Re: Why can’t you criticise
I have a serious problem with simplifying (if not straight up bstardisation of History in Pakistan). In some quarters, it is so convenient to pump the narrative (or propaganda rather) that Bangladeshi discontent which became a became separatist campaign turned a terrible war was all due to them not liking the Urdu language. Hence it was Jinnah’s ‘mistake’ in 1947 was the reason why Bangladesh happened, because other than the issues over Urdu language, East Pakistan and West Pakistan was one happy marriage. To put the entire blame on Urdu language and a man who died 23 years before the fall of Dhaka happened is logical fallacy. Like I said, Bangladeshis’ issue with language was just the tip of an iceberg. It is about time, Pakistanis start learning real history and start analysing the all important concepts and realities of deep economic inequalities, political repression, structural power struggle, personal pride and egos that massively contributed to tragedies of 1971, many evils that the society is still facing.
I am all for analysing and debating the decisions of founding fathers, but for sake of intellectual honesty, I believe in the practice of proportional criticism. I genuinely believe that Jinnah made the right decision at the time by declaring Urdu a national language. The decision stood corrected for a long time after his death. If it went ‘wrong’ and contributed to bad results, then we need to name those people who used and abused this decision. I can bet my house that if Jinnah was around in 1971, instead of making a speech calling all Bengalis pigs - as our honourable son of soil Mr Bhutto so proudly did - he would’ve found the a perfect solution to the crisis by just issuing few signatures.
The first paragraph is relevant. Everyone’s favourite ‘Quid e Azam’ would have been lynched in present day Pakistan by born again culturists, Mullahs and fake liberals for being a wanabee white man. His dogs - not his accomplishments and the appeal of his ideas - would’ve stole the headlines. How dare an old man who couldn’t ‘control’ his daughter thought he was good enough to make a country through sheer power of his advocacy? Maybe our forefathers were slightly more liberal than liberal beyond liberal characters like Nadeem F. Pracha and likes as they could look beyond ridiculing, scandalising and discrediting personal transformations.
I do agree that Bengladesh’s separation was not just limited to language movement and one should look at other aspects like economic inequalities. One should also not blame civilians only and should also look at part of Marshal law and fraud schemes like one-unit in the name of unity of different units. But still Mr Jinah’s insistence to have Urdu national language and giving shut up calls to Bengladeshi leaders played its role in break-up of Pakistan. After Mr Jinah this attitude was followed by the leaders whom Mr Jinah himself called ‘khote sikke’.
Probably Mr Jinah did not get enough opportunity to see and take measures in respect of nasty decisions creating mistrust in some units like ‘no representation of Sindh in first cabinet’.