he did nothing to weld "his"
people into a nation, and relied on the mythical unity of the religious appeal
is an unpardonable crime. The Eastern Wing of Pakistan collapsed in December
1971 for lack of national solidarity. What is left of Pakistan suffers terribly
from provincial hatred. There are four distinct nations, each feeling sick of
the other and waiting for the opportunity to break away. The biggest tragedy is
that those who migrated from India to settle in their new home, Pakistan, do not
think of themselves as Pakistanis because after fifty years, they still call
themselves "Mohajirs" (immigrants), and not citizens of Pakistan.
Equally, they are rebuffed by the Pakistanis. Addressing a meeting in Kasur
(Punjab) on May 3rd, 1995, Mrs. Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, said,
"Thief (Mohajirs) hearts are not with you (the Pakistani people). They have
not that blood which runs in your veins nor those tears which roll down your
eyes. They have no love for the soil of Pakistan, which reverberates in your
hearts."
Had Jinnah dreamt of a prosperous, powerful and
prestigious nation and succeeded in securing this aim, he would have certainly
earned the title: The Qaid-E-Azam. Since what he has achieved is exactly the
opposite; which makes Pakistan a flaming hell morally, legally, economically and
socially, bestowing such an honor on this man appears to be an irony of history.
Making fun of the Hindus as idolaters, has been a favorite pastime of the
Muslims. The truth is that the Muslims of India have inherited this tendency
from their Hindu ancestors. Fancy treating an ordinary politician as the
equivalent of the Prophet Muhammad by calling him the Qaid-E-Azam. Worse still,
the criticism of Jinnah renders one as much a criminal as criticism of the
Prophet Muhammad makes the critic: Shatim-E-Rasul. If this is not idolatry, then
what is it?
Since Pakistan has failed to materialize as the
Messianic ideal, and is in a real danger of further disintegration, Jinnah is
being shown over-reverence to create him as the central force of political
unity. The truth is that the colleagues of Jinnah, who had offered him
unswerving loyalty, believing him to be a sincere idealist, lost respect for him
soon after the creation of Pakistan. He neither offered himself for re-election,
even as reverence to the doctrine of democracy, nor did he consult anyone,
including the Parliament in appointing ministers. Realizing that he thought of
himself to be the proprietor of Pakistan, they turned against him. When Jinnah
was in a sanatorium at Ziarat (Balochistan), he was suddenly visited by the
Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan. Before he came in, Jinnah said to his sister,
Fatima, " Do you know why he has come ... he wants to know if I am going to
last any longer."
Nobody knows the exact contents of the conversation
that took place between them but when the Prime Minister left after an hour, and
Jinnah's personal doctor entered, he found him in tears for experiencing
emotional distress. Refusing to take the medicine, he said, "I do not want
to live any longer."
His death certainly took place in mysterious
circumstances. As his airplane landed at the Karachi Airport, nobody came to
receive him. Not only the ambulance that was sent to pick hum up, ran out of
petrol after a journey of four miles but also it became immovable owing to some
technical failure. The second ambulance did not appear for several hours! As he
reached the Governor General's House, he was treated immediately, but it was too
late to save him. This is how the man, who had played with the lives and honor
of millions for personal glory, met his Maker. No matter what has happened to
Pakistanis, he has certainly become "Hazrat Qaid-E-Azam Aleh Rahmat."
Like Gandhi, Jinnah also touched the spiritual pinnacle.
What a tale of the two Gujrati Saints!
|
Previous
Essay
