Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi and the two-nation theory
 

[CENTER][SIZE=4][B]Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi and the two-nation theory[/B][/SIZE]



[SIZE=3][B] By Huma Ghaffar[/B][/SIZE][/CENTER]


Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, one of the more prominent historians of Pakistan, is known for his projection of the Two-nation theory, the political ideology of the All India Muslim League. Qureshi can rightly be designated as the Muslim League historian even though he did not leave a separate work on League. He wrote extensively on political and administrative history of medieval India, Pakistan movement, constitutional development and education.

His writings always had an ideological context which is based on Islam and separate identity of Muslims although he also belongs to the group of professional historians. Before and after partition he also took part in active politics and also served, after independence, as a federal minister. Thus he combined in himself a politician and an academician. The two traits of his personality jointly made him a nationalist historian. Much before pursuing his career as a historian, he actively participated in Khilafat Movement and Non-cooperative movement. In 1937-1940 when he was in Cambridge University for his Ph.D. research, he joined Pakistan National Movement founded by Chaudhary Rehmat Ali.

Once he proudly claimed that I became a Pakistani at Cambridge so I am much older Pakistani as compared to other Pakistanis. After returning India, he was actively involved in the activities of the Muslim League. In 1946, his two booklets were published on the theme of ‘the development of Islamic culture in India’ and ‘the future development of Islamic polity’. These booklets were published by All India Muslim League Writers Committee under Pakistan literature series. He was a better choice for writing those booklets because he was well-equipped with all the tools and sources of history for presenting and defending the case of the demand of separate Muslim state. In the elections of 1946, he was nominated by Muslim League in Bengal and elected as a member of Constituent Assembly. In 1947, he personally suffered due to Hindu-Muslim riots when his house and library were turned into ashes by Hindu communalists.

In Pakistan, from 1949 to 1954, he held the portfolios of the federal minister of Information, Interior, Rehabilitation and Education. He also played a very significant role in drafting the Objectives Resolution. From 1954 to 1960 he taught at Columbia University. In 1960, he returned to Pakistan and became the Chairman of Islamic Research Council. He also served as a Vice-chancellor of Karachi University from 1962 to 1973. He was Chairman of Muqtadra Qumi Zaban from 1979 to 1981.

Dr. I.H. Qureshi’s major historical works came after 1954, except for his Ph.D. thesis which was on the administration of Sultanate of Delhi. In those writings he emerged as a nationalist historian who firmly believed in the separate identity of the Indian Muslims and the Two-nation theory.

He looked on development of Muslim society in India and formation of Pakistan as a natural outcome of the historical development of Muslim society in India. Writing history on nationalist lines and employing a national identity is not a new thing. Countries always need support of history for showing common historical development, proving their distinctive identity, national character and common political aspirations. We may say that in Pakistan this school of thought is firmly established by I.H. Qureshi. Moreover, he was the one whose argument, analysis, interpretation and conclusions, drawn from Indian history became the basic parameter of looking at Indian history, by subsequent Pakistani historians.

In Qureshi, the ideological beliefs and academic acumen combine and that’s why he succeeded in presenting the ideological and nationalist aspect of the formation of Pakistan with the help of varied sources of history and modern research methodology, although his work, at places, appears to be marred by ideological and political prejudices. But, this feature is usually common in almost all nationalistic historical writings.

Basically, the historical writings of Dr. Qureshi revolve around the themes of Islam, separate Muslim identity and demand of Pakistan. These three things are interrelated and are logical culmination of each other. According to him, the foundation of a separate nation was laid down when the first Muslim entered in this land. This nation had its own identity based on Islam.

Whenever this nation faced the challenge of Hindu assimilation, different elements within Muslim community came forward and kept Muslim identity intact. He argues that the formation of Muslim community in India or separate identity are evolved due to two main things: first, the impact of Islam on Indian Muslims and, second, the feeling of insecurity among them.

He maintains that Islam is not only a religion but also a social system and a way of living. It affects all the aspects of human beings in such a way that it has to survive as an organized and united Muslim community. It seeks to eradicate differences created by birth and environment. Muslims had always been motivated by an intense love of Islam in their behavior, religio-social movements and governance. Arguing about the feeling of insecurity, Dr. Qureshi tries to stress that this feeling has two aspects, one, their being in a minority in India and second, the assimilative tendencies of Hindu society.

In order to meet the first, the Muslims welcomed their co-religionists from neighbouring Muslim countries, while to counter the second, they sought to unite their ranks. The best representative of Qureshi’s point of view about Muslim separate identity and Pakistan Movement are his books The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (1962) and the Struggle for Pakistan (1965).

In the former, he quite remarkably covered the fourteen hundred years (610-1947) history of Muslims in Sub-continent. He began it with the arrival of Muslims in India, their settlement and formation as a community. In this respect he emphasized the role of Islam and the contribution of the Sufis.

Discussing the clashes between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, he significantly shows his inclination towards, and admiration of, orthodoxy especially the role of Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi and his revivalist movement. He is more critical of the policies of Mughal ruler Akbar and even proclaims him to be responsible for the decline of the Mughal Empire.

On the other hand, he defends the policies of Mughal ruler Aurengzeb for strengthening Islam and considers him the one who stopped the process of the decline of Mughal power, though for the time being. On writing on modern political history, he explains the tussle between British, Congress and Muslim League. Elaborating and analyzing each step, there is a preconceived notion of separate identity of Muslims.

At times, while proving his argument, he deliberately, consciously or unconsciously ignores those facts which may not substantiate his view. To prove and defend his arguments, he makes hypothesis, raises questions and to answer them he uses his imagination.

Commenting on The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, Dr. Abdur Rashid says: “Dr Qureshi is an imaginative writer and his work sometimes becomes impressionistic and speculative. Much of what has been written during the post-Independence period is suffered with romanticism and overstatement of cultural symbols particularly in the period of surging nationalism. Dr Qureshi’s book is no exception to this”

Qureshi not only linked the formation of Muslim identity to the Muslims’ coming to India but also traced the origin of Pakistan Movement in it. His analysis is that the idea of Pakistan was always there in the minds of the Muslims. It was the logical culmination of one thousand years history of Indian Muslims so the roots of Pakistan are historically laid down.

The concept of separate Muslim identity is also linked with Hindu Muslim differences. On writing medieval history, this is highlighted by showing the differences as existing on religious, social, cultural and political levels. Referring to the modern Indian politics, the conflict is shown to have embodied in the tussle of Muslim League and Congress. Congress, to him, was a Hindu dominated party which promoted Hindu revivalism, aggravated communal feelings and had a desire to rule India unilaterally.

Qureshi further argues that the desire to dominate others has been deep rooted in the minds of Hindus. When he mentions the election results of 1937, he states “we can now clearly see that by the close of the year 1939 Muslim patience with Congress tactics had very nearly come to the end of its tether.

The 22nd day of December 1939 was, therefore, a symbol of Indian disunity – irretrievable and irrevocable. Losing all hopes of a place in the Indian sun, the Muslim masses began to think of having a sun of their own. A feeling of revulsion for Hindu rule awakened in their hearts the desire for Muslim rule. Muslim separatism was the logical result of Hindu intolerance. The idea of Pakistan was capturing popular imagination”.

In this statement, Qureshi looked more practical as he focuses and traces the demand of separate Muslim state in contemporary political conflicts rather than linking the Pakistan Movement to a primordialist objective. In Qureshi’s analysis of Pakistan movement, Britishers are natural partners of Hindus and Congress.

To him British used the policy of discrimination and exploitation towards Muslims. Moreover, they gave special consideration to the interests of the Hindus and Congress as compared to the Muslims.

Qureshi’s conclusions on Pakistan movement are: “Pakistan came into existence as the result of the successful struggle of the Muslims of the Sub-continent against two imperialisms, British, and Hindu” and that “the Pakistanis did not receive Pakistan on a silver platter.

They have paid a heavy price for it. In fighting for it they have tasted more despair than hope, more disappointment than success and more chastisement than reward. Theirs has not been an easy victory nor for that matter has it brought them all that they had fought for. Surely, they would not have struggled so hard if they had not thought that something of real value was at stake”. By saying “something of real value was at stake” he means separate Muslim identity.

It appears that by writing on medieval Indian history and Pakistan movement, Qureshi is trying to fill gaps, clear confusion, and give historical sanction to the concept of Two-nation theory. In historical analysis of the subcontinent, Qureshi’s concept of separate Muslim identity and Two-nation theory are very clear and near to the official and Muslim League’s point of view. Probably, his association with Pakistan Movement and Muslim League also played a major role in shaping his ideological position and determining the nature of his historiography.

[I]The author has just finished her work on historiography to be submitted for Ph.D. in Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi


[B]Source:[/B] [url]http://www.dawn.com/events/pml/review43.htm[/url]
[/I]