A critique of three scholars

Some of my readers have asked me to write more on historiography in Pakistan other than the writers such as Ali Abbas Jalalpuri, Dr Mubarak Ali, and Sibte Hasan. In some of my previous columns I have mentioned a couple of books that I am not going to repeat here.

In addition to books, there have been sporadic articles on historiography in journals and magazines published by history departments and Pakistan Study Centres of various universities in the country. The ‘Pakistan Journal of History and Culture’ of QAU Islamabad, occasionally publishes articles on historiography. In 2003, its issue number two of Vol 24 carried an article by Dr Khurram Qadeer of BZU titled ‘Indo-Muslim Historiography – The Delhi Sultanate’. Sometimes articles on historiography are also published by literary and research journals not specializing in history alone.

For example, ‘Tanazur’ is a book series edited by Khalif Fayyaz and published by the Socio-literary Forum in Gujrat, Punjab. Its second issue of 2012 carried an article by Shaikh Abdur Rasheed titled ‘Pakistan mein tareekh naveesi ke rujhanat’ (Trends of historiography in Pakistan). Another example is the journal ‘Zia-e-Tahqeeq’ of the Department of Islamic Studies at GCU Faisalabad. Its issue 13 in volume seven of 2017 has an article by Dr Sofia Farnaz who has reviewed some Persian historiographers of the Subcontinent during the Salateen period from the 12th to 15th centuries.

Responding to my readers observations, let’s have a different flavour by having a look at three diverse scholars and their works: Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi (1903 – 1981), Sheikh Muhammad Ikram (1908 – 1973) and Aziz Ahmed (1914- 1978). The best introduction that you will find about these scholars and writers of repute is by Dr Huma Ghaffar. She has taught at the Aga Khan University and the Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi. Her PhD thesis focused on the three personalities mentioned above. She is one of the very few scholars in Pakistan who have done their doctorate in historiography; though we have many in history.

‘Pakistan mein tareekh naveesi ka tajziyati mutalea’ (An analysis of historiography in Pakistan) is the title of her thesis that has been edited and published as a book in 2016. This is an important and rigorous work of research that has critically analyzed the historiography of I H Qureshi, S M Ikram, and Aziz Ahmed. Being a comparative study of the three most important Pakistani historians of the 20th century, it compares and contrasts distinguishing features of their approaches to writing history. Their angles are different and perspectives divergent, with of course some common characteristics.

Dr Huma Ghaffar has unpicked their political and social leanings by giving extensive treatment to their observations about the trends behind the events and personalities they write about. I H Qureshi’s books and his viewpoint has been dominant in history textbooks in Pakistan from schools to university levels. S M Ikram and Aziz Ahmed were much better in their approaches in comparison with Qureshi, but his overly patriotic, religious, and right-wing narrative prevailed, shaping at least two generations of historians and textbook writers in the country, well into the 21st century.

In the preface to this book, Dr H M Jafri, who himself was a distinguished scholar of early Islam, stresses the point that “when history is written under the influence of religion, it mostly lacks an analytical and critical study. Ibn Khaldun has also drawn attention to this fact” (Page 16). Jafri prefers a cultural approach to historiography over a religious one, and suggests that cultural historiography produces better analytical and critical elements. To Jafri, history is a process of self-awareness and understanding of times gone by. By self-awareness he means an understanding of the chain of eras and events that affect us as a collective consciousness.

Dr Huma Ghaffar’s book begins with a general introduction to the trends of historiography in Pakistan which cover the writing of history from the advent of Muslims through the Mughal and British periods to the creation of Pakistan. Then she moves on to discussing I H Qureshi, who was a professional historian by education and training. He created the history of Pakistan around the so-called Two-Nation Theory. Aziz Ahmed was essentially an author and first established himself as a novelist and short-story writer. More than an historian, he is also well respected as a pillar of modern Urdu literature.

Later on, Aziz Ahmed moved to historiography of medieval India and wrote high-quality research articles and essays. He is one of the few historians of Pakistan who have published in many international journals and books. Whereas S M Ikram was more of a civil servant and held some of the top government offices. He began by writing on Ghalib and then drifted towards cultural and religious history of the subcontinent. His trilogy of Kausar is still one of bestsellers among history buffs in Pakistan. Aziz, Ikram, and Ishtiaq were essentially concerned with the Islamic period and the history prior to the creation of Pakistan.

If you are interested in understanding historiography in India from the 12th to the 20th century, Dr Huma Ghaffar’s book gives one of the most comprehensive literature reviews of around eight hundred years of historiography in the Subcontinent. Especially the section where she discusses the modernist and traditionalist trends of historiography in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is informative and instructive. She sheds light on the historiography of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Chragh Ali, Ameer Ali, Suleman Nadvi, Shibli Naumani, Zakaullah, and Altaf Hussain Hali, all struggling with modernity and tradition at various times of their lives.

But even better is her 65-page chapter on the trends of historiography in the first three decades of Pakistan. She discusses Mahmood Hussain (brother of Dr Zakir Hussain, the founder of Jamia Millia in Delhi, who stayed back in India and became its third president in the 1960s), Khalifa Abdul Hakeem, Ahmed Hasan Dani, Moinul Haq, Riazul Islam, Amir Hasan Siddiqui, S M Jafar, and many others. She narrates how historiography in Pakistan selected various nomenclatures moving from history of India to the history of India and Pakistan and then to Tareekh-e-Pak-o-Hind and finally settling with the history of South Asia, eliminating the word India altogether.

That’s why now our textbooks teach our schoolchildren that Jinnah fought for the rights of Muslim in South Asia and Pakistan was created for them. One wonders how a teacher can explain if a child asks why, since in South Asia Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka are all included, more Muslims of South Asia live outside of Pakistan in other countries of South Asia. In all this, I H Qureshi played a significant role. He lived in Delhi before Partition and had done his PhD at Cambridge University.

His historiography has a clear religious touch. For example, his books ‘The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent’ and ‘Administration of the Mughal Empire’ are an attempt to glorify the Muslim past. Similarly, his book about ulema in politics focuses on a separate Muslim identity and the active role Islamic scholars played in its formation. He projects that Shariah has always played a significant role in the lives of Muslims in India. S M Ikram, on the other side, writes more about the Sufi mystics and their teachings in India and his books, ‘Aab-e-Kausar’, ‘Rood-e-Kausar’, and ‘Mauj-e-Kausar’ form a trilogy.

In short, Dr Huma Ghaffar’s book is a treasure trove of knowledge for giving you an objective analysis of Aziz Ahmed, S M Ikram, and I H Qureshi; all believed in the idea of Pakistan. To this columnist, Aziz Ahmed and S M Ikram are much better and broadminded writers than Qureshi.

The writer holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK and works in Islamabad.

Email: mnazir1964@yahoo.co.uk