Appropriating Jinnah's legacy is the favorite past-time for every politician (and ambitious general) in this country. Apparently, the key to becoming a popular leader in Pakistan is to ensure that your lineage can be categorically traced right back to Jinnah and all the principles he stood for. Needless to say, those principles are redefined and reshaped to suit the political context a particular politician/general finds himself in. Very much like the practice of claiming higher moral ground purely on the basis of having an often dubious' Syed' before your name, or pretending that your ancestor actually came on Mohd. bin Qasim's boat , claiming to be Jinnah's shadow on earth is perceived to be a legitimizing notion in our politics. Whether that's true or not remains a debatable issue, but what is assured is that it does appear to be standard practice for a significant portion of society.
So before I decided to attend a talk on 'Pakistan's quest for identity' at a place called 'Kuch Khaas' in Islamabad, it was important for me to mentally brace myself for a kazillion Constituent Assembly speech references - something every Pakistani liberal (selectively) knows by heart. In Dr Zakir Naik-esque fashion, any conversation on secularism and it's prospects in Pakistan will invoke an off-the-cuff line or two from that very speech, often delivered in an earnest yet authoritative fashion. WIth growing entrenchment of the belief that political Islam represents the biggest threat to Pakistani society, the figure of Jinnah now looms a lot larger for our liberal class than it did merely a few years ago. Also, the number of op-eds sermonizing the benefits of Jinnah's secular vision spike everytime a terrorist attack takes place, especially when it's against shrines and other religious institutions.
There's just one problem though. For every Ayesha Jalal wannabe, there's an equally formidable right-winger who can use Jinnah's legacy to legitimize his own goals, ambitions and actions.
This is exactly what constitutes the muddled discourse that Jinnah has left behind for this country. While he might have possessed amazing clarity about his own work, the conflictual nature of his politics and the appropriation of his legacy by the Pakistani state has led to him becoming both a rehmat-ullah-alai and a constitutional secularist. Following a twitter conversation regarding Jinnah's last words between Huma Imtiaz and Kala Kawa, a friend of mine showed me this Dr Israr video i'm posting underneath. Note how Israr Ahmed fashions his comment in the same way a prototypical liberal invokes the 11th August speech.
Jinnah pandered to all sorts of people in his quest to obtain autonomy for the Muslim majority provinces. He is on record to have talked about the Quran and Shariah in Peshawar and he is also on record proposing a secular government for the newly independent state. People like Akbar S Ahmed have tried to resolve Jinnah's personal faith with his politics but to little use. Whichever way you look at it, Jinnah, on a number of occasions, might have been a proponent of liberal/secular values, but it would be silly to ignore that at the same time, he inadvertently provided enough ammo to the right-wing to carve out a space for itself.
My larger point amongst all of this is that in Pakistan's quest for a new identity, Jinnah is rendered largely irrelevant. Regardless of whether someone proposes a separation of mosque and state, or whether someone calls for the institutionalization of shariah law, Jinnah will remain the poster-boy for both demands. National level figures are important in the construction of any project of statehood, but what is essential for the efficacy of invocation is that there should be clarity of message and legacy. That is sadly missing from how Jinnah lives in the public imagination.
As a side-note, it is important to remember that the only figure who can be said to have had a similar impact on public discourse is ZA Bhutto. And as far as i am concerned, Bhutto might be more polarizing in any larger assessment, but to his followers his legacy is very concrete and clear. Same goes for Nehru in India. The moral of the story is that identity and the construction of a nationalist discourse require a certain measure of direction and definition. The excuse that Jinnah died soon after partition is futile simply because the ground-work should have been laid in the movement for an autonomous region/independent country and not in the period following the achievement of said goal. That ground-work was never done and the task of mobilization was left in the hands of local elites, all of whom were in possession of multiple forms of political discourse.
The task of reposing the question of identity in Pakistan is troublesome to say the least. On a given day where i feel slightly more cynical, i believe that salvaging any kind of overarching identity in this country is a futile task, especially given the kind of problems we currently face. What i do know for sure (and what a few others around me agree with) is that collective identity emanates from the collective experience of obtaining or struggling for a common goal. Figures and leaders initially emerge and are then subsequently crystallized during this long drawn out process. I think it's high time we recognize that concept and stop using the myth of Jinnah as a convenient crutch.
11 comments:
Having been much like many liberal Pakistanis, for a long time I too remained fascinated with a top down 11th August speech Jinnahesque secualrism. That ended when I met Dr Mubarak ali and although discussions with him went for a long time, this very very short op-ed that he wrote for Express Tribune summarized his argument that it's time to constreuct a new discourse rather than relying imagining a 63 year old top-down secularism dream (http://tribune.com.pk/story/39079/jinnahs-pakistan/)
If you've been introduced to Israr Ahmed's fictionalized history, then you certainly haven't seen this fiction where a scan from some supposed book (uploaded by Zaid Hamid fanpage) claims that Jinnah returned to India because he was asked by the Prophet in his dream to return - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4719359&id=244922893101#!/photo.php?fbid=271729748101&set=a.271722783101.191055.244922893101
Liberals want to see a dog loving, whisky drinking, pork sandwich eating Jinnah and the other side wants to see this (http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6641/23520304450886554535186.jpg)
YLH will fight you wen you claim Jinnah was ambiguous but the reality is that Jinnah appeased both sides even though he was a liberal at heart. His lack of clarity since he never wrote anything formally on such big issues
(perhaps he never thought it was important or he never thought his demands would be fulfilled?) creates such bitter fist fights. Just today on TV, Raza Rumi was going all 11th August and Paracha came up with Islamia College and substantiated his point with “Islamia college speech 11th august key baad ki hai”. It's a fight over who associates himself with Jinnah. Remember how Jinnah's supposed diary was found in Zia's time although it never was studied.
For anybody arguing the legacy of Jinnah, I refer him to this wonderful, wonderful piece by Dr Mubarak Ali aptly titled “Tha making of a myth” (http://sherryx.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/jinnah-making-of-a-myth/) where he nails the point that Jinnah's greatness seams to increase with time somehow (like Reagan's hehe).
But would you argue that a nationalist discourse can exist without any symbols or individuals? There is no common lasting ideological symbolism that can untie this nation. The notion of Islam as a common ideology we all know can and has been fought bitterly. American and France show how powerful ideological and individual symbolism can be (individual as in American but the ideological one is directly associated with individual in the form of the founding fathers but it is now being challenged with right winegrs twisting it for themselves).
Point being that Jinnah will continue to be hung on the walls of all offices, al, politicans will cite him, people will tell tales of his greatness and it is not possible – at least in the short term – that nationalist discourse can ignore Jinnah.
Umair, there are some very valid points you make about the appropriation of Jinnah as a symbol, but as Shahid points out, which political discourse can do or has done completely without symbols? To talk about moving beyond using Jinnah as symbolism is to ignore the reason for it in the first place: the debate at the heart of why Pakistan was created as a separate entity in the subcontinent. And sure, his image and words are used and twisted by everyone, but tell me one political icon who hasn't met the same fate, including Nehru and ZAB.
But specifically,, your analysis sidesteps two extremely important issues. 1) When you accuse Jinnah of not laying the groundwork for Pakistan's ideological underpinnings before the creation of Pakistan, you are perhaps forgetting the fact that Jinnah, up until the 1946 Cabinent Mission Plan, was willing to settle without a separate country. That it came about without much planning in 1947 had more to do with the Congress' (partic Patel's) intransigence over minority rights guarantees agreed to under the Cabinet Mission Plan and the British (partic Mountbatten's) desire to leave quickly. In that sense, Jinnah's death soon after the creation of Pakistan is rather important. The architects of modern India (Nehru and Patel) lived long enough to put the systems they believed in, in place.
2)You ignore completely the Jamaati concerted revisionism of history, particularly its own, which was never part of the Pakistan narrative to begin with and in fact opposed its creation because it did not think nation-states were mandated in Islam. (Keep in mind that Dr Israr was also a member of the Jamaat until he split with it in the late 50s over opposition to electoral politics). The Ahrar even dubbed Jinnah Kaafir-e-Azam. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot place dubious claims about Jinnah's words, esp by those revisionists who opposed him tooth and nail, on the same footing as historically verified facts. When people argue about Jinnah's secular intentions or concern for minority rights, they are attempting in fact to reclaim the image of Jinnah that has been distorted by the Pakistani state over 60 years. The only people who were able to sidestep this issue were those who seceded from Pakistan and created a new state (Bangladesh, which has its own issues about what Sheikh Mujib really wanted).
And yes, Jinnah was a complex and at times conflicted individual. But then again, name me one political leader who isn't.
Point is, symbols are powerful political tools. You ignore them at your own peril.
XYZ there is also the minor problem of nobody except Yasir Latif Hamdani and maybe Ardeshir Cowasji who talk regularly about Jinnah, but that is a different story. But you did bring up two organisations with very troubling histories in relation to Pakistan's inception (the Ahrar and the Jamaat). Considering that the country is suffering due to the fruition of many of their plans (slow boil Islamisation, the spawning of Islamist militias) if there are any secularists who wish to reclaim Jinnah's legacy and disadvantage these two org's there is a simple consistent tactic to use. Whenever one talks about Jinnah & Secularism, etc, always bring up that the Jamat and the Ahrar opposed the creation of Pakistan. Use it as a consistent tactic, always bring up the religious parties opposition to the creation of Pakistan and you can score an ideological point against those who oppose your viewpoint, twist history and actually were against the creation of Pakistan. It's tactical advice, but sadly, you have to begin somewhere when it's been the Jamaat which has been thinking strategically for so long; waging a committed long war against the culture of this country.
@shahid: Things like loving dogs, drinking whiskey or eating pork for that matter have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "Liberalism".
Pakistani "liberals" are in fact some of the most regressive pricks you're ever likely to meet. Issue after issue, they're bloody conservatives.
And Pork Eating? Really? there are "liberals" in Pakistan who appreciate eating pork? Didn't know anyone in Pakistan aside from some animists by the river Indus and the odd Western/Far-Eastern diplomat even thought about it, let alone want their "founding father" to enjoy its flesh.
This definition of "liberalism" is right out of a Jamaat Islaami primer of "how to identify liberals"... And an indication of how massively our brains have been fucked with.
Also, to author's main point, and TLW's argument, there will always be appropriation of real or perceived "father figures". It's a given. I'd rather see Jinnah being appropriated by the progressive and liberal (not the above kind of ~) crowd than the heinous jamatia's and their ilk.
Like it or not, Jinnah does press buttons in the common person's mind. So, at the risk of sounding blatantly cynical, why not press those buttons to further your agenda?
It's about winning the culture wars raging in Pakistan, and everything's fair ya know ...
@Shahid and XYZ: I never said that we have to side-step political symbols per se. My point is that this fixation with reclaiming something so hotly contested by two poles over the last 63 years remains a futile task. Whatever Jinnah was or whatever his essence is, has by now become so completely distorted and so polarized that it becomes largely redundant to invoke his name for a particular cause. I am a staunch secularist and would love nothing more than to see equality of all in front of the state but when my favorite pin-up boy is also the pin-up boy (however forged that might be) for the right in this country, there is no possibility of resolution left. It is in fact a zero sum game. Either we own Jinnah or you own Jinnah.
@XYZ: specifically on the two issues: I mentioned that the groundwork was not only necessary for a separate state, it was necessary to legitimize the demand of provincial autonomy. Even that was not done properly by the Muslim League. I'm not blaming Jinnah for this, i believe the context of that time led him to opt for elite politics as opposed to mass politics but the case for autonomy or independence had to be made not just at a table that seated Nehru and Mountbatten but also on the ground (especially in the regions which eventually became West Pakistan). If i demand something from the state, i need to make sure that the people i'm demanding it for understand that demand, so that when i'm not there they can at least carry on whatever ideal it was.
Secondly, reivisionist history or not, the fact remains that the Jamaat came up with an image of Jinnah and then together with the army and the rest of the state ensured that that becomes crystallized in the public imagination. Bhutto is bhutto because he is not Jinnah and as far as i know he never claimed to be the guardian of Jinnah's legacy. Symbolism is important in nation construction and when your symbols become distorted, the only way to move forward is to either come up with new symbols, or to engage the public to bring them to whatever you think the right version of a symbol is. In my opinion the appropriation of Jinnah by liberals should be done as part of a larger narrative and NOT the only pedestal on which to premise their engagement as it is being done right now.
I am genuinely curious as to what part of Jinnah's legacy can be usefully appropriated by liberal and progressive people... language policy? provincial autonomy? constitution writing? What exactly is his secular/liberal legacy apart from some superficial lip-service to minority rights after the damage was already done? The only positive thing I can think of his is the staff college speech about civil military relations...
@Rabia: That's one way (and a very good one at that) of putting it. heh.
It does not what Jinnah thought anymore
If his words contradict that of the Prophet (SAW) it must be Jinnah that should give way
Nice post, good questions. See my spinoff at http://gee-spott.blogspot.com/2010/11/recycled-spinoff-not-whither-but.html
:)
The right-wingers in Pakistan use Jinnah's words and actions to claim he wanted an Islamic country. The liberals do the same and claim he was a liberal and wanted a secular country.
But, here, have a look at Nehru. Can you ever take Nehru's actions and words and prove he was anything but secular and a liberal?
Nehru, unlike Jinnah, walked the talk. He never made any remarks which was "on the border". He was crystal clear with the vision he wanted for India. Jinnah didnt believe Nehru, for some strange reason and had thought Muslims would not be given their due rights.
Jinnah was a liberal, secular man, but not always. He compromised his behaviour to achieve his objectives.
Greats like Nehru, Gandhi and Mandela never did that. Probably thats why Jinnah will not be remembered fondly outside the sub-continent.
India and Pakistan have taken on the characteristics of their first PMs.
India is clear what it is- A secular, pluralistic, democracy, with equal rights for all.
Pakistan doesn't know what it is and what it is supposed to be just like the never ending debate among the right-wingers and the liberals with regard to Jinnah. Pakistan will never forget Jinnah, and hence will not find closure. Pakistan will remain obsesed to what Jinnah really was.
What Jinnah was like can only be answered by one person- Jinnah himself. Too bad he is dead. This debate in Pakistan will continue for a long, long time in Pakistan.
Post a Comment