The first of these is where you see Hindus and Muslims as forming two "nations". Where you ignore all other factors of class, culture, and regional interests and focus on the narrow issue of religion. Adopting this view, and then taking my only responsibility to be to the Muslim community, I could not justify Pakistan. For in the Muslim majority areas, democracy would have given the Muslims power anyway, and the loss of these areas on Partition definitely weakened the bargaining power of the Muslim minorities in the rest of India. In a united India, the Muslim majority areas could have exerted some muscle on behalf of the Muslims elsewhere but after Partition this was not possible.
Another view is that of the religious extremist who wants to further the spread of Islam and of Islamic states. To such a person, Pakistan presents a certain opportunity. Yet even here, one could take the opposite view and think of Partition as an opportunity lost. As a retreat from the bigger field of India to the safe havens in the West and East. In short, cowardice!
So I could not see how to justify Pakistan on any theoretical grounds. Of course, the standpoints I just looked at are too naive to reflect reality. (On the other hand, these are the ones one usually comes across in public dialogue.) It is unreasonable to ask simplistic questions and expect straightforward answers. For instance, I mention above a "Muslim position". Is there such a thing? The idea of a monolithic Muslim people is convenient for the extremists who thrive by negating the gray areas where most people live, but a balanced analysis would look also at all the factors of region, class and economics. Such an effort is well beyond my current abilities. I hope, however, to at least find interesting instances where alternative histories have been proposed.
Furthermore, while I understand (though not accept) the argument that the communities had different interests, it seems to me a separate issue as to whether Pakistan was the only or the correct way of dealing with the situation. The question arises therefore: Who were the supporters of Pakistan, what were they hoping for, and did they get anything of what they wanted?
The case of Mohammed Ali Jinnah is particularly striking. I wrote a short report for the course, based on the material in the following book:
[J] The sole spokesman : Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the demand for Pakistan / Ayesha Jalal (Cambridge University Press, 1985).
More traditional views of Jinnah can be found in the following books. The first presents the admiring Pakistani version; the others are written from the Indian point of view.
[K] Jinnah reinterpreted : the journey from Indian nationalism to Muslim statehood / Saad R. Khairi (Oxford University Press, 1995).
[N1] Gandhi and his critics / B.R. Nanda(Oxford University Press, 1985).
[N2]
Jawaharlal Nehru : rebel and statesman / B.R. Nanda.
(Oxford University Press, 1995).
The general chronology of Jinnah's life can be easily found elsewhere. I am interested rather in the following issues:
Sources on the Web are generally stridently on one side or the other; however, Naeem Mohaiemen's Shobak pages (on Bengal and Bangladesh) are a thought-provoking exception. By recording oral histories they provide a valuable addition to the written records left behind by the leaders. The one flaw is that the voices you hear are entirely Muslim.
Amber Habib / [email protected]
