Rule of Law & anti-colonial Pride: A Joint Historical Fallacy

Rule of Law & anti-colonial Pride: A Joint Historical Fallacy

South Asians in particular and struggling democracies in common are victims of their National freedom struggles. In his book, Nixon wrote that leaders of developing countries were trained for resistance rather than reconstruction.  Although as his master’s voice he smartly over looked post 2^nd WW role of big powers yet we still have room to learn from that “half truth”.

When we read biographies, auto biographies, articles, statements of pre-partition times, especially written between 1900 & 1947, we witnessed that there was a small element who was either Pro-British in literal terms or Anti-colonial by tooth and nail yet majority of leaders used “middle ways”.  A pro-British was the one who did not want to criticize Indian British administration while anti-colonial was the one that wanted to expel British with the help of any Other force. Use of religion and nationalism was common in the literature of both groups yet both represented tiny elements of our society.  Both were against democracy & dialogue and both used authoritarian & totalitarian methods extensively. Some hide behind religion ( JUH, Panda Madan Mohan Malvya etc) Some hides behind development or philanthropy ( Arya Samachies or those pro british people who always used examples of Railway, school system in justifying colonial rule) and some hide behind nationalisms (either Indian or Bengali, Punjabi, Islamic or hindu).

 From late 19^th century (1897 District board elections) and manto-morely reforms   of 1909 British Indian administration introduced election reform processes on the basis of restricted franchise and till 1946 elections countless politicians participated in that limited democracy.  Ironically, pro british did not like that process yet anti-colonial did not participated in it. If u read anti-colonial literature, u will find statements against those who participated in election process.  For them unionist party of Punjab, Congress (especially Sawaraj party), Muslim league, Ahrar etc  were either misleading or part of britsh system. It included people like C.R.Das, Jinnah, Iqbal, Motilal Nehru, Mian fazal e Hussain, Mian Shafi, Ch Afzal haq, Mollana Mazhar ali Azhar, etc who participated in eletion process of 1920s. But a tiny element was against election process. It included Central Khilafat Comitee with mahatama Gandhi (provincial khilafat committees like Ch Khaliquz zaman from khilafat comitee lukhnavo, Ch azal haq, mazhar ali azhar from khilafat comitee Punjab participated in election during 1920s), Communist Party of India etc.

Yet after august 1947, Under New Nationalisms of both newly created countries Bharat and Pakistan, such elements were given special status just to strengthen New nationalisms.  In the literature and history books written after August 1947, such element was included as freedom fighters under the banner of Indian Nationalist Struggle or Pakistan movement.  No one realized its impact but remain busy in developing nation building.  It was a Big turn which ultimately expanded the space for lawlessness and narrowed room for Rule of law. Unfortunately Bangladesh and Afghanistan too followed it after 1970s.

Before completing my piece I just need to mention two examples, one from C R Das & other from M A Jinnah (both reproduced from A G Noorani books, Jinnah & Tilak & Case of Bhagat Singh). C R das was defending Tilak who was charged as terrorist in 1909. C R Das did not support Tilak argument/ideology but told authorities that such “terrorist acts” are result of authoritarian and totalitarian policies of British Empire. The same argument was given by Jinnah when he spoke in favor of Bhgat Singh. It means that some of our leaders had vision to address basic issues by not compromising on democratic values and rule of law. Yet After 1947, we missed it. One example of that deviation is presence of Khilafat movement in Pakistani Textbooks and satya grah or lessons regarding Sabhas Chandar Bose in Indian official history books. Iqbal & Jinnah had reservations regarding Khilafat movement, K.m Munchi and many others left congress in 1920 because they had reservations against Satya garah, Swaraj Party under C R das and Motilal Nehru had participated in provincial elections along with lukhnavo and Punjab khilafat committees during 1920s while central khilafat committee &  Mahatama were against it, Azad, Mahatama and Sardar  Pateel were against Subhas Chandar bose within congress and when netaji formed INA, Congress and CPI did not support him. After 14-August 1941, when US presurized UK to start decolonization process, ecision power was in the hands of local elected leaders. From Crips to Mobuntbatten plan, they decided every thing with Colonial masters. But What we are teaching our kids these days?  Under new nationalisms there is no distinction between lawlessness & Rule of Law. For our children, all are heroes either they were against democracy or in favor of democracy.  That situation ripened during Pakistan India cold war.  Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are victim of that historical fallacy and it is in their interest to abolish this so that our future generations can start reconstruction. Now read the piece. Thanx

 http://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2013-07-23&edition=LHR&id=493911_18000140