Zafar Hilaly, a seasoned Pakistani diplomat, has been doing the rounds on Pakistani TV detailing how awful Narendra Modi and his government will be, especially for Indian Muslims. The "sham" that is Indian secularism, he says, has finally been exposed. Even the token Muslims in government, he said, are now gone. Yet, it was impossible to overlook the relief – even the joy – of being Pakistani as Modi won the Indian election.
Similar sentiments have been expressed by some Pakistanis on social media. One columnist, Asad Rahim Khan, wrote in The Express Tribune, that with Modi’s victory, the Two-Nation Theory had come alive once again, and Jinnah had been vindicated. It’s a sentiment echoed by many across the country – "shukar hai humaray paas Pakistan hai’." Grateful that we have Pakistan. Many Pakistanis, then, are expressing contradictory emotions. First, a modicum of sympathy for the perceived plight of Indian Muslims under Modi. For instance, former ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rehman, tweeted about the under-representation of Muslims in the Lok Sabha. Many have noted that none of the seven Muslim candidates from the Bharatiya Janta Party won a seat, and how one person is already facing arrest for anti-Modi comments. Concern for religious minorities under Modi’s government is indeed a legitimate one, and is being expressed not just by Pakistanis. However, in Pakistan that concern comes with the satisfaction of not being Indian.
If one were to take Pakistanis’ relief to its logical conclusion, it reveals an awful lot about the country’s perpetual existential crisis.
First, 68 years after Partition, the question of whether Pakistan ought to have been founded still seems to be relevant. The question must be pertinent enough because a columnist took Modi’s victory as the cue to answering it. Every communal riot, every report that reveals that Indian Muslims are socio-economically worse off than other sections of the population, every Hindutva victory, is seen as justifying the creation of Pakistan. The corollary is that the presence of 150 million Indian Muslims, the political beliefs of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, the violent loss of Bangladesh, India having a secular state (warts and all) do not negate the idea of Pakistan. As history continues to be written, new circumstances will always be co-opted to prove that Jinnah was either wrong or right.
That Pakistan’s justification is so utterly dependent on the continuing domestic political circumstances of another country is comical. Sure, Pakistanis can be glad that they have Pakistan, now that Modi is in power. But what if Congress gets voted in once again in 2019? Would the existence of Pakistan have less merit then? Would Jinnah be proven wrong once again? It seems that the need for Pakistan to exist lurches back forth as Indians change their political leaders.
In the 1960s, Pakistan had a stronger rupee and a higher GDP per capita than India. No doubt that many Pakistanis would have been glad for their higher socio-economic indices in those days, and might have felt that they are better off in Pakistan. As those indices changed, Pakistanis seem to have fewer things to be happy about. Pakistan has a military that is weaker than India's, and it is behind in GDP growth, exports, exchange rates, investment, life expectancy, healthcare and much else. If one even compares violence, surely Pakistan has lost more lives in religiously motivated killings by angry mobs, bombings and targeted killings than India has lost to Hindu-Muslim violence. Is it a matter of relief that violence in the name of religion in Pakistan is committed not by Hindus upon Muslims but Muslims upon Muslims?
Such existential preoccupations reveal a serious insecurity regarding the Pakistani experiment. As the political trajectories of India and Pakistan becomes more divergent, the instances in which Pakistan can out-do, or out-perform, its bigger neighbour, become more fleeting, and thus more precious. These precious moments prompt Pakistanis to take pride in their country in the more perverse instances, like the perceived plight of Indian Muslims under a Hindu nationalist government.
Saim Saeed is a journalist in Karachi.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Similar sentiments have been expressed by some Pakistanis on social media. One columnist, Asad Rahim Khan, wrote in The Express Tribune, that with Modi’s victory, the Two-Nation Theory had come alive once again, and Jinnah had been vindicated. It’s a sentiment echoed by many across the country – "shukar hai humaray paas Pakistan hai’." Grateful that we have Pakistan. Many Pakistanis, then, are expressing contradictory emotions. First, a modicum of sympathy for the perceived plight of Indian Muslims under Modi. For instance, former ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rehman, tweeted about the under-representation of Muslims in the Lok Sabha. Many have noted that none of the seven Muslim candidates from the Bharatiya Janta Party won a seat, and how one person is already facing arrest for anti-Modi comments. Concern for religious minorities under Modi’s government is indeed a legitimate one, and is being expressed not just by Pakistanis. However, in Pakistan that concern comes with the satisfaction of not being Indian.
If one were to take Pakistanis’ relief to its logical conclusion, it reveals an awful lot about the country’s perpetual existential crisis.
First, 68 years after Partition, the question of whether Pakistan ought to have been founded still seems to be relevant. The question must be pertinent enough because a columnist took Modi’s victory as the cue to answering it. Every communal riot, every report that reveals that Indian Muslims are socio-economically worse off than other sections of the population, every Hindutva victory, is seen as justifying the creation of Pakistan. The corollary is that the presence of 150 million Indian Muslims, the political beliefs of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, the violent loss of Bangladesh, India having a secular state (warts and all) do not negate the idea of Pakistan. As history continues to be written, new circumstances will always be co-opted to prove that Jinnah was either wrong or right.
That Pakistan’s justification is so utterly dependent on the continuing domestic political circumstances of another country is comical. Sure, Pakistanis can be glad that they have Pakistan, now that Modi is in power. But what if Congress gets voted in once again in 2019? Would the existence of Pakistan have less merit then? Would Jinnah be proven wrong once again? It seems that the need for Pakistan to exist lurches back forth as Indians change their political leaders.
In the 1960s, Pakistan had a stronger rupee and a higher GDP per capita than India. No doubt that many Pakistanis would have been glad for their higher socio-economic indices in those days, and might have felt that they are better off in Pakistan. As those indices changed, Pakistanis seem to have fewer things to be happy about. Pakistan has a military that is weaker than India's, and it is behind in GDP growth, exports, exchange rates, investment, life expectancy, healthcare and much else. If one even compares violence, surely Pakistan has lost more lives in religiously motivated killings by angry mobs, bombings and targeted killings than India has lost to Hindu-Muslim violence. Is it a matter of relief that violence in the name of religion in Pakistan is committed not by Hindus upon Muslims but Muslims upon Muslims?
Such existential preoccupations reveal a serious insecurity regarding the Pakistani experiment. As the political trajectories of India and Pakistan becomes more divergent, the instances in which Pakistan can out-do, or out-perform, its bigger neighbour, become more fleeting, and thus more precious. These precious moments prompt Pakistanis to take pride in their country in the more perverse instances, like the perceived plight of Indian Muslims under a Hindu nationalist government.
Saim Saeed is a journalist in Karachi.
