Religious minorities & enigma of the counter narrative

Aamir Riaz

Farahnaz Ispahani is not a commoner but is part & parcel of 200 years long legacy of Isphani
family. Her ancestor Haji Mohammed Hashem (1789–1850) the founder of The House of
Ispahani came to Bombay from Persia in 1820s. It was a time when 2/3rd of India was ruled by
the British colonialists while 1/3rd comprising the Punjab, Kashmir, KPK & FATA had an
independent government “Lhore Darbar” and their ruler was from a religious minority, the Sikhs,
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh of Gujranwala, ruled for 50 years in a Muslim majority area. He had
numerous Muslim Punjabis; Pathans & Kashmiris in his court yet colonial masters not only used
“Political Islam” against Lhore Darbar but also supported a propaganda campaign based on
anti-Muslim, anti-Pathan malice. We inherited that malice in Pakistan and its presence suits
Islamists in many ways. Death of Maharaja (June 1839) opened the doors for colonial masters
and in less than 7 years Empire had annexed Kalat, Qandhar, Kabul, Sindh and Kashmir and in
1849 finally they conquered the Punjab. Ironically, use of religion remained part of colonial
policies from 1849 till 1947. During those period ancestors of Farrahnaz earned good business
not only in Burma and Calcutta but in England too. In 1936 Muhammad Ali Jinnah invited
Farrahnaz’s grandfather Mirza Abol Hassan Ispahani to Lahore and from that day he was
included among the loyal associates of Jinnah till September 11, 1948. MAH Ispahani remained
active in Bengali politics and at the time of partition he shifted his business in Chittagong, former
East Pakistan. MAH Ispahani served Pakistan as ambassador in US (1947-52) and as High
Commissioner in UK (1952-54), a period in which Pakistani elite started shifting of its loyalties
towards Uncle Sam from old colonial masters. MAH Ispahani’s Company continued to operate
as a foreign company in Calcutta until 1965 until its operations in India were taken over by the
Indian Government. Farahnaz grew up in Karachi, Dhakka and London and she is third wife of
Husain Haqqani , former ambassador of Pakistan to the United States (2008-11) who was
removed after infamous memo scandal and rightly felt betrayed. Ms. Ispahani spent the
formative years of her career as a print and television journalist, worked as Executive Producer
and Managing Editor of Voice of America's Urdu TV, ABC News, CNN and MSNBC. Former
member of National Assembly (2008-13), Farrahnaz worked as Public Policy Scholar in a
project “Protecting Religious Minorities in Pakistan” at the Woodrow Wilson Center (June 2013-
June 2014). With such legacy, scholarship and inroads in power corridors she should have
more things in her pocket then this less than 260 pages book. As par author ‘The book is an
analysis of Pakistan's policies towards its religious minority populations, as well as an
attempt to set the record straight about why Pakistan was created and where it moved
away from Jinnah's modern pluralist vision to that of a purely Sunni Islamic nation.’ It is
also argued that ‘Pakistan was carved out in 1947 to protect the subcontinent’s largest
religious minority. It was conceived as Muslim-majority, albeit secular, state that would
set an example for India on how to treat its minorities ’. She pinpointed that after the
death of its founder, political, social and religious leaders proclaimed it Islamic State,
drumming up a national narrative of Islamic victimhood. In defense of her case she wrote
7 chapters and discussed issues of religious minorities in the context of demography,
nation building, militarism, national identity, Islamization, militancy, global jihad &
sectarianism in Pakistan. She is bold enough and moved beyond infamous Zia era and
discovered roots of intolerant policies even in pre-Zia era’s civil military governments. In
her launching interview to NDTV with learned Indian journalist Barkha Dutt, in the
opening sentences it was said that Pakistan had 22% non-Muslims in 1947 and today
Pakistan has only 3% non-Muslims. Neither learned journalist nor the scholar explained
that the major reason of drastic fall was dismemberment of Pakistan (December 16,
1971) rather than policies of the state. It is called twisted use of data and always
attribute as a case of bad taste both in research and journalism. Barkha knew very well
that it was Indian State who used that opportunity and Indian army had crossed
international border. Farrahnaz rightly pinpointed that after Dhakka Fall minorities in
Pakistan lost their strength and Islamists got strength but she neither mentioned the
villain for once nor ready to give benefit of doubt to post 1971 ruler of Pakistan, Z A
Bhutto.

It is strange to publish a research work without index but more objectionable act is to
have big claims without any citation and the book has many such things i-e At page 32
author wrote that ‘Pakistan inherited 1/3 rd of British India’s military, and Liaqat’s
government devoted 75% of Pakistan’s first budget to pay for its maintenance’. She did
not give any reference in support of her claim. Similarly at page 70 she revealed without
any reference that in the 2 nd census of 1961, percentage of Hindus fallen from 20 %( as
recorded in 1951 census) to 12%.

After Allahbad address in general and 1940 Lahore resolution in particular the question
of Muslim majority provinces overshadowed all issues. Senior Muslim Leaguer and
tested friend of Quaid e Azam, belonged from Muslim minority province of Bihar, Hussain
Imam in his interview to Syed zaidi Alhuma explained that when we had accepted Lahore
resolution, transfer of population on the basis of religion was not under question but we
thought that we would get whole Bengal and united Punjab and in that way we also had
huge non-Muslim minority and presence of huge minorities across the borders would act
as a balancing factor for protection of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in both countries.
Question of Muslim majority provinces largely played vital role in post 1940 politics and
AIML was not the lonely supporter of it. President of Congress Punjab Mian Iftiqar u din
and Raja ji (Raja Gopal Achari) were pioneer in raising that issue in April 1942 in the
Congress. Author did not touch the vital question of Communist support to AIML and its
demands since 1943. Were secular Adhekari, dange, Randhevy supported Muslim
orthodoxy? We have to understand this phenomenon in post 1940 scenario. In the
absence of transfer of population on communal basis, the question of Muslim majority
provinces was democratic, progressive and just cause and it was largely linked with
Muslims rather than political Islam and that is why exponents of political Islam in India
remained against it. It was Congress who not only rejected the last plan to unite
subcontinent (cabinet mission) but also used its pressure to divide Bengal and the
Punjab on communal basis. Punjab was the worst victim of that unprecedented transfer
of power. Formation of a theocratic state was not on the agenda among majority of ML
leadership including Iqbal and Jinnah and one can easily find support for acceptance of
religious & sub-religious diversity in historic Allahbad address of 1930 and Quaid e Azam
august 11, 1947 speech.

According to author deviation from the “secular” agenda started from Objective
resolution of March 1949 in Pakistan and after discussing Kyani-Munier report and Anti-
Ahmdya riots of 1953 she jumped to militarism and national identity questions and cited
some editorials of a leading English newspaper (not Pakistan Times or the news). She
neither mention pretty long assembly speech of Sir Zufrullah in favor of Objective
resolution at 12 th March, 1949, Report of the committee of fundamental rights and
matters related to minorities accepted by the assembly in 1950, absence of communal
restriction on head of State in the first draft of Constitution in 1950, mushroom growth of
anti-communism (including infamous Pindi Conspiracy and ban of CPP) or Report of
commission for women 1954 headed by first Chief Juctice ® Mian Abdur Rashid. She
wrote in favor of secular Bengalis of East Bengal but she should read a book “An Inquiry
into causes and consequences of deprivation of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh through
the vested property act” edited by Abul Barakat of Dhakka (published in 2000).The act
was imposed by deshbandu and since 1972; 5 million Hindus had left Bangladesh.
Largely, vital issue of minorities is a South Asian issue and it needs a serious study in
the perspective of South Asia (essentially Pak India conflict) and post WW2 Cold war in
which religion was used extensively against each other internally and externally, covertly
as well as overtly. In isolation one can fulfill requirements of a project but cannot solve
the riddles.

In the next pages she boldly checks “untouchable” 2 nd amendment of 1973 constitution
but failed to link it with demographic changes and new diplomatic pressures in post 16-
December Pakistan. She rightly criticized Zia and Taliban but failed to mention effects of
fundamentalist rule in Iran after 1979 and support of islamists during Afghan war against
Reds. She supported democratic continuity in Pakistan and criticized double game of
Gen Mushraff after 9/11 yet her narrative strangely, ends at 2008. She worked on the
project in 2014 then why she restrained herself from writing about Zardari period?

After reading this book, a youngster may think that there was not any resistance against
orthodox policies and totalitarianism in Pakistan and here the author entangled in her
own narrative. So instead of counter narrative it becomes an anti-thesis and after
reading it we have to find synthesis.

Title: Purifying the land of pure

Pages 254

Author: Farahnaz Ispahani

Publisher: HarperCollins Publisher, India