Teaching History & Identity Politics in Pakistan

re-edited 27th March. Previously titled, "What's wrong with Mubarak Ali?"
******************************************
Back when I was a secularist, I did admit that Pakistan was created on the basis of religion. It was at the time, an inconvenient and unpleasant truth, but truth all the same. Sadly, most Pakistani secularists are not so honest.

Take for example the oft-repeated fib, that religious groups en masse opposed the creation of Pakistan. Despite the fact that the entire majority Barelvi sect [All-India Sunni Conference], and a large chunk of the Deobandis [Maulana Thanvi RA & the Usmanis] worked for Pakistan.

Similarly, amongst the Ahle Hadith, the Jamat-e-Islami of Maulana Maududi opposed the creation of Pakistan. But even amongst them many supported Pakistan, including such luminaries as Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, the editor of Zamindar newspaper.


"THE MURDER OF HISTORY IN PAKISTAN"
Famous secularists such as Dr Mubarak Ali, make two dramatic statements about the teaching of history in Pakistan:

1. "Our History does not begin in 711 with Muhammad bin Qasim" [i.e. but much earlier with the Indus civilization etc]
and
2. "There has been a Murder of History in Pakistani Textbooks" [i.e. by right wing/Islamist ideology]

There are serious implications in these statements that go beyond academics:

1. that there is is such a thing as an objective history, free from ideology,

2. Pakistan's identity is a regional one [as in the "Indus Saga" of Mr. Aitezaz Ahsan] and thus "our history" should commence with Moenjodaro, etc. and not bin Qasim, or Medina which lies outsides the region. It seems it is a "distortion" of history to place ourselves in a Muslim past!


WHO ARE WE?
At least, it is undemocratic of secularists to thrust their own conception of what it means to be a Pakistani into textbooks, and to drive out other people's perception of Pakistaniat. All in the name of an objectivity which doesn't exist.


Perhaps Secularists see themselves as "Indus people" as is quite the fashion these days. Myself a Sufi, I feel kinship and belonging at all Sufi shrines, whether in Morocco or Multan, but nothing much at Moenjodaro.


The land which became Pakistan was overwhelmingly, Sufi and the founding fathers were predominantly of Aligarh's Progressive Islam, i.e. Sir Syed & Maulana Hali and culminating in Allama Iqbal.

Over the years due to a lack of implementation of a commonly acceptable version of Islam [such as either Allama Iqbal's vision or that outlined in the 22 points of the Objectives Resolution] and the influence of our Westernized elite, a vaccum has been created between people's Islamic aspirations and reality. This vaccum was bound to be filled, and was filled by extremism.


SECULARISTS MURDER HISTORY TOO
A problem with the seemingly sensible objection to textbook shortcomings in Pakistan, is that the phrasing of questions is loaded. The answer is usually contained in the question. How one frames the question, the words used, dictate the parameters of the debate.

By this statement, that our history begins in Moenjodaro, long before Bin Qasim, there is an a priori assumption or rather assignation of a "regional identity."

But who's to say one's ethnic, tribal, caste or religious identity is not more significant? For instance, if I define myself as an alavi or bokhari, who is Dr. Mubarak Ali to tell me that my identity should be based in Moenjodaro and not say, Bokhara?


MUSLIM HISTORY DOESN'T BEGIN WITH BIN QASIM
In any case, Muslim historical consciousness does not view 712 as The Beginning. Rather, our sense of history begins with Adam and Eve, peace be upon them, or even before.


CAN THERE BE A NEUTRAL HISTORY?
Can history ever be truly neutral?
One may list 'facts' but apart from the philosophical problem of what constitutes a fact, there's the issue of which facts we see worthy of recording, how we word them, and the greater problem of fitting these facts into a narrative assigning meaning.

In other words there is no escaping a conceptual framework/narrative, the choice of which must always be subjective.

So is Secular Humanism any more neutral than some Islamist ideology?

Of course not. Both are based on certain assumptions/beliefs of what is true. These assumptions are merely preferences of thought which cannot be "proven" one way or the other: at least not empirically or logically.


CASE STUDIES
For a crude example, lets look at the reading of the Great Moghal, Akber.

To humanists, Akber is an enlightened ruler who tried to bring his subjects' warring religions closer, and showed remarkable tolerance and flexibility, going as far as to invent a syncretic religion, the Din e Ilahi, which he hoped would combine the best of all religions, but alas bigoted religious fundamentalists such as Mujaddid Alif Sani persisted with their obscurantist obstructions to Akber's grand humanist project.

To the orthodoxy, however, the Din e Ilahi, was a thinly disguised cult of Emperor-worship. The King was the manifestation of God on Earth: to this end, Akber mother and his son's mother were both conveniently retitled Maryam [the son of Mary being "God" in Christianity].

Christianity also provided the halo, useful iconography for Akber's court painters. The Sabians provided the concept of star worship, the Nine Jewels the constellation and Akber the Sun [Fatehpur Sikri]. Hinduism provided the concept of "Darshan," Vision- Akber's daily balcony preening ritual. Innocent enough in Islam, but an act of worship for Hindus. The Sufi policy of sulah e kull [peace towards all] was somehow converted to Akber's Tawheed ul Adyan [the unity of all religions].

All in all, a blatantly self-serving cult along the despotic lines of Ancient Egypt, and any pesky cleric who dared challenge this courtly cult, such as Mujaddid Alif Sani, was promptly thrown into prison and tortured. Whilst fawning boot-lickers & salaried eulogizers such as Abul Fazl prospered with wine, concubines [Akber himself had over 200] and wealth.


Is there a "neutral" version?
Subjectivity is impossible to avoid. Dr. Mubarak Ali shows his own secularist bias often, notably in his article about "historical errors" in the Shahbnama. There aren't any historical errors, rather the Sufi Shahab's divergences from Dr. Ali's own secularist sources or interpretations.


HOW DO ORDINARY PAKISTANIS SEE THEMSELVES?
By and large, Pakistani identity is Muslim. We don't come across any Moenjodaro motors, Siddhartha Cafes, or Ahimsa Bus Services. We DO see, countless Hotels Gharib Nawaz, Ghousia Niharis, Medina Pan shops, and Qalandari Chaat Houses.

Pakistanis appear to overwhelmingly define their identity in religious [mostly Sufi] terms first, ethnic or class second, and regional last. While these other identities sow seeds of conflict, the religion binds us.

The disjunct between the Secular elites' view of Pakistan, and that of the common man was illustrated recently.

While English newspapers and websites carried several articles and special supplements on Women's Day, they did practically nothing to commemorate the Birthday of the Prophet, peace be upon him, two days later. The exact reverse could be seen in the Urdu press and on the Streets of Pakistan.


ONCE AGAIN, PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIYA?
To sum up, proposing a regional identity for Pakistan and rewriting textbooks to accommodate this view is misleading, and unrepresentative of how Pakistanis define themselves.

Quite apart from the fact that this region has rarely been one nation in history- the "Indus State" is a historical fantasy- this attacks the very foundation of Pakistan, the Two Nation Theory.

Talk of reforming Pakistani textbooks finds a sympathetic audience abroad. But to replace Muslim ideology with Secular ideology in textbooks under the cover of "objectivity," is a sham.

Thus the "Indus Saga"; sidelining of Hazrat Allama Iqbal in the debate as to the meaning and direction of Pakistan; promoting Quaid e Azam Jinnah as Pakistan's sole ideologue; ignoring the Quaid's last speech [State Bank- on this website]; pruning his speeches for a few carefully chosen excerpts:
all are attempts to propose an alternative identity to Pakistan, and thus defeat it's very raison d'etre, a Muslim state.

However, we have faith.
Pakistan was created by God. There is after all, another world, another series of cause and effect at work, which most cannot see. The role of the Auliya is well-highlighted for those "in the know."

God-willing, some of us will remember the Quaid saying the Qur'an shall be our Constitution, Allama Iqbal's inspiring poetry & that great slogan which rang out at Freedom rallies: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha illAllah

By all means, teach children history of the region, teach them about Moenjodaro and Taxila and the Buddha. There is a lot to learn from them. The region is part of our identity, but not the whole. So let's not forget our Muslim identity.