“The Illusion of Nationalism; A Visit to Manto’s Courtyard”

By
Dur e Najaf
Pakistan, being a state whose foundation was laid on a religious basis is identified on the world
map as an Islamic state. This is the primary reason for its appearance on the world’s map in the
first place. But, there has always been something much more complex than this introduction.
There is more to the identity of Pakistan which builds its roots in the soil of the subcontinent
from a time even before British imperialism took over it. Something which solidified in the
winds even before the advent of Islam and with the passage of time settled in the bottom of the
diversity and sailed at the shore finally choosing Islam as its refuge.
The subcontinent, which remained a haven for natives belonging to distinct religions and
expressing themselves differently from each other for many generations when came under the
British throne, the power altered all the previous definitions of home for the people living there
and they started realizing the significance of being a distinct “nation” from one another.
Since the two major groups of individuals inhabiting this wonderful land of flora and fauna were
active followers of two major religions. One was the religion that professed the oneness of the
creator (Tauheed) known as Islam, while the other one was the religion of legends, with a history
as grand as depicted in Vedas which laid the foundation of Hinduism. This consciousness was the
thrust of the two-nation theory which later led to the creation of two distinct states with newly
earned political consciousness. As Sadia Toor (2010) asserts that, “The concept of the nation had
hegemonized political and cultural discourse in colonial British India from the 19th century on,
so much so that it was based on claims to nationhood that political identities and representation
came to be negotiated.” (3)
After independence, along with many other issues which were there to be tackled by the newly
formed state of Pakistan, there was the issue of representation as an independent nation with a
culture of its own combining with the Islamic injunctions. The conflict between ‘Pakistani
nationalism’ and Muslim nationalism, ironically, became the fundamental issue facing the ruling
elite as well as intellectuals in the new state. (Toor, 2010, 06). As many of the circles accepted
the Islamic model and the Islamic culture as the culture which needed to be accepted as the
national culture of Pakistan, as they narrated the basis of the creation which was Islamic
ideology.
However, this was also an accepted fact that there were the blunt imprints of the culture which
Muslims had practised alongside the Hindus of the subcontinent based on the demographics of
both. At the very same time, Pakistan was a home of minorities having a discrete culture of their
own. In addition to this, the ethnicities of people also became an active agent in differentiating
culture. Therefore, the country witnessed segregation based on ideological conflicts as the ruling
class believed to adopt Islamic culture whereas the intellectuals believed in the amalgamation of
religion and community in defining the culture of the state. Coining one fixed definition of
nationalism in these circumstances was almost impossible as there was a difference of opinion
between the ruling authority as well as the intellectuals.
Faiz Ahmed Faiz, in the middle of chaos, tried to fixate this dilemma by bringing a concept
which fell following the Islamic and demographic aspects. As he asserts in one of his essays that,
“the culture of Pakistan includes everything which has been integrated into the bloodstream of
our people:
a) religion of Islam which provides ‘the ethical and ideological basis for the people’s way of
life’
b) indigenous cultures of various linguistic regions
c) elements of Western culture absorbed since the days of British occupation.
d) distinct cultures of minority groups who form a part of the Pakistani nation.” (Qt. in Toor,
2010).
This idea of formulating a unique “national culture” that could make Pakistan distinct from the
course of the other nations in the world seem the most appropriate solution. However, based on
his progressive background, this idea was abhorred by the ruling authority, believing that this
amalgamation of local, individual and demographical practices within the fixed principles of
Islam was a threat to the solemnity of Pakistan as Maulana Maududi believed in the collective
“Muslim unity and a Muslim culture” (Toor, 2010).
The ruling powers over years though have changed yet the agenda remains the same. The power
dynamics which were challenged by the progressive and communist intellectuals challenged the
authorities, explaining the essence of true nationalism which was absent from the generation who
had just sacrificed a lot for a glorious purpose. One of the writers who observed the lack of the
true spirit of the nationalist sense among the people was Saadat Hassan Manto.
Manto keenly observed the facades of lies and dishonesty implicated by the ruling end and the
unjust measures which never changed despite the creation of a whole new Islamic state. He
through his writings explained the qualities which needed to be present within a nation’s national
culture to be the representative of its people. “Manto makes a candid difference between
patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism means genuine love for one’s country but nationalism
reveals hostility towards others that is deplorable.”(The Hindu, 2015). Manto is a name that
bluntly tears the idea of national pride and apprises the cataclysmic realities before the reader.
Being in the same circle as that of Faiz and Hasrat, sitting with Sahir Ludhianvi and Jalib, he saw
how the new power was no less than imperial power in its quintessence. To date, his works are
believed to be a mirror reflecting the moral degradation which in no way signify nationalistic
pride but rather serve as an archetype of insanity.
His most popular word sketch entitled, “Zahmat e Mehr e Darakhshan” (1950), critiques some of
the values which he finds are a constant danger to the spirit of nationalism. At the same time, he
poses some serious questions on the crust of the national culture. The piece is his account of
survival in a new land which according to him is now Pakistan. He at the very beginning of his
recollection shatters all the ideals set forth by the governments. As he begins, “My mind was in
turmoil for almost three months. I couldn’t figure out where I was – in Bombay or Karachi in my
friend Hassan Abbas’s house, or was I in Lahore” (160) This feels like a blow at the face of the
government because to the people who lost their homes in the other hand, both the homes were
the same, the one they lost and the one they took refuge which also tells that the social
differences in between both the lands were no different from each other.
He moves on explaining the system prevalent in the new homeland and is taken aback at the fact
that land that was achieved at the sheer principles of Islam still promotes unjust distributions
among the privileged sections of the society. He begins, “Then I found that there was a brisk
trade in ‘allotments’. Muhajirs and non-Muhajirs alike were pulling every string they could to
get shops and factories allotted in their names.”(160). This for a moment shakes the national
pride and leaves the reader in a sense of shame as the practices didn’t change at all despite the
freedom which the people on both sides of the borders gained. This dark side of the nation also
explains the reality of the nationalism which was there in just words but not the actions. Tracing
out the differences between both sides of the border, he finally concludes that, “No matter how
hard I tried I could not separate India from Pakistan or Pakistan from India. Again and again,
vexing questions echoed inside my head.” (161).
He is also curious about the kind of culture which is going to be a permanent part of the lives of
the people residing in Pakistan. He recollects, “Would Pakistan’s literature be different? If so,
what would it be like? Who is the rightful owner of all that had been written in undivided India?
Will that, too, be divided? Are the fundamental problems in India and Pakistan not alike? Will
Urdu be completely destroyed out ‘there’? And what form will Urdu take here in Pakistan? Will
ours be an Islamic state? We will remain faithful to our state, but will we be allowed to be critical
of our government? Will the state of affairs under our people be any better than what it was
under firangi administrators?” (161). In these questions, he questions on the behalf of the people
of Pakistan who were in anticipation of sticking to the identity to which they could attach
themselves in their future lives.
Similar ideas are expressed by him in one of his most famous works, another word sketch named
“A Letter to Uncle Sam” which is a satirical account of his recollections which he conveys to the
superpower America with the aid of certain dark humour techniques. The beginning of the letter
itself reveals the political struggle of Pakistan throughout the time. He states, “This letter is from
your nephew in Pakistan, whom you do not know, whom probably no one does from your land
that has waged seven wars of liberation.” (152). These wars explain the political turmoil of the
state as well as depict that just like every other nation in the world that has fought for its dignity,
the people of Pakistan have also offered a great cost of freedom together which satisfies national
unity.
As a progressive writer, he also narrates the account of his trial on the charges of obscenity. He
also tells the bitter reality of censorship which was a strategy adopted by the ruling authority to
control the literature. He says, “The British government considered me a writer of pornography.
My government thinks the same. The British government has let me go, but it doesn’t look like
my government will do the same.” (153). This indicates the suppression of truth within the state
as he claims that the government “believed that truth must be kept separate from literature”
(155). This is quite ironic according to him since the creation of Pakistan was based on the idea
of giving the basic freedom of expression to the people and yet the right was not given to those
who ached for it. This in itself negated the nationalist notion, since a country cannot prosper if
the issues presented in the society are not rightly depicted and resolved at the same time.
Apart from this, he also discusses the economic turmoil of the state by stating that, “I am poor
because my country is poor. I somehow manage to find two square meals a day but some of my
countrymen have to even go without that!” The class difference which still was prevalent within
the newly formed society is expressed by him as, “The number of people in my country who ride
in Packards and Buicks does not constitute the population of my country. My country is
populated by people like me and others even poorer than me.” (155). These facts tell that despite
the foundation of a separate homeland, the difference between the privileged and the
underprivileged is there which contradicts the essence of nationalism.
These accounts, if still taken into consideration, will strike them strikingly with contemporary
times. Even after seventy-five years of independence, the nationalist identity of Pakistan seems
incomplete because of the social and economic hurdles which correlate with sectarian issues,
ethnic and cultural conflicts. “The void which exists in Pakistan in terms of leadership is not new
and is the result of a process of endless corruption, nepotism, bad governance, absence of the
rule of law and a general approach held by people with influence that they don’t own Pakistan
but for decades they have played havoc with the people and resources of their country.” (Dawn,
2014). As by any definition of the nation, individuals are bound to work for collective welfare
and achievements of collective goals which need unity that seems absent in Pakistan because of
the individual and group-based conflicts as well as the avaricious and corrupt political system.

References
Dr Moonis Ahmer. “The Myth of Pakistani Nationalism.” DAWN.COM, 14 Aug. 2014,
www.dawn.com/news/1125123.
Kidwai, Shafey. “A Call from the No Man’s Land.” The Hindu, 5 Feb. 2015,
www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/going-native-column-saadat-hasan-manto/article6861
423.ece. Accessed 22 Mar. 2021.
Saadat Hasan Manto, and Rakhshanda Jalil. “Naked Voices: Stories & Sketches.” New Delhi,
India ink, Roli Books, 2008.
Toor, Saadia. “A National Culture for Pakistan: The Political Economy of a Debate.” Inter-Asia
Cultural Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, Sept. 2005, pp. 318–340, 10.1080/14649370500169946. Accessed
18 Dec. 2020.