| T |
he creation of Pakistan, the Two-Nation Theory proposes, shows that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations incapable of coexisting. This claim prompts several important inquiries:
(1) What was the significant role of the Muslim-majority provinces in the establishment of Pakistan?
(2) What motivated Jogendranath Mandal, a Dalit leader from Bengal, to advocate for the establishment of Pakistan?
(3) What were the reasons for Abul A’la Maududi and other prominent Islamic religio-political parties to oppose the Pakistan Movement?
(4) What factors contributed to the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan within 24 years?
(5) What factors contributed to the nine-year duration required to establish Pakistan’s first constitution, given that the implementation of Islamic laws could have been initiated sooner?
(6) What were the reasons behind Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s appointment of Jogendranath Mandal as the inaugural chairman of the Constituent Assembly and subsequently as the first minister for law and labour?
Let us try to address these important questions.
The contribution of Muslim-majority provinces, especially the Punjab, to the establishment of Pakistan has been extensively studied in academic literature. Historians examining Pakistani nationalism contend that the Punjab’s strategic significance during the Pakistan movement played a crucial role in the All-India Muslim League’s success in the 1945-46 general elections. The electoral outcome is believed to have impacted the British government’s endorsement of Pakistan’s formation, first via the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 and subsequently through the June 3 Plan in 1947. During the 1946 elections in the Punjab, the AIML won 73 of the 175 seats. All 73 were Muslim seats. The seats were secured primarily by notables, including landlords, who, it has been suggested, associated themselves with the AIML in response to apprehensions regarding potential land reforms suggested by the Indian National Congress. This partnership may be a landlord-protection strategy rather than a religious nationalism project.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province, stood out as India’s sole Muslim-majority province without a Muslim League cabinet. Its government strongly resisted the formation of Pakistan.
Second, Bengali Hindus, notably Dalits under Jogendranath Mandal, joined the Pakistan Movement in the expectation of a new political framework addressing systematic inequalities. The caste system curtailed individual freedom; Islamic equality offered an alternative. Their participation in the movement illustrates Marx’s class struggle, in which the downtrodden seek emancipation through structural and social change rather than religion or nationalism. The participation of the Hindus in the Pakistan Movement suggests that social status challenges drove demand for a new state more than religious identification. Religion helped it gain support in some areas but the movement’s core social struggle must not be overlooked. Many participants linked Pakistan to religious identity and resistance to colonial and feudal oppression simultaneously.
Bengali Hindus, notably Dalits under Jogendranath Mandal, joined the Pakistan Movement in the expectation of a new political framework addressing their systematic inequalities. The caste system curtailed individual freedom; Islamic equality offered an alternative.
Third, the Jamaat-i-Islami was against the partition of India because they saw it as going against the concept of ummah, the worldwide community of Muslims. Their leader, Abul A’la Maududi, said that dividing the subcontinent with arbitrary physical borders could weaken the ties between Muslims. For Jamaat-i-Islami, the partition was both a change in government and a split in a group’s religious and cultural identity. The latter called the idea of ummah’s union into question.
Fourth, many scholars argue that the establishment of Bangladesh, or the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan in 1971, is a result of multiple factors. The authors identify long-term factors, including the mistreatment of the Bengali language and issues concerning provincial autonomy, as well as short-term factors such as the results of general elections in 1970. Immediate causes, such as the Search Light Operation and the involvement of foreign powers like India and the USSR, are acknowledged as significant factors. This prompts inquiries into the separation of Bangladesh occurring within 24 years, notwithstanding the establishment of Pakistan based on the Two-Nation Theory. The multi-causal interpretation of the events of 1971 raises questions regarding the classification of the 1947 partition as mono-causal. A comparative analysis of the two partitions using a consistent theoretical and methodological framework can yield a more thorough understanding of these historical events.
Fifth, the establishment of Pakistan was fundamentally rooted in the Two-Nation Theory, which inherently prompted inquiries regarding the application of Islamic laws from the very beginning. The constitution’s nine-year delay sparked debates on several vital issues, including: (1) whether the state should be theocratic or secular; (2) whether parliamentary or presidential democracy should be the preferred form of government; (3) whether a federal or unitary system should be used; (4) how power should be divided between a strong federation and autonomous provinces; and (5) whether the legislature should be bicameral or unicameral.
Sixth, the appointment of a Hindu as the inaugural chairman of the Constituent Assembly and later as the minister for law and labour by the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, prompts critical examination, particularly considering the Two-Nation Theory that underpinned the establishment of the nation. The appointment of a Hindu to significant roles in a newly formed Muslim state prompts critical inquiries into the understanding of the Two-Nation Theory.
This analysis of the posed questions and their potential answers indicates that the creation of Pakistan in 1947, like the formation of Bangladesh in 1971, was influenced by a complex array of interconnected factors rather than a singular event driven by a single cause. Examining both partitions of 1947 and 1971 through a single analytical framework is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the intricate dynamics involved. The foundation of Pakistan can also be associated with class struggle, rather than being solely motivated by religious nationalism, especially in the Bengal region. The marginalised and disenfranchised segments of society sought enhancements in their living conditions within the newly formed Islamic socialist state, a vision that contributed to their mobilisation and collective aspirations.
Mazhar Abbas, author of The Aftermath of the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971: Enduring Impact (Routledge, 2024), has a PhD in history from Shanghai University. He is a lecturer at GCU, Faisalabad, and aresearch fellow at PIDE, Islamabad. He can becontacted atmazharabbasgondal87gmail.com. His X-handle is MazharGondal87