The idea of Pakistan was, perhaps, initially articulated by Md. Iqbal, a brilliant poet, inconsolablely pained at the plight of Muslims for which he blamed almost everyone on the planet and beyond with, possibly, singular inability to introspect. Yet it was a poet's imagery and no more. He was what Rt. H'oble Hacker would call a closet Islamist It was taken up later by others, Jinnah being one among them.
Jinnah was a brilliant lawyer but not a devout Muslim or a Muslim scholar or fiercely anti British to be chosen leader of, which may be described as a national Islamic movement, for independent statehood. He was a suave and a successful) lawyer comfortable in the dinner parties thrown by the British official as well as with the Indian aristocracy. The hoi polloi was not his concern. Jinnah was accepted and allowed to lead the Muslim League party because he was the best known Muslim face with interlocutory ability with the British patrons. The Muslim league was a party of the Muslim landed aristocracy devoted to preserve their self interests.
Jinnah was a member of the congress party, initially. When Gandhi attempted to turn congress into a mass based political party Jinnah did not comprehend the import of the endeavour. He was chary of getting involved with the vulgar. When Gandhi gained ground in the congress, perhaps, Jinnah felt that a status which should have been his was slipping away from him. He became disdainful of Gandhi and ever remained so and competed to gain equal status. Eventually and frustrated, he joined the Muslin league. The Muslim league which purportedly espoused the cause of Indian Muslim was in indeed more concerned with cause of the Muslim land lords than Muslims per se. Although, he made the most of the tenuous communal situation in India to consolidate his position yet personally he was not a communal partisan. This is obvious from his life style and from his speeches, in India and after he took over Pakistan. He was emphatic that the Pakistani state will not be influenced by the religious propensity of its citizen. How could he have hoped so when he demanded Pakistan on the basis of religion? Thus Pakistan was begat in contradiction and political naivety, peppered liberally with Jinnah's ambition.
Pakistan was not the creation of the indigenous people who inhabited the areas which now is Pakistan. It was created by the Land lords of the central and northern area of modern India. Jinnah was from Bombay and his number two, Liaquat Ali Khan from the central province. Pakistan was created by these groups with the benign acquiesce of British government of India. In a way, Pakistan never got its freedom. The British were replaced by Jinnah and his cohorts.
It is noteworthy that Jinnah or his colleagues of the Muslim league were never arrested or sent to the jails by the British. The British government of India was not too uncomfortable with the party which did not take any direct action that could strain the administration. Hardly, approach of a leader or a party seeking independence from an alien power.
The nett result of this manoeuvre was that though British gave Pakistan to Jinnah, Pakistan had no polity rooted in the masses which could provide stable leadership or give conceptual content to the idea of Pakistan.
The idea of Pakistan, borne in confusion and fear remained nebulous. If the land lords were not willing to contemplate upon economic, political, administrative or geopolitical issues the Mullas were not capable of it. Both had separate agenda and both were fighting for their personal turf with tacit support of then government.
Thus the idea of Pakistan was
1. A mixture of religious chauvinism,
2. An attempt to safe guard privileges by the land lords who were uncomfortable with mass politics,
3. Induced fear of Hindu domination in Independent India and
4. A simple notion that the religion alone can be basis of a nation. Islam is monolithic and will overpower the issues relating to economics, ethnicity, language, geography culture etc.
A situation tailor made to create chaos but not develop the concept on which a nation can be built.
Jinnah was appointed head of Pakistan. He was never elected and did not even get the time to do so. When he died, Liaqat Ali took over. His rule too was never legitimised by the people. When he was assassinated a series of bureaucrats and generals ruled the directionless country.
By the middle of fifties the army had taken control and lost it for a few years when Bhutto was in power in the seventies. This Machiavelli of Pakistan was in India till 59 or so claiming privileges of an Indian from the courts in Bombay. He had migrated to Pakistan and rose quickly in political stature. He gained power after the breakup of Pakistan. He was no political thinker. He was but a political opportunist. He did not nurture democracy but used the same old methods to silence his mildest of critics. Aptly, though tragically, he met his nemesis in Zia ul Haq. Thereafter, Pakistan has never seen democracy. The two stints of Nawaz Sharif and Mrs. Bhutto at the helm were under the regency of the army.
Pakistan also failed to develop a credible or effective civil society. A large unlettered, poor, heterogeneous society ruled through the heavy military boot is not the fertile soil where tender plant of civil society can grow.
Indo-Pak trouble had to be sustained to ensure that the people see the army as the saviour of the country and let it rule. The army cannot compromise on its rule because the stakes for the army are extraordinary. The army commands the government and the economy of the country. The army officers own the 12% of the national assets it also usurps the major part of the national budget. The army has to be sustained not only because the generals willed it so but also because the American government who bank roll the country. Intellectually feeble and too powerful, American have always have been comfortable with dictatorships around the world. It is always easy to deal with a centralised power than a country where there may be many centres of power and numerous checks upon the administration.
In the present uncertainty one thing is certain which is peoples always survive. Therefore, redemption will happen. I believe it will rest in the following: (whatever route the relationship with India eventually takes.)
The American author, Cohen in his readable book says that it is in American interest to sustain democracy in Pakistan but do the American government think so? At one time the Latin America and the Middle East etc. were in total American influence. Countries there remained kingdoms/dictatorships (many still do) as long as they were under American spell. Some of these later turned in to republics after they were able to substantially reduce American interference. It appears that American Governments think of democracy as well reasoned treatise on morality; to be sermonised and perhaps to be sworn upon but not to be practiced, beyond America and the Western Europe!
The Pakistani military and administration can deliver. They are competent and the Americans can force the issue with them. Without American backing the army cannot sustain. The Americans could also stop indulging in Rambo politics. They are now flogging Bin Laden. What is important is his organisation. It is important to tackle the circumstance and the process of thought which create terrorists organisations. The Americans shy away from such analysis because they know that they themselves are to be substantially blamed for the scourge of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. It is indicative of bankruptcy of rationality that every new ruler in Pakistan is termed by the American establishment as 'the last best hope'. They can learn to deal with issues.
Circa 1954, Nehru once said to the effect that the people of Pakistan got freedom without paying for it. They are not able to value it. They will also have to go through what India had suffered in the wake of the struggle for freedom and make similar scarifies. Then they will understand the value of freedom and achieve it too.
