A discourse of the deaf

By Irfan Husain
OF late, there has been much discussion of the Two-Nation Theory in
the national press. Politicians, especially those from the three smaller
provinces, have made critical noises about this principle that was the
basis
for
the
partition
of
India.
Basically, the theory postulated that the Hindus and Muslims of the
subcontinent constituted two distinct nations and therefore needed
separate states to pursue their respective destinies. The problem with this
vision was that it treated the people of South Asia as two homogeneous
groups of Hindus and Muslims, making no allowances for the vast
cultural, ethnic and linguistic differences that contribute to the colourful
and
vibrant
mosaic
that
is
the
subcontinent.
This theory sought to bind a Muslim in Dhaka with one in Dharampura,
and a Hindu in Sukkur with one in Simla. The reality was very different.
A Muslim Bengali had far more in common with a Hindu from Calcutta
than a Punjabi Muslim, while a Pushtun from Durra is much closer
culturally and ethnically to his cousin in Jalalabad in Afghanistan than
he is to a Muslim in Chittagong. These very real differences were
glossed over by the over-simplifications on which the Two-National
Theory
is
based.
And although millions of Muslims and Hindus migrated in both
directions in 1947, millions of others chose to stay where they were. The
fact that even after partition, India continued to have a significant
Muslim population weakened the principle on which Pakistan had been
created. This questionable premise was further eroded by the separation
of East Pakistan in 1971. We now have three states in the subcontinent,
each with roughly 150 million Muslims. Detractors of the Two-Nation
Theory point out that had India not been partitioned, there would have

been around 450 million Muslims living there. Such a large population
can
hardly
be
termed
a
persecuted
minority.
However, these are the ifs and buts of history. The bottom line is that for
good or bad, right or wrong, Pakistan came into being over half a
century ago, and need no longer justify its existence to India, the rest of
the world or to its own citizens. Over a period of time, a state acquires
legitimacy and a certain momentum just by virtue of its existence. It
does not have to explain time and again why it was created.
Unfortunately, our leaders and self-appointed ideologues have
consistently taken upon themselves the impossible and exceedingly
boring task of defending a defunct theory. To do so, they have gone
through bizarre and tortuous intellectual contortions that might have
been amusing were it not for the strains they have placed on the fabric of
the Pakistani state. First and foremost, the defenders of the so-called
ideology of Pakistan have tried to establish the geographically untenable
position that we are part of the Mid-East and not South Asia. To sustain
this fiction, they have done their wicked worst to purge our culture of
subcontinental influences. Thus, classical dancing is under a virtual
official ban while theatre and music exist on sufferance. Students are
taught Arabic (badly) at an early age and indoctrinated to despise
everything
India.
The other fiction that underpins this official doctrine is that history
began for Pakistan when Mohammad Bin Qasim landed on our shores
and conquered and converted much of Sindh. The flowering of the
Gandhara civilization and the magnificent earlier achievements of the
Indus Valley civilization are largely glossed over except in the tawdry
publications we produce for the benefit of the few foreign tourists who
venture here. Unfortunately, many of these attitudes are mirrored across
the
border
in
India.
These contortions have resulted in a major identity crisis that has robbed
at least two generations of their creativity: by cutting them off from their

real roots, our ideologues have produced a nation that is unsure of its
position in the region and the world. One reason why we are so full of
doom and gloom is that we are constantly subjected to long-winded and
fatuous explanations about why Pakistan came into being. It is almost as
if we were being constantly asked to prove our legitimacy at every step.
Instead of getting on with life, much of our energy and vitality have
been dissipated in this sterile and pointless debate: after all these years,
what does it matter why Pakistan was created? What matters is that it
was created, and we need to stop justifying its creation. Scores of nationstates have come into being after 1947, and most of them do not feel the
compulsion to defend their existence. The world is not asking us to
produce a certificate of legitimacy; it only wants us to join the rest of the
human
race
and
accept
reality
as
it
is.
Another distortion the Two-Nation Theory has produced is the
compulsion to define ourselves in terms of India: we have tried to show
how different we are from our neighbour at every turn. Inevitably, an
Indian misfortune is seen as our good fortune, and every Indian gain as
our loss. This zero-sum game is a debilitating exercise and has resulted
in tunnel vision in which our large neighbour has become our only
horizon. Our internal and external policies are largely aimed at somehow
countering real and perceived Indian threats and hegemonic designs.Any
theory that seeks to promote separateness denies our humanity and the
ability of civilized people to live together despite differences in colour,
caste or creed. As somebody said recently, "First we Muslims said we
could not live with Hindus and created Pakistan; then we said we could
no longer live with Bengalis, and Bangladesh was the result. Now
Sunnis are saying they cannot live with Shias. Where will it all stop?"
Where
indeed?
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the demand for Pakistan
was a bargaining position initially adopted by the Muslim League.
Ultimately, it was Congress obduracy more than Muslim League
insistence that resulted in the creation of Pakistan. Whatever the reality,

it is certain that the bloodletting that accompanied partition shook the

founder of the new state and probably caused the decades of suspicion
and rancour that have marked Indo-Pakistani relations ever since.
There has been a demand to try Altaf Hussain of the MQM for
criticizing the creation of Pakistan. This is the knee-jerk reaction of our
ideologues who have already inflicted so much damage in the past. It
would be far better to debate these issues openly, and if that is the
consensus, lay to rest the Two-Nation Theory. We no longer need
defunct theories to justify the creation and existence of Pakistan.