This article in Dawn was shared by Wequar Azeem with a question: Do you agree ?
Our political discourse is dominated by two competing narratives of the recent history of Pakistan. Each claims to be ideologically rooted. The dominant one describes Islam as the main driving force behind the country’s creation and argues that the same shall define its present course.
The other narrative, however, tells us that Pakistan was founded by a liberal lot. The Quaid spoke English, wore western dresses and posed with his pet dog. Liaqat Ali’s wife Ra’ana shook hands with foreign dignitaries. Ayub Khan gave the US president a pat on the cheek and so forth.
These ‘liberal’ founders had set the country, continues the narrative, on the path to become a liberal, secular and yet, Muslim country – something similar to, but better than Ataturk’s Turkey. The country stayed on this ‘original’ liberal course till 1970s.
Interesting evidence presented to support the assertion is a gallery of photographs. The romantic black and white shots from the 1950s, 60s and 70s are shared on the social media a thousand times a day and framed in articles along with nostalgic captions. They show us women in sleeveless dresses playing cards and sipping wine in a Lahore hotel, European hippies smoking pot while waiting to be served chapal kebabs in Qisa Khani Bazaar in Peshawar and a goree madam struggling with a mouthful of paan as onlookers at Burns Road, Karachi chuckle.
Those were the days, my dear! The mullahs were all either in jail or strictly confined to their mosque duties and everyone was free to do whatever he or she wanted to. But then, the machinations of the political right derailed it and that’s how the country ended up in the present extremist abyss.
I have many problems with this so-called liberal-secular narrative but would focus on just one point here.
Has there ever been a liberal and secular Pakistan?
I sincerely believe that such a country has never existed. In its 66 years, Pakistan has never really changed its hue. It has stayed green all the way, one shade darker or one shade lighter.
The country was born to a confused Muslim ideology that was interpreted differently by various interest groups. The elite wanted to use Islam as a camouflage to its rule; there was no other way they could hold on to power. The clergy owned the Islamic franchise and wasn’t willing to lend it without getting a share in power. Click link for full article;
It is a good analysis, especially about liberals. Following few lines sums up the part played by liberals not just in Pakistan but other Muslim countries also.
‘Its elite’s culture was Colonial or western. This had no bearing on their tyrannical politics and should not be mistaken as political liberalism. I think that the elite still lives the same life and practices similar politics. It has only gone clandestine. Maybe we will find their pictures from today in our Facebook news feeds, a few decades later. Will you still hit ‘like’ then?”
The liberals do not want to stand up to extremists and want to appease them, like Bhutto passing the law to declare Ahmadi non-Muslims. I have a little different take than the article suggested about the Muslim society in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
I agree the society in Pakistan has always been right of the center but still moderate. The society at large never trusted Mullahs to run the country and they still don’t. Islamic parties never won enough seats. The problem is with the liberal who cannot get their act together.
This is true in other Muslim countries also. Overall Muslims in all Muslim countries are moderate, they love their religion, but I do not think they want extremists to run the country and impose Sharia Law. Egypt is an obvious example ,where the public has buyers’remorse and did not like what Muslim Brotherhood was delivering.
Fayyaz
I agree – that Pakistan was never a liberal country.
The second answer is yes, to the question posed by the author, if I would still hit “like” on the nostalgic liberal past depicted in photos of Ayub era on facebook news feed after a decade or two.
Author had actually picked the correct comparison (Fifty Shades of Grey) but decided to be polite and changed the title to sixty six shades. Whats happening to the ideology of Pakistan is exactly an orgy of BDSM (bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism).
I am convinced that Jinnah had seen the revenge coming from majority Hindu population of the Muslim minority rule on India and was concerned for Muslims as a community but not concerned for any threat to the religion of Islam itself. Author is hundred percent correct that top brass of newly independent country was basically secular minded including Jinnah. Ayub himself was trained with British officers and had adopted Western lifestyle.
The masses however had rallied behind the separation movement thinking and hoping to return to the golden age of Muslim empire. The real damage in my opinion was done by the politicians failing to build on the secular lines and appeasing hardliners, starting with Objectives Resolution and giving an opening for combining state and religion – they should have studied the beginning of the end of Ottoman empire, where interference and dominance of clergy paralyzed the state. Now after religion gaining a foothold in the affairs of the state (courtesy Zia), the orgy has begun for the sectarian dominance where foreign players (saudi/Iranian) are among the playboys too.
Babar