The Government College University, Lahore, on December 3, 2005 sponsored India-Pakistan debate, wherein a number of renowned scholars from the two countries presented their views on an interesting topic 'One Culture: Two Nations'.
Speakers representing Pakistan including Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi and Dr Akmal Hussain and from India came Dr Noneka Datta, Mrs Neeta Kumar and Javed Hasan Laiq.
Dr Nonica Datta was reported to have observed that national ideologies tried to harmonise cultures and histories in such a way that two notions about India dominated Indian history: one exclusive, the other inclusive; one religious and the other secular. Consequently, she added, gradual erosion of many cultures and languages took place in Indian official memory.
Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan in his presentation referred to various historic and geographic facts of the Sub-continent and the views of the people of both the countries about the concept of 'one culture, two nations'.
In his opinion that 1000 years history of this area gave rise to the evolution of different civilisations and languages. In his opinion partition of South Asia in August 1947 was right but the killing that followed it was nothing but madness.
Culture, as is widely believed, is reducible to a couple of basic and clearly identifiable dimensions. One is the manifestation of intellectual, aesthetic and moral spirit of a society as reflected in the religious faith of its people; and its literature, art, architecture, philosophy, law and general scholarship. The other is the entire way of life of people.
Culture, therefore, reflects and gives a voice to the sentiments and feelings of the people, which combine through the interplay of religious, political, social and economic environment and technology.
Vast and almost completely possessing the individual, culture should be viewed from the ways in which it serves to contain the animal, which is man, and brings about the complexities that we call civilisation. It is a way of life of a group of the humans, including a tribe or a nation, representing both their material as well as ideological components.
In view of the above, and also keeping in mind the opinion expressed by the Father of our Nation about cultural aspirations of the Muslims of India (in contradistinction to the Hindu ways of life), the protagonists of 'One Culture: Two Nations' should seek guidance from the historic pronouncements made by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah on different occasions during different periods of our freedom struggle.
In his presidential address at the Lahore Session of the All India Muslim League on March 23, 1940, at which the Lahore Resolution was passed, the Quaid took a categorical stand vis-a-vis culture of the Indian Muslims. He said: "Musalmaans are a nation according to any definition of nation and they must have their homeland, their territory and their State. We wish to live in harmony and peace with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people".
Later in 1944, while expressing his views on different aspects of the demand of the Muslims for a free country in correspondence with M.K. Gandhi, our Quaid forcefully asserted the claim of the Muslims to nationhood, which included their distinctive culture.
In one of his letters, he asserted: "We are a nation of a hundred million and what is more, a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilisation, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclatures, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life".
The topic of the debate, in my judgement, was improper and misleading, which should have been avoided by the sponsors.