Ayesha Jalal: Pakistan was an Accident

jinnah-with-cigarAt first glance, Ayesha Jalal seems like an unlikely agitator. She is a tiny, angular woman whose small frame is accentuated by her flowing beige shalwar kameez, a traditional Pakistani outfit consisting of a loose tunic and baggy trousers. Her scholarly credentials — Wellesley, Oxford, Harvard — are purebred establishment.  But in recent years, Ms. Jalal has taken on the academic and political mainstream in her native Pakistan as well as the administration of Columbia University, where she taught history for seven years.


And while her historical work on South Asia has elicited anonymous threats, it also earned her a MacArthur Fellowship  (commonly called the genius grant) this year, worth $265,000, no strings attached, and a reputation as one of the most innovative scholars in the history of the region.


What has angered so many Muslims here and in her homeland is Ms. Jalal’s assertion that the revered founding father of Pakistan, the slender, eloquent Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had feet of clay. She argues that the 1947 partition of India — the event that opened the door for the creation of Pakistan — was an accident, a colossal miscalculation.


What’s more, she says that Jinnah never wanted a separate Muslim state; he was only using the threat of independence as a political bargaining chip to strengthen the voice of the Muslim minority in the soon-to-be sovereign India.


For proof, she maintains, look no further than Jinnah’s reaction to the partition. “The state-sponsored nationalist attitude seems to suggest that what Jinnah had dismissed as a mutilated, moth-eaten Pakistan is what they were actually fighting for,” the 42-year-old scholar explained in a recent interview, adding that Jinnah twice rejected what turned out to be the final model for Pakistan.


This is heresy to most Pakistanis, for whom the partition is a point of pride, a landmark historical event comparable to the declaration of the state of Israel for Zionists. And to many Pakistanis, the individual most responsible for the partition is nothing less than a Muslim paladin.


“It’s as though you’re telling Americans that George Washington wasn’t a starry-eyed nationalist but a coldblooded, opportunistic militarist,” remarked David Ludden, an associate professor of South Asian history at the University of Pennsylvania.


India scholars around the world have found Ms. Jalal’s work no less provocative. “In Pakistani terms, she takes a very pro-Indian perspective, but in Indian terms, she’s still a Pakistani,” observed David Washbrook, a professor of modern South Asian history at Oxford University in Britain.


What may be most unusual about Ms. Jalal is that she studies Pakistan at all. There are only a handful of scholars of Pakistan in the United States; most South Asian specialists here focus on the country’s considerably larger neighbor, India.


And to hear Ms. Jalal tell it, the state of Pakistani history in Pakistan is no better. The country didn’t even have a free press until the late 1980s and four decades of military rule have left a legacy of media self-censorship. The country’s liberal arts colleges, for their part, are controlled by the national government.


Ms. Jalal uses the word “tragic”to describe the fate of historical scholarship in her homeland. “There just aren’t many Pakistanis who are historians,” she said. “They’re not interested in history, they’re interested in projecting an ideological position.”


Her three books, starting with “The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan” in 1985, have been credited by scholars of South Asia with breaking new ground. “She is the foremost historian of modern Pakistan,” Washbrook said.


Still, her view of Jinnah and the partition is hardly conventional. In his biography of Jinnah, Stanley Wolpert, a professor of South Asian history at the University of California at Los Angeles, painted a different picture of the partition, ascribing Jinnah’s zealous quest for Pakistani independence partly to a religious metamorphosis toward the end of his life. Wolpert’s perspective conforms much more closely to that of the traditional Pakistani narrative.


Indeed, when “The Sole Spokesman” was published, several Pakistani newspapers assailed Ms. Jalal for understating the role of religion in Jinnah’s push for partition and accused her of being under the sway of an Indian academic adviser.


Ms. Jalal is teaching at Harvard University this year after a bitter fight with Columbia. At Columbia, she says, enrollment in her South Asian history courses doubled from 1991 to 1995, but she was denied tenure in June 1995.


Convinced that a cadre of Indian and India-centric faculty members who objected to a Pakistani woman teaching Indian history had put the kibosh on her tenure application, she sued the university the next year, alleging religious and ethnic discrimination. Columbia refuted her contentions, and this spring, a federal judge in New York’s Southern District dismissed the case, labeling the evidence of bias “thin,” though “suggestive.”


While she was pursuing her claim against Columbia, Ms. Jalal was selected for a new chair in modern South Asian history at Brown University. But after winning the approval of the history department and a tenure review committee, she said she was rejected by Brown’s administration.


So come June, Ms. Jalal may find herself unemployed. She plans to stay in the United States, where she first arrived in 1970, when her father, a lifelong civil servant, was posted to the United Nations in Manhattan. When the family returned to Pakistan two years later, Ms. Jalal, then 16, finished her studies at the American high school in Islamabad, the capital city. She spent much of her senior year in Pakistan trying to persuade her mother to allow her to return to the United States for college.


“At that time, it was very unusual for Pakistani women to come to America to study,” she said. “The vast majority of women in Pakistan don’t take to reading.” But when Wellesley College offered her a full scholarship, she finally persuaded her mother to let her go.


From Wellesley, she went on to pursue a Ph.D. in South Asian history at Cambridge University, where she wrote the dissertation that would provide the foundation for “The Sole Spokesman.” That the individual who had set out to puncture the iconic grandeur of Jinnah was a woman played no small role in the book’s chilly reception in Pakistan.


“There is still a great deal of resentment there about that,” she said.

Ms. Jalal credits her father with inspiring her to rethink the partition. As a child, she would listen raptly as he reminisced about Muslim friends who had been left behind in India, which is home to some 120 million Muslims, roughly as many as in Pakistan. If the division of British India and the resulting creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan were really events for Pakistanis to celebrate, he wondered, why were so many Muslims, including many of his dearest friends, still stuck in the predominantly Hindu India?


Jinnah’s “Pakistan had to remain part of a larger all-India whole in order to raise some safeguards for Muslims in the minority areas or those who would invariably be left in India,” said Ms. Jalal, who studied the Koran in Arabic as a child and characterizes herself as a secular Muslim with a religiously informed identity.


Jinnah died of tuberculosis and lung cancer only a few days after the first anniversary of independence, leaving a leadership vacuum in Pakistan that is often blamed for many of the country’s subsequent political and financial woes. To Ms. Jalal, though, most of those problems can be traced right back to 1947.


The proximity to India, she argues, has put Pakistan in the untenable position of trying to square its considerable security costs with its limited economic resources, an imbalance that has in turn taken a toll on the democratic process in Pakistan. Years ago, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, father of the country’s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, predicted that if India got the bomb, Pakistan would too, “even if we have to eat grass.”


As it turns out, he wasn’t far off. With the sanctions slapped on Pakistan after the recent nuclear blasts, the flow of international capital into the country has slowed markedly. The country now stands on the brink of bankruptcy, unable to pay the reservicing costs on some $26 billion in external debt incurred largely for military purposes.


“The country has paid a hefty price to fend off India,” Ms. Jalal said, “and the price has been Pakistan’s democracy.”


Her 1995 book, “Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia,” also irked partisans of India and Bangladesh, the Muslim nation that splintered off from Pakistan in a bloody civil war in 1971. In the book, she argued that military nationalism has undermined democracy not just in the two Muslim states but in India, which is generally considered the world’s most populous democracy. And indeed, many Indians are now concerned that the Hindu nationalist government, run by the Bharatiya Janata party, represents a threat to traditional democratic rights.


Nonetheless, scholars of India have criticized Ms. Jalal for underestimating the country’s representative government. “The comparison makes me uncomfortable,” said Francine Frankel, director of the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania. “I do feel that India has accomplished what Pakistan could not accomplish through an authoritarian system: It has brought politics to the majority of impoverished humanity.”


Ms. Jalal remains unmoved: “Either you’re giving a Pakistani line or you’re giving an Indian line, which I think is very problematic in an academic environment.”


15 Responses

  1. Ayesha jalal is Pakistani zionist unforttunately amonst the hidden one

  2. Ayesha Jalal is right that Pakistan has paid a heavy price in terms of unstable democracy due to predominant secuirty concerns.

  3. Pakistan’s fear are not baseless. India has always been an existential threat to Pakistan and that’s why main focus in Pakistan has always been its defense, a fact which was exploited by many selfish dictators, ofcourse in the name of National Interest. India was lucky that it got Pt. Nehru to server as its prime minister for almost 20 years. Nehru was a visionary and a socialist and he got enough time to stregthen the Nation while pakistan lost Jinnah soon after 1947 and Liaqat Ali Khan was also killed not much later. Pakistan in this sense has always been unlucky. Unlike Nehru, It’s Visionaries did not get enough time to build a strong foundation and the system was taken over by feudals. However, Pakistan movement and creation of pakistan in itself was not accident as Ayesha Jalal claims. Jinnah wanted to protect the muslims from destruction at the hands of hateful Hindus who were dominating the political stage in India. Jalal should at least once visit India and see with her own eyes the pathetic condition of muslims in Hindu India. Her eyes will be opened.

    • India was indeed lucky to get Pt Nehru for 17 years. He sowed the seed of secularism and prevented India from being hijacked by the the radical Hindus which could have been the case given the atmosphere created by the division of the country on religious lines. Congress had many mass leaders who came from modest background unlike the Muslim league which had leaders mainly from the feudal class…Nawab Mohsinul Mulk, Wiqarul Mulk, prince Agha Khan, Raja Mahmudabad, Nawabzadah Liaqat Ali Khan and a whole lot of Nawabs from Bengal. This set the tone for the 2 countries which is evident even today. Muslims in India lag behind the Hindus because they don’t work hard enough. Those who do, live comfortably along side the Hindus. Khans’ domination in Bollywood is an example. Harworking and talented muslim always make it to the national cricket team. But when it comes to the education the muslims lag behind. The prestigious Aligarh Muslim University which preserves the minority status has Hindu toppers in all professional courses. Discrimination is something one cannot escape. Indian Muslims face as much discrimination as the minorities in Pakistan do. But thank God no one is blowing them off by bombs everyday like we hear about the Shia killings in Pakistan, the prosecution of Ahmadiyas and the Christians in Pakistan. Isolated incidents like Gujarat riots cannot be denied and are a blemish but the perpetrators are slowly being brought to justice. BJP had to pay a price and could not yet return to power despite Congress showing dismal signs of governance. Mody became the single most unifying factor for all Muslims in India. That can happen only in a democracy.

      • You are kidding? Another Indian Left card holding member trying to spin history. Radical Hindus? When Jinnah spoke of Hindu domination and Caste Hindu rule, he was referring to the Hindu dominated Congress Party. Sir Syed Khan and Iqbal also saw the Congress Party as a Hindu nationalist party. Make no mistake of which was the most dominant Indian political organization ion the subcontinent before and after the Indian Independence Act…the INC. Nobody else had a seat at the table with the British other than the INC and then eventually the Muslim League from 1940 onwards.

        So called Hindu parties did not have a say in India’s future in terms of constitutional reforms. It was the INC that refused to compromise or give in to any of the constitutional safeguards that the Muslim League demanded which eventually led to the division of India and all of the subsequent problems on the subcontinent. It was Nehru and his so called secularism that led to the division of India, the mess of the Indian princely states including J&K, three wars with Pakistan, the mess with the Sikhs who were screwed by the division of India, etc.

        So much for Nehru’s version of secularism, eh..break up the subcontinent along religious lines? Groups like the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha had no seat at the table with the British and if anything opposed the division of India. Nice try at Indian Left wing revisionism on your part though.

    • and you too visit india alongside her.. you will be moved to see the most secular country in the world,where secularism remains unperturbed even after vicious tactics by some politicians.

  4. Reblogged this on MELTING POINT.

  5. Ms. Ayesha is a gay cunt….which has been used so much by Goras of US and EU…………

  6. A woman who has lived all her life in the US writes about Pakistan- how exact can that be????????????????????

  7. i say that Pakistan is unlucky that not get a true leader after the qaid azam and i must say the person who comments please politely and use nice words the writer may be in the heart of others (khawaja ishaq)

    • We are proud to be an independent state, Pakistan is under the praetorian guards due to early death of the great Jinnah, unfortunately Jinnah had bad coins in his pocket. Bad times gives birth to great leaders and we not far away from that, we will rise up and will lead and will shine bright like a star.

  8. If Miss ayesha Rejected Two nation theory ..She Was also right that if Pakistanis Muslim are unfiteabe in India so why there Are so many muslims in India????now Any one tell me then how pak came into being what was about that sacrifices which we reads in history???

  9. What’s up, everything is going well here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s really fine, keep
    up writing.


  11. She is not asserting anything new. It is in the historical documents as to what was going on. Read the Lucknow Pact, the Nehru Report, Jinnah’s 14 Points, Iqbal’s address to the Muslim League in 1930, notes on Iqbal’s discussions with Jinnah, the Round Table Conferences, the 1937 Indian Provincial Election results, European resuming their war in 1939, the Congress Party shooting itself in the foot in 1939, the Lahore resolution, the 1946 Indian Provincial Election results, the Cabinet Mission Plan…what do you see? The evolution of Jinnah and his attempts at ensuring constitutional safeguards for the Muslims of India which is what he and Iqbal wanted but for some reason the INC led by Nehru always refused and where was Gandhi other than sitting by watching all this happening. What Jinnah was asking for was not a big deal and it was certainly better than the alternative which is the mess of the division of India and all of the subsequent problems on the subcontinent..nice job Nehru and the Indian National Congress Party for screwing up India.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: