Munira and minorities. In the past, communal tension

Munira Mustafa

mm03040

Dr. Hafeez Jamali

8th December
2017

Q2:
Most nationalist and Western historians of post-colonial India and Pakistan
tend to take the Partition of 1947 as their point of departure for explaining
the social and political trajectories that the two countries have followed
since then. In particular, Pakistan is seen through the twin lenses of military
authoritarianism and Islamist extremism whereas India is seen through the lens
of democracy and secular pluralism. Based on your readings and discussions, do
you think that this is an adequate approach for understanding important
developments such as center-province relations, politicization of religion, and
elite-subaltern relations in the two countries?

To place Pakistan and
India’s predicament in proper perspective, we should consider the roots of
their sovereign statehood — the colonial past. The dismantle of British India
into two separate states; namely India and Pakistan leave a formative moment
for evaluating histories in their political and social context. The division of
the country which led to an unprecedented mass migration and barbaric violence
has been a horrendous chapter in South Asian history. Post-independence era, it
became a model of violent conflict resolution invoked and emulated by ethnic
and religious extremists and the hawkish establishments of India and
Pakistan. Partition was an answer to one unified struggle but politics
after partition was shaped as hierarchical grappling amongst pressure groups
and minorities. In the past, communal tension and conflict occasionally
resulted in violent confrontations, but such events remained small-scale and
marginal. Mainstream politics remained essentially constitutional and peaceful.

Religion has always been
used to determine the political conditions of both India and Pakistan. Religion
has bee commodifoed to categorize identity which gives rise to identitity
poliitics in staehood. a acounrty which is spread alond ethnic, provincial and
religious line, religion acts as a unifying factor for creating a national
identity. The first compromise between the seculars and traditionalists came
out in objective resolution in 1949, a preamble for Pakistan’s first
constitution. Pakistan’s constitution makes it clear in the first few sentences
that; all sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah and the authority to be exercised
by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a “sacred
trust.”  Under military ruler Zia ul-Haq
from 1977-1988, Islamization acquired the full backing of the state. As an
Islamic state Pakistan, religious identity plays a significant role in shaping
the country’s political discourse. 
Civilian political parties, whether it be the secular Pakistan People’s
Party (PPP) or the center-right PML (N) of Nawaz Sharif, have also used Islamic
causes for short-term political gains. But the major blame is on militant
forces residing in Pakistan. In Between
Mosque and Military, Haqqani discusses the alliance between mullahs and the
military and how it has made religious groups, both armed and unarmed, more
powerful (Islam and Politics in Pakistan).

India as secular state
delivers a complicate relation entailing a vast majority if cultural and ethnic
boundaries, India bears the idea of equality before law. If I put forward an
argument on Indian secularism, it is a myth. Narendra Modi, Prime minister of India is alleged to
promote the idea of Hinduism to the detriment of Islam.
Indian constitution seeks to attach their new state to thoughts of
advancement and radicalism by making an administration that would guarantee
residents’ rights while additionally making the conditions for equitable
citizenship. Adjusting these two objectives has been especially testing as to
religion, as exemplified by the rise of an impossible to misinterpret Indian
comprehension of secularism which requires no foundation of religion however
does not looked to isolate religion and state.

Seventy years after, it is indistinct what lessons
Partition still holds. While Pakistan and India have developed along altogether
different ways, the results don’t look especially changed. The narrow
mindedness that energized the gore in 1947 is still persists. In New Delhi, a
populist Hindu nationalist party has replaced a dynastic party that ruled for
decades. Swarm assaults and lynching of minorities and low-station Indians have
turned into a close day by day shock. Pakistan is no less vexed. Pakistan has
modified amongst regular democratic and military control directly after its
independence. Governmental issues are mixed with the outrage and disdain of a
developing white-collar class. Though religious parties lose out in elections
to large provincial parties run by elites promising patronage to largely
impoverished voters, it hardly matters. Political discourses have been made
flexible to ensure political authority in both states. Society everywhere has
moved consistently rightwards, especially as those white-collar classes apply
more noteworthy impact in legislative issues (Khan, 2017) “Ruling
configurations at the center have been content with securing support from
regional elites’ wo are inclined to further entrench their own political and
economic interests, not advance the process of democratization” (Jalal and
Bose, 1998). Though Pakistan’s economy as grow tremendously in the dynamics of
democracy polity but the military still plays an outsize role in regulating
politics of the country i.e. defense and foreign policy (Khan, 2017).

Politics of India and
Pakistan can be viewed through an action reaction model. For instance; In
Pakistan a response to the assault on the Babri mosque in Ayodhya was promptly
trailed by assaults on the old Hindu sanctuaries. The two states have been on
the verge of a nuclear war since May 1998, when both demonstrated their ability
to explode nuclear devices. Partition thus supplanted the normal model with an
extremist model of conflict resolution. On the other, it became the inevitable
backdrop of post-independence politics of India and Pakistan (Ahmed, 2017). Thus,
for more than fifty years now it has served as the implicit or explicit
rationale of anti-minority, military and civilian politics in the two countries
and has driven them into hawkish interactions.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

·        
Islam and Politics in Pakistan. (n.d.). Retrieved December 16,
2017, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islam-and-politics-pakistan

·        
I. A. (2017, March 1). The 1947 Partition of India: A Paradigm
for Pathological Politics in India and Pakistan. Retrieved December 16, 2017,
from http://www.sacw.net/partition/IshtiaqAhmed2002.html

·        
Bose, S., & Jalal, A. (2018). Modern South Asia:
history, culture, political economy. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
et Francis Group.

·        
Khan, T. (2017, August 13). Pakistan: 70 years after Partition.
Retrieved December 26, 2017, from
https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/pakistan-70-years-after-partition-1.619404

 

 

 

 Munira Mustafa

mm03040

Dr. Hafeez Jamali

8th December
2017

Q2:
Most nationalist and Western historians of post-colonial India and Pakistan
tend to take the Partition of 1947 as their point of departure for explaining
the social and political trajectories that the two countries have followed
since then. In particular, Pakistan is seen through the twin lenses of military
authoritarianism and Islamist extremism whereas India is seen through the lens
of democracy and secular pluralism. Based on your readings and discussions, do
you think that this is an adequate approach for understanding important
developments such as center-province relations, politicization of religion, and
elite-subaltern relations in the two countries?

To place Pakistan and
India’s predicament in proper perspective, we should consider the roots of
their sovereign statehood — the colonial past. The dismantle of British India
into two separate states; namely India and Pakistan leave a formative moment
for evaluating histories in their political and social context. The division of
the country which led to an unprecedented mass migration and barbaric violence
has been a horrendous chapter in South Asian history. Post-independence era, it
became a model of violent conflict resolution invoked and emulated by ethnic
and religious extremists and the hawkish establishments of India and
Pakistan. Partition was an answer to one unified struggle but politics
after partition was shaped as hierarchical grappling amongst pressure groups
and minorities. In the past, communal tension and conflict occasionally
resulted in violent confrontations, but such events remained small-scale and
marginal. Mainstream politics remained essentially constitutional and peaceful.

Religion has always been
used to determine the political conditions of both India and Pakistan. Religion
has bee commodifoed to categorize identity which gives rise to identitity
poliitics in staehood. a acounrty which is spread alond ethnic, provincial and
religious line, religion acts as a unifying factor for creating a national
identity. The first compromise between the seculars and traditionalists came
out in objective resolution in 1949, a preamble for Pakistan’s first
constitution. Pakistan’s constitution makes it clear in the first few sentences
that; all sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah and the authority to be exercised
by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a “sacred
trust.”  Under military ruler Zia ul-Haq
from 1977-1988, Islamization acquired the full backing of the state. As an
Islamic state Pakistan, religious identity plays a significant role in shaping
the country’s political discourse. 
Civilian political parties, whether it be the secular Pakistan People’s
Party (PPP) or the center-right PML (N) of Nawaz Sharif, have also used Islamic
causes for short-term political gains. But the major blame is on militant
forces residing in Pakistan. In Between
Mosque and Military, Haqqani discusses the alliance between mullahs and the
military and how it has made religious groups, both armed and unarmed, more
powerful (Islam and Politics in Pakistan).

India as secular state
delivers a complicate relation entailing a vast majority if cultural and ethnic
boundaries, India bears the idea of equality before law. If I put forward an
argument on Indian secularism, it is a myth. Narendra Modi, Prime minister of India is alleged to
promote the idea of Hinduism to the detriment of Islam.
Indian constitution seeks to attach their new state to thoughts of
advancement and radicalism by making an administration that would guarantee
residents’ rights while additionally making the conditions for equitable
citizenship. Adjusting these two objectives has been especially testing as to
religion, as exemplified by the rise of an impossible to misinterpret Indian
comprehension of secularism which requires no foundation of religion however
does not looked to isolate religion and state.

Seventy years after, it is indistinct what lessons
Partition still holds. While Pakistan and India have developed along altogether
different ways, the results don’t look especially changed. The narrow
mindedness that energized the gore in 1947 is still persists. In New Delhi, a
populist Hindu nationalist party has replaced a dynastic party that ruled for
decades. Swarm assaults and lynching of minorities and low-station Indians have
turned into a close day by day shock. Pakistan is no less vexed. Pakistan has
modified amongst regular democratic and military control directly after its
independence. Governmental issues are mixed with the outrage and disdain of a
developing white-collar class. Though religious parties lose out in elections
to large provincial parties run by elites promising patronage to largely
impoverished voters, it hardly matters. Political discourses have been made
flexible to ensure political authority in both states. Society everywhere has
moved consistently rightwards, especially as those white-collar classes apply
more noteworthy impact in legislative issues (Khan, 2017) “Ruling
configurations at the center have been content with securing support from
regional elites’ wo are inclined to further entrench their own political and
economic interests, not advance the process of democratization” (Jalal and
Bose, 1998). Though Pakistan’s economy as grow tremendously in the dynamics of
democracy polity but the military still plays an outsize role in regulating
politics of the country i.e. defense and foreign policy (Khan, 2017).

Politics of India and
Pakistan can be viewed through an action reaction model. For instance; In
Pakistan a response to the assault on the Babri mosque in Ayodhya was promptly
trailed by assaults on the old Hindu sanctuaries. The two states have been on
the verge of a nuclear war since May 1998, when both demonstrated their ability
to explode nuclear devices. Partition thus supplanted the normal model with an
extremist model of conflict resolution. On the other, it became the inevitable
backdrop of post-independence politics of India and Pakistan (Ahmed, 2017). Thus,
for more than fifty years now it has served as the implicit or explicit
rationale of anti-minority, military and civilian politics in the two countries
and has driven them into hawkish interactions.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

·        
Islam and Politics in Pakistan. (n.d.). Retrieved December 16,
2017, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islam-and-politics-pakistan

·        
I. A. (2017, March 1). The 1947 Partition of India: A Paradigm
for Pathological Politics in India and Pakistan. Retrieved December 16, 2017,
from http://www.sacw.net/partition/IshtiaqAhmed2002.html

·        
Bose, S., & Jalal, A. (2018). Modern South Asia:
history, culture, political economy. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
et Francis Group.

·        
Khan, T. (2017, August 13). Pakistan: 70 years after Partition.
Retrieved December 26, 2017, from
https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/pakistan-70-years-after-partition-1.619404