The idea of Pakistan has always been disputed. People have different thoughts to it.

Many
argue on the point whether the idea had strong enough points for the creation of a new
state. Despite all the challenges Pakistan faces today, it would be incorrect to conclude
that it is definitely headed for disintegration. In the words of President Zardari, Pakistan
is fighting a war for its survival. Is Pakistan a failed or failing state? Many who believe in
weak ideology of Pakistan are supportive of united India while some say Pakistan’s
creation was must.
Personally I strongly support the idea of Pakistan. Several viewpoints will be explained
from different angles.
Several points are raised by pro united India group such as Partition was not only
culmination of the British divide and rule policy but also result of definite political design
to bring about partition of the country. United India would have strengthened socialist
camp led by Soviet Union and would have posed a great challenge to imperialist powers
both in China which was heading towards communist revolution but also in the Middle
East which was rich in oil resources.
In a sense, Pakistan has been battling for survival ever since it was carved out of the
north-western and north-eastern extremities of the subcontinent. In the words of Lord
Mountbatten, the best the British could do for Pakistan in 1947 was to set up a tent.
Although dramatically shrinking in size in 1971, the hastily put-up tent neither collapsed
nor became a fully functional permanent building. Amidst a chorus of pronouncements
about its impending demise, the flimsy tent was transformed into a sprawling military
barrack. Today, Pakistan faces a lot of challenges. However, to conclude from this that it
has ‘failed’ or is facing certain disintegration is an analytical leap of faith that is often
more revealing of the predilections of those holding the view than of the complex and
emerging realities on the ground.
The threat to Pakistan this time comes from within. How this enemy has became so
powerful?
There has always been a close correlation between internal and external security when it
comes to Pakistan. The grave threat from non-state actors currently confronting Pakistan
has its roots in the geopolitics of the Cold War, when Pakistan was transformed into a
frontline state in the US-supported ‘jihad’ against the Russians in Afghanistan. A noxious
brand of religious extremism, in what was until then still a moderate country, assumed
menacing proportions once the Pakistan army became the recipient of billions of dollars
of US and Saudi money for the war. Substantial amounts were funneled to madrassas in
the NWFP and tribal areas. Overlaid with a new-fangled jihadist ideology sponsored by
the state’s intelligence agencies, these madrassas became assembly lines for militants,
who were considered to be an asset to the Pakistani army’s quest for ‘strategic depth’ in
Afghanistan. Once the Russians left, the army continued to champion ‘jihad’ in
Afghanistan and Kashmir to the detriment of Pakistan’s internal security. After 9/11, Gen
Pervez Musharraf supported the American ‘war on terror’ without actually withdrawing
support for the Taliban or ending the proxy war in Kashmir. His crackdown on sectarian
militias in Pakistan after January 2002 did not extend to militant groups fighting in
Kashmir. The decision to flush out the increasingly assertive militants holed up in the Lal
Masjid compound in Islamabad proved decisive. Accustomed to being patronized by the
state and its intelligence agencies, the militants turned their wrath on the security
establishment and its personnel while at the same time forging broader alliances with
groups in the tribal areas of the northwest linked in varying measure with al-Qaeda.
Every time Pakistan faces political economical or security turmoil it is always linked to
the creation of Pakistan.

Was Pakistan more an accident of history that outcome of a pre-planned operation long
cherished by Jinnah? There is no evidence to show that operation Pakistan was pre-
planned and long cherished dream of Jinnah.

Jinnah began as nationalist and was active supporter of Congress nationalism. He was
liberal and was described as ‘Muslim Gokhale’. He had joined Congress and went to
Muslim League on his own conditions and brought them together through the Lucknow
Pact in 1916. In Jinnah’s life 1928 was a crucial year when the Nehru Committee turned
down his demand for 33% seats of Muslims in Parliament. It is again debatable whether
his demand was justified and whether such a demand could be met in any political
democracy. Maulana Azad himself rejected this demand in the AICC session when Nehru
Committee report was discussed there.

Second turning point was 1937 elections in which the Muslim League lost heavily and
the Congress went back on promise to take two League ministers in the U.P. cabinet. For
Jinnah it was great betrayal. It was final break off from the Congress in a way though not
the ultimate one. The ultimate break off point came in 1946 when Nehru made a
statement that changes in the Cabinet Mission Plan could not be ruled out. After 1946
elections the Congress and Muslim League had formed a composite government. Thus
one cannot say that even after passing the two nation theory resolution Jinnah had made
up his mind for Pakistan.

All available evidence shows that even after the resolution of 1940 Indian unity could
have been saved, if a satisfactory power-sharing arrangement could have been worked
out. It would be very difficult to maintain that Jinnah alone was responsible for creation
of Pakistan, much less Pakistan being long cherished dream of Jinnah. And how can one
ignore the ignoble role of British imperialism in partitioning of the country.

Thus an honest assessment of Jinnah would require taking into account various complex
forces in operation then in south, south east and west Asia. Jinnah, for all these and
various other reasons, cannot fit into any neat political category – communal or secular.
He was secular, if seen in his social and personal context. He was far from religious
fanatic as the Sangh Parivar would like to project him. He hardly ever subscribed to any
religious dogmas. He was far more closer to Nehru in this respect. He was struggling for
Muslim and not Islamic politics. He wanted ‘Muslim homeland’ rather than an Islamic
state. He was more of an advocate fighting his case than a mass leader or a visionary.

It is true the result of his politics was partition of the country and hence he is dubbed as
communalist. But as we have seen despite his ‘two nation’ theory he was not really
wanting a separate state of Pakistan but a power-sharing arrangement which did not work
out to his satisfaction. There is some evidence to show that for him partition was more of
a temporary affair than a permanent division. He wanted to spend his last days in
Mumbai where he had built a house for himself and he greatly cared for it so much so
that he requested Nehru not to let it to any commoner but to some foreigner or to some
royal house. The correspondence to this effect between Nehru and Jinnah is on record for
anyone to see.

The Indian Muslims also have grievance against him. He left them in the lurch. All
Muslims did not agree with his partition project. In fact only the elite Muslims of U.P.
and Bihar fell for him. Muslim majority areas were indifferent to him and to Muslim
League politics and so were poor and lower class Muslims for whom Pakistan project
brought no benefit, political or economic. The Jamiat-ul-Ulama –e-Hind was also totally
opposed to creation of Pakistan.

Thus Jinnah will remain highly controversial in Indian subcontinent evoking great
admiration for some and total condemnation by others. This is inevitable. Here are very
few who would take a balanced view keeping all the factors into account. Neither
uncritical adulation nor total condemnation of Jinnah would do. A critical evaluation is
highly necessary. Perhaps more time might be needed for this. Half a century may not be
enough on history’s time scale. «

Why should Pakistan and India be one in order for its people to be able to go across the
border? Wouldn't relaxed visa rules, do? And why do we always have to talk about
merging back with an entity, millions lost their lives to get out of?
Though partition happened but the ideologies were used as a cloak to gain political deals.
I am definitely not of the view that India and Pakistan should be merged back into one.

Though it is worth highlighting the true cause of partition as opposed to the dogma
presented in our Pak-Studies book. definitely there is every need to question the birth of
Pakistan

If anyone wants, we can have an extended discussion on why and how partition
happened. But a couple of things are clear to me: In what came to be West Pakistan, the
Muslim League did not spearhead a mass movement. The demand for Pakistan did not
enjoy popular support. Partition happened as a result of wrangling by the Indian and
colonial elite, and because of a movement spearheaded by a small number of Muslim
elites in the Muslim minority provinces. Islam was used as nothing more than a political
tool.

Though partition happened but the ideologies were used as a cloak to gain political deals.
Once Jinnah answered to a students question in Lahore that in India you can either be an
Indian or a Muslim but never an Indian Muslim. This is the rationale for Pakistan
Jinnah himself was coming to the idea of Muslim nationalism from a totally different
direction. His concern had been through out to come to an arrangement with the Congress
Party. It was his disillusionment with Nehru after 1937 that made him consider
alternatives.
In my point of view the creation of Pakistan was the destiny of Indian Muslims. It had to
come. No matter how weak Pakistan is today you cannot link it with its ideology and call
it an accident of political moves. The greatest migration in the history of world was for a
reason. The dreams Iqbal had were of a deep meaning. According to Zaid hamid a
defense analyst prophet Muhammad (PBUH) hinted at this current region Pakistan to be
the symbol of Islamic power.
Politically and economically strong Pakistan can achieve anything or for that mater what
a united India could have achieved.
Due to our own wrong doings we have landed this state into a situation of turmoil and the
external forces leave no stone unturned to exploit the situation. India these days is
constantly attacking Pakistan’s sovereignty and the western media repeatedly questions
on the existence of Pakistan.
These clouds of threats will continue to hover over us until we find solutions to our
internal problems. Make it strong as a country and then see who questions its existence
and the idea of Pakistan. Pakistani ideology will automatically become strong as Pakistan
will be strong.
Conflict management and perception

People’s perception to the idea of Pakistan

Ideology existence and threats

Submitted by:
YASIR ALI
01-111071-110
BBA 6-C