Koenraad Elst (°Leuven 1959) distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and to dissent. After a few hippie years he studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998. As an independent researcher he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi's legacy. He also published on the interface of religion and politics, correlative cosmologies, the dark side of Buddhism, the reinvention of Hinduism, technical points of Indian and Chinese philosophies, various language policy issues, Maoism, the renewed relevance of Confucius in conservatism, the increasing Asian stamp on integrating world civilization, direct democracy, the defence of threatened freedoms, and the Belgian question. Regarding religion, he combines human sympathy with substantive skepticism. REFERENCE: Koenraad Elst http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/
Brought to me the other day, by a Zoroastrian to whom it was given by a Christian in Switzerland, was a copy of an article entitled 'The Muslim Rule in India', written by a Muslim on the life and works of a Hindu scholar and historian. The common link between the Muslim writer, M H Faruqui, the Hindu historian, Bishambhar Nath Pande, my Zoroastrian friend and our mutual Christian friend is that all are men of goodwill, educated, rational and untouched by bigotry. The article was first published in July 1998 in 'Impact International', based in London, which describes itself as 'a global Muslim newsmagazine', which started life in 1971 and is currently distributed in 85 countries. It is edited by M H Faruqui, a prolific writer on all matters pertaining to Islam, and has a readership of over 100,000. Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, author and editor and a senior member of the Congress party, disciple of Gandhi and friend of Nehru, was at the forefront of every non-cooperation movement against the British and was sent to jail eight times. He was first nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1976 and lastly in 1988. He received an honorary doctorate from Soka University, Tokyo, in 1992, and the Khuda Bakhsh Award for his untiring work towards communal harmony in his country. Congress had in it a streak of Hindutva militancy which only really surfaced at the time of the Babri mosque incident, and it was this latent tendency that made Dr Pande's work all the more important. He authored ten books in English and fifteen in Hindi. He died in 1998 at the age of 92. Pande was an extremely cautious historian, realizing that the history of India was largely compiled by the British for purposes of expediency, and thus were many myths created, as always happens when history is expediently distorted, amongst them exaggerations about the impact of the Muslim conquest and the Muslim rule over India and its Hindus. The Muslims were generally depicted, in history and in school textbooks, as murderous tyrants, intolerant of the Hindus and their mode of worship. The educational policies dictated by various governors-general were aimed at strengthening the communal differences, playing off one community against the other, which the rulers deemed would be greatly to the advantage of the Raj. To use Pande's own words: "History was compiled by European writers whose main objective was to produce histories that would serve their policy of divide and rule." Faruqui quotes from a lecture given by Pande in 1985, the Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture: 'Thus under a definite policy the Indian history books textbooks were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval [i.e. Muslim] period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no common factors [between Hindus and Muslims] in social, political and economic life.' He did not just talk; he acted. During the period Pande was governor of Orissa and thus chancellor of the state's five universities, he completely overturned the state curriculum, revised all the textbooks and set straight the historical record. One of Pande's revelations of the truth and the overturning of an alleged historical incident concerned Tipu Sultan of Mysore, who, according to Indian textbooks, was responsible for the suicide of 3,000 Brahmins who objected to his forcibly trying to convert them to Islam. It transpired that the story emanated from a history of Mysore, written by a Victorian Englishman, and that no such incident had ever taken place. Tipu, whose own prime minister and commander-in-chief were Brahmins, far from indulging in forcible conversions, gave annual grants to 136 Hindu temples. Pande, as relates Faruqui, has dispelled certain allegations against Emperor Aurangzeb who ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1658 to 1707, and who continues to be one of the most maligned of Muslim rulers, famed for his brutality, his bigotry, intolerance, murderous instincts and fanaticism - renowned as a 17th century 'fundo', Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar rolled-into-one of his day. The unravelling of this myth began in Allahabad, when Pande was chairman of the municipality and was dealing with a land dispute. One party had filed as evidence a bunch of 'farmans' in order to prove that Aurangzeb had not only gifted the disputed land for the construction of a Hindu temple but had also provided cash for its maintenance. Pande was sure that they were fake, bearing in mind Aurangzeb's reputation as a hater of Hindus, temples and statues of deities. So he showed the 'farmans' to a lawyer friend, a Brahmin and a scholar of Persian, who declared them to be genuine. Pande believed firmly in the innate goodness of human nature, and remained to the end optimistic that India would eventually find its way out of its periodic bouts of communal violence, and that, with the setting right of the national curricula and a revision of all textbooks relating to subcontinental history, the heritage of communal discord and the distrust and hatred of one community for another would fade away into oblivion. On the subject of the Muslim conquest and subsequent ruthlessness of the conquerors, one can do no better than turn to Hindu and Brahmin Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru - to his book 'The Discovery of India', and to what he had to say on the expansion of Islam and its arrival in India at the end of the 12th century: ".... frequent intercourse [trade and cultural relations] led to Indians getting to know the religion, Islam. Missionaries also came to spread the new faith and they were welcomed. Mosques were built. There was no objection raised either by the state or the people, nor were there any religious conflicts.... "Mahmud's raids are a big event in Indian history,.. Above all, they brought Islam, for the first time, to the accompaniment of ruthless military conquest. So far, for over 300 years, Islam had come peacefully as a religion and taken its place among the many religions of India without trouble or conflict... Yet when he [Mahmud] had established himself as a ruler... Hindus were appointed to high office in the army and the administration.... "It is thus wrong and misleading to think of a Moslem invasion of India or of the Moslem period in India, just as it would be wrong to refer to the coming of the British to India as a Christian invasion, or to call the British period in India a Christian period. Islam did not invade India; it had come to India some centuries earlier.... "As a warrior he [Akbar] conquered large parts of India, but his eyes were set on another and more enduring conquest, the conquest of the minds and hearts of the people... throughout his long reign of nearly fifty years from 1556 onwards he laboured to that end...."
Now, this is not what the Indian children are being taught. Their concept of Islam and its establishment in the subcontinent is as different as is the attitude of Pakistani youth towards the Hindus of India. All the so-called confidence-building missiles hurled from one side of the divide to the other will not bring friendship and tolerance to the two nations unless their children are taught the truth, are not misled by rulers and politicians who, as with the British, practise the 'divide and rule' policy for their own survival and their prolongation in the seats of power. What easier way is there to do this than to distort history, facts, the truth and the minds and hearts of the present and future generations? The federal and provincial ministers of education of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are neither educationists nor is the subject of education dear to their minds or to their hearts. It is doubtful whether any of them have either the will or the ability to completely revise the national curricula when it comes to this country's history, consign the present textbooks on the subject to the WPB (their rightful place) and produce a new set of textbooks that deal with the compulsory subject, 'Pakistan studies', which are not deliberately designed to cripple the minds of our children. REFERENCE: Hindus and Muslims By Ardeshir Cowasjee 02 November 2003 Sunday 06 Ramazan 1424 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20031102.htm
Courtesy: HISTORICAL ANALYSIS Temple desecration in pre-modern India When, where, and why were Hindu temples desecrated in pre-modern history, and how was this connected with the rise of Indo-Muslim states? RICHARD M. EATON Volume 17 - Issue 25, Dec. 9 - 22, 2000 India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU http://www.flonnet.com/fl1725/17250620.htm
Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 2 of 6
Courtesy: HISTORICAL ANALYSIS Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim states Why, after the rise of pre-modern Indo-Muslim states, were some Hindu temples desecrated, some protected, and others constructed anew? RICHARD M. EATON Volume 17 - Issue 26, Dec. 23, 2000 - Jan. 05, 2001 India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU http://www.flonnet.com/fl1726/17260700.htm
Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 3 of 6
History often helps in analysing the present day issues by reflecting on past events. Generally, this approach is adopted in a society where there is dictatorship, censorship and legal restrictions to express discontent in regard to government policies. The method is effective in creating political consciousness by comparing the present with the consequences of bad governance and disillusionment of the past. After the independence of Pakistan, the army and the bureaucracy emerged as powerful state institutions. In the absence of a constitution, the two institutions were unaccountable to any authority. Bureaucracy followed in the footsteps of the colonial model, treating people with arrogance and contempt. A strong centre allowed it to rule over the provinces unchecked. The provinces, including the former East Pakistan, greatly suffered because of this. Sindh chose history to raise its voice against the oppressive attitude of the bureaucracy and a strong centre. Despite the grand, national narratives which justified the creation of a new country, Sindh responded by presenting its problems and grievances by citing historical suffering of its people.
During the reign of Shahjahan, Yusuf Mirak, a historian, wrote the book Tarikh-i-Mazhar-i-Shahjahani. The idea was to bring to Shahjahan’s notice the corruption and repressive attitude of the Mughal officials in Sindh. As they were far from the centre, their crimes were neither reported to the emperor nor were they held accountable for their misdeeds. Mirak minutely described their vices and crimes and how the people were treated inhumanly by them. He hoped that his endeavours might alleviate the suffering of the people when the emperor took action against errant officials. However, Mirak could not present the book to the emperor but his documentation became a part of history. When the Persian text of the book was published by Sindhi Adabi Board, its introduction was written by Husamuddin Rashdi who pointed out the cruelty, brutality, arrogance and contempt of the Mughal officials for the common man. Accountable to none, they had fearlessly carried on with their misdeeds. Today, one can find similarities between those Mughal officials and Pakistani bureaucrats of the present day. In the past Sindh endured the repercussions of maladministration and exploitation in pretty much the same way as the common man today suffers in silence. But one can learn from the past and analyse the present to avoid mistakes.
The history of Sindh shows two types of invaders. The first example is of invaders like the Arabs and the Tarkhans who defeated the local rulers, assumed the status of the ruling classes and treated the local population as inferior. The second type was of invaders like Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali who returned home after looting and plundering. The rulers of Sindh defended the country but sometimes compromised with the invaders. Those who defended it were vanquished and discredited by history, and their role was not recognised. G.M. Syed in his tract Sindh jo Surma made attempt to rehabilitate them. According to him, Raja Dahir who defended Sindh against the Arabs was a hero while Muhammad Bin Qasim was an agent of the Umayyad imperialism who attacked Sindh to expand the empire and to exploit Sindh’s resources. Decades later, in 1947, a large number of immigrants arrived from across the border and settled in Sindh. This was seen by Sindhi nationalists as an attempt to endanger the purity of the Sindhi culture. In 1960, agricultural land was generously allotted to army officers and bureaucrats. Throughout the evolving circumstances in Sindh, the philosophy of Syed’s book is the protection and preservation of the rights of Sindhis with the same spirit with which the heroes of the past sacrificed their lives for the honour of their country. These writings create a political consciousness among the Sindhi population and show how history can be used politically to bring to light the present day problems and analysing one’s historical mistakes by revisiting the past. REFERENCE: Past present: Black mirror by Mubarak Ali | From InpaperMagzine | 5th February, 2012 http://dawn.com/2012/02/05/past-present-black-mirror/
Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 5 of 6
The effort of Hindu extremists to convert the Babri Mosque into a temple is a return to a mediaeval practice. Does New Delhi regard the Indian Muslims as a conquered people? THE effort of the Hindu extremists to convert the Babri mosque into a temple, connived at by the present Indian government, is a return to the practice of the mediaeval times. The pre-monotheist religions did not proselytize neither did they convert others’ temples into their own. Their gods were strictly ‘national’ or racial, who had the same relationship with the gods of the other pantheons as did their races or ‘nations’. Therefore, when one people conquered another, it was assumed that they had done so because their gods were stronger. However, the conquered people were not exterminated. For one, the primitive man lacked the technical aids for doing so effectively. Secondly, the low technology of the means of production meant that the labourer produced a very small surplus. Consequently, the conquered people were useful as source of coerced labour. So they were reduced to slavery or degraded socially in some other manner. The conquerors and the conquered may live differently after the victory of one over the other, but they lived in the same society. Their pantheons were, therefore, united to reflect the new social mix. For example, after the Roman conquest of West Asia, Roman gods were put in the existing pantheon, which already had Persian and Greek gods. Apparently, the original hierarchy among gods, which was based upon the hierarchy among the various nations that owned them, was also changed. Persian gods ceased to be superior with time, while Roman and Greek gods tended to merge. Thus Aphrodite and Venus became interchangeable, one taking not only the other’s powers, but also assuming her sins and misdeeds. The Aryans brought their own pantheon with them to India. It was not much diversified because they were a pastoral people. They annexed the Dravidian deities like Shiv and Kali, originally investing them with based practices. But, ultimately, Shiv joined the supreme triumvirate of the Aryan pantheon, while the Aryans’ own god, Indr, barely kept a foothold in the divine city.
Monotheism was a quantum leap in the evolution of human thought. It involved two extremely difficult acts: one, conceiving nothingness, since all deities had to be abolished before God could be affirmed; and, two, accepting a deity not accessible to the senses. The concept of the unity of mankind then flowed naturally from the concept of unity of the Creator. “This sense of an immanent God helped Jews to see humanity as sacred.” (A History of God, Karen Armstrong, Heinenmann, London, 1993, p93). The Jews had been pagans. It was slavery and extreme oppression, from which their gods had been unable to free them, which finally liberated them from all associated deities and brought them to believe in Yahweh, the one God. Indeed, the man had to struggle long and hard to divest himself of the deities that could be seen or touched. And the tendency to associate other deities with Yahweh stayed long. In 869BC, Ahab, the king of Israel, married a pagan princess, Jezebel. She believed in Baal and succeeded in spreading the cult widely among the Jews. The cult was suppressed later violently and the Jews became intolerant monotheists.
There being no place for other deities in monotheism, the polytheist pantheon was gone. Whether destruction of others’ temples followed at that time, it is hard to say. Early Muslims did not destroy the temples of pagans or of the other monotheistic religions. Idols were removed from the Kaaba, because the struggle of the Prophet (PBUH) against the Meccan pagans was seen as a struggle not against deniers of God, but against associators. The idols had, thus, been expelled not from their pantheon, but from the House of God which they had, so to say, invaded. The conversion of others’ places of worship into one’s own became a custom in the mediaeval times, when Islam and a resurgent Christianity confronted each other systematically from the Sea of Azov to the Straits of Gibralter. The Turks turned the churches of Istanbul into mosques, and the Christians converted the mosques in Spain and Sicily into churches. However, this was done only where the conquerors became a majority among the people. The Turks did not do so in Ukraine or the Balkans, or the Christians in the Muslim lands that they conquered in Asia and Africa. The Christian treatment of the pagan temples in the New World was different. There, a handful of Europeans were trying to maintain its rule over a relatively numerous population. They not only used a lot of violence to do so, but also destroyed the local temples, using their material to build churches on those sites. This proved to the locals, according to them, that not only had their armies been defeated by the European armies, but their gods had been defeated by the Europeans’ god. This would break their will to resist. The Muslim rule in India drew sustenance from Central Asia from time to time. But it was based locally. The Muslims were thus infinitesimal compared to the Hindus. Therefore, as Dr Mubarak Ali says, their conquest of the Hindus was not absolute. Their rule was rather tolerated. A factor which helped them, according to Dr Mubarak Ali, was that the Hindu lower castes preferred the rule of the Muslims to that of Hindu upper castes. The fragility of their rule meant that they could not provoke the Hindus too much. They had to be restrained even in their oppression. True, some bigoted ruler may knock down a temple or more likely prevent the building of a new one. But generally, they did not interfere with the Hindus’ religious practices.
As to Babar, as the Indian historian Harbans Mukhia says, “his fame does not rest on religious fanaticism or idol smashing. He was a man of culture who liked good things of life, like music, flowers, women and, of course, a cup of wine. He had no taste for pulling down temples and putting up mosques instead”. (The quarterly Tareekh, October, 2000, p135). The Babri mosque was constructed under Babar’s orders. But Mukhia, in his article on the subject quoted above, pointed out: “There is absolutely no indication from the inscription on the mosque’s walls or the tablets in it that there was a building previously on the site where the mosque was constructed.” (p131). Neither does Babar mention in his memoir the existence of any mandir at the place, nor have Abdul Fazl or Aurganzeb mentioned it. Not even Tulsi Das, who wrote his Ramayan within fifty years of the construction of the mosque, and, who being a devotee of Ram, would, according to Mukhia, “have denounced the act violently if it had taken place”. (p133). The allegation of the mosque being at a site holy to the Hindus was first made by one Hafeezullah in a court in Faizabad in 1822. He said that the Babri mosque had been built at the site of Ram’s birth place, but did not say that there had been a temple there. Later, a collector of Faizabad, Carnegie, said in the 1860s without giving any source, that a temple had been knocked down to build the mosque. The translator of Babar’s memoirs, Mrs Beveridge, repeated the allegation, again without any supporting evidence. These allegations made after 1857 were part of the British policy of creating differences between Hindus and Muslims.
There is a high extended mound running along the Ghaghra River and adjoining the modern town of Ajodhya. Such mounds on the flat Gangetic Plain indicate the ruins of a fortress or of a town. The mound is generally assumed to be the remnants of the pre-historic Ajodhya. Hindi prose translation of Valmiki’s Ramayan, done by Anand Kumar, (Anand Paperbacks, Delhi, 1964), begins with the phrase, “the prosperous Ajodhya was an ancient city by the name of Kosal by the Sarju River. It was full of men and wealth”. Valmiki was, of course, a poet, who cannot be cited as a historical source, that too for a prehistorical event. But we can assume that the place where the pre-historic Aryan hero, Ram, was said to be from was under this mud mound by the Ghaghra (also called Sarju). Various spots on it had been designated by the believers as holy sites. For instance, “the birth place of Ram”, “Sita’s kitchen” etc. A third place almost by the river, was called Hanuman Garhi. This was where Ram is said to have enthroned Hanuman in recognition of his aid in the Lanka campaign. This spot became the centre of a crisis in 1855, an year before the annexation of Awadh by the British. Hakim Najmul Ghani, drawing on a number of historians of Lucknow, has given its full story in his five-volume History of Awadh. (Nafees Academy, Karachi 1983). He says that Babar had three temples — those at Ram’s birthplace, his court and house — pulled down, and built a mosque at the site of the birthplace. The temple at Sita’s kitchen was, however, left standing beside the mosque (Vol. V, p184). Some Muslim nobles also built mosques at other spots on the mound, but the Hindus destroyed them over a period. (none of these historians quoted by Najmul Ghani quotes any source). Earlier, Safdar Jang, the second Nawab Wazir of Awadh (mid-eighteenth century), had recovered from an illness as a result of the prayers by a Hindu priest, Abhay Ram. In return, the latter had sought permission to build a temple at Hanuman Garhi. Safdar Jang gave permission and some financial aid for the construction. After that, for about a century, Muslims built mosques at the place and the Hindus either destroyed them or made the access of the Muslims to them difficult. Things came to a head in 1855, when some extremist Muslims, led by one Maulvi Amir Ali, started from Lucknow, intending to pull down the Hanuman Mandir and build a mosque there, instead. Wajid Ali Shah sent many religious scholars and others to dissuade them, arguing that there had been a temple there before the mosque. But they kept going. The Awadh government used force as they got to Rudauli, only twenty-five miles from Ajodhya. The extremists, numbering about six hundred, were surrounded by the army and killed to the last man. But even at such a point of high tension, no one raised the question of the Babri mosque. The fact is that this dispute was created de toute piece by the British to serve their imperial interests and has been revived by the Hindu extremists a century later in order to gain Hindu votes. As mentioned earlier, conversion of others’ places of worship into ones’ own was a mediaeval practice. And it was used only against a conquered people. Does the BJP want to revive a mediaeval practice? And does it regard the Indian Muslims as a conquered people? REFERENCE: The eye of the storm By M. Abul Fazl March 31, 2002 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/020331/dmag1.htm
Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 6 of 6
THE emergence and expansion of religious extremism is hotly debated and discussed in Pakistan. The origin of this phenomenon has mostly been traced to the madressahs and, therefore, attempts are being made to reform the educational system of the religious seminaries to check extremist trends. Efforts have been directed towards introducing moderate religious reforms in their system in order to help them produce liberal students or taliban. However, this assumption is not fully correct and to blame the madressahs for producing narrow-minded religious fanatics is not justified. There are other reasons for the promotion of religious orthodoxy and fanaticism in society which should not be ignored. Here I shall analyse those causes which are usually not discussed when looking into this phenomenon. The most potent and important institution which patronises religious orthodoxy is the state of Pakistan. Right from its inception in 1947, the ruling elite hesitated to adopt liberal and secular policies. In the case of constitution-making, it sought the help of ulema and asked two leading religious scholars, Sayyid Suleman Nadvi and Prof Hamidullah, to come to Pakistan and advise the government on making the constitution Islamic in character.
The involvement of the ulema in this process is well known and ultimately resulted in the Objectives Resolution in 1949 which subsequently determined the direction of future constitutions. Defending it, Liaquat Ali Khan the prime minister, explained to the Constituent Assembly that the state should not remain partial in matters of religion. According to him, it was the responsibility of the state to patronise religious teachings. In spite of protests from minority members of parliament, the resolution was adopted. This laid the foundation of religious extremism in the country. On the other hand, from the very beginning the state adopted a hostile attitude towards progressive and liberal groups, parties and individuals. During the entire period of the Cold War, the Pakistani state sided with the western bloc and supported religious elements to counter communism. Consequently, communists and socialists became the victims of state oppression. They were harassed by the secret agencies, put in prison and tortured. They were denied government jobs.
Even private institutions closed their doors on them and they could not hope for any employment. The Communist Party of Pakistan was banned and its workers went underground. Barred from working openly, they either associated with some other parties or worked silently in a limited circle. Progressive writers and intellectuals were criticised and dubbed as agents of foreign countries. Their magazines were banned, their writings were censored and cases were filed against them on charges of obscenity or treason. The result was that religious parties and groups found free space to play a dominant role in society. Liberal and progressive elements were so terrorised and harassed that they lost their voice to challenge religious extremism and propagate their point of view. Since then, the Pakistani state has been playing an active role in the propagation of religious extremism. The three constitutions that were enacted contained provisions which upheld religious tenets in every walk of life.
The educational institutions Islamised their curricula to teach every subject from a religious perspective. Islamisation of the legal system and the setting up of the Sharia court undermined the judicial system. The official media propagated jihad and glorified martyrdom. Thus it was the state that emerged as the main vehicle of spreading religious fanaticism in society by crushing all liberal and progressive points of view. Because of the importance of the institution of the state, the ulema have vehemently opposed its secularisation. They fully realise that in a secular state they would lose their power and influence. The mission of all religious parties is to capture the state either through democratic means by appealing to the people to support them in the name of religion in elections or through an armed struggle. At the same time, their strategy is to pressure the ruling classes to keep away from any process of secularisation of the state. They have insisted on the implementation of the Sharia for making Pakistan an Islamic state.
Thus, we find that religious extremists are fighting on two fronts: political and social. The irony is that nearly all non-religious political parties are proclaiming their adherence to the Islamic system. They also promise to preserve what has been Islamised by past governments including those of Z.A. Bhutto and Ziaul Haq. In this respect, there is no difference between religious and non-religious parties. All of them, just to win the support and sympathy of the people, promise to establish the Islamic welfare state in Pakistan. They pledge to revive the past glory of Islamic history which was actually nothing but that of conquests and the expansion of Arab and Turkish imperialism. Religious extremists are also concerned with the social change that Pakistani society is undergoing. As a result of globalisation and scientific and technological inventions, the social and cultural values of society are changing.
The old cultural and social practices, customs and traditions of the jagirdari and tribal system which have been validated by religion, are now under threat. Dress, music, dance, eating habits and lifestyle are all challenging the old value system. Women want to marry according to their choice. They like to get an education and want to work outside their homes. When religious and old social value systems fail to check these changes, the guardians of conservative mores resort to violence and try to stop new trends. Here, violence is justified by religious scholars to uphold the outdated system of a feudal and tribal society. The key question remains: is there any hope for changing the structure of the state? Perhaps no, because all political parties like to use religion and exploit the sentiments of the people to win elections. Religion and politics will remain an integral part of Pakistan. To defeat old and conservative traditions will take a long time because at present liberal and secular forces are too weak to resist and combat the established set-up. REFERENCE: Roots of religious extremism By Mubarak Ali February 09, 2008 Saturday Safar 01, 1429 http://archives.dawn.com/2008/02/09/op.htm#1
Before you read Prof. Shahida Kazi's excellent reasearch [translation in Urdu is in the end courtesy Mr. Awais Masood] I would like to add the following:
Pakistani recruiters claimed difficulty in securing volunteers in East Pakistan. West Pakistanis held that Bengalis were not "martially inclined"--especially in comparison with Punjabis and Pathans, :REF Library of Congress Country Studies http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy :@field(DOCID+bd0139) - NOW READ: Pakistani author Hasan-Askari Rizvi notes that the limited recruitment of Bengali personnel in the Pakistan Army was because, the West Pakistanis, "could not overcome the hangover of the martial race theory". Ref: Military, State and Society in Pakistan by Hasan-Askari Rizvi. Late. K K Aziz in his magnum opus "Murder of History " had opined that every Reforme Movement or Resistance Movement against Imperialism, and against Feudal Lords were started in Bengal. [Do watch the Conversation with IDRC President David M. Malone, historian Romila Thapar, widely recognized as India's foremost historian challenged the colonial interpretations of India's past, which have created an oversimplified history that has reinforced divisions of race, religion, and caste. Courtesy: IDRCCRDI http://www.youtube.com/user/IDRCCRDI
The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi
History is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in Pakistan. As a result, the subject has been distorted in such a way that many a fabricated tale has become part of our collective consciousness. Does mythology have anything to do with history? Is mythology synonymous with history? Or is history mythology?
Admittedly, the line between the two is a very fine one. From time immemorial, man has always been in search of his roots. He has also been trying to find a real and tangible basis for the legends of ancient days - legends that have become a part of our collective consciousness. As a result, we witness the quest for proving the existence of King Arthur, the search for whereabouts of the city of Troy, and many expeditions organized to locate the exact site of the landing of Noah’s Ark.
During the ’60s and the ’70s, there was a worldwide movement to prove that the ’gods’ of ancient mythologies did actually exist; they came from distant galaxies; and that mankind owed all its progress to such alien superheroes. Several books were written on the subject.
We, in Pakistan, are a breed apart. Lacking a proper mythology like most other races, we have created our own, populated by a whole pantheon of superheroes who have a wide range of heroic exploits to their credit.
But the difference is that these superheroes, instead of being a part of a remote and prehistoric period, belong very much to our own times. A seemingly veritable mythology has been created around these heroes, their persona and their achievements, which is drummed into the heads of our children from the time they start going to school. So deep is this indoctrination that any attempt to uncover the facts or reveal the truth is considered nothing less than blasphemous.
Here are some of the most common myths:
Myth 1
Our history begins from 712AD, when Mohammad bin Qasim arrived in the subcontinent and conquered the port of Debal.
Take any social studies or Pakistan studies book, it starts with Mohammad bin Qasim. What was there before his arrival? Yes, cruel and despotic Hindu kings like Raja Dahir and the oppressed and uncivilized populace anxiously waiting for a ’liberator’ to free them from the clutches of such cruel kings. And when the liberator came, he was welcomed with open arms and the grateful people converted to Islam en mass.
Did it really happen? This version of our history conveniently forgets that the area where our country is situated has had a long and glorious history of 6,000 years. Forget Moenjo Daro. We do not know enough about it. But recorded history tells us that before Mohammad Bin Qasim, this area, roughly encompassing Sindh, Punjab and some parts of the NWFP, was ruled by no less than 12 different dynasties from different parts of the world, including the Persians (during the Achamaenian period), the Greeks comprising the Bactrians, Scthians and Parthians, the Kushanas from China, and the Huns (of Attila fame) who also came from China, besides a number of Hindu dynasties including great rulers like Chandragupta Maurya and Asoka.
During the Gandhara period, this region had the distinction of being home to one of the biggest and most important universities of the world at our very own Taxila. We used to be highly civilized, well-educated, prosperous, creative and economically productive people, and many countries benefited a lot from us, intellectually as well as economically. This is something we better not forget. But do we tell this to our children? No. And so the myth continues from generation to generation.
Myth 2
Mohammad Bin Qasim came to India to help oppressed widows and orphan girls.
Because of our blissful ignorance of history, we don’t know, or don’t bother to know, that this period was the age of expansion of the Islamic empire. The Arabs had conquered a large portion of the world, comprising the entire Middle East, Persia, North Africa and Spain. Therefore, it defies logic that they would not seek to conquer India, the land of legendary treasures.
In fact, the Arabs had sent their first expedition to India during Hazrat Umar Farooq’s tenure. A subsequent expedition had come to Makran during Hazrat Usman’s rule. But they had been unsuccessful in making any in-roads into the region. Later on, following the refusal of the king to give compensation for the ships captured by pirates (which incidentally included eight ships full of treasures from Sri Lanka, and not just women and girls), two expeditions had already been sent to India, but they proved unsuccessful. It was the third expedition brought by Mohammad Bin Qasim which succeeded in capturing Sindh, from Mansura to Multan. However, because of the Arabs’ internal dissension and political infighting, Sindh remained a neglected outpost of the Arab empire, and soon reverted to local kings.
Myth 3
The myth of the idol-breaker.
Mahmood Ghaznavi, the great son of Islam and idol-breaker par excellence, took upon himself to destroy idols all over India and spread Islam in the subcontinent.
Mahmud, who came from neighbouring Ghazni, Central Asia, invaded India no less than 17 times. But except Punjab, he made no attempt to conquer any other part of the country or to try and consolidate his rule over the rest of India. In fact, the only thing that attracted him was the treasures of India, gold and precious stones, of which he took care and carried back home a considerable amount every time he raided the country. Temples in India were a repository of large amounts of treasure at the time, as were the churches in Europe, hence his special interest in temples and idols.
Contrary to popular belief, it was not the kings, the Central Asian sultans who ruled for over 300 years and the Mughals who ruled for another 300 years, who brought Islam to the subcontinent. That work was accomplished by the Sufi Sheikhs who came to India mainly to escape persecution from the fundamentalists back home, and who, through their high-mindedness, love for humanity, compassion, tolerance and simple living won the hearts of the people of all religions.
Myth 4
The myth of the cap-stitcher.
Of all the kings who have ruled the subcontinent, the one singled out for greatest praise in our text books is Aurangzeb, the last of the great Mughals. Baber built the empire; Humayun lost it and got it back; Akbar expanded and consolidated it; Jahangir was known for his sense of justice; Shahjehan for his magnificent buildings. But it is Aurangzeb, known as a pious man, who grabs the most attention. The prevalent myth is that he did not spend money from the treasury for his personal needs, but fulfilled them by stitching caps and copying out the Holy Quran. Is there any real need for discussing this assertion? Anyone who’s least bit familiar with the Mughal lifestyle would know how expensive it was to maintain their dozens of palaces. The Mughals used to have many wives, children, courtiers, concubines and slaves who would be present in each palace, whose needs had to be met. Could such expenses be met by stitching caps? And even if the king was stitching caps, would people buy them and use them as ordinary caps? Would they not pay exorbitant prices for them and keep them as heirlooms? Would a king, whose focus had to be on military threats surrounding him from all sides and on the need to save and consolidate a huge empire, have the time and leisure to sit and stitch caps? Let’s not forget that the person we are referring to as a pious Muslim was the same who became king after he imprisoned his won father in a cell in his palace and killed all his brothers to prevent them from taking over the throne.
Myth 5
It was the Muslims who were responsible for the war of 1857; and it was the Muslims who bore the brunt of persecution in the aftermath of the war, while the Hindus were natural collaborators of the British.
It is true that more Muslim regiments than Hindu rose up against the British in 1857. But the Hindus also played a major role in the battle (the courageous Rani of Jhansi is a prime example); and if Muslim soldiers were inflamed by the rumour that the cartridges were laced with pig fat, in the case of Hindus, the rumour was that it was cow fat. And a large number of Muslims remained loyal to the British to the very end. (The most illustrious of them being Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.)
Furthermore, the Muslims did not lose their empire after 1857. The British had already become masters of most of India before that time, having grasped vast territories from both Hindu and Muslim rulers through guile and subterfuge.
The Mughal emperor at the time was a ruler in name only; his jurisdiction did not extend beyond Delhi. After 1857, the Hindus prospered, because they were clever enough to acquire modern education, learn the English language, and take to trade and commerce. The Muslims were only land owners, wedded to the dreams of the past pomp and glory, and when their lands were taken away, they were left with nothing; their madressah education and proficiency in Persian proved to be of no help. As a matter of fact, it was a hindrance in such changing times.
Myth 6
The Muslims were in the forefront of the struggle against the British and were singled out for unfair treatment by the latter.
Not at all. In fact, the first ’gift’ given to the Muslims by the British was in 1905 in the form of partition of Bengal (later revoked in 1911). The Shimla delegation of 1906 has rightly been called a ’command performance’; the Muslims were assured by the viceroy of separate electorates and weightage as soon as their leaders asked for them. After that, he Muslim League came into being, established by pro-British stalwarts like the Aga Khan, Justice Amir Ali, some other nawabs and feudal lords. And the first objective of the Muslim League manifesto read: "To promote feelings of loyalty to the British government."
The Muslim League never carried out any agitation against the British. The only time the Muslims agitated was during the Khilafat Movement in the early ’20s, led by the Ali brothers and other radical leaders. Not a single Muslim League leader, including the Quaid-i-Azam, ever went to jail. It was the Congress which continued the anti-British non-violent and non-cooperation movement in the ’30s and ’40s, including the famous ’Quit India’ movement, while Muslim League leaders continued to denounce such movements and exhorted their followers not to take part in them.
Myth 7
The Muslim League was the only representative body of the Muslims.
It is an incontrovertible fact that it was only after 1940 that the Muslim League established itself as a popular party among the Muslims. Prior to that, as evident in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League did not succeed in forming the government in any of the Muslim majority provinces. In those elections, out of the total of 482 Muslim seats, the Muslim League won only 103 (less than one-fourth of the total). Other seats went either to Congress Muslims or to nationalist parties such as the Punjab Unionist Party, the Sind Unionist Party and the Krishak Proja Party of Bengal.
Myth 8
Allama Iqbal was the first person to come up with the idea of a separate Muslim state.
This is one of the most deeply embedded myths in our country and the one which has been propagated by all governments. In fact, the idea that Muslim majority provinces of the north-west formed a natural group and should be considered a single bloc had been mooted by the British as far back as 1858 and freely discussed in various newspaper articles and on political platforms. Several variations of the idea had come from important public personalities, including British, Muslims and some Hindus. By the time Allama Iqbal gave his famous speech in 1930, the idea had been put forward at least 64 times. So, Iqbal voiced something which was already there, and was not an original ’dream’. After his speech at Allahbad was reported, Allama Iqbal published a ’retraction’ in a British newspaper that he had not been talking of a separate Muslim sate, but only of a Muslim bloc within the Indian federation.
Myth 9
The Pakistan Resolution envisaged a single Muslim state.
The fact is that none of the proposals regarding the Muslim bloc mooted by different individuals or parties had included East Bengal in it. The emphasis had always been on north-western provinces, which shared common frontiers, while other Muslim majority states, such as Bengal and Hyderabad, were envisaged as separate blocs. So, it was in the Pakistan Resolution. The resolution reads: "The areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states, in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign."
Leaving aside the poor and ambiguous drafting of the entire resolution, the part about states (in plural) is very clear. It was only in 1946, at a convention of the Muslim League legislators in Delhi, that the original resolution was amended, which was adopted at a general Muslim League session and the objective became a single state.
Myth 10
March 23, 1940 is celebrated because the Pakistan Resolution was adopted on that day.The fact of the matter is that the Pakistan Resolution was only introduced on March 23 and was finally adopted on March 24 (the second and final day of the session).
As to why we celebrate March 23 is another story altogether. The day was never celebrated before 1956. It was first celebrated that year as the Republic Day to mark the passage of the first constitution and Pakistan’s emergence as a truly independent republic. It had the same importance for us as January 26 for India. But when Gen Ayub abrogated the constitution and established martial law in 1958, he was faced with a dilemma. He could not let the country celebrate a day commemorating the constitution that he had himself torn apart, nor could he cancel the celebration altogether. A way-out was found by keeping the celebration, but giving it another name: the Pakistan Resolution Day.
Myth 11
It was Ghulam Muhammad who created imbalance of power between the prime minister and head of state, and it was he who sought to establish the supremacy of the governor-general over the prime minister and parliament.
When Pakistan came into being, the British government’s India Act of 1935 was adopted as the working constitution. And it was the Quaid-i-Azam himself who introduced certain amendments to the act to make the governor-general the supreme authority. It was under these powers that the Quaid-i-Azam dismissed the government of Dr Khan Sahib in the NWFP in August 1947 and that of Mr Ayub Khuhro in Sindh in 1948.
Besides being governor-general, the Quaid-i-Azam also continued as president of the Muslim League and president of the Constituent Assembly.
It was these same powers under which Mr Daultana’s government was dismissed in Punjab in 1949 by Khawaja Nazimuddin, who himself was dismissed as prime minister in 1953 by Ghulam Mohammad.
However, in 1954, a move was started by members of the then Constituent Assembly to table an amendment to the act, taking away excessive powers of the governor-general. It was this move which provoked the governor-general, Ghulam Mohammad, to dismiss the Constituent Assembly in 1954, and thereby change the course of Pakistan’s history.
These are some of the myths that have been drummed into our heads from childhood and have become part of our consciousness. There are scores more, pervading our everyday life. And there are many unanswered questions such as:
• What is Pakistan’s ideology and when was the term first coined? (It was never heard of before 1907.)
• Why was Gandhi murdered? (He was supposedly guarding Pakistan’s interest.)
• What is the truth about the so-called traitors, Shaikh Mujeeb, Wali Khan, and G.M. Syed?
• What caused the break-away of East Pakistan?
• Why was Bhutto put to death?
• Are all our politicians corrupt and self-serving?
• Why does our history repeat itself after every 10 years?
The answers to all these questions require a thorough study of history, not mythology. But history unfortunately is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in our country. It’s time things changed. REFERENCE: The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi Posted: Mar 28, 2005 Mon 01:12 am http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/38007/35925 [The Article had appeared in Daily Dawn in 2005] The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi March 27, 2005 http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/050327/dmag1.htm
Romila Thapar: India's past and present — how history informs contemporary narrative
In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.” In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations. Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine,The White Man’s Burden”: Kipling’s Hymn to U.S. Imperialism http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man’s burden
تاریخ کی دیو مالا ز پروفیسر شاہدہ قاضی
تاریخ ایک ایسا شعبہ تعلیم ہے جسے پاکستانیوں نے کبھی سنجیدگی سے نہیں لیا۔ نتیجہ یہ ہے کہ اس شعبے کو اس بری طرح مسخ کردیا گیا ہے کہ بہت سی گھڑی ہوئی کہانیاں ہمارے اجتماعی شعور کا حصہ بن گئی ہیں۔
کیا سچ میں دیومالا کا تاریخ سے کوئی تعلق ہے؟ کیا دیومالا اور تاریخ ایک ہی چیز کے دو نام ہیں؟ یا تاریخ ہی دیومالا ہے؟
بلاشک ان دونوں میں بہت نازک سا فرق ہے۔ زمانہ قبل از تاریخ سے ہی انسان ہمیشہ اپنی جڑوں کی تلاش میں رہا ہے۔ وہ عہد گزشتہ کے افسانوی کرداروں کے بارے میں حقیقی اور ٹھوس معلومات کی تلاش میں بھی رہا ہے، وہ کردار جو ہمارے اجتماعی شعور کا حصہ بن چکے ہیں۔ نتیجتًا ہم دیکھتے ہیں کہ کنگ آرتھر نامی کسی بادشاہ کی تاریخ میں موجودگی ثابت کرنے کی جستجو کی جاتی ہے، افسانوی شہر ٹرائے کی باقیات تلاش کی جاتی ہیں، اور نوح علیہ السلام کی کشتی کے رکنے کا مقام تلاش کرنے کے لیے کئی مہمات وضع کی جاتی ہیں۔
ساٹھ اور ستر کے عشروں میں عالمی سطح پر ایک تحریک چلائی گئی تاکہ دیومالائی داستانوں میں موجود ’خداؤں‘ کی موجودگی ثابت کی جائے؛ کہ وہ دوسری کہکشاؤں سے آئے تھے؛ اور یہ کہ انسانیت کی ساری ترقی ان اجنبی فوق البشر ہیروز کی مرہون منت ہے۔ اس موضوع پر کئی ایک کتابیں لکھی گئیں۔
ہم، یہاں پاکستان میں، الگ ہی مزاج کے حامل ہیں۔ دوسری قومیتوں کی طرح کوئی باقاعدہ دیو مالا نہیں تو کیا ہوا، ہم نے اپنی دیومالائی داستانیں بنا لیں، جن میں ایسے ایسے ہیروز کی یادیں ہیں جن کے ساتھ بے شمار کارنامے منسوب ہیں۔
لیکن فرق یہ ہے کہ ہمارے افسانوی ہیرو قبل از تاریخ اور بہت پرانے دور کے نہیں بلکہ ہمارے آج کے دور سے ہی تعلق رکھتے ہیں۔ ان ہیروز کے گرد بالکل حقیقی لگنے والی دیومالا کھڑی کی گئی ہے، ان کی شخصیت اور کارنامے، جو کہ ہمارے بچوں کے کانوں میں اس وقت سے انڈیلنا شروع کردئیے جاتے ہیں جیسے ہی وہ سکول جانے کے قابل ہوجائیں۔ یہ تلقین اتنی گہری ہوتی ہے کہ حقائق سے پردہ اٹھانے یا سچائی کا چہرہ دکھانے کی ہر کوشش کو ہرزہ سرائی سے کم پر محمول نہیں کیا جاتا۔
ذیل میں ایسی ہی کچھ بہت عام سی دیومالائیں موجود ہیں:
دیو مالا 1
ہماری تاریخ 712 عیسوی سے شروع ہوتی ہے جب محمد بن قاسم برصغیر میں آیا اور اس نے دیبل کی بندرگاہ کو فتح کیا۔
کسی بھی معاشرتی علوم یا معالعہ پاکستان کی کتاب کو اٹھا لیں،وہ محمد بن قاسم سے ہی شروع ہوتی ہے۔ اس کی آمد سے پہلے کیا تھا؟ جی ہاں، راجہ داہر جیسے ظالم و جابر ہندو حکمران اور پسی ہوئی غیر تہذیب یافتہ آبادی جو کسی ’نجات دہندہ‘ کی آمد کی شدت سے منتظر تھی تاکہ وہ انھیں ظالم حکمرانوں کے پنجوں سے نجات دلائے۔ اور جب نجات دہندہ آیا، تو اس کا کھلی باہنوں سے استقبال کیا گیا، اور شکرگزار لوگ جوق در جوق اسلام میں داخل ہوگئے۔
کیا ایسا ہی ہوا تھا؟ تاریخ کا یہ ورژن بڑی آسانی سے نظر انداز کر دیا جاتا ہے کہ وہ علاقہ جہاں ہمارا ملک واقع ہے کی بڑی شاندار 6000 سالہ تاریخ ہے۔ موہن جودڑو کو بھول جائیں۔ ہم ان کے بارے میں بہت زیادہ نہیں جانتے۔ لیکن معلومہ تاریخ ہمیں بتاتی ہے کہ محمد بن قاسم سے پہلے، اس علاقے میں، جو تقریبًا پنجاب، سندھ، سرحد پر مشتمل ہے پر کم سے کم بارہ مختلف بادشاہوں نے حکومت کی جو دینا کے مختلف حصوں سے تعلق رکھتے تھے، جیسے کہ خسرو سے داریوش تک کے ایرانی حکمران، یونانی جن میں بیکتیریائی، سچیانی، پارتھئین، چین سے کشانا، اور (اٹیلا کے خاندان سے تعلق رکھنے والے) ہُن جو چین سے ہی آئے تھے، یہ ان ہندو خاندانوں کے علاوہ تھے جن میں اشوک، چندر گپت اور موریا جیسے عظیم حکمران شامل ہیں۔
گندھارا کے دور میں اس علاقے کو دنیا کی سب سے بڑی اور اہم یونیورسٹی کا وطن ہونے کا اعزاز حاصل رہا، ہمارا شہر جسے ہم آج ٹیکسلا کہتے ہیں۔ ہم اعلٰی تہذیب یافتہ، پڑھے لکھے، آسودہ حال، تخلیقی اور معاشی طور پر زرخیز لوگ رہے ہیں، اور بہت سے ممالک نے ہم سے علمی اور معاشی دونوں طرح سے فیوض حاصل کیے۔ یہ ایسی چیز ہے جو ہمیں بھولنی نہیں چاہیے۔ لیکن کیا ہم اپنے بچوں کو یہ سب بتاتے ہیں؟ نہیں۔ چناچہ یہ دیو مالا نسل در نسل چلتی ہے۔
دیو مالا 2
محمد بن قاسم ہندوستان آیا تاکہ وہ مظلوم بیواؤں اور یتیم لڑکیوں کی مدد کرے۔
تاریخ سے ہماری خوش فہمانہ چشم پوشی کی وجہ سے ہم جانتے ہی نہیں یا جاننے کی کوشش ہی نہیں کرتے کہ وہ دور اسلامی سلطنت کو وسعت دینے کا دور تھا۔ عربوں نے دنیا کا بڑا حصہ فتح کرلیا تھا، جس میں پورا مشرق وسطی، فارس، شمالی افریقہ اور سپین شامل ہیں۔ چناچہ منطقی لحاظ سے یہ نہیں کہا جاسکتا کہ انھوں نے ہندوستان جیسے روائتی خزانوں کے ملک کو فتح کرنے کا نہ سوچا ہو۔
حقیت یہ ہے کہ عربوں نے ہندوستان کی طرف اپنی پہلی مہم حضرت عمرؓ کے دور میں بھیجی تھی۔ اسی کے تسلسل میں ایک مہم حضرت عثمانؓ کے دور میں مکران بھی آئی۔ لیکن وہ اس علاقے میں کوئی حکومت قائم کرنے میں ناکام رہے تھے۔ بعد میں راجہ کی جانب سے سمندری قذاقوں کے ہاتھوں اغوا شدہ بحری جہازوں (جو اتفاقًا عورتوں اور لڑکیوں کے ساتھ ساتھ سری لنکا کے خزانوں سے بھی بھرے ہوئے تھے) کا معاوضہ دینے سے انکار پر دو مہمات پہلے ہی ہندوستان روانہ کی جاچکی تھیں لیکن وہ بھی ناکام رہی تھیں۔ یہ تیسری مہم تھی جو محمد بن قاسم کی قیادت میں سندھ بھجی گئی اور کامیاب ہوئی جس کا مقصد منصورہ سے ملتان تک کے علاقے کو قبضے میں کرنا تھا۔ تاہم عربوں کی اندرونی رنجش اور سیاسی رسہ کشی کی وجہ سے سندھ عرب سلطنت کا نظراندازشدہ کنارہ بنا رہا، اور جلد ہی اس پر مقامی حکمران قابض ہوگئے۔
دیو مالا 3
بت شکن کی دیو مالا۔
محمود غزنوی، بیک وقت اسلام کا عظیم بیٹا اور عظیم بت شکن، نے پورے ہندوستان سے بت شکنی کا بیڑہ اٹھایا اور برصغیر میں اسلام کو پھیلا دیا۔
محمود، جو کہ قریبی ریاست غزنی وسط ایشیا سے آیا تھا، نے انڈیا پر کم از کم 17 بار حملہ کیا۔ لیکن پنجاب کے علاوہ اس نے ملک کے کسی اور حصے کو فتح کرنے یا ہندوستان کے دوسرے حصوں پر اپنا اقتدار مضبوط کرنے کی کوئی کوشش نہ کی۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ اسے صرف ہندوستان کے زر و جواہرات نے للچایا، سونا اور قیمتی پتھر، جن کا اس نے خیال کیا اور ہر بار اپنے حملے کے بعد ان کی اچھی خاصی مقدار اپنے ساتھ واپس لے کر گیا۔ ہندوستان کے مندر اس وقت زر و جواہر اور خزانوں کا مخزن تھے، جیسا کہ یورپ میں کلیسا کا کام تھا، چناچہ مندروں اور بتوں میں اس کی خصوصی توجہ کا مرکز یہی زر و جواہر تھے۔
عام عقیدے کے برعکس، نہ یہاں پرحکومت کرنے والے بادشاہوں، وسط ایشیا کے سلاطین جنہوں نے 300 سال حکومت کی، اور نہ ہی مغل جنہوں نے بعد کے 300 سال حکومت کی، نے یہاں اسلام متعارف کرایا۔ یہ کام ہندوستان آنے والے صوفی بزرگوں نے کیا جو اپنے وطن میں بنیاد پرستوں کی ایذارسانیوں سے تنگ آکر ہندوستان چلے آئے تھے، جن کے اعلٰی اخلاق ، انسانیت کے لیے محبت، دردمندی، رواداری اور سادہ طرز زندگی نے تمام مذاہب کے لوگوں کے دل جیت لیے۔
دیو مالا 4
ٹوپیاں سینے والے کی دیو مالا
برصغیر پر حکومت کرنے والے تمام بادشاہوں میں سے، جس کی تعریف ہماری کتابوں میں سب سے زیادہ کی جاتی ہے وہ اورنگزیب ہے، مغلوں کا آخری عظیم تاجدار۔ بابر نے سلطنت بنائی؛ ہمایوں نے گنوائی اور پھر واپس حاصل کی؛ اکبر نے اسے پھیلایا اور مستحکم کیا؛ جہانگیر اپنے عدل کی وجہ سے جانا جاتا تھا؛ اور شاہجہاں اپنی عظیم تعمیرات کی وجہ سے۔ لیکن اورنگزیب جسے ایک متقی انسان سمجھا جاتا ہے سب سے زیادہ توجہ کا مستحق ٹھہرتا ہے۔ پائی جانے والی دیومالا یہ ہے کہ وہ خزانے میں سے اپنے ذاتی خرچ کے لیے رقم نہیں لیتا تھا، بلکہ وہ اپنی ضروریات ٹوپیاں سی کر اور قرآن کی کتابت کرکے پوری کرتا تھا۔ کیا اس دعوے کو بار بار دوہرانے کی کوئی خاص ضرورت ہے؟ کوئی بھی جو مغلوں کے طرز زندگی سے تھوڑی سی واقفیت رکھتا ہے یہ جانتا ہوگا کہ درجنوں کے حساب سے محلات کو چلانے کا خرچ کتنا تھا۔ مغلوں کی کئی بیویاں، بچے، مصاحب، داشتائیں، اور غلام ہوا کرتے تھے جو کہ ہر محل میں ہوا کرتے ہونگے اور جن کی ضروریات بھی پوری کرنا ہوتی ہونگی۔ کیا ایسے اخراجات ٹوپیاں سینے سے پورے ہوسکتے تھے؟ اور اگر بادشاہ ٹوپیاں سیتا بھی تھا تو کیا لوگ انھیں خریدتے تھے اور عام ٹوپیوں کی طرح پہنتے تھے؟ کیا وہ ان کے لیے بہت زیادہ رقم خرچ نہیں کرتے ہونگے اور بطور مقدس ورثہ نہیں سنبھالتے ہونگے؟ کیا ایک بادشاہ، جس کی نظر اپنے اردگرد موجود جنگی خطروں اور ایک عظیم سلطنت کو محفوظ اور مستحکم رکھنے پر رہتی تھی، کے پاس اتنا وقت ہوگا کہ وہ آرام سے بیٹھ کر ٹوپیاں سی سکے؟ یہ نہ بھولیے کہ وہ شخص جسے ہم متقی مسلمان کہہ رہے ہیں اپنے ہی باپ کو اپنے محل کی ایک کوٹھڑی میں قید کرکے اور اپنے بھائیوں قتل کرکے برسر اقتدار آیا تھا تاکہ وہ اس کے اقتدار کے لیے خطرہ نہ بن سکیں۔
دیو مالا 5
یہ مسلمان تھے جو 1857 کی جنگ کے ذمہ دار ہیں؛ اور یہ مسلمان ہی تھے جنہوں نے جنگ کے بعد ایذارسانیاں اور تکلیفیں برداشت کیں، جبکہ ہندو انگریزوں کے قدرتی اتحادی تھے۔
یہ سچ ہے کہ ہندوؤں کی نسبت زیادہ مسلمان رجمنٹوں نے 1857 میں علم بغاوت بلند کیا۔ لیکن ہندؤں نے بھی لڑائی میں اہم کردار ادا کیا (جھانسی کی رانی اس کی بہترین مثال ہے)؛ نیز اگرمسلمان فوجی اس افواہ پر برافروختہ ہوگئے تھے کہ کارتوسوں کا سرا خنزیر کی چربی سے بنا ہے تو ہندو بھی اس افواہ پر کہ کارتوس کا سرا گائے کی چربی سے بنا ہے پر آپے سے باہر ہوگئے تھے۔ اور مسلمانوں کی بڑی اکثریت انگریزوں کے ساتھ آخر تک وفادار بھی رہی۔ (ان میں سب سے زیادہ مشہور سرسید احمد خان ہیں۔)
مزید یہ کہ مسلمانوں نے 1857 کے بعد اپنی سلطنت نہیں کھوئی تھی۔ انگریز اس سے پہلے ہی ہندوستان کے بہت سے علاقے کے آقا بن بیٹھے تھے، مسلمان اور ہندو حکمرانوں سے حیلے بازی اور فریب کاری سے بہت سا علاقہ ہتھیا چکے تھے۔
اس وقت مغل بادشاہ کی موجودگی برائے نام ہی تھی؛ اس کی عمل داری دہلی سے باہر نہیں تھی۔ 1857 کے بعد ہندوؤں نے تیزی سے ترقی کی، چونکہ وہ جدید تعلیم حاصل کرنے، انگریزی زبان سیکھنے، اور کامرس و تجارت میں آگے بڑھنے میں تیز نکلے۔ مسلمان صرف جاگیر دار تھے، ماضی کی عظمت اور شان و شوکت کے خوابوں سے بندھے ہوئے، اور جب ان کی جاگیریں ضبط کرلی گئیں تو ان کے پاس کچھ بھی نہ رہا؛ ان کی درس نظامی کی تعلیم اور فارسی میں مہارت ان کے کچھ کام نہ آسکی۔ یہ حقیقت ہے کہ یہ سب بدلتے ہوئے زمانے کے ساتھ بدلنے میں رکاوٹ تھا۔
دیو مالا 6
مسلمان انگریزوں کے خلاف جدوجہد میں سب سے آگے تھے اور بعد میں ان سے خصوصًا ناانصافی پر مشتمل سلوک کیا گیا۔
بالکل بھی نہیں۔ بلکہ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ مسلمانوں کو پہلا ’تحفہ‘ انگریزوں نے 1905 میں بنگال کی تقسیم کی شکل میں دیا (جسے 1911 میں واپس لے لیا گیا) 1906 کے شملہ وفد کو صحیح طور پر ’حکمیہ کارکردگی‘ کا حامل کہا جاتا ہے؛ مسلمانوں کو ان کے رہنماؤں کے مطالبے پر وائسرائے نے بلا تاخیر جداگانہ انتخاب اور رائے دہندگی کا یقین دلایا۔ اس کے بعد مسلم لیگ وجود میں آئی، جسے انگریزوں سے قرب رکھنے والے رہنماؤں جیسے آغا خان، جسٹس امیر علی، کچھ دوسرے نوابین اور جاگیر داروں نے قائم کیا۔ اور مسلم لیگ کے منشور کا پہلا مقصد کچھ یوں ہے:”برطانوی حکومت کے بارے میں وفادارانہ خیالات کو فروغ دیا جائے۔”
مسلم لیگ نے برطانیہ عظمی کے خلاف کبھی بھی تحریک نہ چلائی۔ اکلوتا موقع جب مسلمانوں نے تحریک چلائی 20 کے عشرے کی تحریک خلافت تھی جس کی قیادت علی برادران اور دوسرے بچے کھچے رہنماؤں نے کی۔ مسلم لیگ کا ایک بھی رہنما، قائد اعظم سمیت، کبھی بھی جیل نہیں گیا۔ یہ کانگرس تھی جس نے برطانیہ مخالف عدم تشدد اور عدم تعاون پر مشتمل تحریک 30 اور 40 کے عشرے میں جاری رکھی جس میں مشہور زمانہ ’ہندوستان چھوڑ دو‘ تحریک بھی شامل ہے، جبکہ مسلم لیگی رہنماؤں نے ان تحریکوں کی مذمت کرنے اور اپنے پیروؤں کو ان میں حصہ لینے سے روکنا جاری رکھا۔
دیو مالا 7
صرف مسلم لیگ ہی مسلمانوں کی نمائندہ جماعت تھی۔
یہ ناقابل تردید حقیقت ہے کہ1940 کے بعد مسلم لیگ نے مسلمانوں میں مقبول ترین جماعت کے طور پر اپنا تشخص قائم کرلیا۔ لیکن اس سے پہلے، 1937 کے انتخابات سے یہ ثابت ہے کہ مسلم لیگ کسی بھی مسلم اکثریت والے صوبے میں حکومت نہیں بنا سکی تھی۔ ان انتخابات میں، 482 مسلم نشستوں میں سے مسلم لیگ کو صرف 103 ملی تھیں (جو کہ کل میزان کے ایک چوتھائی سے بھی کم ہے۔) دوسری نشستیں یا تو کانگریس کے مسلمانوں کو مل گئیں، یا پھر دوسری قوم پرست جماعتوں جیسے پنجاب یوننیسٹ پارٹی، سندھ یونینسٹ پارٹی اور بنگال کریشک پوجا پارٹی کو چلی گئی تھیں۔
دیو مالا 8
علامہ اقبال پہلے انسان تھے جنہوں نے الگ مسلم ریاست کا خیال پیش کیا۔
یہ ان گہری راسخ شدہ دیومالاؤں میں سے ہے جن کا پروپیگنڈہ ہر حکومت نے کیا۔ حقیقت میں، شمال مغربی علاقے کے مسلم اکثریتی صوبے ایک قدرتی گروپ بناتے ہیں اور انھیں ایک اکائی تصور کیا جانا چاہیے کا خیال 1858 سے برطانویوں کے ہاں زیر بحث تھا اور اسے مختلف سیاسی پلیٹ فارمز اور اخباری مضامین میں بھی اکثر زیر بحث لایا گیا۔ اس تصور کی مختلف صورتیں اہم عوامی شخصیات نے پیش کیں، جن میں برطانوی، ہندو اور مسلمان سب شامل ہیں۔ جب علامہ اقبال نے اپنا 1930 کا مشہور خطبہ پیش کیا، اس وقت تک کم از کم 64 بار یہ تصور پیش کیا جاچکا تھا۔ چناچہ اقبال نے جو کچھ کہا وہ پہلے ہی سے موجود تھا، اور یہ کوئی طبع زاد ’خواب‘ نہ تھا۔ ان کے الہ آباد کے خطبے کی اشاعت کے بعد، علامہ اقبال نے ایک برطانوی اخبار میں ایک ’تردید‘ شائع کروائی کہ ان کا مقصد الگ مسلم ریاست کا مطالبہ نہیں تھا، بلکہ ان کی مراد ہندوستان کے وفاق میں رہتے ہوئے ایک مسلم بلاک سے تھی۔
دیو مالا 9
قراردادِ پاکستان نے ایک متحدہ مسلم ریاست کا تصور پیش کیا۔
حقیقت یہ ہے کہ مسلم بلاک کے بارے میں پیش کردہ مختلف تصورات میں ،جو انفرادی اور اجتماعی طور پر پیش ہوئے، مشرقی بنگال شامل نہیں تھا۔ ہمیشہ شمال مشرقی صوبوں پر زور دیا جاتا رہا، جن کی سرحدیں مشترک تھیں جبکہ دوسری مسلم اکثریتی ریاستوں جیسے بنگال اور حیدرآباد دکن کو الگ بلاک خیال کیا جاتا تھا۔ چناچہ یہ تھی قراردادِ پاکستان۔ جس کے مطابق: “علاقے جہاں مسلمان عددی اکثریت میں ہیں جیسا کہ ہندوستان کے شمال مغربی اور مشرقی علاقے، کو آزاد ریاستوں میں بدل دینا چاہیے، جہاں متعلقہ اکائیاں خودمُختار اور حکومت سازی میں آزاد ہوں۔
پوری قرارداد کے ادنی اور مبہم مسودے کو پرے رکھتے ہوئے، ریاستوں (جو کہ جمع ہے) والا حصہ بالکل واضح ہے۔ یہ صرف 1946 میں، مسلم لیگ کے نمائندوں کے اجلاس منعقدہ دہلی میں ہوا کہ قرارداد میں ترمیم کی گئی اور اسے مسلم لیگ کے ایک عمومی اجلاس میں اپنا لیا گیا اور مقصد ایک متحدہ ریاست کا قیام قرار پایا۔
دیو مالا 10
23 مارچ 1940 اس لیے منایا جاتا ہے کہ قراردادِ پاکستان کو اس دن نصب العین قرار دیا گیا۔ حقیقت حال یہ ہے کہ قراردادِ پاکستان 23 مارچ کو صرف پیش کی گئی تھی جبکہ اس کو منظور اور اپنایا 24 مارچ کو گیا تھا ( جو کہ اس اجلاس کی دوسری اور حتمی نشست تھی)۔
یہ ایک الگ کہانی ہے کہ ہم 23 مارچ کیوں مناتے ہیں۔ یہ دن 1956 سے پہلی کبھی نہیں منایا گیا۔ اس سال یہ پہلی بار یوم جمہوریہ کے طور پر منایا گیا تھا چونکہ ہمارا پہلا آئین منظور ہوا تھا اور پاکستان ایک حقیقی آزاد جمہوریہ بنا تھا۔ ہمارے لیے اس کی اہمیت ایسے ہی ہے جیسے ہندوستان کے لیے 26 جنوری کی۔ لیکن جب جنرل ایوب خان نے 1958 میں آئین منسوخ کرکے مارشل لاء نافذ کیا تو اسے اس دُبدھا کا سامنا کرنا پڑا۔ وہ ملک کو ایک ایسا دن نہیں منانے دے سکتا تھا جو اس آئین کی یادگار تھا جس کی اس نے خود دھجیاں اڑائی تھیں، اور نہ ہی وہ اس جشن کو روک سکتا تھا۔ چناچہ حل یہ نکالا گیا کہ جشن کو جاری رکھا گیا، لیکن اس کا نام بدل دیا گیا: قراردادِ پاکستان کا دن۔
دیو مالا 11
یہ غلام محمد تھا جس نے وزیر اعظم اور ریاست کے سربراہ کے مابین اختیارات کا عدم توازن پیدا کیا، اور وہی گورنر جنرل کی فوقیت کو وزیراعظم اور پارلیمنٹ پر مسلط کرنا چاہتا تھا۔
جب پاکستان وجود میں آیا تو ابتدا میں برطانوی حکومت کا 1935 کا ہندوستانی حکومت کا ایکٹ بطور عبوری آئین اپنایا گیا۔ اور قائداعظم نے بذات خود اس ایکٹ میں ایسی ترامیم متعارف کروائیں جس کی وجہ سے گورنر جنرل بالادست اور مقتدر ہوگیا۔ انھی اختیارات کی رو سے قائد اعظم نے اگست 1947 میں سرحد میں ڈاکٹر خان صاحب کی حکومت اور 1948 میں سندھ میں مسٹر ایوب کھوسو کی حکومت کو برطرف کیا۔
گورنر جنرل رہنے کے ساتھ ساتھ قائد اعظم مسلم لیگ کے صدر اور قانون ساز اسمبلی کے صدر بھی رہے۔
یہی اختیارات تھے جن کے تحت پنجاب میں 1949 میں مسٹر دولتانہ کی حکومت کو خواجہ ناظم الدین نے برطرف کیا، جن کی حکومت کو 1953 میں غلام محمد نے برطرف کیا تھا۔
تاہم 1954 میں اس وقت کی قانون ساز اسمبلی کے اراکین کی طرف سے ایک تحریک چلائی گئی تاکہ ایکٹ میں ترامیم کرکے گورنر جنرل سے اضافی اختیارات واپس لے لیے جائیں۔ اسی تحریک نے گورنر جنرل غلام محمد کو مشتعل کیا اور اس نے قانون ساز اسمبلی 1954 میں توڑ دی، اور پاکستان کی تاریخ کا دھارا بدل ڈالا۔
یہ کچھ دیومالائی داستانیں ہیں جنہیں بچپن سے ہی ہمارے کانوں میں انڈیلا جاتا ہے اور جو ہمارے شعور کا حصہ بن جاتی ہیں۔ ایسے بے شمار اور افسانے ہماری روزمرہ کی زندگی میں سرایت کیے ہوئے ہیں۔ اور یہاں بہت سے سوالات ہیں جن کے جواب موجود نہیں جیسے:
• نظریہ پاکستان کیا ہے اور یہ اصطلاح سب سے پہلے کب ایجاد ہوئی؟ (یہ 1907 سے پہلے کبھی نہیں سنی گئی۔)
گاندھی کا قتل کیوں کیا گیا؟
(چونکہ وہ شاید پاکستان کے مفادات کا تحفظ کررہا تھا۔)
• نام نہاد باغیوں شیخ مجیب، ولی خان، اور جی ایم سید کی حقیقت کیا ہے؟
• سقوط مشرقی پاکستانی کی وجہ کیا تھی؟
• بھٹو کو کیوں موت کے حوالے کیا گیا؟
• کیا تمام سیاستدان کرپٹ اور مفادپرست ہیں؟
•ہماری تاریخ ہر 10 سال بعد اپنے آپ کو کیوں دوہراتی ہے؟
ان تمام سوالات کے جوابات دیو مالا کی بجائے تاریخ کے مکمل مطالعے کے متقاضی ہیں۔ لیکن بدقسمتی سے تاریخ ایک ایسا شعبہ تعلیم ہے جسے ہمارے ملک میں کبھی بھی سنجیدگی سے نہیں لیا گیا۔ یہ وقت ہے کہ چیزوں کو بدلا جائے۔
Courtesy: Mr Awais Masood http://roshnipk.com/blog/?p=130
Dr. Mubarak Ali - PhD (on Mughal Period, India) from Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany. Former head of history department of Sindh University - Pakistan. He was the director of the Goethe Institute in Lahore, until 1996.
‘With the patriarchal family we enter the field of written history.’ — Marx & Engels.
Past present: Patriarchy and women By Mubarak Ali Sunday, 14 Jun, 2009 01:44 AM PST
Simply defined, patriarchy is the rule or control of the father over the women of the family. Maria Mies in Patriarchy and Accumulation on world scale extends the definition of patriarchy by saying that today male dominance goes beyond this rule of the father to include husbands, male bosses, and ruling men in most societal institutions and in politics and economics. She contends that historically patriarchal systems were developed at a particular time, by particular people in particular geographical regions. Their main mechanisms of expansion were robbery, warfare and conquest.
There are two interpretations regarding the emergence of patriarchy: the Marxist and the Feminist. Friedrich Engels points out that the emergence of surplus and development of the idea of male inheritance transformed the relationship between men and women. The system of private property transformed women’s role ‘from an equal partner to a subordinate wife’. Class exploitation and sexual repression emerged together to serve the interests of propertied class. Strongly influenced by evolutionist thinking, Engels separates earlier stages as pre-history from actual human history, which, according to him, begins only with civilisation. This means that it begins with full-fledged class and patriarchal relations.
On the other hand, the feminist interpretation is that patriarchy is the outcome of a historical phenomenon. It contests the Marxist view by saying that the social relations of patriarchy emerged when the mother gave birth to a child and fed him/her which was a truly human, i.e. conscious, social activity.
Patriarchal relations developed with men and women’s relation to nature. Women’s relationship with nature was productive while that of men was destructive. Tools such as spear, bow and arrow, axe and hammer, used by men were purely for killing purposes, whereas women used tools such as a hoe or a digging stick to cultivate land and to gather plants.
Historically, with the emergence of patriarchy the social status of women became subordinate to men. Historical evidence suggests that men dominated women with their coercive weapons. The introduction of private property completely enslaved women; they became responsible for producing heirs to the property and keeping the family line in continuity. Their job was to procreate, nourish and train the male issues for the sake of the family; they were regarded as cattle, as breeders. It is plausible that the establishment of harems, the kidnapping and raping of women, the patriarchal lines of descent and inheritance were part of the new mode of production. The agriculturists used female slaves as they were productive in two ways: as agricultural workers and as producers of more slaves. The feudal and capitalist systems modified the means of violence and replaced them with institutions like the patriarchal family and the state, the manager, and also powerful ideological systems. Above all patriarchal religion, law and medicine have defined women as part of nature to be controlled by men. As the lands that were properties of feudal lords so did the bodies of women not belong to themselves but to their lords. Women were the inexhaustible reservoir of human energy. Under patriarchy the socio-cultural and religious customs were developed to further family interests, to exploit women and to use them politically.
Therefore, practices of hetaerism, prostitution and adultery coexisted within monogamous marriage. Women were accused, despised and regarded as outcasts. At the same time adultery became an unavoidable social institution that was denounced, severely penalised, but was impossible to suppress.
The institution of marriage was fully utilised for the sake of the preservation of the family where girls were forced into undesirable marriages to maintain amiable relations with an enemy’s family. This was possible because of the various sacrifices made by women. However, these sacrifices failed to raise the status of women; they remained subordinated. History is replete with examples of royal princesses being married to the conquerors after defeat in order to maintain diplomatic relations. For example, Babur’s sister, Khanzadah, was married to the Uzbek ruler Shaibani Khan in a deal to allow the besieged Babur to escape from Samarqand. Also, Mary Louis, the Austrian princess married Napoleon against her wish to save the kingdom from his hands. Women were also given away as gifts; conquered tribes often presented their girls to the victors. In the Eskimo tribes there was a custom to allow the guests to sleep with the host’s wife.
Patriarchy moulds itself according to respective cultures and communities. Patriarchy also creates a division between the public and the private, between ‘world’ and ‘home’. It is actually a gender division, the public world being male and the private world being female and it is one which affects women most profoundly. Patriarchy underestimates the capabilities of women. It pays them less for doing the same work. It tells them that girls are different from boys in every way, not only biologically but also temperamentally. It also places a high value on virginity and purity, and imposes chastity in women as the highest virtue. And yet it is patriarchy that tells men that they can beat, abuse and rape women. In fact, it tells women that it is their own fault if they are raped, beaten or abused.
Patriarchy has established a system of control over the world that places more men than women in positions of power and authority. Patriarchy is visible in the structures of the institutions that guide and govern our lives —within the family, at school and universities, in the church, temple and mosque; in marriage and the work place, in the factories and in the fields, in the state and in the institutions of local government; in the armed forces and in the civilian defence squads; in the mass media, in the courts of law (Ibid).
Patriarchy socialises women so that they accept hierarchies and other structures of power and control without ever daring to question them. Patriarchy uses violence and the threat of violence in many overt and covert ways in order to maintain its hold on power (Ibid).
However, it would be encouraging to have an optimistic approach towards the struggle against patriarchy. “Patriarchy enables us to link our present struggles to a past and thus can also give us hope that there will be a future. If patriarchy had a specific beginning in history it also has an end,” writes Maria Mies.
