(Shared By Mirza Ashraf)
Pakistan has existed for about 66 years and much has been written about the purpose behind its creation and the sacrifices the Muslims of the Subcontinent made for it. Pondering over the reasons for Pakistan’s creation and the goals that the Quaid-e-Azam had in mind, I could not help turning to the result of that effort and the Pakistan of today.
Let me start off by quoting how Lord Macaulay saw the Subcontinent and described it in the British parliament on February 2, 1835: “I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief; such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture; for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, the native culture, and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.
This was the situation in the Subcontinent at that time. After 1857, things drastically changed; Muslims became the oppressed community and the Hindus became the darlings of the British. The British followed the advice of Lord Macaulay in letter and in spirit. With Sir Syed’s efforts and hard work, and under the guidance of Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam, we did manage to get a homeland of our own. Hopes for its future were very high at the time and our forefathers often mentioned the golden principles that lay at its foundation. Unfortunately now, after 66 years, we are forced to come to the conclusion that it is a dream gone sour.
I would like to quote Sir Winston Churchill, who was against granting independence to the Subcontinent so soon. He said: “Power will go to the hands of the rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed in India”.
Churchill was a great leader, a great Brit, a great patriot and he had great intuition. He could see what would happen fifty years ahead. How right he was, especially concerning Pakistani leaders!
The following is a quote from Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a genius, a great religious scholar and later India’s education minister. The interview was given to Shorish Kashmiri in April 1946. It was spread over a period of two weeks and is so pertinent that I would like to share it in total at some later date. Azad said: “We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relation between India and Pakistan. In this situation, it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably.
“Indian Muslims will have three options: 1) they become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; 2) they become subject to murder and excesses and a substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal; and 3) a good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional degradation decide to renounce Islam.
“Pakistan will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country and, with the passage of time, this control will become tight. I believe that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever that happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes.
The assertion of subnational identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. I feel that, right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems viz 1) incompetent leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship, as has happened in many Muslim countries; 2) the heavy burden of foreign debt; 3) absence of friendly relations with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict; 4) internal unrest and regional conflicts; 5) the loot of national wealth by the new-rich and industrialists of Pakistan; 6) the apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the new-rich; 7) the dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan; 8) the conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan; and 9) in this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. Assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises”.
This interview was conducted in Urdu, translated into English by former Indian Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammad Khan and published in the magazine ‘Covert’. In another interview he warned migrating Muslims that in Pakistan it would be their heads and only the shoes would change.
Briefly, these were the apprehensions (and forecasts) that Maulana Azad had about the future of Pakistan. Look around and see if he was wrong! He had the interests of the Muslims of India at heart. He knew that India would be divided and that the Muslims would suffer heavily. And without any fear or ambiguity, he put the blame of Partition on the Congress.
Prof Dr Schuemann in a lecture on Asian Politics delivered at Brooklyn, New York on June 3, 1949. He said: “The state of Pakistan, which recently came into being in South East Asia, is a state manifest with enormous pitfalls unique to itself. Its existence is vulnerable, as time will show…in less than half a century the state will collapse because of its people who are born with the chains of slavery, whose thoughts cannot see love of a free country and whose minds cannot function beyond the scope of personal selfish ends, mark my words. I know their insides”.
If we don’t learn from these forecasts and put our house in order, we are doomed. As a matter of fact, unfortunately the future of Pakistan looks very bleak.
مصیبت قوم پر ایسی پڑی ہے
دوراہے پر سراسیمہ کھڑی ہے
یہ کس کو دوست سمجھے کس کو دشمن
خدایا کس قدر مشکل گھڑی ہے
Ashraf
The comments of Lord Macaulay are a fake. First of all the full text of Lord Macaulay’s “Minutes” are not available even in British Museum or in his archives. Lots of genuine excerpts are available. Lord Macaulay, a litterateur par excellence of English literature, is remembered principally for his monumental contribution of forming the Penal Code in British India. He was made the Chairman of the ‘Public Instruction’ whose members were divided evenly between supporters of Native Language, and supporters of English language, to be adopted as the medium of instruction for imparting modern education(Sciences) to the Indian subjects. Lord Macaulay was in favor of making English the medium of education in the Indian Colony of British empire. However, Macaulay was a fair, just and extremely secularist humanist. He did point out the backwardness of the native Indians with multi-ethnic back grounds but advocated for training them and educating them in modern sciences/arts to become a proud example of how the British crown improved the minds and circumstances of their colonial subjects for an equal and honorable place in the comity of nations. An except from his minutes are here-under, to give you an idea.
” 11. THE SCEPTER MAY PASS AWAY, BUT . . .
Despite his staunch patriotism and contempt-like posture towards Indian culture, languages, arts, sciences, and theology, Macaulay wanted Indians to prosper and excel themselves in all ways of life. He told the House of Commons in his speech on July 10, 1833,
“We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India can be admitted to high civil military office. We are told that this is the condition on which we hold our power. We are told, that we are bound to confer on our subjects every benefit-which they are capable of enjoying?-no; –which it is in our power to confer on them? -no ; –but which we can confer on them without hazard to the perpetuity of our own domination. Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with sound policy and sound morality. . . . We are free, we are civilized, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civilization. Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? . . . It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. Abut never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all of our own. The sceptre may pass away from us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our most profound schemes of policy. Victory may be inconstant to our arms. . . . (Young 1935: 152-155).”
Macaulay, in the British history and society, is known as a fluent journalist but a biased historian. His great tribute to Francis Bacon the Lord Chancellor accused of taking bribes in his official capacity, reflects Macaulay’s ethical and moral standing. What is quoted by AQ Khan about Macaulay is from the perspective of the ruled and subjected masses. And what is Wequar Sahib delivering is the view of those who were the rulers. His educational system was based on the policy to strengthen the grip of the rulers, not to infuse the spirit of awakening amongst the masses.
The dilemma of the subcontinent India is unique. Every nation that invaded India, settled in it, inducted new culture, contributed new traditions, imparted their linguistic and educational system, and also adopted many of the existing Indian customs and traditions. All invaders even before the Arabs, Persians,Turks, Pathans, and Mughals who entered India, settled there never to go back. With the British it was different. They did not settle in India, rather they ruled, divested India of its wealth and left it for good. However, they left their tradition of scientific investigation, industrial progress and their language which was to be understood internationally. They opened the door of modernity for the Indians. Unfortunately all this proved a benefit for the elite or ruling class only. Macaulay’s educational system helped only the army officers, the civil servants, and an upper class. The masses, on the other had, stripped of their pre-British educational system, their culture and their traditions, were rendered as the ruled subject of a small educated class. Macaulay’s educational policy created only the rulers and the ruled class. His educational system shaped “babus” only, which in fact was needed by the British rulers. The British left for ever, leaving Macaulay’s “babu” producing system of education for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Mirza