How Pakistan is good for India

When a limb is infected beyond hope, you have two choices: Persist with it and hope against hope that it will heal and risk death, or you cut it off to save the body.

This is the story of India’s partition into the soul- India- and the gangrenous limb-Pakistan, or what I would like to call- the result of an idea, The Two Nation Theory.

I’ve heard from various intensely,bordering on the jingoistic, patriotic Indians, (privately, of course) how India was broken into two by the ‘M’. Little do they realize that creation of Pakistan ended up saving India.

1. Two Nation Theory

As with any political–slash-religious theory the Two Nation Theory (TNT) has different versions and interpretations based on the guy’s political leanings.

Essentially it comes down to two points:

a) There are two Nations withing India (In spite of the fact that both of them have been living side by side for centuries).

b) The point of divide being Religion (This point is important). The divide is so great that these nations cannot co-exist at any cost.

A secular, liberal, progressive mind will probably disagree, including me, but not completely. What I am going to say next might sound contradictory in nature(and, controversial even), but is really not.

I do agree that dividing Humans into two sets based on some lofty man-made idea called Religion is idiotic, but we have to also agree that division exists and have to factor that in our calculations.

Hindus and Muslims were at each others throats. Muslims formed around 25% of the population of British India, making them a powerful bloc. Owing to their size and strength in numbers in certain parts of India, they had terrible nuisance potential.

But, one will argue that this is also true of the Hindus. Yes, but Hindus never wished for a separate state from Muslims. This is important. In the Hindu Religion(If you can call it that), there is no political side, as in Islam. Its priestly class has never been all-powerful.

But, its not the case with Islam. Its scriptures do interfere in the matter of the state. For instance, there are more than 50 Muslim Majority Countries in the World and only few of them are Democracies. Most of them call themselves Islamic.

One can easily see how this is dangerous. As it went, Muslims began to see themselves as a separate entity from majority Hindus and began to see themselves as victims and more crucially, Hindus being their tormentors, despite the fact that it was the British who had complete control of India and before the British arrived there was Mughal rule in most parts of India.

What guarantee was there that these separatist emotions would have been locked away had India stayed together?

The thing is: Once a case is made for a separate state, rightly or wrongly, and if the people who make that demand are present in very large numbers, have financial and political capital (Like Jinnah had British patronage), its very difficult to impress them not to make their demands. They would not settle with anything less than complete political power, either in the present state or the new state.

A few enlightened Muslims did recognize this cancerous theory for what it is. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (also known as Frontier Gandhi or Sarhadi Gandhi, for his love of non-violence, a trait he shared with the greatest proponent of the art- Gandhi), for instance said, “You have thrown us to the wolves”, when he learned that Congress had accepted the plan for partition. Maulana Azad too recognized that this was a flawed theory.

TNT was the disease, India the patient. The diseased part had to be cut off; A sacrifice to please the Gods had to be made.

If these separatist tendencies were ignored or somehow placated with concessions, what is the guarantee that they would not have raised their ugly head again when time seemed right? Riots went on even after Partition, with both sides attacking each other. Had Pakistan not been born, they would have occurred at a much grander scale, thereby destabilizing India, robbing it of the opportunity to build itself a solid foundation, which it got. Which brings me to my next point.

2. India needed solid foundations, not uncertainty

“We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed.”

– Mohammad Ali Jinnah

India got a solid foundation, thanks to Nehru. But, this would not have been possible if Pakistan had not been created. Riots would have caused havoc in all of India. India could have easily been plunged into Civil war (Note: Jinnah did in fact threaten Civil war if his demands were not met. In a show of strength he called for ‘Direct Action Day’ on the 18th day of Ramzan [Note the Religious overtone of the call]. Suhrawardy, a Muslim Leaguer and a close associate of Jinnah; who was the Chief Minister of a Muslim-Majority united Bengal and in charge of the Home Ministry, did nothing when Muslim mobs went on a rampage against their fellow neighboring Hindus). That day shook India. About 5,000 people died and 15,000 injured.

What if someone in a united free India and invoked similar emotions and demands among Muslims? The Nation would have been hostage to the blackmail of thugs like Suhrawardy, who went on to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

There was a very real chance that India could have been divided into two or more states had the Cabinet Mission Plan been accepted. The Cabinet Mission Plan, which Nehru put a brake to, would have left India a “moth-eaten” state, in which the 3 wings of India possessing the power to declare independence after 10 short years.

The proverbial steam was let off.

3. Pakistan – The buffer state

Be it Alexander or the Mughals or the Afghans, who used to raid India to loot and plunder, they all came from the same direction.

Himalayas to the North and North-East, the Indian Ocean to the South acted as natural barriers for ancient India. Not surprisingly, India was invaded and looted only from one direction (Only the British came via the sea). Pakistan, today, graciously, plugs that hole.

Pakistan and Afghanistan(Af-Pak) today are some of the most dangerous, volatile and violent regions on Earth. If Pakistan hadn’t been born, that region would have been part of India! If Pakistan didn’t exist, the porous, long borders with Afghanistan would have made sure India was sucked into the instability.

4. The Demographic Challenge

Today Pakistan and Bangladesh have a combined population of 316 Million, out of which only a fraction are non-Muslim. The total Muslim population of South Asia is around 450 Million.

If Pakistan had not been born, the Muslims would have formed about half the population of India.  India would have been sitting on a time bomb today. That bomb would have torn the fabric of India into shreds. Riots would have engulfed India and would have torn it apart not too long after Independence.

Pakistan was always inevitable. If it was not Jinnah in the 1940s, it could or would have been someone else in the 1950s or the 1960s. Religion is a handy tool to gain popularity and hold the nation hostage (Just look at the History of Pakistan where many despots and politicians alike have used it to their advantage). Jinnah did that beautifully. Nehru recognized that.

A Nation should be born on the ideas of unity, brotherhood and love of the Motherland. Sometime the ideas of division creep in and in rare cases it is best to give respect to such ideas and let them take their own course.

Today India is a Secular, Democratic, Pluralistic society, and is at peace with itself; Everything Pakistan is not. Sacrifice the limb to save a life, the saying goes.

Book Review – Part 1

Been super busy. But, the consolation is that I get time to read during the commute from home to office and vice versa. So, have finished quite a few books in the past few months. So, thought of reviewing some of them.

1. Nehru – The Making Of India, by M.J.Akbar

Very few book do you come around to read will change your whole perception of a grossly misunderstood historical figure. It is even more significant if that individual was the first Prime Minster of your Country.

In one go Jawarharlal Nehru went from being the first PM of independent India to one of the greatest freedom fighters, who gave everything he had to his Country, that he loved dearly and followed values acquired though reason and the basic understanding of the human psyche.

My father never talked of such topics but others around me did and I was thoroughly influenced by part-Right-Wing, part-Ignorant view of Nehru by my peers and elders. After reading this book all that changed, I became more aware of my own History. I became aware of the part of History of my Country that is really relevant to the Country that I call my own and the values it is based on.

The writing of M.J.Akbar is sublime and a joy to read. His anecdotes, irony-filled remarks enrich your understanding of some of the greatest and not-so-great-but-appear-to-be-great beings of that era, but also enriches your language and writing skills.

If you read M.J.Akbar articles and like them, you will love this. If you like to know more about modern India and think your knowledge is insufficient, this is the book for you.

To sum up, you will realize how India’s Constitution is moulded on Nehru’s philosophy and vision, which in turn is partly, but substantially, responsible for everything good that India is today.

4.5/5

Chanakya’s Chant, by Ashwin Sanghi

Well, it was a fun read. But, honestly, I really don’t know or could not make out with certainty how much of the background and circumstances in the story about Chanakya is true.

The book is about two stories, intermittently told, very pacy and intelligently written. One about Chanakya’s path to glory and anothe of a Gangasagar Mishra, from UP, who goes on to become a King Maker in India, much like what Chanakya accomplishes when he installs Chandragupta Maurya to the throne of the Emperor of all of India in some 340 BC, defeating all odds and with some massive brain power. The line between good and evil is very blurry in the story, which is, in a way, nice.

3/5.

Immortals of Meluha, Amish Tripathi

This is one such book which will take you into another World. To be more precise, to ancient India. Well, with some changes, of course.

The book is about Shiva, a tribal-warrior-Chief. Sick of violence among the tribal clans of the area he moves to a Ram Rajya of a city, literally, called Meluha. But, he is drawn upon to fight evil there too in the form of the supposedly notorious Suryavanshis but, in quite a surprise, realizes that the only fault of the Suryavanshis is that they are different, which is symbolic of the divide among Human Beings in the real world; the hate of ‘the other’.

The concept is great. But, the writing is not. I don’t know if it is just me because I found the word ‘Flank’ repeated too many times in the book. Apparently, the word is a hot favourite for the author who uses it in every other chapter.

And, guess what! Karan Johar, the simple-minded fellow, is making a movie out of it with Hrithik Roshan in the lead. I can’t tell you how much perfectly Hrithik Roshan fits into the character of Shiva. While the story is too slow, the fictional characters Tripathi builds up are very powerful and potent; and they stay with you long after you have finished reading the book.

While it was a decent read, the movie based on it has the potential to be really good, that is of course Karan Johar has nothing to with the Direction aspect of the movie, and also the scripting part. Karan, dude, it’s not supposed to be a chick-flick, so better you stay out of it. I hope a good director is roped in.

I almost forgot to mention, this is part of a trilogy. Anxiously waiting to read the second book of the trilogy.

I would give 3/5, purely for the brilliant concept.

Okay, that’s it from me for this post. There a lot of books I’ve read but not reviewed for a variety of reasons. Next time, maybe.

Happy reading.

The Legacy of Gandhi-Nehru Vs Legacy of Jinnah

Two men, near, yet so far

I know I am a bit late to discuss Anna Hazare here[Title is accurate, have patience 🙂 ], as the ‘movement’ he has engineered has come a long way since he started his fast a few months ago and re-started it on August 15th , in support of the Lokpal Bill.  But, I can’t stop thinking about an observation I made.

How do you define a Leader and how do you determine his Greatness?

Anyone can be a leader of the masses, but can anyone leave behind a legacy strong enough to influence generations long after they have passed away?

This was what came to mind when I saw the media calling Anna Hazare a neo-Gandhi, or at least, inspired by Gandhi.

Let us go back in time. August of 1947 was a time of turmoil and two nations were born out of a common womb. The two Countries have since followed two different trajectories. One has proclaimed itself to be an ‘Islamic Republic’, while the other proudly calls itself a ‘Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic’.

There were many important actors during this time but the contribution of 3 leaders outrank any in this period of mayhem: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Jawaharlal Nehru and ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi.

Jinnah went on to create his Pakistan by the sheer strength of his will and a lot of British help. Nehru and Gandhi spent half of their time between 1920 and 1947 in various British gaols and managed to get the hard-fought freedom for the Indian Sub-Continent, after a long, bitter struggle for Independence. They all come from the same era but the ideologies they espouse are different.

Gandhi, a pacifist by thought, wore only a hand-spun Khadi and a stern believer in the principles of non-violence. Nehru, considered himself a thorough ‘Gandhian’ and he had even fought with his father, a ‘Great’ himself, Motilal Nehru, in the process of sticking up for Gandhi and his policies (Motilal was opposed to dragging Religion into politics as Gandhi did so brilliantly and constructively).

Jinnah was unlike both. His strength was vague-ness and a brilliant mind. A premier lawyer of his time, who wore Saville Row suits, drank Alcohol (Alcohol consumption considered a sin in Islam) and his preferred language was English, rather than Urdu or Gujrati. Yet, he goes onto raise a cry for Pakistan, claiming ‘Islam is in danger’ [He goes onto argue for the usage of Urdu in Pakistan, even though it was not the native language of the geography nor the language of the majority, thereby sowing seeds for the birth of Bangladesh, a Country for the Bengali speakers of Jinnah’s Pakistan].

Let us not get into the details and the circumstances behind the partition as it doesn’t seem as important in the context of this observation.

So, Jinnah managed to create a “Country for Muslims”, named Pakistan (Land of the pure). And, Gandhi became the ‘Father of the Nation’ of India; Nehru its first PM.

Now, let us come back to the present.

65 years on, Gandhi and his ways are a source of inspiration, not only in India, but all over the World. A person like Anna Hazare still uses Gandhi’s methods to achieve what he thinks is right. Nehru’s name has been soiled a bit for the License-Raj rule he spawned, intentionally or otherwise. Political Parties play politics and use his bloodline to garner votes even today. Clearly he is still the darling of the Rural-India and a source of inspiration for those of us who are not corrupted by the canards propagating in Urban India.

But, what about the other guy in the famous trio? While Gandhi and Nehru are loved to be hated by the Right in India, the Left and the Centrists have been unequivocal about their love for Gandhi-Nehru; Jinnah, on the other hand, has turned out to be the quintessential poster-boy for both the Right and the not-so-Right in Pakistan.

Jinnah is quoted by all and sundry n Pakistan, for everything – Political and Religious. Ask a Pakistani if Pakistan was meant to be a Secular state, the not-so-Right will quote Jinnah’s August 11th speech [where he essentially says there should be room for non-Muslims in Pakistan] and the Right will ask you if Pakistan was meant to be a Secular state why create it in the first place and will also, most probably, quote one of Jinnah’s several speeches authenticating their point of view: A person will selectively quote one of Jinnah’s speeches depending on his/her political leanings. Jinnah has also done a great favor to the Feudalists of Pakistan by seeking their support during the 1940s and late 1930s, thereby not speaking against one of the most brutal institutions of the time- Feudalism. You won’t find him abusing the Feudals the way Nehru vent his rage on them.

Gandhi-Nehru managed to create a Country which would adopt a Constitution which stands for, or, at least does not violate both their respective ideologies. India is officially today a ‘Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic’ and Pakistan a ‘Islamic Republic’. India is content with its identity; Pakistan’s is ripping it apart. India, almost nonchalantly, will choose a Sikh Prime Minister, who derives his support from a Catholic Congress President. No non-Muslim can aspire to become the President of Pakistan, says its Constitution.

Legacy is such an important thing, especially of those who manage to create and influence entire nations. You have a Jinnah as the ‘Father of a Nation’, you head into turmoil; the politico-religious boundaries get erased and/or tend to overlap. Islamists will use him as their poster boy, so will the Secularists. Your nation will forever be doomed to be governed by a Constitution which allows outrageous laws like the Blasphemy Law. You cannot win an argument against the Right, who tend to not only have Jinnah’s quotes on their side but also are more capable of violence. On the other hand, if you have the luxury of divine providence of having a Nehru/Gandhi as a ‘Guy you can look up to’, your boundaries are pretty clear on most of the important issues, be it regarding war/violence or economy or social evils like the Caste System, Feudaism/Zamindari System,etc. The Right cannot invoke their beliefs and speeches, because there are none.

Mind you, I am talking about legacy here, not particular quotes or specific actions of the individuals in question.

Legacies are what which can define Nations. Only the people with upright morals and genuine good in their hearts can aim to have such influence over others, who in turn may well go onto inspire others. Gandhi can inspire men like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, but Jinnah cant. The difference between the two is pretty obvious: The former used Religion to unite, the latter to divide.

On an inter-personal level, we are all Children of legacies. A Father’s legacy for his son/daughter can define and mold his/her thinking (Influence of Motilal over his son, Jawaharlal, is the best example I have come across). A ‘Guru’ (Teacher) can extend his legacy into his student, by the power and wisdom of his knowledge. Legacy is a pretty powerful tool, for those who understand it. For those who don’t, they leave a legacy too, but that legacy is of a loathsome character and invariably leads to misery.

As far as legacy goes in the India-Pakistan context, India is blessed, while Pakistan seems bound to be stuck in a vicious cycle of war of two Jinnah’s.

Indians, be proud and thank Him for giving us a ‘Mahatma’ when we most needed him!