Indus vs India

Mani Shankar Aiyar’s definition of Pakistan was simple- He tries many alternatives and comes to the rather interesting definition that “what is not India is Pakistan”. It was their un- Indianness that gave Pakistan a definition of Nationhood. Years later, one sees the nation grappling with its’ multiple identities as an Islamic State, a modern Nuclear Power, a hotbed of fundamentalism, military rule interspersed with democracy, one can’t help being convinced by that definition.

The book “Indus Saga” written by prominent Pakistani Lawyer & Politician Aitzaz Ahsan is remarkable for many reasons. I have been trying to read it for the last few years and didn’t know that it has been published in India also (by Roli Books). Thanks to the simple wonders of internet shopping, I own a copy now and have been reading it with great interest these last few days. These are days when the stress at workplace doesn’t make it easy to do serious reading.

Ahsan, was a Minister in successive PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) ministries and more recently he came into limelight for leading the struggle to reinstate the Chief Justice of Pakistan. My Pakistani civil service class-mates from Australian National University say that Ahsan chose not to join the Civil Services of Pakistan, in spite of securing a high rank. He chose a life of politics and law. The movements for democracy and restoration of legal institutions that he spearheaded helped to retain Pakistan as a South Asian democracy and not another despotic theocracy or a military dictatorship. He is a politician who has even gone against his party leaders to stand up for the institutions he believed in.

The book gives an interesting perspective to the civilizational origins of Pakistan. Ahsan makes a distinction between India and Indus. The land west to the Indus river, he says, constitutes a civilization all by itself going back to the Harappan era. One that is different from mainstream Indian and West Asian cultures. He states that the Indus civilization is not entirely evolved from marauding armies from the West, or the cultural osmosis by predominantly Hindu India. From the Harappan days, Indus had its own culture and hence, the author argues, the idea of Pakistan existed prior to the artificial divide caused by partition. One may disagree with the author, but couldn’t but be impressed with his marshalling of facts to sustain his argument and develop it.

At another level, he argues that the martial/ feudal culture of the Indus as against the mercantile culture of India was what distinguishes the two nation-states. From the Harappan era through the colonial rule, the author plots the trajectory of the Indus culture. The absence of a maritime culture and the inability to assimilate the mercantile culture of the British are some of the features that distinguish the Indus culture. He tries to encapsulate the Indian culture as bourgeoisie as against the feudal culture of Indus- the accountant/ trader/ book-keeper of India as against the artisan/ peasant/ landlord of Indus. He argues that it was easier for Indians to assimilate the British mercantile system whereas the Indus couldn’t manage the transition as effortlessly.

The danger with Ahsan’s definition of India is that it doesn’t cross the Vindhyas or try to understand the many splendoured North Eastern States. Even the present state of Pakistan subsume several identities and cultures- Pathan, Sindhi, Baloch,Punjabi and many others within its’ fold. Ahsan defines the Indus culture competently. The colourful and pluralistic entity called India doesn’t render itself easy to simplistic characterizations. In the national consciousness of Pakistan, India is primarily the belt consisting Punjab, UP, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Bihar and J&K (which they believe ought to have been theirs). The period prior to National movement could be described as the one in which the distinctions, especially among the elite, between Indus and mainstream India came into sharp focus. I had always thought that a Punjabi from Pakistan can seamlessly integrate into Delhi culture today. A Malayali from the South or the Manipuri from North East is sure to feel alien. One couldn’t fault Ahsan for having swayed by a definition of India, which, I am sure many in India unwittingly hold. Even mainstream India couldn’t be easily characterized as bourgeoisie or mercantile. There are tribals, fuedals, artisans and several other strands that constitute the vast populace of India.

The book traces the development of the artificial divide of Hindu India vs Muslim Pakistan that continued for two centuries up to the end of colonial rule. Jinnah’s vision was not of an Islamic State but a state for Muslims. A vision, which was probably driven by a sense of alienation by sub-continental Muslims -or caused by the patronizing approach towards them by Nationalist leaders. A vision, which in hindsight, has gone horribly wrong. Without going into the sub text underlying the Indus-based definition, I can say that this book, written from jail during one of the author’s many detentions, is an un-prejudiced and candid analysis of Pakistan’s rich civilizational origins. This book would help us understand our neighbour better- and not let our impressions be shaped by the religious fervor of their bearded Mullahs or their violent loonies with suicide jackets and dreams of sex starved virgins in paradise or their Generals bandying about conspiracy theories.