We had a better vision

Side-effect

The writer is a poet and author
based in Islamabad.

At a time when it is feared that a sectarian conflict within Muslims may rise due to the renewed tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East over the past few weeks, it is imperative for us in Pakistan to understand our own history and culture better, and pre-empt the tensions between followers of different Muslim sects from turning into a widespread violent conflict within our country.

I say ‘widespread’ because persecution of minority Muslim sects and non-Muslims in Pakistan by some fringe but powerful outfits has already been going on for many decades. But it has not turned into a riot between communities.

Before coming to the founders of Pakistan and how they viewed faith and the matters of the state, allow me make another point which makes South Asian Islam certainly different, if not unique, in its history and practice from other parts of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East. Across the Muslim world including South Asia, no one denies the existence of differences between belief systems and varied interpretations of religious history among followers of not only different sects, but also among different schools of thought within the same sect.

However, it is the Muslim experience of conversion and practice over a millennium mainly in the Indo-Gangetic plain and also in its immediate surroundings and circles of influence – from Kabul to Chittagong and from Srinagar to Cape Comorin – where the major differences between Muslim sects were relatively better understood, accepted, tolerated and reconciled. If I may say, with some caveats, that what the Arabs couldn’t resolve among them when it came to their sharp ideological, theological, tribal and political differences spread over 1400 years, we in South Asia could do to an extent by being more tolerant and inclusive.

The followers of various mystic orders of Islam particularly the Chishti Sufis as well as the rise in the following of the Barelvi school of thought within the Sunni practice during the nineteenth century contributed majorly to creating an inclusive society. The two mainstream Muslim sects of Sunni and Shia Islam besides Ismailis and smaller sects and sub-sects were brought together in spirit by Sufi Islam with all its shades from the Sunni, Shia and Ismaili denominations as well as taking followers of other faiths around them into their folds.

Besides, it was common among followers of the Barelvi school of Sunnis to believe in the first four Caliphs who the Sunnis follow and the twelve Imams who the Ithna Ashari Shias follow at the same time. Also, in the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, one must recognise that the more orthodox schools like Deoband or the Ahle Hadith in South Asia refrained from declaring others non-Muslim even if their discourses included detailed discussions on the shortcomings or weaknesses in other belief systems in their view.

It was the increased influence of Arab countries in the latter half of the twentieth century that not only further widened the gap but also concretised exclusionary positions. Among the Shias of South Asia, few would believe in the Vilayat-e-Faqih and most were Najafis. A major change came about after the revolution in Iran and the rise of the clergy in that country forming a theocracy. `

Undoubtedly, there were issues between the sects and there were major differences between interpretations of eclectic religious clerics of different statures over long periods of our history, ranging from Noorullah Shustri to Shah Waliullah to Ataullah Shah Bukhari, et al. They were seen to be representing conservative positions taken by the followers of the two mainstream sects. But when it came to Muslims at large in twentieth century South Asia – whether we like the idea of Partition on communal lines or not, hold thw All India Muslim League responsible or blame the Indian National Congress for its policies culminating in Partition – the most popular leader of the Muslims was Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Jinnah came from a minority sect and a minority province. His being born into a Shia Imami Ismaili-cum-Khoja Ithna Ashari family of Kathiawari-Sindhi origin never bothered his millions of followers of the day in British India. Of course, the dominant majority of his followers came from completely different ethnic backgrounds and religious sects. On the other hand, while the intent is not to cast any aspersions on his intellectual ability or outstanding leadership, it is interesting to note that the leader of the Indian National Congress happened to be a high-caste Kashmiri Brahmin coming from the largest province of India, Uttar Pradesh.

When Shorish Kashmiri once asked Jinnah about him being Shia or Sunni, the founder of Pakistan responded with such wisdom and clarity that Shorish, a critic of Jinnah at the time, was first bamboozled and then converted. Jinnah said that his sect was the same as that of the Prophet of Islam, so was he a Shia or a Sunni? It is obvious that Jinnah’s vision was crystal clear unlike what people think. He wanted a modern welfare state where universal humanistic values of Islam would be cherished. He was clear on the state not being a theocracy.

I don’t mind reiterating what I and many other people have said before because it is important at times to repeat yourself loudly in order to be heard, in order for others to get that registered what is being said and in order to contribute towards making this society a liveable one.

The name of the party, ‘All India Muslim League’, was proposed by the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslims Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III, who was also made the first president in its founding meeting in Dhaka in 1906 hosted by Nawab Khwaja Salimullah. Later, after the creation of Pakistan, it was Aga Khan III and the Nizam, the ruler of Hyderabad Deccan, who provided resources to the new state for survival through its initial years. As mentioned earlier, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah – the founder of Pakistan – was born in a family that largely, if not entirely, practised the Ismaili faith.

Fast forward to 1940. The Lahore Resolution, which asked for the autonomy of the Muslim majority provinces, was drafted by Sir Zafarullah Khan, who was a prominent figure of what was termed the ‘Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’ of India at that time. The community was later ex-communicated from Islam and declared non-Muslim by the parliament of Pakistan in 1974. Sir Zafarullah also served as the first foreign minister of Pakistan – appointed by Quaid-e-Azam. Moreover, if the founder of Pakistan wanted theocracy (even after he had clarified he didn’t want one but still his one speech about creating a laboratory for Islam in Pakistan is interpreted differently by different people) why did he appoint Joginder Nath Mandal as the first minister for law and justice in Pakistan? The Quaid was surrounded by so many lawyers, jurists and clerics then.

It was a deliberate choice on his part as he was a constitutionalist and a lawyer first and foremost. Mandal also looked after the portfolio of labour and then later became responsible for Kashmir affairs before being disappointed and leaving Pakistan after the adoption of the Objectives Resolution. This happened after the death of Quaid-e-Azam.

In short, Pakistan was created for Muslims of all hues, and to safeguard the economic, social and political interests of the Muslim-majority provinces of British India including minorities living there. It cannot be a theocracy if you go by the vision of its founder. It has to be an inclusive and pluralistic state and society where religion must not determine the business of the state, leave alone a particular sect (or sects) seen to be dominating the state.

Provincial autonomy and realisation of the rights of minorities were the bases for creating the country according to the 1940 Resolution – nothing else. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was neither Ibn Saud nor Ayatollah Khomeini.

Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com