Daily Times

Farzana Shaikh is an Associate Fellow of the Asia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London where she directs the Pakistan Study Group. Her book Making Sense of Pakistan, published in 2009 in the United Kingdom, is oft-quoted nowadays. In the book, Shaikh makes two major claims about the history of Pakistan. First, the struggle for the rights of Muslims oozed a negative identity for both the struggle and the product of the struggle, Pakistan. Second, like the Pakistan movement, Pakistan is also devoid of political legitimacy. This opinion piece intends to debate these two points in the context of the history of Pakistan.

Regarding the first claim, Shaikh writes on page 180: “Of all Pakistan’s foreign engagements, none has been as central to its identity as its relations with India. The peculiar circumstances of the country’s creation very largely account for this. For Pakistan was born not in a struggle against British colonial rule, but in opposition to the Indian nationalist movement. Overcoming the legacy of this ‘negative’ identity has been the defining feature of Pakistan’s policy towards India, and the greatest challenge of all has been embodied in their dispute over Kashmir. While ostensibly a dispute over the control of territory, any proposed resolution has been complicated by issues that touch upon questions of national identity, the viability of national legitimation projects and conflicting interpretation of history.”

On the point of negative identity, on page 182, Shaikh further writes: “Indeed, much of the uncertainty over Pakistan’s identity stems from the nagging question of whether its identity is fundamentally dependent on India and what its construction might entail outside of opposition to the latter. This has prompted the suggestion that Pakistan is a state burdened with a negative identity shaped by the circumstances of Partition. The League’s rejection of ‘Hindu domination’, it is argued, has since fed Pakistan’s national obsession with India. Unable to escape the India syndrome, it has failed to craft an independent identity beyond that which it moulded as a challenger to India.”

Taken both the paragraphs together, Shaikh says that the Muslim nationalist movement to challenge or defy Hindu domination embedded in the Indian nationalist movement was the source of producing a negative identity. Secondly, the struggle of Muslims of India for their rights also earned a negative identity. Thirdly, the Pakistan movement bequeathed the negative identity on the future state of Pakistan. Fourthly, the circumstances of partition shaped the already existent negative identity of Pakistan. Fifthly, the same negative identity engendered the issue of Kashmir, which is just a territorial dispute devoid of any legal or human face. Sixthly, Pakistan is still burdened with the negative identity. Seventhly, the inherited negative identity now shapes Pakistan’s relations with India as a challenger. Eighthly, Pakistan’s negative identity is a major hindrance to the solution of the Kashmir issue.

Shaikh took upon herself the task of declaring which struggle was negative and which was positive. However, in the book neither has Shaikh articulated her understanding of the word ‘identity’ nor has she given the reasons or the criteria for donating the term ‘negative identity’ to the struggle for the rights of Muslims. Unfortunately, the book is also silent on the reasons that made the Indian nationalist movement leave space for the emergence of the Muslim nationalist movement. Shaikh ignored the fact that it was the Hindi-Urdu dispute of the 1860s in Benares that engendered Muslim nationalism, which later spread into the rest of India.

The dispute also prompted Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan to change his stance from Indian nationalism to Muslim nationalism. The conflict on language was more social than political to divide society. Later, on administrative grounds, the British partitioned Bengal (1905-1911) into two provinces, East Bengal and West Bengal, which benefitted Muslims politically and financially in East Bengal. Resultantly, the partition was vehemently opposed by Hindu nationalist movements such as the Swadeshi Movement. This opposition was more political than social to divide society and make Muslims conscious of their rights in India. In 1906, the All India Muslim League (AIML) was founded in Dacca, Bengal.

Regarding the second claim, Shaikh writes on page 158: “Mobilising Islam in order to substitute for the absence of political legitimacy was a legacy of Pakistan’s nationalist movement.” Here, Shaikh says that the Pakistan movement was devoid of political legitimacy vis-à-vis the Indian nationalist movement. Secondly, to fill the void of political legitimacy, the name of Islam was used. Thirdly, the Pakistan movement bequeathed the state of absence of political legitimacy on Pakistan. Fourthly, Pakistan is lacking political legitimacy, and the void is filled by using the name of Islam.

Shaikh took upon herself the task of determining political legitimacy of a movement. However, in the book, neither has Shaikh articulated her understanding of the words ‘political legitimacy’ nor has she given the reasons or any criteria for declaring the Pakistan movement devoid of it. Shaikh ignored the fact that from 14 points of Mohammad Ali Jinnah in 1929 to the Jinnah-Gandhi talks and correspondence in 1944, rights of Muslims were projected for seeking constitutional protection. Moreover, Jinnah, who was a constitutional expert, was requested to lead the AIML to safeguard the constitutional rights of Muslims. Jinnah did not need any religious sentiment for exploitation to substitute for his legal expertise. Though there were certain slogans with the religious echo raised during the electoral campaign of 1945-46 elections, these refrains were made and used in streets by workers; these were never raised at or responded from the platform of the AIML. If Jinnah had used Islam to strengthen his case, there would have been issued no religious decrees against him. The legal mind of Jinnah was stronger than the sentimental strength of any such religious slogan.

In short, Shaikh’s narrative is handicapped by the selective exclusion of important historical events, besides their implications, and this exposes her to misinterpret the history of Pakistan.

(Concluded)

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com