“It is about time that Pakistan made its presence felt in the international community with a principled stance on Palestine and Kashmir that is consistent with ethical considerations and the sovereign objectives of this country,” leading historian, scholar and author Dr Ayesha Jalal said on Tuesday.
Speaking during a talk at the Quaid-e-Azam House Museum that was hosted by the board of management of the museum, Dr Ayesha said that the post-world-war era is writing its own epitaph.
She said that it is presenting Pakistan with an opportunity to rectify “some of the wrongs of the past by making a real difference for the oppressed peoples of the two contested lands against whom the cards are heavily stacked by the big moneybags that run the world from the shadows of global politics”.
She also said that at the time of the Cabinet Mission in 1946, a confederal union based on three groups of provinces had been preferred by the All-India Muslim League at Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s behest over a sovereign Pakistan based on a partition of the two most important Muslim authority provinces.
Clearly then, Jinnah had not been looking to carve up stakes based on a religiously-based partition, she added. “The idea of partitioning people belonging to different religious denominations as a way of managing conflicts between them was first noted as a feature in global politics in the early 1920s, when Ireland was divided by the British on account of Catholic and Protestant differences.”
She said that in the case of India, it was not Jinnah, but the Indian National Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel that chose to slam the door shut on a negotiated settlement for an equitable power-sharing arrangement to preserve the unity.
Once India had been divided in 1947, Jinnah defended the creation of Pakistan, as he would, but saw no contradiction in emphatically rejecting the partition of Palestine in the same breath.
“As late as October 25, 1947, he still hoped that the partition plan for Palestine would be rejected, because ‘otherwise, there is bound to be the gravest disaster, an unprecedented conflict, not only between the Arabs and the authority that would undertake to enforce the partition plan, but the entire Muslim world will revolt against such a decision, which cannot be supported historically, politically or morally’.”
She said that upon hearing the news of the partition of Palestine, Jinnah expressed surprise and shock at the serious lack of judgment shown by the then UNO by their unjust decision, adding that he assured Arabs of Pakistan’s unwavering support in their opposition to the UNO decision.
“Pakistan has not kept many promises to Jinnah, but it has kept his promise on Palestine,” she said, adding that that was despite Islamabad “growing very close to the American empire, which has evolved into the biggest and most important guarantor of the preservation and expansion of Israel into a greater Israel, the regional hegemon in an overwhelmingly Arab and Muslim destination”.
She highlighted that India had done a somersault on the Palestine issue because of the BJP government’s ideological affinity with ethno-nationalism, and that there was also a strong element of geostrategic calculation in India’s newfound love for Israel.
“India, under Narendra Modi, is firmly committed to riding the coattails of America and strengthening its ties with Israel, a posture that puts it squarely in the camp opposed to the cause of Palestine.”
She said that any doubts in this regard on account of India’s history of supporting anti-colonial causes the world over had been put to rest by Modi, who became the first Indian prime minister to address the Israeli Knesset, hours before the US and Israel launched their second war against Iran.
For Pakistan, she went on, it was not just a warning, but a confirmation of the grave threat to its security posed by India, Israel and also their Gulf neighbour, the UAE.
“Will Pakistan be able to continue its historic support for the Palestinians, however ineffectual and symbolic on account of internal fissures and bitter rivalries within the worldwide Muslim community deftly exploited by both European and American powers?”
But if the details of the road ahead are quite fuzzy, she explained, what is clear is that the post-world-war-II international order has crumbled under its own weight. “A dramatically different security architecture is set to emerge in West Asia once the war against Iran comes to an end.”
She said that now is the time to change the symbolic nature of the support for Palestine into something substantial and consequential. “Among the many lessons to be learnt from the wars on Iran is that it was targeted with special vehemence, not only because of its Islamic character, but primarily on account of Tehran’s steadfast support for the Palestinian cause.”
The historian said that it remains to be seen if Pakistan’s new role as international mediator would translate into a direct role in the security of a West Asia that has for so long relied on America, “a modality that now, let’s be frank, seems not only costly, but completely foolhardy”.
She said that while the future is undoubtedly difficult to predict with any measure of confidence, the chances of redrawing the map of certain Gulf countries seems very much to be on the cards once this war settles down.
“Will the Pakistan-Saudi-Arabia Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement be a deterrence to external aggression against the two countries or a possible pretext to military adventurism in the region? How these and other related issues will be viewed and handled by Pakistan is unclear.”
She added: “We have yet to know how Riyadh will respond to a war between Pakistan and India, a country in which the Saudis have investments estimated to be over $10 billion compared to just $2.8 billion in Pakistan. We hear that Saudi Arabia’s economic profile is declining. It’s lost over 4.4 per cent in GDP this past year.”
She also said that it is unclear what military assistance to Saudis would mean for nuclear Pakistan’s relations with Iran, our neighbour, especially now that Kuwait and even Qatar are said to be in negotiations with Islamabad for a possible security alliance.
“I think this is a matter of grave concern. Everybody wants to have a security alliance with Pakistan. What is beyond any doubt is that Pakistan must avoid alienating Iran in its stated commitment to defending the Saudi regime.”
In his welcome address earlier, Liaquat Merchant talked about the museum’s history, its board of management and work to keep the young generation abreast with Jinnah.
“We are making endeavours to tell the younger generation of Pakistanis what Jinnah was struggling for, why he was struggling for Pakistan, what his aim was, and what he wanted to achieve from Pakistan for the Muslim community.”
Ameena Saiyid introduced the speaker to the guests. In his closing remarks, Ikram Sehgal said Iran had stopped Israel from advancing its vision of a Greater Israel, adding that while Tel Aviv would continue its efforts, Tehran had curbed its ability to do so.
