Rule of Law vs. Anti-Colonial Pride: A Shared Historical Misconception
South Asians, particularly, and struggling democracies, in general, are victims of their own national freedom narratives. As Nixon noted, leaders of developing countries were trained for resistance rather than reconstruction. It is half truth but it is also a reality that when examining pre-partition literature (1900-1947), it's clear that most leaders in the British India adopted a "middle way" approach, while a small minority were either pro-British or anti-colonial extremists.
Both groups used religion and nationalism, some hide behind religion, development, or philanthropy to justify their stance. Despite British Indian administration introducing election reforms (1909), it accelerated in 1920s in the form of provincial elections. Many of them participated in it even they disliked the process, while anti-colonial groups didn't participate.
Ironically, many prominent leaders, including C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Jinnah, and Iqbal, participated in the election process, while a tiny element, like the Mahatma, Central Khilafat Committee, Mahasbha, JUH and Communist Party of India, restrained to participate directly.
Post-1947, these extreme elements were elevated to "freedom fighter" status in both India and Pakistan, strengthening new nationalisms. This historical fallacy has expanded the space for lawlessness and narrowed room for the rule of law. Bangladesh and Afghanistan followed suit.
Just check the data of last 51 years, started from District board elections of 1895 in the Punjab till 1946 elections, list of candidates is enough to show a huge list of leaders who fought various elections. In 1937 elections even islamists, Hindutva and communists too started participating in the election process. That engagement policy proved successful in the final analysis. But it is still missing in our textbooks due to various yet obvious reasons in South Asia.
However, this vision was lost after 1947. Pakistani textbooks feature the Khilafat movement, while Indian history books highlight 1857, Satyagraha etc.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment