Retributions  

The answer is a resounding no.

Over at The Acorn, an interesting discussion happened on whether the merger of Pakistan with India is a possibility. Naturally, the context is the current situation in Pakistan which has raised serious questions about the very future of Pakistan as a nation state.

Nitin has pointed out that the idea of Akhand Bharat (in whatever format) will neither serve the interests of the people of Pakistan nor of India. After all, what purpose may be served by adding 150 million poor people when India it self is grappling with problems of poverty? Further, whatever may be the current differences among the Pakistani people, the idea of an old enemy attempting to devour their state would surely unite them-at least temporarily.

More significantly, those who advocate a merger of Pakistan with India forget the larger historical context of the entire debate. Pakistan was founded as nation-state for the sub-continental Muslims. While there has been an historical debate on whether Jinnah actually was interested in Pakistan or was it merely bargaining position–designed to advance his political career in independent India. Nevertheless, irrespective of the personalities involved, the very fact that this idea gained credence and ultimately came to fruition was based on the place of Islam within the Indian society. (Not using Muslims is quite deliberate.)

The Arabic conqueror, Muhammad Bin Qasim, established Islam in the Indian subcontinent by defeating King Dahar of Sindh in 711. Qasim is a controversial historical figure. Some historians claim he was a liberator, freeing the people of Sindh from the Brahmnical tyranny of King Dahar. (Dahar was a Brahmin though he was at least partially influenced by Buddhism.) Other-decidedly less charitable viewpoints-label him as a zealot who killed mercilessly and converted by force. Whatever may be the historical truth, it is quite clear that Qasim was ultimately a conqueror.

In his controversial book, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, V.S Naipaul, quoting from chachanama, deals with this episode in length. He then tells an insightful anecdote,

In September 1979, on Defense of Pakistan Day, there was a long article in the Pakistan Times on Bin Qasim as a strategist. The assessment was military, neutral, fair to soldiers of both sides. It drew a rebuke from the chairman of National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research,

‘’Employment of appropriate phraseology is necessary when one is projecting the image of a hero. Expressions such as ‘invader,’ and defenders,’ and the ‘Indian Army’ fighting bravely but not quick enough to ‘fall upon the withdrawing enemy’ loom large in the article. It is further marred by some imbalanced statements such as follows: Had Raja Dahar defended the Indus heroically and stopped Qasim from crossing it, the history of this sub-continent might have been quite different.’ One fails to understand whether the writer is applauding the victory of the hero or lamenting the defeats of his rival?”

Naturally, the history in Pakistan ‘’begins with Arabia and Islam…surveys of the first four caliphs and perhaps the Prophet’s daughter are followed , with hardly a break, by lives of poet Iqbal, and Mr Jinnah… .”. Qasim is a hero as he established Islam in the subcontinent. Dahar, on the other hand, is dismissed as a tyrant. It is a fascinating example of ‘’conquered people” (to borrow from Naipaul) adopting conquerers as saviors-rejecting their own history. Coming from this viewpoint, it is easy to see why Ahemd Querishi will write,

That our interpretation of 1857 is different than any potential Indian interpretation of the event. In that year, we in Pakistan formally lost the Muslim Mughal Empire of whom Pakistan is the legitimate inheritor. We mourn the formal fall of the Muslim rule over India in that year. I don’t think the Indians join us in that interpretation. If anything, 1857 for the Indians marks the year the British freed the Indians from the shackles of a millennium of outsider Muslim rule and paved the way for the native Indians to be empowered for the first time in centuries.[link]

Qureshi displays a poor knowledge of history; the Mughal Empire was over long before 1857. Nor do Indians view the events of 1857 only in terms of the fall of the notional Muslim empire. But his larger point is valid from the Pakistani point of view: If Pakistan can be viewed as natural successor of the Mughal Empire, then its position in history is secure and natural.

Pakistan is a nation in which all other identities must be sacrificed at the altar of religion. Otherwise, with its ethnic disparities, it is even more of an unnatural nation than India is. Naturally, Pakistanis read history selectively; Muslims invaders are heroes of the Pakistani state. Unsurprisingly, Pakistan frequently names its missiles on Muslims conquerers and plunders of medieval India. It is not just to mock the ‘’Hindu India”-rather, it is a celebration of the idea of Pakistan which simply cannot be de-linked from the religion which is its binding force.

It is no accident of history that the only successful secessionist movement in Pakistan has been the Bangla movement. Mujibur Rahman could offer an even stronger emotive counterpoint: language. Once Bangladesh was secured and Bengali apparently rescued, the religion regained its place in the national consciousness. Is it any surprise that Mujib’s secular revolution lasted merely three years?

G.M Syed, the Sindhi nationalist, understood this. He was a strong proponent of separation of the state from religion. Within an Islamic Pakistan, Sindhi nationalism has little chance of success even among the Sindhis. It would simply be devoured by the all- pervasive religion. Naturally, he had to offer a different vision-that he failed shows the limits of countering religion by reason. King Dahar, incidentally, is one of Syed’s five heroes of Sindh.

Pakistan’s existence as an antithesis of India is a burden of partition. Yes, it would be ideal if it could look ahead and define its nationhood in terms distinct from India. However, that would undermine the very idea of Pakistan. This conundrum is the fate of Pakistan–a natural culmination of its formation.

Thus, a merger between a multi-cultural society like India and a monolithic state like Pakistan would be an alliance of the opposites. No doubt, Indians and Pakistanis share a lot culturally. But nation-states are not built merely because their people watch the same movies-important as that may be. They require a shared Idea. (1)India and Pakistan in that respect are not only two different countries-but, they are two different civilizations. The entire edifice of Pakistan is rests on rejecting the idea of India. To hope that this historical context–bolstered by the Pakistani state in the last sixty years-may be corrected only by internal strife is patently foolish. In fact, if such a merged entity emerged, it would be a nation within a nation which would undermine and ultimately subvert Indian nationhood. (2)

This is not to argue that India and Pakistan can’t be friends. A stable Pakistan is in everyone’s interest. But that would be the result of geo-political considerations, and not of shared culture.

1. I will further argue that India and America are much closer in that aspect-starting right from their commitment towards democracy, secularism and pluralism.

2. This shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of the two-nation theory. The partition of India could certainly have been prevented if the leaders of the British India had shown more wisdom and honesty of purpose. But much water has flown in the sutlez since that day. It is too late now to correct it.