From: ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:03:17 GMT

In article <liq3i3INN8ci@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>I will first reparaphrase the points I wanted to make for a
>more fruitful discussion.
>
>1: Orthodox Muslim ulemas (from Deoband...) mostly were sidlined
>   after 1857 because they decided  not to compromise with the British.
>   They realized that Muslims could not live harmoniously with the masters.
>   As they were out of power, they hid themselves in their madrassahs.
>
	To me it seems that the Muslims did live harmoniously with "the
masters" after the 1857 war. May be just a different point of view.   
>
>2: Sir Syed and like minded people opposed this policy of seclusion
>   of the general ulemas. They embarked on a more compromising path.
>
>3: Generation raised under Sir Syed lost sight of the reasons of 
>   (i) why ulemas didn't compromise, (ii) why Sir Syed compromised.
>
>4: Therefore, we saw between 1900-20 efforts by Mohammad Ali Jauhar and
>   co to follow Turkey's youthful march towards modernism.
> 
	Putting 2, 3 and 4 together, it looks that you see modernism
synonymous with "compromising path". Do you see "Suleh Hudeebiah" 
(prophet Muhammad's agreement with Meccans) as a compromising path
(or modernisim). If you do, then you will have to agree that Aligarians
were more "orthodox" than Ulemas if Orthodoxy means following the original
lifestyle of prophet of Islam.
>5: Some of the leaders like Jinnah, etc in the mean time went 
>   to the extreme and became believer of HIndu-Muslim unity.
>
	I think they were not extremists. They wanted unity on their terms.
>6
: Jauhar and co. got disillusioned by the volte-face of Ata Turk
>   and slided into oblivion, Jinnah and co. got disillusioned by
>   the failure of efforts of Hindu Muslim unity that culminated
>   in the riots of 20s.
>
>7: During 30s and 40s we saw Jinnah and co. coming to the realization
>   That there is nothing like Hindu-Muslim unity. HIndus and Muslims
>   are two nations.
>
	I thought the whole point in Hindu-Muslim unity was a claim
by Jinnah/Aligarians that they are two different nations - so they
must compromise to let the country run. If before 30s and 40s they
did not believe the "HIndus and Muslims are two nations", why were 
they trying to unite them. See my point!
>8: As ulemas had lost their political edge and platform due to
>   seclusion from the politics during  1857-30 period, the only
>   voice on the Muslim podium was that of Jinnah and co.
>   Their realization came to be known as the realization of the
>   totality of Muslim concious. Note that ulemas having lost
>   the podium, didn't mean they lost their hold on the Muslims
>   or that general Muslims lost their closeness with ulema's local
>   sphere.
>
>9: So during 1930s-40s when two-nation theory was presented
>   it was probably new to Jinnah and co., but not for religious
>   ulemas, who have always believed in it.
>
>
>>	Given your point of view it becomes imperative for the Muslim
>>ulmas to conform to the struggle for an independent country. But what
>>we see is a different attitude. Assuming that the "liberals" (that's what
>>you call) gave up before Hindu-Muslim differences: it means in other words they
>>joined hands with the spiritual heads as far as the two-nation theory
>>goes, where were they (ulemas) at the time of movement. I see Ahmadies for
>>the creation of pakistan and Jamaat-e-Islami against it. This is a big
>>contradiction in your theory. Or would you say that the creation of Pakistan
>>has nothing to do with the two-nation theory.
>>
> JI vs. Ahmedi axis is irrelevant to this discussion. So I ignore the
>statement. Later probably. :)
>
>I said that Ulemas and Jinnah and co. were both believers of the
>same two nation theory. But your question is why was it that
>the ulemas didn't support the independence, if what I say is
>true.
>
>I only see the dichotony as a  different "political" expression
>of the same concept, namely, Muslims being a separate nation.
>There were many reasons for ulemas not supporting teh geographical
>bifurcation. Most of them are on very idealistic grounds, but
>we will not discuss them here. I will come to them later on.
>
>I already mentioned that ulemas had lost the national leadership of
>the Muslims. THe reason they lost it was that their aspirations
>were too idealistic for the common Muslims who had neither the
>knowledge nor the resources to understand the ulemas.
>
	In 8 above you say that the ulemas had not lost their hold
on the Muslims and the Muslims had not lost their closeness with the
ulemas. Here you say that the Ulemas had lost their leadership and the
Muslims did not have the resources and the knowledge to understand ulemas.
Could you throw more light on it.

>When Jinnah and co. raised the slogan of Pakistan ka mutlub kiya
>la illaha ill allah in 1946 that won them the elections that form
>the foundation of the British decision of dividing the country,
>Muslims flocked to it and immidiately gave their wholehearted
>support for ML culmination in Pakistan.
>
>
>	Let me explain my view here. Creation of Pakistan was not a relgious
>>issue at all. It was a human rights' issue. Muslims felt threatened by a 
>>Hindu majority, espcially after ruling them for a long time.
>
>Please, read the details of the Pakistan resolution, Jinnah's 14 points,
>and Iqbal's Allahbad address, and details of the environment
>of the 1946 elections. I agree with your contention that Muslims 
>felt threatened by a HIndu majority....
>
	OK. I wil read them again and try to appreciate your point.

>But, my question is why?
>What was the thing distinguishing the majority from the minority?
>Is Babri Masjid issue again simply a human rights issue?
>JUst imagine 1920s and Babri Masjid type riots happening every
>second year, and you will understand whehter Pakistan was formed
>for "human rights" or for Muslims.
>
	As I have been saying continuously, the country was for Muslims
and not the growth of Islamic idealogy , as some people have indicated
on the net. Let me re-inforce my point here - Muslims demanded Pakistan
not because Islam will prosper more in it, but because they saw their
rights in danger.

>
>>	And to support my argument, we lost East Pakistan only because
>>we could not give them their 'rights', and not because they or we changed
>>the religion.
>>
>So every problem in the world is a human rights issue?
>
	What do you think?
>

	Aftab Ahmad