By Yasser Latif Hamdani

It seems to be that Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, who writes for the Daily Times, is not open to the idea of an engaged academic debate. His latest article in the Daily Times which I will link below proves it.

Let us however first recap as to what transpired before Ishtiaq Ahmed’s latest article.

I had written in my article “Congress’ use of Ulema”:

The Congress backed ulema, including Maulana Madni, the great proponent of composite nationalism, attacked Jinnah for being a Shia and having Ahmedis in the Muslim League. In Lucknow, Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar used the Madh-e-Sahaba to divide the Muslim vote along sectarian Shia and Sunni lines. Time and again the Congress backed ulema used the sectarian card to create dissentions between Muslims. While on the one side Congress criticised the British for using the policy of divide and rule, it used the same policy to attempt to break up the Muslim League. There was no ambiguity about the allegations either. Dhulipala lists the main body of these complaints. Congress’ ulema claimed that the Muslim League had betrayed Islam by undermining the Shariat Bill in the Indian legislature. Another complaint was that the Muslim League had supported the Khula Bill, which gave Muslim women the right to seek khula (marriage annulment) as a matter of right. The Congress backed ulema also claimed that the Muslim League had opposed such Islamic legislations as the Qazi Bill, which had sought to introduce Islamic qazi courts. They also claimed that the Muslim League had repeatedly forwarded bills aimed at diluting Islam and pointed to fatwas by the ulema on these bills. The Congress backed ulema especially took exception to the fact that Jinnah had supported the Civil Marriage Bill, which would have allowed intermarriage between Muslims and non-Muslims despite the fact that such marriages contravened the Quran. In other words, every progressive action by Jinnah or the Muslim League was paraded as proof of their anti-Islamic credentials. In other words, it was Congress that took the lead in playing the “Islam in danger” card for its own purposes.

(http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/27-Apr-2015/congress-use-of-the-ulema)

In doing so I was quoting from the same book  –  “Creating a New Medina”  by Venkat Dhulipala-  that Ishtiaq Ahmed does not tire praising.  Ishtiaq Ahmed responded to  this in his latest article “Muslim League’s use of Ulema”  by repeating the stock myths of Indian nationalism that have exploded and are no longer accepted by historians as accurate.  Foremost amongst them is the myth of  secular v. communal that Ishtiaq Ahmed forwards with great gutso specially in defence of India and Indian National Congress.  So his answer is very simple:  “Congress did it it was ok, Muslim League responded it was evil”.  Historians like Dr. Ayesha Jalal,  Dr. Neeti Nair and others have long shown that neither Muslim nor Hindu politics of South Asia were so clear cut as to be described in these two watertight compartments.  As for Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s claim that Pakistan’s “confessional nationalism” made Islamization possible,  while India’s “secular” ethos have remained unaltered:  India’s descent into majoritarianism was stalled by the good fortune that Nehru, finally chastened in his 60s, managed to remain at the helm for a good 17 years while Jinnah died within 13 months of partition.

Secondly his claim that Jinnah said between 1940 and 1947 that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one state is belied by the many statements Jinnah made during this period that minorities in Pakistan would be equal citizens and that their fundamental rights would be safeguarded. Even the Lahore Resolution, says so clearly.  It is true that Jinnah had argued between 1940-1947 that Muslims and Hindus had not fused into one nation but that is not the same as saying that two nations cannot live in one state. What Jinnah had ultimately wanted was a Muslim majority state with Hindu and Sikh minorities living side by side Hindu majority state with Muslim majorities in an over all union (either federation or confederation) of India. It was a question of sharing sovereignty instead of letting a permanent majority dominate by sheer numbers a permanent minority.

More: