ASK MAULANA

Your Questions Answered

Is political independence alone the remedy of all ills?

Before 1947, Indian leaders believed that the root of all the problems was political slavery, that India was an ‘enslaved land’, and that political freedom for the country, making India a ‘free land’, was the key to all sorts of goodness and welfare. And so, guided by this mentality, they focused all their energies on extricating India from political slavery and working for its political independence.

After enormous efforts and sacrifices, in August 1947 this goal was achieved. Accordingly, independent India should have fulfilled Mahatma Gandhi’s dream of, in his words, ‘wiping the tears from every eye’. But exactly the opposite actually happened! Tearful eyes remained as filled with tears as before. In fact, the number of tearful eyes, far from diminishing, increased by leaps and bounds! And the most ironical thing about the entire affair was that while our leaders had thundered against our enslavement to Western colonialists and unleashed a freedom struggle against them, which entailed huge sacrifices, following Independence, highly-educated Indians began migrating in droves to the lands of the very same Western people! And so, our ‘best’ brains have left ‘free India’ and have gone and settled in the ‘imperialist’ USA and UK.

Once, someone complained to an Indian who had settled abroad about this ‘brain drain’, about the fact that many of the ‘best’ brains of the country have migrated to the West. The non-resident Indian quipped in reply, ‘Brain-drain is better than brain in the drain!’ What this non-resident Indian wanted to say was that it was better for ‘good’ Indian brains to settle in the West than to stagnate and vegetate in the unfavourable environment of India.

This one incident illustrates that this division between ‘enslaved land’ and ‘free land’ is not proper. If this division were indeed proper, it would never have happened that people would have turned their backs on a life of freedom in their own country and then voluntarily chosen a life of ‘slavery’ in some foreign country.

How is the situation of India and Pakistan similar with respect to its people leaving their home countries and settling abroad?

The Indian Muslim leadership prior to 1947 had a similar mindset as their Hindu counterparts of dreaming of political independence and freedom. It imagined that the source of all goodness for Muslims was a separate ‘Muslim land’. They also thought that the source of all evil was for Muslims to live in a ‘non-Muslim land’, where they would be in a minority. Based on this ideology, they launched a fiery movement— the Pakistan movement—demanding the Partition of India. After much furore and agitation, which entailed enormous sacrifices, finally this separate ‘Muslim land’ came into being, in August 1947, being carved out of a portion of the Indian subcontinent.

This ‘Muslim homeland’ should have lived up to the hopes of the Muslims and turned their dreams into reality. The ‘Muslim homeland’ should have provided Muslims an environment that, from the religious point of view, should have been fully favourable for them. Their life and property should have been fully safe there. In Pakistan, they should have been able to enjoy all sorts of opportunities to progress. In that country, Muslims could have, according to their thinking, revived their past glory. That country could have truly become a ‘pure land’, a cradle of peace, prosperity and happiness.

But the reality proved to be just the opposite. This ‘Muslim homeland’ became an undesirable country for Muslims themselves, so much that many Muslims began fleeing from it and settling in ‘non-Muslim lands’ instead.

I have asked several Pakistanis who have settled in America why they left their country and came to the West. Almost all of them had just two answers to give: some said that in Pakistan they did not have many opportunities to progress, while others said that in Pakistan they did not feel secure.

The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent had demanded, through their leaders, a separate country, in accordance, so they said, with their religion. They insisted that they could not live in a non-Muslim country in accordance with their religion. But when their Muslim homeland that they demanded came into being, the very same thing happened that took place in the ‘free land’ of Gandhi and Nehru! That is to say, hundreds of thousands of people left this ‘Muslim land’ and headed to the ‘non-Muslim lands’ of the USA and Europe! And now they have become citizens of those countries, where they lead a happy life, so much that their representatives very proudly declare in public, ‘I am proud to be an American Muslim!’

This experience shows that this division that was made prior to 1947, between ‘Muslim land’ and ‘non-Muslim land’ was not appropriate or proper. If this division had indeed been proper, the Partition of India that it led to would not have had such terribly tragic consequences.

Is there any improvement in sight for India-Pakistan relations?

In both countries, the media kept up a steady propaganda against the ‘enemy’ country. But when an Indian Hindu visited Pakistan, he would be overwhelmed by the hospitality and warm welcome which he received from Pakistani Muslims. And when he returned to India he would remark, ‘Pakistanis treat us so nicely! So, why this enmity between our countries?’ Likewise, when a Pakistani Muslim visited India and met with Hindus here, he would be touched by their affection. And he would go back to Pakistan and say, ‘The Indian Hindus gave me a lot of love. Then why is it that enmity continues to prevail between our nations?’

The answer to this question is that when individual Hindus and Muslims from India and Pakistan respectively meet, they meet as one individual meeting another. And whenever one individual meets another at the individual level, it is a meeting of two manifestations of nature—and as far as essential human nature is concerned, there is no difference between a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani. But the matter is different when two communities relate to each other. When two individuals meet, their guide is their own nature. But when a Pakistani Muslim wants to know about the Indian nation as a whole, he gets its information from the Pakistani media. Likewise, when an Indian Hindu wants to know about the Pakistani nation as a whole, he accesses the Indian media. And, as we know, the media specializes in sensationalist, negative news, news about violence, enmity and hate, presenting the opponent as despicable and utterly evil.

This is why when two individuals from two different communities meet, their reactions to each other are very different from when two communities or nations seek to relate to each other at the collective level. If at the collective or national level, Indians and Pakistanis could relate to and view each other in the same way as an individual Indian and an individual Pakistani do when they meet each other, shorn of the influence of media conditioning, it would go a long way in improving relations between the two countries.

What is the way forward for India and Pakistan in terms of developing friendly relations?

India and Pakistan have tried to solve their problems through wars, Track-II diplomacy and the so-called internationalization of the issue. None has yielded the desired result. So, there is need for a fresh outlook.

By a fresh outlook, I do not mean something entirely new. Rather, it is the revival of a wise formula initially suggested by eminent Pakistani economist Mahbub ul-Haq. When he had broached it, the people of Pakistan did not find it acceptable. He was forced to leave the country and settle in New York, where he died in 1998.

His formula was based on the delinking of political and economic issues, and on the notion that trade should not be held hostage to the Kashmir dispute. The delinking policy in this regard means putting controversial issues on the negotiation table, and opening up all other relationships such as trade, education, free intellectual activity, business, industry, tourism, and so on.

Life is full of problems at the individual, social and international levels. The best and wisest course is to not allow problems to become hurdles in the path of development. It is good to try to solve all the problems, but in practice, it may not be a good option. It is better to observe the principle of differentiation, that is, leaving aside the controversial issues and opening all doors to avail of other opportunities, without any restriction.

Reason tells us that if the ideal is not possible, then we have to opt for the pragmatic solution. Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the countries to bring an end to this unwanted situation.