Sibte Hasan, who passed away 30 years ago at the relatively early age of 70, had a many-splendoured mind and the gift of putting forth his ideas in a coherent manner that was utterly convincing. And he utilised his huge talent throughout his life for the political, social and cultural advancement of his people.

Journalism was the first platform Sibte Hasan chose for the propagation of his ideas that he had begun to derive from Marxist thought at an early age. As the editor of Lail-o-Nahar he set new standards in Urdu journalism based on investigative reporting and scholarly research and all this with a distinct literary flavour. Some of the special issues of Lail-o-Nahar, such as the one devoted to a scrutiny of the fatwa tradition or the 1857 centenary celebration issue attained the level of classics.

Sibte Hasan believed that the state of Pakistan had been hijacked by imperialism’s hangers-on, a decadent feudal aristocracy, religious orthodoxy and ambitious adventurers in uniform. With a view to preparing the people for a decisive campaign for regaining their rights he first took them through a course in history.

Several works of monumental research, such as Moosa say Marx Tak, Mazi kay Mazar and Pakistan Mein Tehzeeb ka Irtiqa were designed to explain to the Pakistani people (and other Urdu-speaking public) the movement of socio-political ideas through history and in different lands. The author also laid the basis of a scientific approach to management of human affairs.

Sibte Hasan’s main concern was the urgency of reversing Pakistan’s drift towards authoritarianism and the tyranny of religious exclusivism. The key to Pakistan’s survival with dignity lay, in his view, in the adoption of a secular polity. To promote this idea he devoted a greater part of his final masterpiece, The Battle of Ideas in Pakistan, to a wide-ranging discussion on secularism. He began by answering what he described as falsifiers of secularism and went on to describe, in considerable detail, the development of secular ideas in ancient societies, and in the eastern world, especially in Turkey and Egypt, before analysing the secular trends in the India-Pakistan subcontinent.

Read also: A tradition of saying ‘No’

The discussion of the religious reform movement in Turkey, which Iqbal also approved of, is important even today as it focuses on the obstacles religious reformers face in a tradition-bound society, especially when their rivals are backed by a state that can use its coercive powers to enforce its whims.

The principal issue in Pakistan, in Sibte Hasan’s opinion, was (and is) the clash between secularism and theocracy and between enlightenment and obscurantism. He started with the argument that the "Founding fathers of Pakistan wanted her to be a democratic, secular state." But Pakistan could not realise its secular ideal without "abolition of imperialist-controlled feudalist social structure, represented by the comprador bourgeoisie, the big landlords, the military junta, and the mullahs." Thus, alone could a firm base for the development of true democracy in the country be laid.

In support of his argument that the founders of Pakistan envisaged the state to be a secular polity, Sibte Hasan relies not only on Jinnah’s declarations but also on Iqbal’s views. In the case of Iqbal, he recalls passages from the poet-philosopher’s 1930 presidential address at the Muslim League’s convention at Allahabad, passages that are often ignored by commentators, particularly the advocates of theocracy. For instance, the following quote:

"Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism."

In Sibte Hasan’s view, Iqbal "pleads for a Muslim state on purely secular grounds, consistent with the principle of cultural autonomy" as evident from the following extract from the 1930 address:

"In view of India’s infinite variety in climates, races, languages, creeds and social systems, the creation of autonomous states, based on the unity of language, race, history, and identity of economic interests, is the only possible way to secure a stable constitutional structure in India." (The absence of religion from the factors of unity may be noted.)

As for the Quaid-i-Azam’s commitment to Pakistan as a secular ideal, Sibte Hasan quotes from his August 11, 1947 address and interviews to foreign correspondents. He also refers to the Quaid’s speech at the Muslim League legislators’ convention of April 1947, which replaced two Muslim states as the league’s objective with one and is perhaps as important as the August 11 address. The Quaid had said:

"What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not for a theocracy, nor for a theocratic state. Religion is there and religion is dear to us. All the worldly goods are nothing to us when we talk of religion but there are other things which are very vital -- our social, our economic life."

A far more decisive proof of the Quaid-i-Azam’s secular credentials offered by Sibte Hasan is the account of the abandonment of theocratic ideals by Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad. Writing in The Partition of India Raja Sahib recalled that during 1941-45 he had come under the influence of some university teachers who stood for greater emphasis on Islam in League politics and became one of the founders of the Islamic Jama’at. He confesses to have become an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that "Pakistan should be an Islamic state."

This brought the Raja "into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform, lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah shared my views." Raja Sahib obeyed Jinnah but was so greatly disillusioned that for two years he stayed away from Jinnah except for seeing him on some formal occasions. Time made Raja Sahib realise "how wrong I had been."

The second important plank of Sibte Hasan’s thought was the political activists’ need for clearly defining their role in a given situation. He had been a prominent member of the Communist Party of India and its Pakistani successor and had suffered for performing tasks assigned to him. However, in his last years he allowed his membership of the party to lapse and avoided discussing Communist Party’s politics with former comrades.

This could mean either some problem with the party hierarchy or a basic disagreement with the party’s role in the country’s peculiar context. The party high command noted that Sibte Hasan had not renewed his membership but the reasons did not appear in public debate.

The matter was resolved by Sibte Hasan himself. In his introduction to The Battle of Ideas in Pakistan, signed a few months before his death, he affirmed his belief that the future of humanity lay in scientific socialism, and he welcomed the growing popularity and prestige of socialist ideas in the country. But he had not "discussed the role that socialist doctrines have played in the development of social consciousness among the working people, the youth and the intelligentsia."

The reason was his conviction that Pakistan, "like most countries of the third world, is still passing through the epoch of National Democratic Revolution." The immediate task was to build a secular, democratic state, break free of imperialist ties and abolish the feudal social structures.

For the reason stated above, Sibte Hasan concentrated in the last phase of his life on the reorganisation of the Progressive Writers’ Movement. He organised a large and successful conference in Karachi and another in London. While preparing for these events he made a special effort to bring on the platform of the Progressive Writers’ Association, along with writers in Urdu, all those who expressed themselves in the various national languages -- Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Balochi and the different dialects.

Partly this was done out of his lifelong devotion to the ideals of the movement. But perhaps a more important motivation was the belief that the future of Pakistan depended on the adoption by the people of progressive ideas on politics, economy, culture and the rights of women, peasants and workers. The writers were the primary source for the growth of such ideas. Without belonging to any particular political platform and despite their differences on political choices they could awaken the people to their rights and their responsibilities.

Thirty years after Sibte Hasan died one cannot say that the struggle for secularism, for an end to the feudal straitjacket, for a social democratic revolution, and for promoting progressive change through literature has ceased. But it is doubtful if the progressive ideals are being pursued with the requisite clarity and zeal or on a scale that could generate hopes of success in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, the environment has become far less conducive for the realisation of secular, democratic and egalitarian ideals than was the case a couple of decades ago. The hold of retrogressive obscurantists, backed by armed militants, on the institutions of the state has become stronger than before -- perhaps the unavoidable price for having neglected Sibte Hasan’s legacy for a long time although his thought is as fresh and relevant and his reasoning as irrefutable as ever.