Revisiting the Spirit of Pakistan Resolution-II

A new vision of Pakistan is the need of the hour. This is a self-evident fact. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan faces grave challenges because its foundational principles have remained static, whereas the world around it has changed. An equally self-evident and fundamental aspect of this historical demand is that this new vision of Pakistan needs to remain anchored in the same historical currents which produced the “Two Nation Theory”--the idea that there do exist two distinct polities in the Indian subcontinent.

Lucidly articulated by Iqbal in his Presidential Address delivered to the Annual Session of the All-India Muslim league, held at Allahabad on the 29th of December 1930, this idea was neither a poet’s fancy nor the catchword of a political party seeking power; it was an inspired vision rooted in a true understanding of the unfolding of history. Furthermore, it was an articulation by a man whose own spiritual and intellectual developments had brought him to a stage in his life where he could see what most men of his times were unable to perceive.

On that momentous day, Iqbal opened his address at Allahabad by saying: “I lead no party; I follow no leader. I have given the best part of my life to a careful study of Islam, its law and polity, its culture, its history and its literature. This constant contact with the spirit of Islam, as it unfolds itself in time, has, I think, given me a kind of insight into its significance as a world fact. It is in the light of this insight, whatever its value, that, while assuming that the Muslims of India are determined to remain true to the spirit of Islam, I propose, not to guide you in your decisions but to attempt the humbler task of bringing clearly to your consciousness the main principle which, in my opinion, should determine the general character of these decisions.”

Notice the humility, the self-effacing attitude and the solidity of belief in this passage; note also the clarity of a mind, rooted in the knowledge of veracity of his beliefs. Iqbal was to state on that day that “Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity” is the real formative factor in the “life-history of the Muslims of India. It has furnished those basic emotions and loyalties which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that India is perhaps the only country in the world where Islam, as a people-building force, has worked at its best.”

Iqbal conceived the emergence of Muslims as a distinct entity in the general flow of Indian history as a consequence of a unique historical process that took place only in the Indian subcontinent and nowhere else in the world. Even at that time, when the colonial yoke had turned most of his contemporaries into caricatures of Western ideals, Iqbal was proclaiming to the gathering that as their speaker they had “selected a man who is not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of man from its geographical limitations, who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as States, and finally who believes that Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny.”

At a time when we are being forced to embark upon redefining our ideological foundations on an ambiguous notion of “enlightened and moderate Islam”, we are reminded of Iqbal’s words: “It is open to a people to modify, reinterpret or reject the foundational principles of their social structure, but it is absolutely necessary for them to see clearly what they are doing before they undertake to try a fresh experiment.”

These words need to be understood by Pakistanis before they embark upon a General’s venture of remaking Islam in their image. What is of utmost importance in this respect is to understand that the social and political dimensions of Islam are an integral part of Islam and not an appendage that can be thrown out. On that historical day, Iqbal had asked the gathering this very question at a point in his address which is of the most lucid parts of his speech: “Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as a polity in favour of national polities, in which religious attitude is not permitted to play any part?”

Iqbal’s own response was to underscore the fact that “this question was not trivial” and that “the religious ideals of Islam were organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other.” Look at the clarity of Iqbal’s perception and the relevance of his statement in our contemporary situation; there is, indeed, an inspired mind at work here.

Clarifying his notion that Islamic polity is  distinct from other polities, Iqbal said that had the “teachings of Kabir and the “divine faith of Akbar” seized the imagination of masses of this country, it would have been possible to construe a single polity in the Indian subcontinent… experience, however, shows that the various caste-units and religious units in India have shown no inclination to sink their respective individualities in a larger whole.”

This was the foundation of “Two Nation Theory”, an idea which was to become much clearer with time but whose foundational principle was to remain as stated in this Address: there exists a distinctively Islamic polity in the Indian subcontinent which is different from all other polities put together.

Numerous social, religious, historical, economic and political reasons were subsequently added to this basic formulation by different leaders of the Independence Movement. They pointed out that even after hundreds of years of living together, Muslims neither marry into other religious communities, nor eat the food prepared by others, unless it conforms to their own religious laws. They do not share religious rites with other communities of the Indian subcontinent. Their literature, poetry, arts, architecture and numerous other civilizational expressions remain distinct. These, and several others arguments illustrated the point, which was rather simple: there existed a distinct Islamic polity in the Indian subcontinent whose distinction comes from religion; later enhancements (which added several layers of secondary importance) did not add anything to the basic idea, but merely explained it further.

Note that this idea of the presence of a distinctively Islamic polity was presented without animosity to any other polity. “I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and social institutions of other communities,” Iqbal had said, “nay, it is my duty, according to the teaching of the Qur’an, even to defend their places of worship, if need be. Yet I love the communal group which is the source of my life and behaviour, and which has formed me what I am by giving me its religion, its literature, its thought, its culture, and thereby recreating its whole past as a living operative factor, in my present consciousness.”

Before a new vision can be formulated, we need to examine the question: what went wrong with this idea?

(To be concluded)