Major discourses on establishment of Pakistan

The partition of the Indian Sub-continent and establishment of a separate state of Pakistan in August 1947 was an event of far reaching historical and political significance. It created a new state which did not physically exist. The Muslim elite's politics in the British-ruled India initially focused on the protection and advancement of their historical and civilizational identity, rights and interests in the context of the modern state system created by the British in India. They adopted different political strategies at different occasions to secure this demand and the formal demand for establishing a separate state was initiated quite late.
A number of historians and political analysts have attempted to explore the rationale of the demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India by critically examining the major political developments during 1857-1947. They came up with divergent interpretations of history to explain the Muslim elite to make a demand for the partition of British India and the establishment of a sovereign and independent Pakistan. Some of them addressed the question if there was any political and constitutional alternative to making Pakistan?
One question that draws much attention from time to time relates to the purpose of the Pakistani State as articulated by the founders of Pakistan. The question is if Pakistan was created as a homeland for the Muslims of British India for securing their future or was it to be a Shariah based religious Islamic State on the lines of the state system of the earliest period of Islam? Another key issue is if there were no contiguous Muslim majority provinces in North West of India and a large size Muslim province of Bengal and some adjoining areas, could there be a separate sovereign state for them? Had there been no communal riots and most population stayed in their places of residence and had Pakistan obtained full provinces of the Punjab and Bengal, as demanded by the Muslim League, there would have been a lot more non-Muslim population in Pakistan. What would have been its implications for the demand to create an Islamic state on fundamentalist lines in Pakistan?
A recently published book entitled "Creating a New Medina: State power, Islam and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India" by Venkat Dhulipala (Cambridge University Press, 2015) rejects the notion that Pakistan was not sufficiently imagined by the champions of its cause. Pakistan was imagined in North India, especially in the United Province (UP) as a "sovereign Islamic State, a New Medina, as it was called by some of its proponents. In this regard, it was not just envisaged as a refuge for the Indian Muslims, but as an Islamic utopia that would be the harbinger for renewal and rise of Islam in the modern world, act as the powerful new leader and protector of the entire Islamic world and, thus emerge as a worthy successor to the defunct Turkish Caliphate as the foremost Islamic power in the twentieth century." (p.4). According to the author the Muslim League leadership described Pakistan "as the new laboratory Islam." (pp.5-6).
Islamic idiom and civilizational discourse figured prominently in Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's speeches and statements when he began to reorganise the Muslim League after his return from England in 1934, especially after the 1937 provincial elections. He employed Islamic idiom, history and cultural heritage for Muslim political identity formation and political mobilisation. He was inspired by Islamic teachings and ideals of socio-economic justice, equality and fairplay, and emphasised these principles as the source of guidance and inspiration for the political system. However, there were people in the Muslim League and outside who believed in varying degrees that Pakistan would recreate an Islamic Political Order based on its classical notions and practices. The rural clergy and a group of religious scholars who broke away from Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind shared such views and advocated them during the course of the 1946 provincial elections.
Neither the Muslim League top leadership offered a detailed plan of the political system for the post-independence period nor did the religious scholars that supported the Pakistan demand in 1945-47 provide a detailed document of the Islamic political order of their choice. Consequently, there were no concrete and well-groomed notions of the political system available with the Muslim League at the time of independence. The Muslim League leadership strongly believed in combing the spirit of the teachings of Islam with the modern notion of participatory governance and democratic constitutionalism rather than creating a religious Islamic state.
The explanations for the establishment of Pakistan can be arranged along a continuum. On the one end are the narratives that describe Pakistan as an artificial entity created by the British through its policy of "divide and rule." British India. These explanations are popular in India and it is generally argued by a number of Indian writers that the establishment of Pakistan was a "parting kick" of the British colonial system to Indian Natonalism, meant to weaken united independent India. It was meant to restrict India's role at the global level, it is argued by some writers.
On the other end are various interpretations of history that take a nostalgic view of Pakistan with deep rooted historical and ideological foundations. These explanations, advocated mainly by Islamic leaders and parties, have strong religious contents. Some writers argue that Pakistan was founded the day first Muslim reached the India. The historical personality, Muhammad bin Qasim is described as the first Pakistani in some writings that appeared in mid-1950s. This line of argument is based on the inevitability of conflict between Islam and Hinduism as two conflicting civilisations, religious systems and cultural entities and that the aspirations of the two communities were bound to conflict.
There are several explanations that fall between these two extreme views. The most commonly shared view in Pakistan is what is described as the Two-Nations Theory, ie, the Muslims and the Hindus living in British India were two distinct nations. Though they lived in one land for a long period of time, Islam and the Muslims maintained their distinct historical, cultural and civilizational identity. The Muslims being a nation deserved an independent and sovereign country.
The establishment of Pakistan is also described with reference to a homeland concept. That Pakistan is the homeland of those Indian Muslims who learnt from their political experience that their Islamic identity, rights and interests would be overwhelmed by an unsympathetic majority under any democratic system in post-British India. Therefore, they required a homeland to secure their future. The notion of a homeland was strengthened by the fact that three Muslim majority provinces and Balochistan and Kashmir were geographically contiguous. Bengal was seen as big enough to sustain as a political entity within Pakistan. The Muslim League had floated a proposal of a corridor linking the two parts of Pakistan. This proposal was not seriously pursued. Nor was this proposal acceptable to the British and the Congress leadership.
A good number of religious leaders and others viewed Pakistan as a state that would establish an Islamic order modelled purely on the classical Islamic state established in the earliest days of Islam. It was to be a puritanical Islam based religious state as articulated by fundamental and orthodox religious scholars. It is interesting to note that Islamic political parties that had opposed the political movement for the establishment of Pakistan (Jamaat-i-Islami, Majlis-i-Ahrar, the Khaksar Movement and some people who continued to subscribe to the political ideology of Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind) were in the forefront of the movement for establishing a puritanical religious state in the post-independence period.
The Muslim League inherited that power at the time of independence advocated a modern democratic state that sought ethical foundation and inspirations from the teachings and principles of Islam. They wanted to blend the modern notions of state, governance and political participation with the spirit of the principles and ideals of Islam rather than recreation of the structure of the Islamic state of the earliest period of Islam.
There are articles and books that highlight economic factors to explain the establishment of Pakistan. A number of arguments are advanced in this respect which include, the interest of the emerging educated Muslim elite vis-à-vis the dominant Hindu economic elite, Hindu land owners versus Muslim tenants and labour, the pressures of the salary earning middle-class that saw material gains in an independent Pakistan.
Some British, Indian and Pakistani writers blame the Congress leadership, especially Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru and Patel, for adopting a non-accommodating disposition towards the Muslim political demands. Even Mahatama Gandhi was not helpful in this respect. The Muslim elite initially demanded separate electorate, reservations for Muslims in cabinet positions and government jobs, constitutional safeguards for their rights and federalism with autonomy to provinces. It was after the bitter experience under the Congress rule in several provinces, especially in the UP (1937-39), the Muslim League began to talk about a separate homeland. Even then the Muslim League showed flexibility by accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946). The Congress refused to honour all recommendations of the Cabinet Mission Plan. This led the Muslim League to return firmly to the demand for Pakistan. It was Nehru's inability to comprehend how Muslim mindset was influenced by Islamic civilisation and culture, history of Muslim rule in India and their political experience since the beginning of the 20th Century. He was often dismissive of Jinnah and the Muslim League and thought that he would sweep them aside with the help of the Muslims in the Congress Party.
There are writings on the independence movement and the role of Jinnah that argue that Jinnah never wanted to create a separate state but he made this demand to get a better political bargain for the Muslims in India. However, Nehru and others in the Congress understood his game and forced his demand on him by refusing to accommodate him.
Some writers in Pakistan argue that the Congress agreed to the establishment of Pakistan because it was convinced that Pakistan was not a viable option. The state of Pakistan would be in ruins soon and its leaders would return to India. This led the Congress to let the Muslim League experience the "cost" of its insistence for the establishment of Pakistan. This line of argument was strengthened by the resolution of the All India Congress Committee, dated June 15, 1947, that accepted the June 3 Plan for the partition of India. It said, among other things, "The Congress has consistently upheld that the unity of India must be maintained.... The picture of India we have learnt to cherish will remain in our minds and hearts. The AICC earnestly trusts that when present passions have subsided, India's problems will be viewed in their proper perspective and the false doctrine of two nations in India will be discredited and discarded by all."
The Muslim League leadership was conscious of the fact that a large number of Muslims would continue to live in India. It believed that an independent and stable Pakistan would secure the future of the Muslims left in India. The Lahore Resolution of March 1940 and several subsequent resolutions of the Muslim League assured religious and cultural rights to non-Muslims in Pakistan and it hoped that independent India would guarantee the rights of its Muslim citizens. For non-Muslims in Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah advocated the notion of equal citizenship for all irrespective of religion, caste and ethnicity.
Of late, Islamic political parties and some militant Islamic groups in Pakistan project them as the champion of Ideological moorings of Pakistan and they periodically invoke Jinnah in support of their interpretation of Ideology of Pakistan. They often pick up Islamic terms and idiom from Jinnah's statement and give them the meanings of their choosing. This tradition of distortion of Jinnah to serve partisan political agenda goes back to the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) when he used the state apparatus and its reward system to create an order on fundamentalist lines. The references to Islam and the use of Islamic terms by Jinnah were given meanings to serve the military government's ideological agenda. Now, Islamic parties and some militant Islamic groups celebrate Pakistan's Independence Day and other national days with much fervour to emphasise their preferred notion of Islamic state, which in reality contradicts Jinnah's view of a tolerant and democratic political order that seeks ethical basis of the polity from Islamic ideals and teachings.
Pakistan was imagined in North India, especially in the United Province (UP) as a "sovereign Islamic State, a New Medina, as it was called by some of its proponents. In this regard, it was not just envisaged as a refuge for the Indian Muslims, but as an Islamic utopia that would be the harbinger for renewal and rise of Islam in the modern world.
There are several explanations that fall between these two extreme views. The most commonly shared view in Pakistan is what is described as the Two-Nations Theory, ie, the Muslims and the Hindus living in British India were two distinct nations. Though they lived in one land for a long period of time, Islam and the Muslims maintained their distinct historical, cultural and civilizational identity. The Muslims being a nation deserved an independent and sovereign country.