From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:44:19 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <aftab.724360807@nsisrv> aftab@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Aftab Ahmad;MU-SPIN/CESDIS) 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.
   

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.

5: Some of the leaders like Jinnah, etc in the mean time went 
   to the extreme and became believer of HIndu-Muslim unity.

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.

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.

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....

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.


>	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?


==================================================
The following being a personal letter does not have
the clarity of the above. But, the intention was the above
9 points.

>        In India what was called the two-nation theory only dawned on
>its proponents when they found all their efforts at reconcilliation
>futile. Note that these people (mostly educated from Aligarh) were
>from the generation that broke away from the mainly orthodox Muslim
>ulema camp after the war of independence, 1857. These were Sir Syed
>and his followers like Ali Brothers and others __ all from ALigarh.
>At the start of the 20th century and when the breakaway from the
>orthodox ulema had gone on about a generation or two, these people
>took the reins of Muslim leadership. (Ulemas now confined to their
>khaniqahs and madrassahs). Inspite of the efforts of Mohammad Ali
>Jinnah, SIrojni Naidu, Dada bhoy nauroji, Aga Khan, Salimullah
>in the first quarter of ths century, the elusive dream of
>Hindu-muslim unity never materialized. It was only after the
>noncooperation movement failure (early 20s), followed by the
>shock of disillusionment sent by the secularization and
>non-Islamic policies of Ata Turk, and closely followed
>by the Hindu Muslim riots, this liberal camp of Muslim leaders
>like Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Zafar ali khan, Hasrat Mohani, Jinnah
>and others realized that their way was indeed separate from
>that of Hindus. A realization that the orthodox ulema believed
>from long ago, but by now out of the mainstream because of
>their boycott of the English language.
>
>Note that Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Sajjad hyder Yeldrum and all of
>their collegues at that time were so much under the spell of
>Ata Turk that his blatant steps really threw all of them out
>of the mainstream of the leadership. They all faded away as
>the stage was then taken over by the more youthful camp.
>
>So, the thesis of all this discussion is that the idea of
>Two nation theory actually was a new one for those Muslims
>of India who were raised in the tradition of ALigarh. As for
>the Muslim ulemas, it has never been a new one. It was neither
>adopted or practiced by the Aligarian generation (if I may call that)
>for the first time. It may be dawned on them at that time.
>
>Otherwise any one who has read Quran, and knows a little
>Arabic, clearly understands the meaning of the:
>
>Indeed we have made you the nation of the straight path!
>
>Wassalaam
>
>Irfan Hyder
>P.S.
>
>Ignore the typos.
>
>until here...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh