By Irfan Husain
HISTORIANS are fond of playing a game known as What if? in which they try to picture a world where a different set of decisions had been taken at a key juncture. Thus, what would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union? What would the world be like today had Nazi Germany won the Second World War?
In the same spirit, heres a game for readers: What would the subcontinent be like today had it not been partitioned 60 years ago? Had both Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan and they were desperately close to an agreement India would have remained intact, albeit as a country with three confederating units. Would we have been better or worse off in such an arrangement?
In terms of physical development, I have little doubt that Pakistan has benefited from Partition. In physical infrastructure as well as social, political and intellectual development, the areas that constituted Pakistan on August 14, 1947, were some of the most backward in the subcontinent.
Since then, the country has seen considerable progress. Roads, hospitals, universities and schools have been built. Muslim entrepreneurs who migrated to the new state brought capital and business skills, and have created banks, mills and factories. And in a semi-arid country, new farming techniques have created a green revolution. For me, the transplantation of mango varieties is the most welcome aspect of this development.
In fact, had it not been for Pakistans inexorable population growth, we would all be much better off today, with fewer people demanding their share of the small but growing cake.
Of course, it can be argued that most of these changes would have occurred in an undivided India. But given our neighbours slow economic progress in the first three decades of Independence, I doubt that enough resources would have gone to the periphery.
Also, no Partition would have meant that no mass migration would have taken place. This in turn means that most of the skills and capital that crossed the new border in 1947 would not have been available to this part of the subcontinent.
Factors that led to Pakistans relatively rapid progress in the fifties and sixties include liberal economic policies, as well as our pro-western stance. This gave us access to capital and modern technology. Meanwhile, India was being governed under the Congress partys socialist vision that included a tightly regulated economy that yielded what is now known as the Hindu rate of growth.
So all in all, my guess is that in economic terms, Pakistan has benefited from Partition. It is in the non-physical areas that our growth has remained stunted. Had the subcontinent not been divided into two (and later three) components, we would not all have squandered such vast resources on defence.
With the trillions that have gone into the black hole of military budgets, the government could have doubled and tripled the expenditure on health, education, culture and sports.
As a confederating unit of India, the area today known as Pakistan would not have suffered from the identity crisis that has seen it position itself as an adjunct to the Middle East. This, and the exclusion of the army from political life, would have reduced the religious fervour that has brought the Taliban wolf to our door.
Indeed, one of the factors fuelling the rise of extremism in Pakistan has been the perception of the existential threat that (Hindu) India poses to us.
This has been matched by the rise of the Hindutva religious nationalism in India reflected by the Shiv Sena and the BJP. These organisations use the (Muslim) Pakistan threat to drum up support, in the same way governments and religious and right-wing parties play the India card here.
Living under a secular constitution would have made life a lot easier for our minorities. They would not have to live in fear under the Damocles sword of our iniquitous blasphemy laws, and would be equal citizens. Women, too, would have benefited, and not been subject to random prosecution as under Ziaul Haqs infamous Hudood Ordinances.
In the international arena, an undivided India would have long been a powerhouse. With around 1.5 billion people, it would have provided an even larger market for imported and locally produced goods.
Culturally, we would have benefited from much greater diversity than we have now. Pakistan is a monochromatic society where women have not been allowed to play their true role in society. By contrast, they are highly visible in all Indian cities. And with more exposure to literature and the arts, our cultural life would have been that much richer.
In sports, too, a combined population of 1.5 billion would have produced world-beating teams: imagine a cricket team representing the entire subcontinent!
There is a perception that had Partition not taken place, Muslims would have been oppressed by the Hindu majority. But half a billion Muslims are not a small minority that can be kicked around. As it is, about 160 million Muslims still live in India.Similar numbers in the areas that constitute Bangladesh and Pakistan today would have ensured that Muslims carried substantial political clout. And had Indian Muslims not faced the kind of isolation caused by Partition, they would not be the marginalised community they are now.
Politically, we would not have been subjugated by the army as we are today. As a result, parliament and the judiciary would have been functioning with far greater freedom than they have done here over the last six decades. Indeed, we would be a far freer people than we are.
At the end of the day, there are going to be winners and losers. Through Partition, many people gained, while others lost out. Many fortunes were made as a direct result of the scams arising out of the purchase of property claims submitted by refugees. Thousands of well-off people, caught up in the stampede created by the riots of 1947, were made destitute. Other migrants prospered due to the lack of competition in the new state.
Of course, all these are highly speculative projections, and if I have offended readers on either side of the Great Divide, let me remind them that this is just a game. And everybody can play. |
[DAWN] RAPE crimes remind us of both our failings as a society and the state's failure to appropriately exercise its executive and judicial functions to curb this crime of loathing and depravity. This article sheds light on the reasons for such a momentous failure which, predominantly, is the by-product of lack of education, the absence of awareness and ineffective law-enforcement mechanisms.
[Dawn] There has been some talk of amending the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 (ATA) to make it more effective in its response to terrorism. It is therefore instructive to view the anti-terror mechanism envisaged by the ATA and see why, despite this law, terrorism has grown unchecked.
[Dawn] The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) on Monday decreed DNA tests unacceptable as primary evidence in rape cases, but said they could be considered as supporting evidence.
ONCE again, the beat of war drums has Paks marching in unison. Since Adm Mike Mullen hinted at the possibility of US action against
She's back. Hurrah! She's a woman. She's brave. She's a moderate. She speaks good English. She's Oxford-educated, no less. And she's not bad looking either.
Jamaatud Dawa (JD) chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed said on Thursday that Pakistani rulers had invited divine wrath by scrapping the 
A full bench of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) on Friday declared awarding a sentence of limb amputation without Tazkiya Al-Shahood (two witnesses) un-Islamic, and set aside the limb amputation sentence awarded to a convict by a trial court in a robbery case.