remeber 29 March 1849...a day when britishers annexed the Punjab

Our anti-Punjab mayhem — II —Aamir Riaz

Our anti-Punjab mayhem — II —Aamir Riaz

If you scan the 20th century, Punjabis never voted in favour of fundamentalists. From the PRODA of Liaquat Ali Khan to the EBDO of Ayub Khan, numerous Punjabi leaders became victims of the ruling classes and finally, in 1970 Punjabis voted for Bhutto and they were right

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\03\20\story_20-3-2012_pg3_3

Raza Abidi, in his famous writing Rail Kahani, recorded the story of a British plan to build a huge railway junction between Sukkur and Larkana with the name Ruk in 1879. They had plans to build a railway line via Kandahar to Turkey though Iran. In the 1880s the British fought the Anglo-Afghan wars. They were ready to fight with the Tsar directly if required. Before the 1893 Durand Line divide, the imperial power was interested to capture the old Silk Route running through the Tsarist empire, yet the late 19th century rise of Germany in Europe halted these imperial designs. Under the threat of Germany, the British and the Tsar made the Durand Line agreement. Hot wars ended provisionally at the Pakistan-Afghanistan front and it was the beginning of a cold war, yet even during that the Punjab remained the hub of activity. According to Abidi, the Ruk station was completed in 1896 even though up till that time the British had abandoned the project. Even today, if you visit Ruk, which means ‘stop’ in Punjabi, you will find a plate mentioning Kandahar. The 800-mile line of demarcation, the Durand Line, started from the triangular junction of the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran border while it ended at the Wakhan Corridor, the neck of the old Silk Route. Under the Durand Line agreement, the British carved out the tribal areas and used them as a buffer zone. Like the martial race thesis, they, with the help of intellectuals-administrators like Olaf Caroe, proposed another flawed thesis, which is still in use. They said that the Pashtuns or the tribals remained independent and no one ever annexed them. In reality, the Mughals and Maharaja Ranjeet Singh had ruled them for centuries, yet, many Pashtun nationalists got trapped in the new thesis under the compulsion of nationalism. After the Durand Line agreement, the British divided the Punjab in 1901, carved out six Punjabi districts and included them in the newly created North West Frontier Province. In 1903, a big darbaar (court gathering) was arranged in Delhi. Now the British were ready to move their capital. In 1911, Delhi was carved away from the Punjab and declared the new imperial capital. These were the fallouts of the Durand Line agreement on Punjab.

It must be remembered that Muslims were more than 78 percent in the Lahore darbaar, yet in 1846 the British separated Kashmir, reducing the Muslim population to less than 70 percent. After the carving away of six Punjabi districts, the Muslim population was further reduced to 56 percent. In 1916, the Lucknow Pact proposed a weightage formula, which further reduced Muslim majorities in Bengal and Punjab. Visionaries like Allama Iqbal, C R Das, Hakim Ajmal Khan and Mian Shafi registered their opposition. The All-India Congress was in favour of the rule of the majority at an all-India level, yet in the provinces it supported the weightage formula. From 1919 till 1937, the Punjabis not only fought against the pitfalls of the Lucknow Pact, but also, under Mian Fazle Hussain, got the strength to oppose the Congress. From the 1919 Chelmsford Reforms till the Government of India Act 1935, there was a system of diarchy in British India. The question of residuary powers was a bone of contention among the Centre and the provinces.

Interestingly, it was the All-India Muslim League (AIML) and the 14 points of Jinnah that supported the provinces, while the Congress supported a strong Centre. The Unionists, Ahrar and AIML (Shafi) were not only against the Lucknow Pact, they were in favour of provincial rights. In the 1937 elections, both Punjab and Bengal did not vote for Congress. It was the beginning of the parting of ways, yet the Congress leadership never realised it in time.

If you scan the 20th century, Punjabis never voted in favour of fundamentalists. From the PRODA of Liaquat Ali Khan to the EBDO of Ayub Khan, numerous Punjabi leaders became victims of the ruling classes and finally, in 1970 Punjabis voted for Bhutto and they were right. During Zia’s time, the Punjabis remained loyal to the PPP, chose prison sentences rather than siding with the civil-military establishment. In the 1980s the establishment tried its best to root out PPP from Punjab. They supported Nawaz Sharif, yet in 2006 he signed the Charter of Democracy with PPP, which threatened the establishment. The lawyers movement and the restoration of the judges issue once again divided the PPP and the PML-N, yet both parties remained committed to not call on the army in the power game. The 18th amendment once again strengthens provinces, but nonetheless, the Centre tries its best to confuse this shift. The issue of new provinces is an effort to create a post-18th amendment fallout on Islamabad. As both popular parties are still supporting the 18th amendment, the establishment is trying to stand up as a third force and yet the Punjabis are still either with PPP or the PML-N. In the anti-Punjab mayhem, intellectuals are trying to save the civil-military establishment by putting all the blame on to Punjab. That is just old wine in a new bottle.

(Concluded)

The writer is a Lahore-based editor and researcher. He can be reached at aamirriaz1966@gmail.com
Link of Part 1
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-anti-punjab-clamour-1-aamir-riaz.html?view=classic

Our anti-Punjab clamour — 1 —Aamir Riaz Daily Times March 13, 2012

Our anti-Punjab clamour — 1 —Aamir Riaz
Daily Times March 13, 2012
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\03\13\story_13-3-2012_pg3_3

Putting all the blame on Punjabis is a post-1971 syndrome. From 1947 till 1971, the pro-centralist Pakistani establishment remained busy in managing the Bengali majority, while after 1971 they had a desire to weaken the remaining four provinces, especially the Punjab, so that no one could challenge the centralist forces

These days Punjab is under discussion. The resonance of an anti-Punjab clamour was heard recently even in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, regarding Balochistan. Here I need to write about the Punjab and its liberal-progressive history of the 20th century, which looks problematic.

In colonial times, there were two types of struggles and it was the Punjab that had both examples: the Ghaddar Party and the Unionist Party, both secular. It was the Punjab that produced Iqbal and Faiz, and if our intellectuals re-read the Allahabad address, they will realize that the Allahabad address 1930 and the August 11, 1947 speech are both examples of a liberal, progressive appeal. After partition, it was Mian Iftikhar-ud-din of the Punjab who resigned as Minister for Muhajreen (Refugees) on a principled stand, advising Liaqat Ali Khan to stop playing vested interest games regarding land and property left behind by Hindus and Sikhs. In 1949, it was Ghulam Muhammad of Mochi Gate, Lahore, who was the major hindrance in making the Objectives Resolution a full part of the constitution. It was Suhrawardy and Mamdot who created the first opposition party, the Jinnah Awami League. For the Bengali issue, responsibility was laid on the nexus of the civil-military bureaucracy, which had their own institutional interests. They were/are neither Punjabi nor Pakhtun but strictly wedded to their institutional or personal interests. They used Urdu and Islam to construct a centralist authoritarian state.

Putting all the blame on Punjabis is a post-1971 syndrome. From 1947 till 1971, the pro-centralist Pakistani establishment remained busy in managing the Bengali majority, while after 1971 they had a desire to weaken the remaining four provinces, especially the Punjab, so that no one could challenge the centralist forces. Politicians pre-empted it, and then the makers of the 1973 constitution included a clause that is still vital regarding provincial autonomy. Even General Zia once said that he wanted to divide Pakistan into 100 provinces. For the last 30 years it is in the interests of Punjab to build Kalabagh Dam (KBD). In a meeting, Khan Abdul Wali himself had said that he alone could not have stopped the construction of the KBD. It was General Zia who was not interested. If the theory of ‘supremacy of Punjabis’ is true, then why had they failed to build KBD?

Anyway, let us look at the first half of the 20th century in Punjab first. From the 19th century till today, Punjab remained victim of the Frontier Forward Policy (FFP). In 1808, Metcalf came to Lahore to engage the Punjab government. It was his desire, as written in his report, that Punjab would help them in the British military campaign in Afghanistan and beyond. They needed a safe passage from Lahore to Torkham, yet the then maharaja of Punjab refused three times. To destabilise the Punjab government, the British sponsored a jihad in the leadership of a man from Bareli from 1836-1831. A lashkar was raised in central India, and according to Francis Robinson, the British Governor of Bengal allowed Syed Ahmad Shaheed and company to collect funds from the bazaar. It is a hard fact that jihadists with the help of the imperial power started their journey from Delhi via Rajasthan, and after crossing Sindh and Balochistan, moved toward Peshawar via the Afghan frontier. Just imagine: at that time the British and Afghan government and jihadists all were united against Punjab, but everyone knew that Punjabis did not support orthodox Islam. The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, tries to repeat history vis-à-vis Balochistan.

It was the Royal Bengal Army (RBA) that fought three wars against the Punjab. It is to be remembered that the RBA consisted of soldiers from UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and Bengal. Annexation of the Punjab was a leap forward in the process of FFP. After annexation of the Punjab, the British wanted to build an army from Punjab so that they could capture the historic old trade link, the Silk Route. To fulfil that purpose, they tried to convert the trade and agro-based Punjab economy into a garrison economy. Before annexation of the Punjab, the British had never used the term martial races, yet after annexation their intellectuals extensively used the term martial races for Punjabis who lived between Jhelum and Attock. The British wanted to recruit them. In the early 1850s they not only had a policy to reduce the RBA but also allocated a huge budget for the development of an army from newly annexed Punjab. In 1857 the war of independence was a reaction against the new policy. The reaction of the RBA sepoys has some resemblance with the jihadists nowadays who suddenly turned anti-US when the US stopped funding of the Afghan jihad and signed the Geneva Accords in 1986.

After the successful Ambella campaign of 1862 near Swat, British forces had ample control over the plains as well as mountains of the Punjab. To boost the garrison economy, they built canal colonies, and introduced schemes like cow and horse breeding, which served the garrison economy in multiple ways. It was a demographic as well as an economic shift in the Punjab. Since then, a battle is being fought within Punjab between the garrison economy and others. After annexation of Punjab, the new war front was Afghanistan and beyond. Now they wanted to recruit an army from the Punjabi areas adjacent to the Afghan frontier. To appease the Punjabis, under the instructions of Lawrence, they started massive construction in Lahore, introduced Railways, constructed buildings and formed schools in specific areas. They built a canal system to feed and recruit army. They distributed lands among loyalists who were subservient to the garrison economy. They followed the Maharaja and shifted Northern Command Headquarters to Rawalpindi.

(To be continued)

The writer is a Lahore-based editor and researcher. He can be reached at aamirriaz1966@gmail.com
Part 2 link
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-anti-punjab-mayhem-ii-aamir-riaz.html?view=classic

Aurangzeb....Victim of ideologies

Aurangzeb....Victim of ideologieshttp://issuu.com/loungemagazine/docs/lounge_75_for_web/45

جمہوریت نوں جمہوریت نال مارو!

http://www.wichaar.com/news/119/ARTICLE/27991/2012-01-31.html

Iqbal and legacy of liberal progressive thought..review at the news

A dreamer of exquisite fancies 
Iqbal and the legacy of progressive thought 
By Aamir Riaz

Iqbal

By Attiya Begum

Publisher: Oxford

University Press, 2011

Pages: 150

Price: Rs 495

A few months back, while finalising my report on text book analysis “What are we teaching to our Children”, I had a chance to check a few statements given in the quotes in text books being taught in public schools. In the process, I discovered that the famous Allahabad address of Allama Iqbal was twisted in its Urdu translation just to reinforce anti-Hindu and pro-Islamic sentiments in text books. I checked the original version in a book published by the Iqbal Academy, Lahore “Speeches, Writings, and Statements of Iqbal”, compiled and edited by Latif Ahmed Sherwani and first published in 1944. The address, a 19 page document, is no doubt a piece of scholarship and worth a read even in the 21st century. The whole document is not only a proof of Iqbal’s profound vision, his philosophic outreach, and strategic depth but also reflects his command on time and space, keeping in mind the ground realities of his era.http://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2012-weekly/nos-05-02-2012/lit.htm#2

answer to ayaz ameer article regarding Punjab

As the author have poor command on history of the Punjab so i will not comment on it yet his point of view regarding liberal progressive history of 20th century Punjab looks even more problematic. In colonial times there were two type of struggle and it was Punjab who had both examples. Ghadar party and Unionist party, both were secular, it was the Punjab who produce Iqbal and Faiz and if the author read Allah bad address then he should join both Allahabad address and august 11 speech, both r examples of liberal, progressive appeal. After partition, it was Mian Iftiqar u din of the Punjab who resigned as Minister for Muhajreen on a principled stand. He advised Liaqat Ali Khan to stop playing interest game regarding land and property left by Hindu and Sikhs. In 1949 it was Ghulam Muhammad of Mochi Gate who was major hindrance in making Objective resolution, full part of constitution. It was Shurawrdy and Mamdoot who created first opposition party, jinnah awami league. For Bengali issue responsibility lied on the nexus of civil military bureaucracy, who had their own institutional interests? They were/are neither Punjabi nor pulkhtoon but strictly alien to their institutional or personal interests. They used Urdu and Islam to construct centralist authoritarian state. 
Putting all the blame onto Punjabis is a post 1971 syndrome of establishment. From 1947 till 1971, Pakistani pro centralist establishment remained busy in managing with Bengali majority while after 1971; they have a desire to weak or break remaining 4 provinces, especially the Punjab, so that no one can challenge centralist forces. Politicians preempted it and then makers of 1973 constitution included a clause which is still vital regarding provincial autonomy. Even zia once told that i want to divide Pakistan into 100 provinces. From last 30 years it is in the interest of the Punjab to build Kalla bagh dam yet Post 1971 Pakistani establishment is not ready to see Punjab independent in electricity production. In a meeting Khan abdul wali khan himself told at kisan hall, lhore, how could me and pleejo stopped kala bagh dam construction? It was zia who was not interested. If the theory of 'supremacy of Punjabis' is true then, why they failed to build kala bagh dam? Anyway, let us see first half of 20th century Punjab first.
From 19th century till today Punjab remained victim of Frontier Forward Policy. In 1808, Metcalf came to lhore to engage Punjab government. It was his desire, as written in his report, that Punjab would help them in British military campaign in Afghanistan and beyond. They needed a safe passage from Lhore to Turkham yet mharaja of punjab refused three times. To destabilize Punjab govt it was Britishers who sponsored a jihad in the leadership of a man from braille in 1826-31. A lashkar was build in central India and according to Francis Robinson, the British Governor of Bengal allowed Syed Ahmad Shaheed and co to collect funds from bazaars and with the help of imperial power Jihadis started their journey from Deli via Rajistan and after crossing Sind and Baluchistan moved toward peshawar via afghan frontier. Just imagine at that time Britishers, Afghan Government and Jihadis all were united against the Punjab but everyone knew that Punjabis did not support orthodox Islam. It was Royal Bengal Army who fought three wars against the Punjab. it is to be remembered that RBA was consisted of UP, bihar, Maharashter and Bengal people. Annexation of the Punjab was a leap forward in Frontier Forward Policy (FFP). After annexation of the Punjab, Britishers wanted to build an army from Punjab so that they could capture historic old trade route, the silk route. To fulfill that purpose they tried to convert Trade and agro-based Punjab economy into a garrison economy. Before annexation of the Punjab britishers never used the term marshal races yet after annexation their intellectuals extensively used the term marshal races for punjabis who lived between jehlum and attock. Britishers wanted to recruit them. In early 1850s they not only had a policy to reduce RBA but also allocated huge budget for the devopment in newly annexed Punjab. 1857 so-called war of independence was a reaction aginest new policy. Reaction of RBA sepoys has resemblance with now a days jihadis who suddenly turned anti-america when US stopped funding of afghan jihad. After successful ambella campaign of 1862 near Swat, British forces had ample control over the plains as well as mountains of the Punjab. To boast garrison economy they build canal colonies and introduced schemes like cow feeding and horse breeding who served garrison economy in multiple ways. It was a demographic as well as economic shift in the Punjab. Right from that day a battle is being fought within Punjab between garrison economy and Others. After annexation of Punjab new war front was Afghanistan and beyond. Now they wanted to recruit an army from Punjabi areas adjacent to afghan frontier. To appease Punjabis, under the instruction of Lawrence, they started massive construction in Lhore, introduce Railways, construct buildings and formed schools in specific areas. Under two prone strategies they build canal system to feed and recruit army. They distributed lands among loyalists who were subservient to garrison economy. They followed Maharaja and shifted Northern Command Head Quarter to Rawapindi. Raza abdi recorded a story of a british plan to build a huge railway junction between Sukkar and Larkano with the name Ruk in 1879. They had plans to build a railway line via kandhar to turkey though Iran. In 1880s britishers won anglo-afghan wars. They were ready to fight with Tsar directly if required. Before 1894 Durand Line divide, the Imperial power was interested to capture Old SR yet in late 19th century rise of Germany in Europe halted imperial designs to capture SR. Under the threat of Germany, Britishers and Tsar did Durand Line agreement. Hot wars ended temp rarely at Pak-Afghan front and it was beginning of a Cold war yet the Punjab remained hub of activity even in the cold war. According to abdi, RUK station completed in 1896 yet till that time britishers had abandoned the project. One end of durand line was near turkham while it ended at wahkhan corridor, neck of old trade route. Under durand line agreement, britishers carved tribal area and used it as buffer zone. Ike Marsha race thesis they with help of intellectuals like Olaf Cairo, proposed another flawed thesis. They said that pathans or tribal remained independent and no one ever annexed them. In reality, Mughals and mharaja ranjeet singh ruled them yet many pukhtoon nationalists trapped in new thesis under the compulsion of nationalism. After Durand line agreement britishers divided the punjab in 1901, carved six punjabi districts and made NWFP. In 1903 a big durbar was arranged in DELLI . Now britishers were ready to move their capital. In 1911 deli was carved from punjab and declared new capital. These were fall outs of durand line agreement on punjab. In 1916, Lukhnow pact,purposed weight age formula which reduced muslim majorities in bengal and punjab. People like alma iqbal, c r das, hakim ajmal khan and mian shafi registered their opposition. From 1919 till 1937 punjabis not only fought against luchnow pact but also under mian fazl e hussain strengthen punjabis to oppose congress. in 1937 elections it were both the punjab and bengal who did not vote for congress. 
So if u scan 20th century, punjabis never voted in favor of fundamentalists. in 1970punjabis voted for bhutto and they were right. during zia time punjabis remains loyal to ppp , accepted prisons yet civil military establishment tried their best to root out ppp from punjab. They supported nawaz sharief yet in 2006 nawaz sharief signed CoD with ppp which threatened establishment. Lawyer movement or restoration of judges issue once again divided both ppp and nawas yet both parties remained committed not to call army in power game. Due to this establishment produced imran khan yet punjabis r still either with ppp and nawaz. In his article ayaz tried to save civil military establishment and tries to putt all blame on to punjab which is problematic
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

-----Original Message-----
From: Zubair Murshed <Zubair.Murshed@undp.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:26:17 
To: <newline2100@yahoo.co.uk>; <javedkaemail@yahoo.com>
Cc: <tariq.tariq50@gmail.com>; <salman258@gmail.com>; <wahed@rocketmail.com>; <zafar@lums.edu.pk>; <fbari@osipak.org>; <khurshid_40@yahoo.com>; <syedi@sbcglobal.net>; <aamirriaz@hotmail.com>; <kashifbokhari@live.com>; <jaagpkpk@yahoo.com>; <eric_rahim@yahoo.com>; <purcpluslhr@yahoo.com>; <iqbutt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pakistan's Punjab Problem- Ayaz Amir

 
Pakistan's Punjab problem 
 
 
Ayaz Amir <http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintWriterName.aspx?ID=9&amp;URL=Ayaz%20Amir> Friday, February 03, 2012 
 

Punjab is more than half of Pakistan, in politics, culture and industry. Whether anyone likes it or not, the task of governing Pakistan, of getting Pakistan right, falls heaviest upon the land of the five rivers (now three after the Indus Basin Waters Treaty).Call this the burden of geography or the curse of history.

History, however, left Punjab unprepared for the task of leading Pakistan. Punjab had a long tradition in poetry, literature and culture. But the one tradition it did not have, or did not possess in abundance, was that of rulership. In all of recorded history, from Alexander to the present, who are the Punjabi rulers that we know of?

In Alexander's time Porus whose kingdom straddled the River Jhelum, the battle between him and the Greeks commemorated in legend. Then after a gap of two thousand years just one name: Maharaja Ranjit Singh. A few Punjabi politicians attained prominence under the British: Sir Fazal-e-Hussain, Sikander Hayat of Wah and Khizr Hayat Tiwana. And then, after the horrors of Partition, the sorry lot whose contribution has been second to none in mismanaging the affairs of the new republic.

Our historical memories were those of the Muslim conquest of India. Our heroes were Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghaur, Babar and Akbar. But these were transnational heroes, from beyond the high mountains separating Hindustan from the lands to the west, of little use to us, except as flickering memories, when Pakistan came into being and we were very much on our own, having to manage things ourselves.

In any case, there were no infidels to fight and subjugate. There were no more battles of Panipat to be fought except with our own problems and, in many instances, our own demons.

The choice before the new state of Pakistan was either to step into the modern age or seek comfort in the past. With more visionary leaders Pakistan could have reconciled Muslim nationhood, the basis of Pakistan, with the demands of modernism. But this was not to be.

What constituted the Pakistani leadership? (1) Conservative Punjabi landlords instinctively averse to anything calculated to upset the established order of things; and (2) the Urdu-speaking elite migrating from India which could not afford to forget or downplay the passions behind the demand for Pakistan for that would have meant laying open to question the wisdom of their great pilgrimage. So we remained stuck in the past and this had fatal consequences with which we are still grappling today.

The two-nation theory was great for the quest of achieving Pakistan. Indeed, it was a necessity in that the demand for Pakistan dictated the emphasis on Muslim separateness. But once Pakistan was achieved, and the boundaries of the new state were fixed on the map, history should have moved on. Once Pakistan was achieved the necessity was no longer there to keep raising the banner of Islam. In a Muslim-majority country where the last thing under threat was Islam, it was pointless to keep proclaiming that Pakistan was a fortress of Islam. It just wasn't necessary.

Jinnah was the first to recognise this. Hence his great speech of August 11, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly in which he spelled out a creed of secularism for the new state. In so doing he was not repudiating the tenets of the Pakistan movements but he was certainly modifying some of the messianic zeal which had animated that movement.

Both the Congress as personified by Gandhi and the Muslim League led by Jinnah had stoked the fires of religion in order to advance their political ends. In Nirad Chaudri's Autobiography of an Unknown Indian there is a haunting passage about where, in times to come, the descent of politics into religion would lead. But it is remarkable that once Partition was a done deed and freedom was achieved for India and Pakistan, Gandhi's was the strongest voice raised in India for Hindu-Muslim tolerance and on this side of the divide Jinnah the lone voice raised for secular tolerance.

But Jinnah was ahead of his time. And most of the Muslim League members of the Constituent Assembly could not understand what he was saying. Jinnah would never have countenanced the Objectives Resolution. We can't seem to get out of its mesmerising orbit.

For Punjab Partition brought other consequences too. Punjab had not a single past but two. That of its Muslim conquerors, Mahmud and the Mughals and so on, which was turned into a philosophy and made the basis of Pakistan by the poet Iqbal; and that of its indigenous culture as represented by Waris Shah, Bulley Shah, Guru Nanak and Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Which past was it to accept? The virtues of which past was it to proclaim? Here was a dilemma.

Punjab post-1947 was no longer an Afghan or Turkish colony. It was the most powerful portion of a new republic and running that republic, and doing it well, depended heavily upon the kind of performance Punjab delivered. Jinnah's Aug 11 vision might have implied a tolerant, all-including view of the past. But the requirements of the Pakistan movement, and the horrors of Partition whose memory was still fresh, dictated a heavy emphasis on the theme of Pakistan being a fortress of Islam. This was enshrined later in what we know as the ideology of Pakistan, a source of endless befuddlement and confusion.

For Punjab this meant an erasure of memory. We were the inheritors of Mahmud and Babar, our spiritual axis went all the way from the land of Hejaz to the mountains of Afghanistan and beyond, but it had little to do with the cultural tradition honed over the centuries in the historic doabs (the land between two rivers) of Punjab.

It would not have mattered if this selectivity had no practical consequences. But it did. The choice our part of Punjab made led to a closing of its mind, a shrinking of its mental horizons. Punjab should have been large-minded and been in the forefront of the struggle for a modern Pakistan, its mind liberated from myths and shibboleths. Where Punjab should have led the rest of Pakistan would have followed.

Our creed should have been not the ideology of Pakistan as we know it but the ideology of progress. We should have been a beacon of light not only for our own selves but for the nations to our west. India should have looked upon our progress and enlightenment with envy and admiration. Instead of being a bedfellow of the military and the bureaucracy the Punjabi elite should have sought a partnership with the political elite of East Pakistan.

But these are the might-have-beens of history. Instead of being an engine of progress Punjab became a redoubt of reaction and intolerance. The seeds of East Pakistan secession were planted not in Bengal but Punjab. The true fathers of Bangladeshi independence are the politicians, mandarins and generals of Punjab.

From the Objectives Resolution to the ideology of Pakistan, from there to Ziaul Haq's Islam, and from jihad to the nightmares now haunting us, this is the route we have traversed. One reason for this is the closing of the Punjabi mind and since Punjab was in the driver's seat what it did or failed to do had consequences for the rest of Pakistan. In the field of intellect, or what passes for it with us, Punjab does service for the rest of Pakistan. GHQ's obsessions are Punjabi obsessions.

Are we for the liberation of Pakistan, the sweeping away of the cobwebs which are such a screen over its eyes? Then first of all must be liberated the Punjabi mind. So let us think again and reconstruct the Punjabi pantheon.

In all of history who are the true heroes of Punjab? I hazard a few names: Waris Shah, Bulley Shah, Khawaja Ghulam Farid (for Seraikis are part of Punjab too), Ali Hajveri, Guru Nanak, Iqbal, Munir Niazi (yes, we should include him), Kundan Lal Saigal and (all right) Noor Jahan too. Let us honour their memory. (Bhagat Singh Shaheed was hanged in Camp Jail, Lahore. Will there come a day when Shadman Colony is named after him?)

Let us then hope that from the mental depths Punjab is in today there is a miraculous recovery. That will be the day Pakistan comes into its own.



Email: winlust@yahoo.com