ISRAEL AND PAKISTAN: Their founding fathers compared In May 1948 Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah received a top secret telegram communicating to him a simple request: RECOGNIZE THE NEW STATE OF ISRAEL. The request was made by David Ben Gurion the founding father of the Jewish nation. The telegram was kept so consummately classified that very little is known about its precise contents till this day and it has never been made public in Pakistan. Jinnah had always been a staunch opponent of Jewish immigration into Palestine. He had also written to the President of the United States expressing in unequivocal terms his inability to recognize a Jewish state in the event of the looming partition of Palestine. No reply was thus issued to the telegram and the case was closed. Jinnah died the same year. The two men never met. They probably also had distaste for each other; or maybe, kept secretly concealed in their hearts and minds, like the classified contents of the solitary communication of May 1948, treasure troves of mutual admiration. We will never know! In many senses the circumstances in which David Ben gurion and Muhammad Ali Jinnah carried out their struggles were very similar. Both were leaders of “minority” nations laboring under the yokes of double slavery. Both had to organize disparate and disorganized groups of people who were not considered “nations” by the wider world and hence not considered worthy of the right to nation states. Both had to weld their people together into nations before putting into motion the processes that would deliver independence and self rule. It is not perhaps the similarities of circumstances that makes the parallels between Jinnah and Ben Gurion so striking; but the manner in which the two men chose to respond to them. Both Ben Gurion and Jinnah were far ahead of their time and recognized that national survival depended heavily on “nation building” through maximizing the provision of common good to their peoples. An ideological basis of common identity formed the cornerstone of this common good. But redefining a nation ideologically meant nothing without translating the notion of nationhood into tangible gains in the field of economics through acquisition of modern education. Jinnah presented to the Muslim League the scheme of setting up “nation building departments” in 1941, and urged the Muslims of the sub continent to equip themselves to compete with their Hindu rivals both economically and intellectually. This economic orientation was strictly not of a secular nature. It was the outward manifestation of a realistic approach to world problems: a realism that was deeply rooted in idealism borne of the idea of “two nations.” “Two nations” was in action in Palestine as well: the Jews just did not articulate it in those terms and the Arabs either miserably failed or doggedly refused to recognize it. Jinnah believed that the enormous latent energies of the slumbering Muslim nation could be released and channeled in the direction of India’s partition. The flaring communal passions could then be harnessed to make Pakistan possible. Ben gurion had a similar kind of heat on his mind: nation building. He was organizing the Jewish Agency in Palestine: a resourceful organization dedicated to organizing Palestinian Jews to effect the partition of Palestine. The Jewish Agency had its own nation building departments with “Education” being at the top of the agenda. In fact there was a massive education wing inside the Headquarters of The Jewish Agency. This education was, like that espoused by his Muslim counterpart in India, not of a secular inclusive nature, but stressed the separate identity of the Jews. Both Jinnah and Ben Gurion rose to eminence in an age when secular democratic values on the one hand and socialist collectivist views on the other made the talk of “nationhood on the basis of religion” sound outlandishly insane. More baffling to some is the fact that both Ben gurion and Jinnah were educated in secular institutions (Ben gurion went to the University of Warsaw and Jinnah to Lincoln’s Inn) and unlike many of their contemporaries, continued to espouse democratic values till the very end. Yet both dedicated their lives to carrying out political struggles in the names of their respective religions. In the early 20th century many Zionist Jews, frustrated by their impotent inability to establish themselves in the Promised Land had lost hope and turned to atheism. Many thought Ben gurion came from the same stock. In the sub continent many Orthodox Muslims, regarded Mr. Jinnah as too westernized to be a believer. Both men responded to the challenge of finding themselves in a non receptive secular world averse to self proclaimed defenders of faith aiming to build new “faith based” nations. Their tacks were similar: advocating the basis for nationhood as a matter of principle. In 1943 when Beverly Nichols tried to tie Jinnah in knots by trying to elicit from him the economic justification for partition the latter retorted: “What conceivable reason is there to suppose that the gift of nationality is going to be an economic liability. How any European can get up and say that Pakistan is economically impossible after the treaty of Versailles is really beyond my comprehension. The great brains who cut Europe into a ridiculous patchwork of conflicting and artificial boundaries are hardly the people to talk economics to us. “The vital point was that the principle of separation was accepted; the rest followed automatically”. That was it: the principle. Jinnah’s fight from March 1940 to June 1947 was for the acceptance of the demand of partition justified by underlying principle that if the British held not one but two nations captive the right of determination should justifiably be granted to each nations separately. One year later he carried out negotiations with Gandhi along the same lines. Gandhi’s vehement but frustrated negation of distinct Muslims nationhood ( I find no parallel in history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from the parent stock) is proof enough that till that late stage in his struggle, Jinnah was more concerned with getting the principle of two nations established than actually explaining what Pakistan meant in geographic terms. Ben Gurion too pushed for the acceptance of separate Jewish national identity on the basis of a moral consciousness and a sense of homelessness that the Jews shared not with their monotheistic neighbors in Palestine but with their co-religionists around the world : “Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? “ Ben Gurion like Jinnah could be very “unreasonable” in the face of an outwardly “a very reasonable offer”. He would grant no quarter to his Palestinian counterparts in negotiations. His recalcitrance was the product not of his domineering ego but his single mindedness and devotion to the cause of securing nothing short of complete independence for his nation. To the various compromise formulas he gave the haughty replies and tough rejoinders. The following was a clarion for all Jews to prepare for any eventuality lest independence of Israel was not granted: “This is our native land; it is not as birds of passage that we return to it. But it is situated in an area engulfed by Arabic-speaking people, mainly followers of Islam. Now, if ever, we must do more than make peace with them; we must achieve collaboration and alliance on equal terms. Remember what Arab delegations from Palestine and its neighbors say in the General Assembly and in other places, talk of Arab-Jewish amity sound fantastic, for the Arabs do not wish it, they will not sit at the same table with us, they want to treat us as they do the Jews of Bagdad, Cairo, and Damascus.” The implacable Mr. Jinnah could not have exhibited greater turgidity than he did during the seven years of the Pakistan movement. It was his style of negotiating without making any proffers of accommodation, which made every conference on India’s constitutional future fail. It made the difference between success and failure of the movement! He would frustrate the Cripps mission and scuttle the viceroys Simla initiative after trashing Rajgopalacharia’s proposals. After rejecting each offer made to him, his position hardened even more; as indeed his popularity soared to new heights. Lord Wavell confided to his diary: Jinnah “is constitutionally incapable of any kind of cooperation with the other party.” Jinnah was not incapable of cooperation. His mission and single minded commitment to its fulfillment permitted little compromises as he nudged his nation forward on the path to complete independence. Like Jinnah, Ben Gurion alternately supported and opposed the British. Unlike Jinnah however his Haganah fighters would kill British soldiers to force Britain to accept the partition of Palestine on Jewish terms. Both Ben Gurion and Jinnah extended conditional support to the British Empire in World War II and used British predicament to exact maximum concessions to convert the chimeras of independence into realizable goals. Their statures grew significantly during this period as the British were convinced that their respective nations reposed unflinching confidence in their judgments and leadership. Ben Gurion was in fact able to organize the first exclusive “Jewish Brigade” to fight alongside the British in World war II. Finally the insanity of Hitlers holocausts and his ruinous military misadventures hastened the pace at which both Jinnah and Ben Gurion achieved their objectives. The organized extermination of Jews prepared the moral groundwork for the acceptance of the principle of partition of Palestine to create a Jewish homeland. In the sub continent the high profile trial of the Indian Nazi collaborators popularly known as the INA brought the British face to face with the grim possibility of facing a full scale military revolt for the first time since the Mutiny. This coupled with the crippling effects of liberating Europe and Burma led the white man to realize that it was time he shed his burdens in the sub continent to not one but two nation states. Pragmatism in politics is often the result of the rare gift of looking at reality from the adversary’s perspective. Pragmatism would induce both Jinnah and Ben Gurion to attach supreme significance to building military prowess even against daunting economic odds. Ben Gurion’s incisive mind produced the following prescient analysis in 1948. “There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, its simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.” At another presceient moment he set down Israel’s Arab-centric defense and foreign policies for all his successors: “in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth, not out of respect for scientific but political realities. The acknowledgement of this truth leads to inevitable and serious conclusions regarding our work in Palestine… let us not build on the hope the terrorist gangs will get tired. If some get tired, others will replace them. A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily... it is easier for them to continue the war and not get tired than it is for us.” His message in gist: yes we wronged them but no nation can feel collectively ashamed for what was necessary to assure its survival. The pragmatic answer usurpation: repel those you wronged with the application of disproportionate force. However, like Jinnah Ben gurion had a generous streak. In victory he could hand out an olive branch to those he vanquished. Of Arabs in Israel he said: We must start working in Jaffa. Jaffa must employ Arab workers. And there is a question of their wages. I believe that they should receive the same wage as a Jewish worker. An Arab has also the right to be elected president of the state, should he be elected by all. After Pakistan’s creation Jinnah would inform the world that he would treat the minorities not as the great inclusive Mughal Akbar did, but with the magnanimity with which Prophet Muhammad ( PUBH) treated “the Jews and Christians after he had conquered them.” Perhaps the singular factor that sets these two “founding fathers” apart from all other leaders of their time was their success in demonstrating to secular skeptics (and in Jinnah’s case the sectarianism smitten clergymen like Maulana Azad who didn’t believe that Muslims were a nation) the immense significance and astounding success of proclaiming nationhood in the name of religion. Finally both men realized that like poles repelled each other: and that this was truer in politics than in the realm of Physics. Pakistan and Israel may have been ideological twins, but their ideologies were of two different and mutually repelling broods. Indeed it one of the first diplomats to express hostility to the idea of Palestines dismemberment in the UN was Jinnahs representative Mr. Zafrullah Khan. Pakistani Israeli relations at their most cordial must not go beyond occasional exhibition of mutual respect at the level of individuals. The best way of showing this respect is for the two countries to maintain from each other a respectable distance. The caution of history: whenever that distance was not maintained, as for example in the Arab Israeli war of 1967 where Pakistan Air force helped Arab Pilots defends their lands without success, the possibility of friction between the nations increased. Israel was quickly approached by india to help initiate surgical strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities in Kahuta. The scheme never made it beyond the planning stage but emphasized the critical importance of keeping Israel and Pakistan as far apart as possible. Likewise, even though Pakistan must extend robust and consistent support to the people of Gaza this support should not extend beyond moral and humanitarian realm. Resisting the temptation of establishing diplomatic ties with the Jewish state should be the immutable and absolute principle of the world’s first Islamic nation foreign policy. No Pakistani leader must ever contemplate changing the course of steering clear of of recognizing Israel that was set by Jinnah immediately after independence, even if Israel abandons its current genocidal policies against the Palestinians. Any attempt to establish diplomatic ties with Israel will have severe socio political ramifications for the country. The Israelis realize this better than we do. Today Israeli officially designates Pakistan as an “enemy state” and threatens to prosecute any citizen who makes an attempt to travel to Pakistan. The Pakistani passport must therefore continue to declare: “valid for all countries of the world except Israel”. - By Nadeem H. Zaidi Khurram Zaki Zainab Khan Ayesha Raza Yusrah Ahmed Urooj Hashmi Hasan Salman Usman Sheikh Sababa Saad Usmani Alizeh Zaidi Amna Zakaria Sarah Fatimah Fatima Siddiqui Fatima Imran Malik Anniey Naveed Syed Hussain Akbari Najeeb Shah Fazal Rabi Faheem Ijaz Nauman Ghias Huma Kasi Jauhar Jan Syed Mian Sajid Ghani Sania Hassan Nasrullah Sarah Siddiqui Sara Saleem Ansari
Posted on: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:03:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015