Whither Pakistan Culture and Nationhood

Whither Pakistan Culture and Nationhood (1)

FAZL AHMED KARIM FAZLI

B. Lift. (Omn), C.S.P. (Retd.)

To speak of Pakistani culture as if it were a problematical issue seems a little odd. After all why did Muslims of the sub-continent think of having a separate homeland for themselves? Was it not because their fellow countrymen were making it increasingly clear to them that they were bent upon settling accounts with them in their thousand years enmity and that they were determined to wipe them out from the subcontinent? They realized that in order to achieve their objective it was imperative to destroy first the edifice of Islamic culture which the Muslims had raised in the sub-continent on the firm foundation of their faith. In other words Islamic culture had become as a bastion for Islam itself which could not be directly attacked so long as it stood. That was why the moment they got some semblance of power they went straight for undoing this culture before tackling the religion. In fact this process had begun a hundred years ago. Sir Syed’s far-sighted vision saw through the game and he who hitherto had been an advocate of a united Indian nation and a common culture was forced to say that the Muslims and Hindus of the sub-continent constituted two different Nations with two different cultures. As time passed the truth of Sir Syed’s words became apparent and the Muslims could see clearly that their culture and Way of life, their religion and national identity were all at stake. It was this realization which laid the foundation of Pakistan. At that time throughout the length and breadth of the sub-continent there was not a single Muslim who had any doubts what his culture was; in fact their concept of it was so live and clear that hundreds of thousands sacrificed their lives for it and millions became homeless and ruined. Now after the establishment of Pakistan how surprising and agonizing it is to find it becoming a controversial issue.

 

To begin with, the issue was raised in an apparently innocent manner i.e. the origins of our culture were traced to the ruins of Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Taxila which were claimed to be great achievements of our ancestors in which we as their descendents were expected to take pride. As acorollary to this the question of the Son of the Soil raised its head. Only those people who belonged to this homeland of ours and their achievements deserved to be the objects of our admiration. They began to be termed as Sons of the Soil. Not only is this feeling growing but is made to grow on purpose. For the moment it is directed only against those Muslim immigrants who belong to those areas of the sub-continent which do not form part of Pakistan; they are being termed ‘foreigners’. That this concept strikes at the very roots of those forces, values and ideals which brought Pakistan into being is getting clear after its disintegrating effects are coming to the fore in our cultural, political and social life. In other words the basis of Pakistan is being sought to be laid anew on geographical, racial and linguistic considerations and attempts are being made if not to break away from them at least to turn peoples thoughts from the long established Islamic traditions, values, brotherhood, culture and way of life. In short from all that Islam stands for.

 

The Islamic point of view tells us that every Muslim is our brother regardless of his place of birth or death; and Muslims from all lands and climes have always felt proud of his achievements. Where is a Muslim whose pulse does not get quickened with a feeling of elation at the mere mention of such names as Khalid bin Waleed, Mohammad bin Qasim, Sultan Salahuddin and Sultan Mohammed the Conqueror of Constantinople etc. On the other hand the achievements of any enemy of Islam, even though he may be our neighbour causes no sensation in us other than aversion. To say nothing of neighbours inimical to Islam, the bond of our faith is so strong that it transcends all other bonds, even of the closest blood relationship. Islamic History is full of instances especially during the life of the Holy Prophet where a man after embracing Islam unsheathed his sword against his heretical relations in the battle field.

 If we take a few examples, from the history of our own country this fact becomes still clear. Guru Gobind Singh, Ranjit Singh, Hari Singh Nalva were all sons of this soil. Is there any Muslim here who considers their achievements as his ancestral heritage and takes pride in them? The Muslims of Marhatta decent consider Aurangzeb and Ahmad Shah Abdali as their heroes instead of Shivaji and Baleji Baji Rao. In short the bond of Islam so changes the attitude of men and their way of life that it cuts across all their non-Islamic moorings. The history of Islam becomes their own history, heroes of Islam replace their old heroes, historical al1d cultural heritage of Islam becomes their own heritage which alone constitute worthy objects of their pride. 

Let us also see what consequences flow from our accepting the notion that any Muslim not belonging to the native soil of Pakistan is a ‘foreigner’ with whom we have no concern and should not therefore take pride in his achievements. First of all we snap all ties with the glorious past of Islamic history and have to content ourselves with whatever history our own soil provides. It is an unfortunate fact of history that most of the areas constituting Pakistan have been usually the provinces of governments having their seat elsewhere. What great achievements could the governors of the provinces have to their credit in which we could take pride? We shall therefore have to fall back upon pre-historic times and build imaginary structures over the ruins of Mohenjodaro etc. How far would such history warm our hearts and be a source of guidance to us? The answer is obvious. Secondly those followers of Islam who established Muslim rule in the sub-continent and who centuries later, when deprived of power, paved the way for the emergence of Pakistan and of whose achievements we are justly proud, all these people would become foreigners to us. Just think how many great conquerors, crusaders and mighty rulers will fall in this category and we shall be expected to have nothing to do with the great historical legacies left by them. The Jamia Masjid and Red Fort of Delhi and the Taj Mahal would be supposed to cause no heart throb in us. And yet the feeling of Muslim brotherhood is so ingrained in our blood that even far flung Muslim monuments like the Mosque at Cordova and the Al-Hambra at Granada thrill us. Allama Iqbal’s poem on the Cordova Mosque is a shining example of this. Such a masterpiece could not have been written without his being stirred to the very depths of his being. How can any Muslim remain unconcerned with the achievements of the glorious Muslim heroes irrespective of the land to which they might have belonged, more so with the great historical memorials of our culture left in the sub-continent. Can we be expected to bid good bye to our spiritual, cultural and historical relation with such eminent saints and seers as Khawaja Ajmeri, Khawaja Nizam-uddin Auliya, Hazrat Mujaddad Alf Saani, Hazrat Shah Waliullah and his reform movement, Sir Syed and other great men, writers, poets, thinkers and political leaders like Mr. Taqi Mir, Ghalib, Anees, Hali, Shibli, Akbar, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Shaukat Ali, Hasrat Mohani, Jigar Moradabadi etc. These are just a few names out of hundreds who command our love and devotion and are the architects of our history and culture in the sub-continent. Our East Pakistani brethren deserve commendation for showing the way in this respect also; each year they celebrate with pomp the birthday of Qazi Nazrul Islam. It has a- very great significance; it is an appreciation of his immense services in awakening the Muslims of Bengal. It is a good sign that even in the western wing Nazrul Islam’s birthday is being celebrated. 

For the present only the Muslims of India and those who have come from there are being made the target with whom spiritual, moral and cultural ties are sought to be broken. True the reasons for these are purely political and economic; but there is no valid reason why the matter should rest there. Once the idea is accepted that all those Muslims who are not born here are outsiders not only from the political but also from the spiritual and cultural point of view then Muslims from other lands would also be included in this category and perhaps with greater justification for in their case even this cannot be said as it is rightly said of Indian-Muslims that their efforts and sacrifice played a vital role in the establishment of Pakistan. Then we would have nothing to do with Mehmood Ghaznavi, Jamaluddin Afghani, in fact we would have to abhor Mehmood Ghaznavi because he defeated our great ancestor and compatriot Jaypal and his son Anangpal and overran our beloved soil. We would similarly feel no pride in the achievements of Saadi, Maulana Room, Khawaja Hafiz, Imam Ghazali, etc. as they were not born here. Going one step further the same will be the case with the Khulfa-e-Rashideen and Hazrat Fatima, Hazrat Imam Hasan and Hazrat Imam Hussain for they were the inhabitants of foreign lands and not sons and daughters of our soil. And then what about the Holy Prophet himself? How then would we remain Muslims of what use will Pakistan be itself? Perhaps this logical conclusion the advocates of son of the soil desire at heart, though they do not consider politic to give our openly. They know that once we start down the slippery slope of this theory we would not stop until we automatically reach the abyss. Not that every person who subscribes to this theory does so knowing full well its logical conclusion. On the contrary most of such people would unhesitatingly disown it and seek God’s forgiveness if they realized its implications. They just support it in the hope of getting better jobs and other material advantages. Thereby they innocently become the willing tool of those who are masterminding the scheme and about whom more will be mentioned later. 

Another aspect of the Son of the Soil theory may be appropriately considered here. Let us look at the way in which Pakistan came into being. Does it not reveal a set purpose of Providence? We all know that on 14th August 1947. Gurdaspur in the western wing and Murshidabad in the eastern wing belonged to Pakistan and Khulna was in India. On that day Gurdaspur and Murshidabad were the soil of Pakistan and its inhabitants the sons of the soil. Had India attacked either Gurdaspur or Murshidabad then, would it not have been our duty even to lay down our lives in the defence of these lands? And whatever befell the Muslims ‘of Khulna would have been of little concern to us. But two days later Gurdaspur and Murshidabad were given away to India and Khulna came to Pakistan. Now all of a sudden it became our duty to defend that soil which was no concern of ours just two days earlier; and the soil for which we would have laid down our lives then became foreign land for us. Thus how convincingly the All-Mighty made it apparent at the very moment of the birth of Pakistan that loyalty to the soil was so ephemeral and as such unworthy of lasting devotion and only the eternal message of God called Islam in the name of which Pakistan came into being deserved our eternal loyalty. 

Look at another pron1inent feature attending the foundation of our state at its very inception which proves that the western concept of territorial nationalism and the son of the soil theory did not and could not have anything to do with Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of sons of the soil showed no love or loyalty for Pakistan and left it. Similarly a greater numbers of Muslims of India were kicked out by their fellow sons of the soil and deprived of everything took refuge here. Providence thus created a state of things in which Pakistan had to come into existence in the same way in which the first Islamic state was established in Medina. Faith was so dear to the followers of Islam in Mecca that they left their land where their fore-fathers had been living for generations and where lay all their assets and migrated to Medina. The Muslims of Medina welcomed their refugee brethren with such warmth as to give them a share even in their belongings. Together they set about laying the foundations of a new Islamic order. For this they were so rewarded by God that in a short time this small band of Muslims became the leaders of the world not only in matters spiritual and moral but in social, cultural, economic and political spheres as well. The indication was clear that Pakistan which had come into being in a manner similar to that of the Medinite state could also prosper only if it followed in its footsteps.

 

 Whither Pakistan Culture and Nationhood (2)

The ruins of Mohenjodaro etc. are pre-historic but many relics have also been left by non-Muslims on our soil in the period of which we have historical record, i.e., the Gurdwara of Panja Sahib. Is there any Muslim who would consider it an ancestral heritage to be proud of? Take another example; we all know that Junagarh is still legally a part of Pakistan as is Bahawalpur. In such circumstances could we on the basis of a common soil be expected to say tha tthe ruins of the famous Hindu temples sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni are our cultural heritage? Could we feel proud of those who had built the grand temples as the sons of the soil? I had a soul stirring experience of the manner in which the entire nation gave the answer. I happened to be posted in East Pakistan when Sardar Vallabbhai Patel on behalf of the Indian government made an oflicial announcement that the temples would be rebuilt at state expense. The announcement inspired the following couplet:

پھر بنایا جارہا ہے سومنات

ایک نیا محمود پھر ۤنے کو ہے

“The Somnath is being constructed anew: a fresh Mahmud is expected to come".

 

On hearing this the face of every Muslim whether Urdu speaking or not shone with delight. This couplet was found displayed in the streets and bazars. This further proved that our hearts still beat in unison, transcending all geographical, linguistic and racial barriers. Another aspect of the question is worth consideration. The object of our loyalty is of course religion and culture and after that our own tribe and family but the modern concept of nation is not in our blood. Our villagers first love their own home and hearth and lands and thereafter their villages. Similarly the city dwellers are attached first to their place of residence and neighbourhood and then the city itself but neither the villager nor the city deweller is much concerned about outside territory. Those who are under the influence of Western education are beginning to be aware of the modern concept of country and nation but their number is limited and even among them there are those who believe with Allama Iqbal that:

ان تازہ خداؤں میں بڑا سب سے وطن ہے

جو پیرھن اس کا ہے وہ مذھب کا کفن ہے

اقوام میں مخلوق خدا بنتی ہے اس سے

قومیت اسلام کی جڑ کٹتی ہے اس سے

“Of these fresh gods, the biggest is the country; its garment constitutes the shroud of the Faith. It turns the creatures into creator and strikes at the roots of the Islamic concept of nation”.

 Our love for Pakistan is not based on the modern concept of nationhood but because it is the best means for the preservation and progress of our faith and culture. That is why its integrity and solidarity is our sacred duty.

 I underwent an interesting experience soon after the birth of Pakistan. Being posted in Chittagong I was touring Cox’s Bazar; north of this sub-division there is another sub-division of Chittagong District whose thana Satkania is closer to Cox’s Bazar then to Chittagong. A lawyer called on me and said "We have in Cox‘s Bazar a lawyer who is a foreigner. What right has he to practice here? Kindly order him to go to Chittagong.” Surprised at how a foreigner could soon come to practice at Cox's Bazar I interjected “Foreigner.” Said he “Yes Sir” I replied that if he was a foreigner in Cox's Bazar he would be equally a foreigner in Chittagong also, to which the gentleman replied that it would not be so since the lawyer in question belonged to Satkania. I realised that this man was striking at the roots of Pakistan without knowing it. The fact of the matter was that the legal practice of the “foreign” lawyer was more successful compared to this local luminaiy's. He realized that if his rival was expelled his own prospects would become brighter. Finding no other way to get rid of his more successful rival his self interest had made him stoop to such dubious tactics. I considered it necessary to explain to him the implications of what he had said in the light of Islamic teaching. At this he started to ask for God’s forgiveness. Similarly pure-self interest has motivated many people even now to consider the Muslim refugees from the sub-continent as their rivals rather than comrades. They have been made to understand that if the concept of the son of the soil is accepted then all would be theirs; otherwise their comrades-in-arm in the battle for Pakistan would be entitled to their due share. If the lawyer from Cox’s Bazar could consider an indigenous fellow Muslim from Satkania to be a foreigner in his personal interest then it is no matter of suprise, though it may be of painful regret to regard Muslims from India as foreigners be it in the Eastern wing or the Western wing. Before the establishment of Pakistan the majority of trade and commerce, land and property were in the hands of the Hindus and Sikhs and if the Muslims of the sub-continent by their joint efforts had not succeeded in creating Pakistan then all this would still have remained with them. Would then the present advocates of the son of the soil have preferred the economic domination of the Hindu and the Sikhs. Were there people who had left their property here worthy of greater consideration than the fellow MLlSllH1S who had sacrificed their all for the sake of Pakistan and been forced to take refuge here ? Nobody says that the people here should share their property with the Muslim refugees in the matter of the Ansars of Madina. Now the property left by the Hindus and Sikhs has already been disposed off. The only thing left is not to treat the Muslims from India as foreigners but as equal partners in building up a strong Pakistan just as they were in the struggle for its creation This son of the soil business can only result in creating all round disillusionment and confusion and herald our country‘s disintegration. But the difficulty is that in this age of pure materialism which both the capitalist and the socialist orders represent, moral and spiritual values are being undermined and replaced by mundane values of profit and loss. The idea is being spread that anything that results in material gain is good even though it may mean cutting the throat of one’s own brother and conversely anything which brings material loss is bad. This is throwing all our moral values to the winds and everyone whether son of the soil or not is affected by it. In this way our society and culture are disintegrating before our very eyes. It is in fact a conflict of values and it is to be seen which one finally prevails—whether the everlasting spiritual and moral values of Islam or the ever changing mundane values of profit and loss. There is no doubt that geography, history, literature, customs and traditions play a great part in the makeup of a nation’s culture. But these are by no means absolute ruling factors; they are subject to the people’s ideology and are governed by it. The things which are found to be in conflict with this ideology are either discarded or moulded to suit it. This is why we find more than one culture springing up in the same territory either simultaneously or one after another. As far as Muslims are concerned the decisive influence of Islam, its history, beliefs and traditions on the culture of its followers is apparent. Take for instance food, remaining within the limits of what is permissible and what is not Muslims have availed themselves of the products of every slime and developed infinite varieties of tasteful dishes out of them enriching their cultural pattern. A good example of the way in which local products influence customs and culture of a place is furnished in the sub-continent by pan. Conversely no system of food which includes alcohol, flesh of swine or carrion can ever become a part of Muslim culture. Similarly in the matter of dress Islam prescribes certain limits of modesty. Within these limits one can wear any dress and make any refinements therein he likes according to local climatic condition and taste. In literature the environment, geographical features, mountains and rivers, flora and fauna, legends and folk lore naturally play important part but all bear the imprint of Islamic way of life. Similarly is the case of history in the sub-continent. The heroic deeds of many sons of Islam are undoubtedly heart warming. Their names are a source of pride to us and are in addition to the great names which are the common heritage of Muslim cultures. In this way local patterns of Muslim culture while differing in detail due to reasons of geography and history are in union with the general Muslim culture in spirit and are reasonable for its variegated hue. Every Muslim feels this in the marrow of his bones though he may not be fully conscious of it.

 It is common knowledge that man is basically selfish and is motivated by personal gain. The prime object of every social order, if the laws framed by it and of every religion has been to put this instinct under discipline and keep it within permissible limits. How to reconcile the conflicting interests of individuals or groups has remained the most difficult social problem. Islam has achieved the greatest success in tackling it by inculcating fear of an omniscient and omnipresent God and creating permanent spiritual and moral values and applying them in day to day life. It lifted man from the pit of tribal, racial and linguistic prejudices and elevated him to the glorious peak of common brotherhood in which a persons’ position was determined not by birth or wealth but by his virtues and good deeds. The culture which evolved from such an outlook enshrined its values and so inculcated them as to make them part and parcel of ones being.

 It is as easy to destroy a thing as it is difficult to build it. It has taken centuries to build an imposing edifice of common Muslim culture. A composite culture incorporating local customs, traditions and peculiarities has evolved but it will take very little time to destroy it. Since parochialism is endemic in man it is easy to gain cheap popularity by playing it up so as to turn it into an epidemic The communists know the trick and it has proved a very effective weapon in their armoury. Experience has shown us that when anarchy and confusion exist then enemies make the confusion worse confounded by their favourite method and exploit the real grievances of the people and teach them how to raise voice of protest ill an organized manner. This is the surest way of ingratiating themselves in their favour as their real well wishers and sympathizers. Next the people’s attention is turned towards such handicaps and difficulties of which they are not conscious but can be easily made to feel the pinch when made aware of them. Exploiting regional prejudices and parochial feeling has also proved to be very useful in spreading chaos. In this way the people start dividing and

sub-dividing into smaller and smaller groups until eventually the solution for their difficulties is found to lie in independence or such autonomy as amounts to it. Consequently many small and weak semi-independent units take the place of a big and strong nation and country. Their resources in manpower and material are so small that they dare not take a stand against a mighty power.

 Since our country commands both the Arabian sea and the Bay of Bengal which opens up all the trade routes of south and south-east Asia assumes great importance both from the point of view of political’ strategy as well as trade and commerce. The importance of Pakistan from the political angle cannot be gainsaid because not only does it constitute a connecting link between the Eastern al1d Western blocks of the Islamic world but also because it  is the only state which has come into being in the name of Islam to preserve and promote its culture and way of life. Islamic system is superior to the socialist. Thus our country has become an object of special attention both to the Soviet Union and China. Prominence is being given to regional prejudices of the various areas and the attention of the people is being focused on economic need and on racial, commercial and linguistic conflicts. A very significant aspect of these designs is raising the issue of regional culture. So this approach has been discarded out of sheer expediency. Since, as mentioned earlier, the destruction of the bastion of Islamic culture built around Islam may eventually lead to the destruction of Islam itself, planned measures are being taken to undermine and topple this bastion. One of the best ways to achieve this object is to persuade the people to have emotional links with the achievements of the sons of the soil as left in the ruins of Mohenjodaro etc. rather than with the glorious history of Islam. This realignment of cultural ties encourages and strengthens the growth of regional culture and prejudice which in its tum gives birth to fissiperous nationalist tendencies, Evidence of this can be seen everywhere so much so that those who were prominent in the struggle for Pakistan and were important Muslim League leaders are now saying that several nations inhabit Pakistan. Just consider not two nations—Hindus and Muslims—but many nations. Who had ever said or heard before that the Muslims of the sub-continent were not one nation, that instead many nations such as, Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans and Baluchis lived on the land which was to constitute Pakistan. Had this been a fact could Pakistan have ever come into being? No one can deny that the millions of Muslims of those areas of the sub-continent which could not be included in Pakistan chose to sacrifice their all only for the reason that this new country Pakistan was coming into existence in the name of Islam and not for the sake of the various regional national groups. Had all the Muslims of the sub-continent not made this unanimous demand the British and the Hindus could never have been compelled to accept it. Just as Pakistan could not possibly come into being without the backing of a united Muslim nation so also it cannot survive without a similar unity.

 Another method has been devised for weaning the people away from attachment to their faith. Instead of making a frontal and direct attack on Islam and its way of life, people are told that the upper classes use the name of Islam just as a prop to the continued enjoyment. social and economic privilege and vested interests. Whenever these are threatened they play upon the sentiments of the people by raising the slogan of ‘Islam in danger‘ whereas the truth of the matter is that Islam plays little part in their own day to day life, which is the greatest proof of their hypocrisy and perfidy. Since this li1le of argument rings true it instantly goes home. Consequently it is now commonly seen that whenever there is any mention of Islam the people retort “We now well understand the tricks of your trade. You have been crying hoarse about the Islamic way of life for years now. Yet our condition is getting from bad to worse. So good bye to such an Islamic system” and in actual practice they are getting farther and farther away from the concept of an Islamic way of life, and unwillingly from Islam itself. One factorin this situation is worth considering here. If our socialist fellow countrymen genuinely love Islam and Pakistan and are true well wishers of the people then instead of seeking to import a remedy alien to our entire way of thinking and body politic why do they not tell the people the obvious fact, which they will promptly grasp, that Islam is by no means the monopoly of the upper classes. It belongs just as much to the lower classes, in fact more so because the latter hold it dearer and it plays a greater role in their daily lives. If the upper classes in their personal interests obstruct the establishment of an Islamic political, social and economic order then the lower classes should join hands in removing the obstacles and should jointly raise such a vigorous voice for an Islamic order as to enforce its acceptance. It would be comparatively much easier to convince the people about the excellence of Islamic order rather than of socialism because it is in their blood and the upper classes would not also dare as they do in the case of socialism to condemn it openly.

 The advocates of the socialist system also resort to another argument which has a direct appeal to the people namely that poverty is the root of all evil. According to them if every person were assured of the requisite food and shelter then social ills will come to an end. Generally this argument is advanced with sincerity and honesty but there are some people who deliberately conceal the truth. Poverty undoubtedly is a great curse. But poverty does not mean only the lack of material goods. Intellectual, moral and spiritual poverty is just as big a curse, nay, bigger. Take for instance the most advanced and prosperous country in the world, the United States. Is it not a fact that the common people there enjoy greater amenities and comforts of life than even the rich here? And yet is it not a fact that this ailluent society is basically sick, that the incidence of serious crimes is the highest there, that neurasthenia is rampant there, and that the number of people committing suicide is amongst the highest in the world? Had material poverty been the root of all evil then obviously American society would not have experienced these ills. Thus social evils are not removed merely by removing material poverty. Intellectual, moral and spiritual poverty are much more fatal to society. Even in our own country we find that our poorer classes are much less prone to evil ways than the wealth.ier. It is also common experience that the self-same person who while poor led an honest life succumbs to temptation when he somehow acquires some money. On the other hand many poor men would rather live in poverty than resort to immoral means to acquire riches. If this is true now in our fallen state then one can well imagine what the moral fibre of the early Muslims must have been. It often happened in those days that a person following the footsteps of the Holy Prophet would willingly give away his good to a more needy person even though he and his family may have been starving for several days. This was the result for the moral and spiritual training which the early Muslims normally received. This certainly does not mean that food and clothing should not be provided for the people. Not only this, the people should also get proper housing and medical treatment. But the point is that this by itself would neither satisfy the mind nor remove the ills of society. In fact social malaise will increase if spiritual and moral bankruptcy does not simultaneously go. Thus the real reason which is according to our society is that our spiritual and moral values are being undermined and that the distinction between the lawful and the unlawful is disappearing. Though we have not so far reached the stage of moral decay which the western countries have, yet we are moving in that very direction.

 There is a certain misunderstanding even among the educated classes regarding the difference between communism and Socialism. It is commonly believed that communism is indeed a dangerous doctrine based as it is on atheism and on ruthless oppression and repression, but that socialism is a milder system in which religion can also flourish and which is not so harsh. In fact just the opposite is the truth. The negation of God, religion and of moral values is as much a cornerstone of Communism as it is of Socialism. But communism is that utopian state where the community jointly owns everything, is so completely self-governing that all functions of government are automatically performed with the result that the state with all its paraphernalia of army, police etc., will no longer be necessary and therefore will wither away. In short in that state there will be no oppressor nor oppressed. To reach this imaginary paradise it is considered necessary to pass through a period of stern discipline and reform an obvious euphemism for nithless repression, barbaric torture and mass murder. This terrible state of transition is called socialism. On the face of it socialism means only the control of the state over the means of production and distribution. But in reality this system cannot com: into existence nor stay without unleashing the severest reign of terror and without taking away all forms of individual liberty. The supporters of socialism must keep this distinction in mind and anyone denying the truth of it should be considered either not well informed or not well-intentioned.

 Either they are not aware of the truth or they deliberately conceal it that the Caliph is as much bound by the Shariat as any other member of the Islamic social order and has no power whatever to make any fundamental alteration in the Islamic laws as made by God and the Prophet. The first thing which Hazrat Abu Bakr said on becoming the Caliph was that his followers should obey him only as long as he himself obeyed all the commandments of God and the Prophet and that they could remove him if he acted otherwise. What a contrast between the

Islamic way of life which prescribes our obligations to fellow creatures and to the Creator and the socialism system which knows no such limits. It is of course true that in the later part of Islamic history there were instances of miscarriage of justice though it was insignificant as compared to the wholesale organized massacres of the Stalinist regime. But as far as the principle is concerned the caliph was certainly not an absolute dictator whose word was law but his duty was to enforce the laws made by God and the Prophet.

 The Way Out

The situation is undoubtedly one of anxiety but not of despair. "It can still be rectified provided we start realizing that both Pakistan and Islam are in real danger, that to overcome this danger it is imperative that both the government and the people work in an organized manner hand in hand commensurate with the magnitude of the danger. This does not mean that each one of us must mark time for some other person to take the initiative and only then to join hands with him. Every individual must make his own contribution to this grand endeavour. Only then can the tide be reversed. Firstly we must be clear in our minds about the misunderstanding and mental confusion mentioned earlier. Reformation of thought is of fundamental importance. This work can be achieved to a considerable extent by each person acting individually. Starting from one's own family members the circle can be gradually extended to one’s relations, friends and neighbours. We should understand clearly that this effort can be successful only if our approach is patient, forbearing and backed by convincing arguments. Any hard and harsh line will have the opposite effect. This article should also be considered as a humble effort in that direction. Along with this individual effort collective endeavour is just as important. It is necessary therefore that a purely non-political organization should be formed for the reformation of thought. This body should establish support with the leading thinkers, writers, journals, publishing houses and with the television and radio authorities. In cooperation with them it should organize the publication of books and brochures on the various aspects of the problem in large quantities to be distributed in every corner of the country. Along with it study groups should be formed in various places to provide for discussion and exchange of views to enable the people to remove their doubts, misapprehensions and intellectual confusion. Even in our existing literature there is no dearth. of such gems which have enabled the Muslims to develop a sense of unity and brotherhood and an intense love for the Prophet and can still do so. The works of Hali, Akbar, Zafar Ali Khan and Iqbal are replete with such ideas. It is a matter of surprise that those parts of Iqbal’s works where he has preached against racial, geographical and linguistic prejudices and against the Western concept of nationalism are seldom included either in the education syllabi or in radio and television programmes. The same is turn of true parts of his works where he has preached against socialism. It is amusing to find that his following couplet is often quoted favour of socialism.

جس کھیت سے دھقان کو میسر نہ ہو روزی

اس کھیت کے ہر خوشۂ گندم کو جلا دو

The farm which provides not the farmer with his food, is worth burning down, each ear of its wheat.”

 

But seldom one hears of his great masterpiece “Iblis ki Majliss Shoora” the like of which in well reasoned and effective denunoiatia of socialism hardly exists in any thier literature. Even if it is reluctantly mentioned effort is made to belittle its importance. The literary front is a very important one which socialism masquerading in the garb of progressivism is gradually capturing over since 1935. Its influence in our literature has penetrated so deep that no poet, novelist or writer is considered great unless he preaches the socialist view point. Any person who is conscientious enough not to fall in line with them but to strike a path of his own is ignored.

 

Regarding the new generation it is not possible to bring about any change in their ideas without changing the educational system. It should be the purpose of our new educational policy to turn out good Muslim men of character and enlighten most who would not only assimilate and master modern knowledge but also again be capable of assuming leadership in human thought as was the case with the early Muslims. The world knows and accepts that the ill educated Arabs in a very short period of time mastered all learning of China, Iran, India, Egypt and Greece in such a way that for centuries they were the world leaders in thought and learning.

 It is an undeniable fact that Pakistan is an ideological state which has come into existence in the name of Islam to preserve and promote its way of life and culture. There is thus no logical reason why any attempt to subvert this ideology and supplant it by an other should not be defined as treason in the Pakistan Penal Code. In this category should also fall all attempts to undermine the stability and integrity of the country.

 Another factor which a far-sighted person like Gandhi envisaged and which was his strongest

argument against the establishment of Pakistan was that the Muslims will not rest content merely with the creation of Pakistan but would join hands with the neighbouring Muslim countries which would make them much more powerful than India itself. Thus soon after the establishment of Pakistan it became the objective of the Indian foreign policy to create various

obstacles in the way of Muslim unity and to bedevil Pakistan‘s relations with the other Muslim countries, The Western powers because of their centuries old enmity with Islam look askance at this united Muslim bloc. Had they thought rationally they would certainly have come to the conclusion that the only power against that can serve as an effective bulwark is the formation of a strong Muslim bloc. Since the Western countries also at least profess to subscribe to moral, religious and democratic values the chances of their coming to a cooperative understanding with the Muslim bloc are better.

 The combined resources of the Western powers and the Muslim world would be so overwhelming that it would not be possible for the socialist countries to match them. But they chose not to understand the far-reaching implications of this new equation in the balance of power. In any case we have to stand on our own feet It is in our blood that Muslims the world over constitute one fraternity. This latent spark can become a flume once again and “the glow from that fire will truly light the world”. When the ideal of Muslims being one nation looms large then our petty prejudices will automatically fade away. When the goal of Pakistan was before us we were all just Muslims there were no Bengalis, Punjabis, U.Pites, Sindhis, Pathans or Baluchis. Once Pakistan was achieved smaller issue in the absence of bigger ones assumed prominence. The endeavour to achieve a long cherished goal of world Muslim unity can once again produce the same results. The seed of Muslim unity which was sown some years ago in the shape of the R.C.D. is capable of growing into a mighty tree if jointly nurtured by the Muslim nations of the world as a result of the recent Rabat conference. We must be clear in our minds that Jerusalem and Kashmir cannot be freed by passing mere resolutions. As Akbar Allahabadi put it:

لفظوں کا تموج کچھ بھی نہیں ایک کھیل ہے یہ ایک نقل ہے یہ

بازو کی بھی قوت شامل ھو اس وقت میں وہ بامعنی ہے

“The vibration of words will avail us nothing; it is a mere show, a mere mimicry: it only becomes sensible when associated with the prowess of the arms”.

 This strength of arms referred to by him must be created and it can be so created.

 First of all we must establish : united front for collective defence. In the modern world, warfare is based on industrial and technological powers. Normally military strength is proportionate with economic power. The industrial potential of a country is its war potential. Thus a country’s military power is almost as great as its industrial strength. Almost because industries can manufacture only hardware and not courage, morale fervour, faith and mastery in the art of warfare. These are qualities without which no military equipment can either be used effectively nor can victory be won against heavier odds. For instance during the 1965 war our various forces and equipment were numerically much inferior to that of India’s. But our forces had much higher morale, religious fervour and determination to do or die which enabled them to withstand the far superior Indian might. Just as military power is not sufficient to ensure victory so also mere patriotic fervour and faith do not suffice. Had this not been so there would have been no command in the Holy Qur’an that side by side with faith in God the horses should also be kept ready. Now aircrafts, missiles and tanks have replaced horses and we are dependent on other countries for their supply. It should be our endeavour to produce them ourselves. At present when new methods in industrial production are being discovered almost every day, when better and better goods are being produced in shorter and shorter time, when faster and faster means of communication are being developed, when more and more effective means of destruction are being invented, when atomic energy looks like turning the earth into heaven or hell, it is not possible for Pakistan or any other Muslim country to provide single-handed the astronomical sums of money and technological know-how needed to match the industrial capacity of any Western country. But the Muslim world collectively can certainly do so: All kinds of natural resources and agriculture produce are abundantly available in the Muslim world and the abundance of oil has placed unlimited funds at its disposal. Technical expertise is also available although on a limited scale which can soon be expanded with proper training. In short various industries can be established through mutual cooperation in diffei'el1t parts of the Muslim World so as to make it self-sufficient in a short period. Then our united military command would be able to retrieve Jurusalem and free Kashmir and India would not also dare to ill treat her Muslim citizens. We would then be in a position to pay full attention towards the establishment of an Islamic way of life and to the development of Muslim culture. It would not be surprising if this results in the evolution of a Commonwealth of Islam. As they say a journey of a thousand miles begins with single step. Let us take that first step. May Allah, the Holy Prophet’s life and the Holy Qur’an be our guide.