Mustafa 1 Syed Hussain Mustafa 2013-02-0196 Taimur Rehman POL 212 27 December 2011 Identity crisis and class

struggle in Pakistan Pakistan is a diverse state with regards to the various ethnicities and strata it plays host to. If one employs a cursory glance at the majority of the historical accounts of the creations of the country, it becomes quite apparent that Islam was one of the more propelling factors in the independence movement for the country. But since independence, religion has been unable to unite people and to provide them with a common identity. The concept of Pakistani nationalism, which is based solely on religion, is still unable to bind people together into a cohesive national unit. Therefore Pakistanis are suffering from a common identity crisis. People of different regions are confused about the basic denominator of a common identity and prefer to be known as Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtoon, Balochis and Muhajirs rather than Pakistanis. This is the reason that no class struggle has been able to fulfill its core objective in this country and falls flat from its moment of inception. In the independence movement of Pakistan, the slogan of Islam was used to unite and organize people. All the Muslim leaders of All India Muslim League were convinced that Muslims were different from Hindus of the subcontinent with regard to their culture, religious rituals etc. On the basis of such differences, they demanded a separate Islamic state for the

Mustafa 2 Muslims of subcontinent. These thoughts had been expressed in the presidential address of All India Muslim League Session of Allahabad in December, 1930: I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Provinces, Sind and Baluchistan into a single State. Self-Government within the British Empire or without the British Empire. The formation of the consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North-West India Iqbal gave this idea of separate state for Muslims because he wanted to ensure the provision of all the rights of the Muslims of subcontinent. This idea was not restricted to a geographical region. He wrote in his letter to Muhammad Ali Jinnah on March 29, 1937: While we are ready to cooperate with other progressive parties in the country, we must not ignore the fact that the whole future of Islam as a moral and political force in Asia rests very largely on a complete organization of Indian Muslims. It is clear that he wanted a separate state for the Muslims because he thought that such an entity will be able to fight and protect the rights of its people. He also believed in the idea of Pan Islamism which is reflected clearly in his poetry. Although he addressed Muslims of subcontinent in his poetry most of the times but his ideas were for the whole Islamic world and wanted the Muslims to learn from their glorious past and work towards its revival. He aspired for a revolution in the Muslim world, not a separate state for Muslims in the subcontinent. So the struggle for Pakistan was not for the separate homeland for the Muslims to practice Islam but it was for the political interest of the Muslims of subcontinent. It was in essence not a struggle for Islam but a struggle of the Muslims. As David Gilmartin writes in his article:

Mustafa 3 The real struggle of the Pakistan movement was not so much to create a territorial home-land for Indias Muslims, as it was to create a Muslim political community, to define a symbolic center to give moral and political meaning to the concept of a united Muslim community in India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted a united India at one point in time but due to some reasons he changed his opinion and started to believe that Muslims and Hindus can never peacefully coexist. He expressed this idea in his speech in 1940: ..Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and cultures. This becomes evident from the fact that traditionally marriages are not carried out between people of the two traditions. Both of them belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptionsTo yoke together two such nations under a single state must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state. Now the question arises that was Pakistan created for Islam or only for the Muslims of this region? Although the Two Nation Theory was based on Islam but if we analyze this more critically then we can say that Pakistan was formed to protect the social and economic interests of the Muslims of pre independent India. Muslims ruled Subcontinent for almost 500 years although they were a minority in the subcontinent. But when British came and captured the subcontinent, Muslims were sidelined. They were unable to keep pace with the transition which

Mustafa 4 the British had brought along. On the other hand, it was nothing new for Hindus. They were ruled by Muslims before and now British were there rulers. They started to learn the language and culture of the new rulers. But it was difficult for Muslims to forget their glorious past in the region. The result was that Muslims declined not only in their rule but also in their culture. They felt helpless. Due to this despondent state, some Muslim leaders like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan appeared on the scene and advised the Muslims to forget their past and to adapt to the transitions which were taking place. But it was too late by then. Hindus were ahead of Muslims in all the fields and also they were in majority. Thats why at last Muslim leaders started to think about a separate state for Muslims which could protect their interests. But for the interest of a minority, it was difficult to demand for a separate state. Therefore Muslim leaders used the slogan of Islam at that time. They told the British that Muslims were totally different from Hindus in each and every aspect of life so they could not live with them in the same state. That state was initially demanded under the British rule but when Muslim leaders saw that British had decided to leave India they initiated the slogan of the division of the subcontinent. Thus we can say that Pakistan was formed for Muslims due to their economic and political interest and not for Islam. This is the reason that some Muslims Ulema opposed the concept of Pakistan like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jammat-e-Islami. While Quaid-e-Azam wanted just a Muslim state which will be secular in its methods of governance. So the struggle for Pakistan was not for the separate homeland for the Muslims to practice Islam but it was for the political interest of the Muslims of subcontinent. As David Gilmartin writes in his article that, The real struggle of the Pakistan movement was not so much to create a territorial home-land for Indias Muslims, as it was to create a Muslim political community, to define a

Mustafa 5 symbolic center to give moral and political meaning to the concept of a united Muslim community in India. When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, it was unclear whether it was an Islamic state or just a Muslim State. In the independence movement there was just Pan Islamism or Islamic nationalism but, after the independence, the concept of Pakistani nationalism was introduced. Quaid-e-Azam himself thought of Islam as a complete way of life. In August, 1941 he gave an interview to the students of Osmania University. In that interview he answer the question that, what are the essential features of religion and a religious state? When I hear the word religion, my mind thinks at once, according to the English language and British usage, of private relations between man and God. But I know full well that according to Islam, the word is not restricted to the English connotation. I am neither a Maulwi nor a Mullah, nor do I claim knowledge of theology. But I have studied in my own way the Holy Quran and Islamic tenets. This magnificent book is full of guidance respecting all human life, whether spiritual, or economic, political or social, leaving no aspect untouched. It can be said that Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted Pakistan neither as a state in which Islam was imposed nor a state which would be completely secular. H wanted to avoid the extremities of pure theocracy and secularism and wanted Pakistan to be a Muslim state which should provide its people with an opportunity to live their lives in freedom and independence. But when Pakistan was formed, it included Muslims of different culture, language and ethnicities. He urged them forget their identities as Punjabis, Sindhis etc. He said in his address to Quetta municipality in 1948:

Mustafa 6 Yet this is a truth people so easily seem to forget and begin to prize local, sectional or provincial interests above and regardless of the national interests. It naturally pains me to find the curse of provincialism holding sway over any section of Pakistan. Pakistan must be rid of this evil.. We are now all Pakistanis--not Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on and as Pakistanis we must feet behave and act, and we should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else. Although he wanted to unite the people of newly born Pakistan and bind them into a common identity but there should had been equality into the new nation. He wanted equality among the citizens of Pakistan. He said in his speech to the constituent assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. But after his death we saw the horrific incident of 1971 due to incapability and immaturity of later politicians. Today we are also facing almost same kind of situation in Baluchistan. Quaid-e-Azam wanted Pakistan to be a state which is governed of the basic principles of Islam which are equality and social justice. He never wanted Pakistan to be a fundamental Islamic state. He said in his speech on 19th February, 1948, The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed (May peace be upon him). We are members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, dignity and self-respect. Consequently, we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. In his speech to constituent assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, he said, You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other

Mustafa 7 places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. He never wanted to enforce and implement the religious teachings of Islam. He just had the opinion that Islamic teaching can provide solutions to the problem of modern world state affairs. So he wanted a Pakistani state that is governed on the principles of Islam but state should not interfere in people religious life. Thus Pakistan was formed using the name of Islam but after its creation, the nationalistic direction that the country was to take was an unanswered question, lacking the common identity that could bind people into a common group or a nation. People of different ethnicities were never able to forget their regional identities and hence unable to transform into a Pakistani nation. Punjab always remained a dominant province because it was relatively more developed in the educational structures and industrial sectors. Therefore other provinces felt aggrieved. They thought that they would have an equal share in Pakistan but they were not given their due share. That is reason that federation always remained weak in Pakistan. Today, in Pakistan, most of the class movements are based on regional politics. Sindhi nationalist are fighting for the rights of Sindhi people, Saraikis are fighting for their separate province and even Baluchis are fighting for their separate country. The rhetoric employed is along regional and ethnic lines. But nobody is organizing the working and labor class in Pakistan to fight for their rights with the feudal lords and capitalists. A nation is recognized from its culture. It is what gives a nation a common identity. Pakistan was formed on the basis of the proposition that Muslims of subcontinent had different cultural outlooks from Hindus. But the fact of the matter remains that there was a lot of cultural

Mustafa 8 diversity amongst Muslims themselves. So when the question came to the culture of Pakistani nation after the creation of Pakistan it was difficult to determine that what the main cultural attributes of Pakistan were. Islam was just a religion and practiced in every region and culture of the world. It had no distinct culture but was just a set of principles and guidelines about life. As Saadia Toor explains: Since authoritative claims to power in this period of world history must be made in the name of the nation, defining the latter becomes a contest between different aspirants to power. And since nations are defined by their unique cultures, national culture becomes the locus of these struggles over hegemony. This is why, although Pakistani culture its existence, its content,et al. has been the subject of debate at any given point in Pakistani history, the most intense engagements and contestations can be traced to particular periods of political upheaval especially those that Habermas would call legitimation crises As there was no common national culture for Pakistan so the legitimacy of the nation was at stake itself. It was a serious concern for the establishment to define national culture of Pakistan. Many intellectual at that point pointed out that Pakistan is suffering from an identity crisis due to the absence of common culture. After the war of 1965 Jalibi wrote: [if] someone attacks our geographical borders, or occupies an area of land, we instantly know that the frontiers of our country have been attacked, and we expend all our strength in winning back that piece of land. But when this attack is aimed at our cultural frontiers, we dont even realize it nor do we experience a sense of loss [because we dont know what our cultural boundaries are]

Mustafa 9 Pakistan is country with a large area. It is difficult to govern that whole area as one unit. But it was a blunder to take away the regional identity from people for nothing. The purpose behind forming a unit of West Pakistan was only a political motive that superiority of West Pakistan can be established on East Pakistan. In 1955-56, Mr. Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana gave a speech in the constituent assembly of Pakistan and argued that West Pakistan always remained as a unit in the history because it shared common culture. He said in his speech:

Here again, from the very first day, the people of West Pakistan had always accepted the same spiritual heritage, the same mental direction. I do not speak of today or of the seven or eight hundred years that have passed, but even before the advent of Islam, the philosophy and thought of West Pakistan had been united. In the final fulfillment of our existence, in the final development and culmination of our thought, when our ears heard the noble message of Islam, we accepted it, not with hesitation, not through conflict, but all the areas of West Pakistan accepted it as if at one moment of illumination, within the first century of the advent of IslamSir, in culture and spirit and mind we have always, not today, from the very beginning of time been one indissoluble integrated unity. In his speech Mr. Daultana just talked about the unity of the West Pakistan and he gave reference of the Hindu culture of the subcontinent. He ignored the fact that he was talking about a state which was formed on the slogan of Islam. The members of the assembly from West Pakistan were angry with his arguments and criticized him in the same session of the assembly. One member from the East Pakistan said, Sir, I was wondering whether I was listening to our friend Mr. Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan delivering a speech on the indivisibility of West Pakistan or I was listening to Dr. Rajendra

Mustafa 10 Prasad at a Congress session at Delhi propounding the theory of indivisibility of Mother India! Another member of East Pakistan replied in anger: . if everybody in the House closes his eyes and the name of Mian Mumtaz Daultana is effaced from the records and either the name of Sardar Patel or even that of Gandhiji is substituted in his place and the words One Unit are dropped and the idea of Akhand Hindustan is placed in its place and if the whole speech is read in a meeting of Hindu Mahasabha, I think the entire Hindu Mahasabha will rise and sing Halleluiah to our Mian Mumtaz Daultana If you look into his speech, to his references to a civilization which was here supposed to be 4000 B.C. you will see that he is proud of that. His references to Mohenjodaro, his references to Harappa, his references to Ashoka, you look at them. If you belong to that civilization then why are you here? Go where the Ashoka Chakra is flying over the beautiful mosque built by Shah Jahan. To eradicate provincialism and establish the authority of federation, such strategies were used which eventually served the opposite purpose. People were angry because leaders of Muslim League told them that every citizen and every group of any ethnic background had equal share in Pakistan but there was no practicality or feasibility in their speeches. Most of the leaders were from strong feudal backgrounds and were solely protecting their own interests. Another integral part of a nationalistic culture is a uniform mode of communication or language. After the creation of Pakistan, Urdu was declared as the national language. At that point there were very few people who could speak Urdu in the West Pakistan. But in East Pakistan, there was nobody who could read and write Urdu. Also languages of West Pakistan were similar to Urdu but there were no similarities in Urdu and Bangla. It was almost the same situation as it was after 1857 when British declared English as official language. People of

Mustafa 11 Bengal thought that Urdu has no link to their culture so they felt aggrieved. Although later in the constitution of 1962 Bangla was also declared as national language along with Urdu but it was too late then. In the election of 1970, Awami League of Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rehman from East Pakistan got majority but West Pakistani leader Mr. Bhutto rejected his majority and didnt allow him to form government. Also army was involved in rape and murder of thousands of Bengalis. These were the reasons that Pakistan lost almost half of its area in 1971 and East Pakistan emerged as Bangladesh on the map of the world. Islam which is called the common identity for Pakistani nation was unable to hold the state of Pakistan together. Islam cannot be considered as the common identity for Pakistan because there is so much sectarian diversity in Pakistan. There are Shias, Sunnis and Wahabis etc. They all follow and practice different Fiqs (Juristic positions) of Islam. Therefore when Zia-ul-Haq tried to change Pakistan in to pure theocratic state and implement Islam, Shias rejected that Islamization. They rejected the law that Zakat will be cut by government automatically from bank accounts at the end of the year. According to Jaffari Fiq of Islam, Zakat is not obligatory on currency notes because value of currency does not remain same during the year in comparison with gold. At the end, Zia government agreed to give exception to Shias from this law. Ulema should have played their role in creating consciousness about social inequality amongst people as it happened in the case of Iranian revolution of 1979. But this is not the case in Pakistan. There are several reasons behind this. One reason is that feudal land lords are also Makhdooms (Pir) in their regions and they have a huge religious following. No one can think of taking a stand against them and asking for their rights. These feudal are also the political figures of their constituencies. These regions include Saraiki region of Punjab and the whole interior Sindh. In the upper Punjab politics is linked with the industry. Politicians of upper Punjab are

Mustafa 12 industrialists themselves or they have the support of industrialists. Most of the population is somehow associated with the industry in upper Punjab so no one has the courage to stand against the industrialists. In the case of Baluchistan and KPK, politics revolves around tribal land lords. There is no area in Pakistan where Ulema are not dependent on feudal land lords or industrialists. Therefore they have always protected the interest of elite class. Ulema also remained the part of governments at different times. They talk about making Pakistan a pure Islamic state but they never spoke about social inequality and injustice. At the time of Zia-ul-Haq, when people like Habib Jalib and Faiz organizing people for a social and economic struggle, Ulema were in support of Zia-ul-Haq. They never tried to play their role in economic struggles although Islam opposed the idea of social inequality in society. Although Ulema are dependent on feudal and elites in Pakistan, the relation between them is very complex. This is because the Pakistani people are extremely sensitive about their religion. Any religious discourse not in tune with perception of the masses regarding their religious dispositions can have detrimental and chaotic social repercussions. That is why the country is suffering from Islamic extremism. Salman Taseer was an elitist but he just spoke about an issue which was related to Islam. Ulema exploited that issue which resulted in his murder. Although it seems that Ulema have absolute influence on the minds of people but this could be the case that this issue is exploited through Ulema by opposite political group. In the end it comes to the political and economic interest of elites. Due to immature policies of the governments of the past we are today suffering from an identity crisis which is more severe in nature than it was at the time of independence. In 1947, although there was no binding agent that could transform people of different ethnicities into a nation but there was no clash among different ethnic groups. Now the situation is that although

Mustafa 13 Mazarah of Sindh and Punjab are suffering from the same pain, they consider each other as enemies due to ethnic conflicts. They are misguided by their leaders who dont care about lower class. They just want to protect their economic and political interests. One example is the issue of Kalabagh dam which is politicized and exploited by the politicians of Sindh in such a way that there is no hope left it can be built ever. Punjabi politicians mostly remained in power in the federation. They exploited other provinces along with Punjab to fulfill their interests. Now the situation is that the people of other provinces think that all the Punjabis are their enemy but the ground reality is that Punjabis are still poor and living their lives below the poverty line. The reason for Punjabi enmity was that the culture of this region culture always remained dominant in Pakistan. Any cursory perusal of the TV channels today will show that most of the artists are from Karachi or Lahore. The reason for this is the fact that Lahore had a very developed artistic structure at the time of independence and with the passage of time it became the centre of art in Pakistan. Punjab remained dominant not only in culture but in every other aspect of life. According to the census of 1951, Punjabis were only 25% of the population but they occupied 80% of the army and 55% administrative posts. Common Identity is necessary for a class struggle to achieve its objective. But Pakistani people are facing an identity crisis. There are some class related movements in Pakistan today as well as in the past but these movements never able to organize people on country level. They never gained popularity in each and every region of Pakistan. They remained restricted to some region. The reason is that people of different region of Pakistan dont feel for each other. Common identity and culture play the role of binding agent in a nation but we lack both of them. If we look at the history then we will see that common cultural dynamics bind people to form a nation and then that nation transform itself into a nation sate. But in the case of Pakistan it

Mustafa 14 happened in the reverse order. We first formed a nation state then introduced the concept of Pakistani Nationalism and then we tried to give that nation a common culture. It was almost impossible to satisfy the demands of people of each ethnic and linguist background in that process. The result is there in the history. First the incident of 1971 took place and now the insurgency in Baluchistan has come the fore. Both the incidents indicate a failed ideology which reeks of political rather than national interests. The fact of the matter remains that in order to achieve an ideal; one always has to pay the dues which accompany the baggage of achievement in this regard. This has not been the case in Pakistan. The mistake lies in both the aspects. Not only have the historical dues not been paid but there is the setting of a flawed ideal as well. One needs to redefine the general form of political rhetoric that permeates the contemporary Pakistani life. There issues should be formulated according to the actual plight of the people which are economic and structural rather than nationalistic and ethnic. When the more immediate concerns of labor and class struggle will be addressed can there be blossoming of a cultural revival amongst the people of Pakistan on a more united front.

Mustafa 15

Works Cited Alam , Dr Mansoor. "Quaid-e-Azam, Islam, and Pakistan." Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. <http://m-a-jinnah.blogspot.com/2011/02/quaid-e-azamislam-and-pakistan.html>. Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates (1955-56). Karachi: Government of Pakistan. Print. Engineer, Asghar Ali. "Pakistan: Religion, Politics and Society." Economic and Political Weekly 31 (1996): 2800-803. JSTOR. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4404680.pdf?acceptTC=true>. Gilmartin, David. "Partition, Pakistan, and South Asian History: In Search of a Narrative." The Journal of Asian Studies 57 (1998): 1068-095. JSTOR. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2659304>. "Iqbal and Pakistan Movement." Welcome to Allama Iqbal Site. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. <http://www.allamaiqbal.com/person/movement/move_main.htm>. Jalibi, Jamil. Pakistani Culture: The Problem of the Creation of a National Culture. Karachi: Mushtaq Book Depot. Print. "M.A. Jinnah Quotes." Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. <http://m-ajinnah.blogspot.com/2010/03/quotes.html>.

Mustafa 16 "Pakistan or Punjabistan?" Web. 27 Dec. 2011. <http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistanaffairs/193005-pakistan-or-punjabistan.html>. Toor, Saadia. "A National Culture for Pakistan: the Political Economy of a Debate." Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6.3 (2005): 318-40. Print.