Thank you Zaki Sabih Sahib, for sharing your life journey in “My life, Pakistan and Great Balidan.” It gives fascinating accounts of personal and family life, the places they were raised as children, the religious and political environment they were exposed to from early age, and life before and after the partition. But it is the critical analysis of tragic consequences of partition which captures our attention.
The book gives firsthand account of heart wrenching hardships and agonies suffered by author’s own family, and many other such families, who migrated to Pakistan after leaving everything behind and starting from scratch in Pakistan. Many of these families made sacrifices both in blood and lifetime possessions. These immigrant families were glad to sacrifice it all, the author calls it “Great Balidan”, for the sake of new beloved country “Pakistan”. They had big hopes and dreams of new life in Pakistan.
As Pakistan’s envisioned dream started to slip away due to corrupt and inept leaders, some are questioning its foundational undertaking. The author is fiercely passionate and unsparing on this topic and puts the blame of partition and human tragedy at the feet of Muhammad Ali Jinnah- in a strong un-forgiving language. Author’s exasperation, disappointment, and anger seeps through the lines when writing about Jinnah and partition.
Even though book is the author’s account seen through the lenses of personal experiences and perceptions, I think role of Jinnah and Abdul Kalam Azad deserves some expanded perspective. Following is my expanded perspective based upon my reading over the years.
All the main political characters on both sides showed stubbornness and they miscalculated, misjudged, undercut, and underestimated each other and they all share equal blame for the partition. Iqbal and Jinnah’s first choice was Confederation of India and not partition. In 1929 Jinnah presented 11 points on Confederation which were rejected outright by Congress with the tacit blessings of Abdul Kalam Azad and demanded to dissolve the Muslim League before any such dialogue. This outright rejection was grave mistake as this rejection gave fuel to separate homeland movement which spread like fire among Muslims. This was the time to engage each other and reach some compromise and not years later in 1946, with Cabinet Mission Plan, when partition was inevitable and everyone knew that at this late juncture it was nothing more than a hail Mary pass and Congress gave a yes nod to Azad just to check the box. Muslim League leaders considered it just a whitewash. Muslim public at large was way ahead of the negotiators and had already made up their mind on separate homeland. Any reversal at this late stage may not have been accepted by them and Muslim League leaders were acutely aware of it.
For all the practical purposes, and in the eyes of Muslim public at large, Muslim League was representing them, and not marginal parties like Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind whose members Azad coerced into Congress in the name of Pan-Islamism and Khilafat Movement. Many such comrades of Azad moved to Pakistan after partition and nourished Jihadists for Kashmir, with the help of Army, which later morphed into terrorist organizations with dire consequences for Pakistan.
Congress and Azad refused to accept Jinnah and Muslim League as the major consequential agency representing Muslims and seriously engage them as such from the beginning and that had serious consequences. Similarly, Muslim League and Jinnah’s grave mistake was to not take Azad seriously as president of Congress and give him due respect. This created personal animosities. These misguided and unwise steps from both sides seriously damaged any goodwill and trust which are essential currency for any good outcome.
How would the undivided India look like today and how Modi’s India fits in this narrative? After all, minority Muslims ruled India for almost three centuries and there were pent up anger and resentment among majority Hindus, and rightfully so. It is wishful thinking that Hindu majority, which has their own share of extremist Hindu nationalists, would forget and forgive these injustices because Muslims have relatively better clout at ballot box in un-divided India. Emergence of someone like Modi was inevitable in divided or undivided India. Enshrined human and minority rights in constitution are as good as the wishes and whims of majority party as Modi and Trump proves it.
Abdul Kalam Azad was a devout Pan-Islamist and his slogan of why settle for part of the country if you can have all was grounded in Pan-Islamism and pre 1947 India, era of Muslim and British rule. But it has no relation to reality in post 1947 India where Hindu majority is going to usher in their own vision of India, divided or undivided, to erase injustices of prior centuries.
Humans have tribal mentality and unfortunately, partition of India was inevitable, with or without Jinah, in 1947 or decades later, in current form or some other form.
Abdul Kalam Azad was not immune from this tribal mentality either-only he has a bigger tent for Muslims only, “Pan-Islamic Tent”.
The book challenges your existing perceptions and beliefs and is not for the weak heart. Its reading requires open mind, which for some is a lot to ask for on this emotional topic. It is a must read for any serious student of Indian sub-continent history.
The author gives exceptional uplifting message in the final words expressing hope and desire for us all to move forward and not get stuck in the past. Getting stuck in the past is the major obstacle in any progress and finding sound footing in the new unfolding world.
Fayyaz Sheikh