From: aam9n@helga1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:03:14 GMT

In article <lj1vblINNo1j@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.055207.24892@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@honi1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>>
>>Very well put. This is greatest Achilles heel of the whole Two Nation
>>argument, which is why, in all the volumes of propagandistic "history"
>>put out in Pakistan, there is hardly any mention of this issue. As
>>Sumitro elegantly points out, if the Two Nation Theory had a basis
>>in truth, Partition was exactly the *worst* thing to do, given the
>>demographics of India. And it is precisely those who think in terms
>
>This line of reasoning that uses
>hindsight is actually most common in the younger generation
>of Pakistanis. Most vocal opposers of the founding of Pakistan
>are not only criticizing the founding fathers, but are in fact
>trying to hide their own shortcomings and worthlessness. Most
>Pakistanis indulge in this exercise in the following vein (not
>Mr. Minai):
>
>A father presented a second hand car to his son. The son turned out
>to be a spoiled brat, who in his intoxication, and rashness rammed
>the car in an accident, and lost his one limb. Then, 
>he started criticizing his father for why having given him the
>second hand chevette  in the first place. He conjectured
>that had he been given a mercedes, he would not have lost
>the limb because it is much more sturdier and strong!!!!

Though you do "absolve" me of using this line of reasoning, the opening
sentence of your paragraph seems to imply otherwise. So let me go ahead
and take issue with your analogy anyway.

First, I had said nothing about the viability of Pakistan itself. I was
criticising the formation of Pakistan from the point of view of the Muslim
community in the Sub-Continent --- especially those who stayed behind in
India. Thus, extending your analogy to my argument, here is what I argued:

In the process of getting the second-hand Chevette for his spoiled elder
son, the father spent all the money he had, leaving nothing behind for his
younger son --- indeed, leaving him in the clutches of those whom he most
feared. What the elder son did to the Chevette and himself is mostly
his own responsibility, but the tribulations of the younger son are surely
the father's fault! Would it not have been better to buy both sons scooters
so that both could benefit --- especially when it was the younger son who
had been the father's more reliable supporter?

Actually, as I stated in my earlier posting, I think the whole premiss behind
the Two Nation Theory was unfortunate, and is the partial cause of the rifts
we see today. The "father" in your analogy would have done well to teach his
sons how to get along with their neighbours and invested the resources he spent
buying the Chevette in order to give both his sons a prosperous future. He
should have taught his sons that enmity begets ruin, and that the art of living
in society requires compromise.

As for what happened after Partition, you might argue that Pakistan's ills are
due to our irresponsible behaviour rather than the failure of the Two Nation
Theory. My reply would be that a good theory takes *prior* account of those who
will put it into practice. By arguing as you do, you are, in effect, saying that
those who led the movement for Pakistan failed to anticipate the weaknesses of
their followers --- us. That does not absolve us of responsibility, but don't
you think that it is a major failure of leadership? Shouldn't the idealism
of an effective leadership be tempered by realism? If the actual Muslims of
Pakistan, who were supposed to put the Two Nation Theory into practice, failed
to do so, is that not a failure of the theory as an effective political
philosophy? If the theory said that the Muslims of the Sub-Continent were one
nation, but these Muslims divided into ten different groups at the earliest
opportunity, does that not suggest that the original premiss was a little
mistaken? The most that can be said is that there was a (very small) possibility
that, given the right circumstances, the Muslims of India might be able to hang
together --- just a possibility. As it turned out, the possibility was not
realistic.

Of course, now that the situation is what it is, these arguments are mostly
academic (though, as Javed pointed out, there are lessons to be learnt). Now
we have to make the best of what we have.

Regards,

Ali Minai

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mujh se kahaa jibreel-e junooN nay, yeh bhee vahiy-e ilaahee hai
mazhab to bas mazhab-e dil hai baaqee sab gumraahee hai      (Majrooh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan