The dominant narratives, especially within Pakistani nationalist historiography, often read

history as a sequence of events ineluctably moving towards the creation of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan; historical events are implicitly seen as prefiguring the partition of

British India into an Islamic Republic of Pakistan and an overwhelmingly Hindu Indian

Union. Pakistan it seemed was “destined to be” from the moment Muhammad bin Qasim

invaded Sindh. Drawing on Metcalf, Jalal the lectures and your class discussions, offer a

series of critical reflections on this nationalist narrative and this notion of

“inevitability/necessity”. Locate the key moments in the emergence of the idea of Pakistan

(between 1857 and 1947) and discuss some of the contradictions, contingencies, and

incoherencies of the Pakistan project. In particular, focus on the period between 1937 and

1947. The title of your essay should be “The Contingency of Pakistan.” Be sure to give your

essay your own subtitle.

The Contingency of Pakistan

Subtitle: Was the creation of Pakistan inevitable?

The dominant narratives within Pakistani nationalist historiography offer a convoluted

description of who Pakistanis are. The creation of Pakistan is taught as a single linear

progression of events to build a sense of nationalism and develop patriotism. The boldest

fallacies are ingrained in books and thus the minds of the people who read them and as academic

institutions are an ideal place to build cultural hegemony. How historiography has taken shape in

Pakistan speaks volumes about propaganda and schemes and how history has become a self-

justifying myth. This essay will dismantle the idea that Pakistan was bound to be made and shed

light on contingencies and incoherencies of the Pakistan project.

We’ve been led to believe Pakistan was inevitable because Hindus oppressed Muslims and

Hindus were religiously very different from Muslims, but this is only part of the truth. Pakistan’s

birth is traced back to the arrival of the Arab commander 1,300 years ago, Muhammad bin

Qasim who is said to come to Sindh in the 8th century CE. He is described as the ‘first

Pakistani’. “Manan Ahmed Asif author of ‘A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim

Origins in South Asia, demolishes the most important and foundational of all myths about the

creation of Pakistan. It is thought as a fact that a 17-year-old general, Bin Qasim, was the first

Muslim who invaded in 712 CE what is now Pakistan to rescue a group of Muslim pilgrim

women who had been abducted by pirates at Daybul”.[ CITATION SAk17 \l 1033 ] They appealed to

Hajjaj bin Yusuf Thaqafi, the Umayyad governor of Iraq who then sent Bin Qasim as the general

of an army. “This episode is the totemic origin narrative framing Muslim arrival in India, but it

predates the expedition of Muhammad bin Qasim” [ CITATION SAk17 \l 1033 ]. This flawed

narrative is originally from colonial epistemology and is used by several people for their own

gains. “The truth is the Umayyads, sent troops to invade an attempted to conquer Sindh on a

number of occasions between 644 AD and 710 AD”[ CITATION SAk17 \l 1033 ] . The first Muslims

who set foot in Sindh were Arab traders who came to the coast of Malabar. Muhammad bin

Qasim is used to create a chronological sequence of events ineluctably moving towards the

creation of Pakistan. As he is from the Umayyad dynasty (the first major Muslim empire), he is

immediately linked to Prophet Mohammad and thus, is the best candidate for carrying the name

of Islam. The story also sets the basis for the great and glorious Mughal empire. The Mughal rule

lasted from 1526 to 1858[ CITATION Far02 \l 1033 ]. The Mughals gained their legitimacy from

Sufi teachers. The first prince Babar was Turkish from Ferghana, Persia, who won and lost

control of Samarkand. It is, however, extremely important to note that he himself was an invader.
He had a Mongol lineage; he was the direct descendant of Changez Khan and Timur the great,

the same Mongols who killed hundreds and thousands of Muslims. The Mughals were

ostensible, novice Muslims who drank and had Harams with hundreds of women. They fought

over the throne and Aurangzeb (sixth Mughal emperor) even went to the lengths to kill all four

of his brothers just for the throne. Although Mughals were invaders and not native to the Indian

subcontinent, they are a part of the school curriculum to make the history of Pakistan a

consecutive, linear sequence of events that inevitably led to the creation of Pakistan. For this

purpose, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa are effectively excluded from Pakistan’s history as they

were polytheists. When the British came to rule in India, they followed the system of divide and

rule. Some British taught histories in educational institutions, but their main interest was to

understand the Mughals’ administrative system. The writers and translators of these historical

accounts had a particular standpoint that they wanted to put forward and thus started changing

history to cater to the immediate and practical need of themselves to understand how to defeat

and control the successor states of 18th century India. Ironically, colonial historiography is

responsible for the division of a historical narrative into a ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ (religious

basis).

Throughout the 19th century, there was great civil unrest and several movements and uprisings

started. The movements helped unite Muslims and empowered them. “The Jihad Movement

(1826) is known as a forerunner of the Pakistan Movement. It was the moment of recognition of

the Muslim desire to be independent and the Faraizi Movement (1819) aimed to purify Islam of

Hindu influences”[ CITATION Far02 \l 1033 ] . After losing the 1857 war the idea of Pakistan

seemed impossible. The formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and its

overwhelming dominance by Hindus biased Hindus. Many Muslim intellectual thinkers and Sufi
leaders rose who recognized Muslim oppression and discrimination as Muslims were a minority.

Among these rising Muslim leaders was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who presented the two-nation

theory. Many historians claim this laid the foundations of Pakistan, the thought of a separate

Muslim homeland. Sir Syed wrote that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations and should

thus have their own separate homeland. It wasn’t until 1930 that Allamah Muhammad Iqbal laid

the theoretical framework of the two-nation theory in his presidential address at the Muslim

League's conference. Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, another intellectual who wrote pamphlets and issue

declarations, presented the name of Pakistan in 1933. From here on the idea of Pakistan started to

grow. Muslim leaders tried to work for a co-federation of the Muslim majority in the northwest

and northeast of India that would still be a part of India. When the All-India Muslim league was

formed in 1906, Pakistan movement lacked popular support. The League’s underlying objective

was to get Muslims their rights their freedom of speech, freedom to practice rituals, and equal

representation in elected seats. Even after Simla Declaration, Muslims had only guaranteed

themselves an independent role in the political process. With the Lucknow Pact, Muslim and

Hindu relations improved and a new figure began appearing on the scene, Mohammad Ali

Jinnah. Jinnah wrote the fourteen points in 1929 in which he asked for provincial autonomy and

more representation of Muslims in the central assembly. Even then Jinnah didn’t ask for a

separate nation-state, he asked for a federal constitution. Up to 1947, Pakistan remained an

abstract concept for Muslims with often vague and conflicting boundaries and with ambiguous

constitutional status. Jalal writes that in May 1947, following negotiations with Mountbatten,

Congress, and Jinnah, “Congress that insisted on Partition, and it was Jinnah who was against

it.”[CITATION Ais14 \l 1033 ] Many ulemas were against Pakistan too. During Gandhi Jinnah talks,

Gandhi offered plebiscite in the districts perceived to be Muslim majority. In 1947 Sir Radcliffe
proposed a division of the two states into East and West Punjab and East and West Bengal.

Jinnah rejected the formula saying, “It was the grossest travesty, a ridiculous proposal, offering a

shadow and a husk – a maimed, mutilated, and moth-eaten Pakistan” [CITATION Ais14 \l 1033 ] but

Muslims had no other choice but to unwillingly accept that. It is also known that Jinnah rejected

the Pakistan proposal twice once in 1943 and then in 1947 because Calcutta, the jute harvester

and processor was given to India. Calcutta was the center of Bengal's economic and social

development and jute constituted most of the exported product’s revenue.  The largest industries,

all military bases, government offices, and most of the institutions of higher education were in

Calcutta. In Punjab the crucial districts of Firozpur and Gurdaspur were given to India. Firozpur,

a Muslim majority, district contained canal water headworks which controlled water entering

Pakistan. Granting it India started a water crisis in Pakistan. Gurdaspur was another Muslim

majority area and giving these districts to India made the Kashmir dispute inevitable. Pakistan

was also in two parts one in the east and one in the west separated by a thousand miles. The

proposal was hard to accept as accession of the Princely States like Junagadh and Hyderabad was

difficult; the ruler came from a different religious background than the majority living there, and

the distribution of military and economic resources was unjust. Jinnah as Jalal calls him ‘the sole

spokesman’, was the only one fighting for freedom and it is evident of contingencies and

incoherencies in the Pakistan project.

Therefore, looking at all the evidence it can be concluded that Partition was not inevitable but as

issues started to grow it became a necessity. The Urdu-Hindi controversy, little to no

representation of Muslims in assembly, Morley-Minto reforms in 1909 positioning Muslims as a

"perpetual minority" in the Indian body politic, the aggressive Arya Samaj movement all led to

the partition of India. Soon a new concept of religion as a community began to emerge. The
Swadeshi movement mounted communal rivalries, strained relations between Muslims and

Hindus and thus Pakistan movement gained popular support. “Partition was avoidable only if

Congress could agree to a constitutional arrangement envisaging a loose federal structure with

strong autonomy for the provinces, along with Hindu-Muslim parity at the center, as proposed by

Muslim League initially.”[ CITATION Muh20 \l 1033 ] In conclusion, not one person, or group or

movement can be held responsible for partition, it was circumstantial and together everything led

to partition on 14-15 August 1947.

References

Bajwa, F. N. (2002). Paksitan: A historical and contemporary look. Oxford : Oxford University

Press.

Exclusive, H. (2014, August 15). Dawn. Retrieved June 6, 2021, from What is the most blatant

lie taught through Pakistan textbooks?: https://www.dawn.com/news/1125484

Huda, M. N. (2020, June 3). The Daily Star. Retrieved from Was the Partition of 1947

inevitable?: https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/was-the-partition-1947-inevitable-

1907993
Jalal, A. (2014). The struggle for Pakistan. London: Th e Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press.

Zaidi, S. A. (2017, January 15). Dawn. Retrieved from Demolishing foundational myths:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1308575