By Yasser Latif Hamdani
It seems to be that Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, who writes for the Daily Times, is not open to the idea of an engaged academic debate. His latest article in the Daily Times which I will link below proves it.
Let us however first recap as to what transpired before Ishtiaq Ahmed’s latest article.
I had written in my article “Congress’ use of Ulema”:
The Congress backed ulema, including Maulana Madni, the great proponent of composite nationalism, attacked Jinnah for being a Shia and having Ahmedis in the Muslim League. In Lucknow, Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar used the Madh-e-Sahaba to divide the Muslim vote along sectarian Shia and Sunni lines. Time and again the Congress backed ulema used the sectarian card to create dissentions between Muslims. While on the one side Congress criticised the British for using the policy of divide and rule, it used the same policy to attempt to break up the Muslim League. There was no ambiguity about the allegations either. Dhulipala lists the main body of these complaints. Congress’ ulema claimed that the Muslim League had betrayed Islam by undermining the Shariat Bill in the Indian legislature. Another complaint was that the Muslim League had supported the Khula Bill, which gave Muslim women the right to seek khula (marriage annulment) as a matter of right. The Congress backed ulema also claimed that the Muslim League had opposed such Islamic legislations as the Qazi Bill, which had sought to introduce Islamic qazi courts. They also claimed that the Muslim League had repeatedly forwarded bills aimed at diluting Islam and pointed to fatwas by the ulema on these bills. The Congress backed ulema especially took exception to the fact that Jinnah had supported the Civil Marriage Bill, which would have allowed intermarriage between Muslims and non-Muslims despite the fact that such marriages contravened the Quran. In other words, every progressive action by Jinnah or the Muslim League was paraded as proof of their anti-Islamic credentials. In other words, it was Congress that took the lead in playing the “Islam in danger” card for its own purposes.
(http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/27-Apr-2015/congress-use-of-the-ulema)
In doing so I was quoting from the same book – “Creating a New Medina” by Venkat Dhulipala- that Ishtiaq Ahmed does not tire praising. Ishtiaq Ahmed responded to this in his latest article “Muslim League’s use of Ulema” by repeating the stock myths of Indian nationalism that have exploded and are no longer accepted by historians as accurate. Foremost amongst them is the myth of secular v. communal that Ishtiaq Ahmed forwards with great gutso specially in defence of India and Indian National Congress. So his answer is very simple: “Congress did it it was ok, Muslim League responded it was evil”. Historians like Dr. Ayesha Jalal, Dr. Neeti Nair and others have long shown that neither Muslim nor Hindu politics of South Asia were so clear cut as to be described in these two watertight compartments. As for Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s claim that Pakistan’s “confessional nationalism” made Islamization possible, while India’s “secular” ethos have remained unaltered: India’s descent into majoritarianism was stalled by the good fortune that Nehru, finally chastened in his 60s, managed to remain at the helm for a good 17 years while Jinnah died within 13 months of partition.
Secondly his claim that Jinnah said between 1940 and 1947 that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one state is belied by the many statements Jinnah made during this period that minorities in Pakistan would be equal citizens and that their fundamental rights would be safeguarded. Even the Lahore Resolution, says so clearly. It is true that Jinnah had argued between 1940-1947 that Muslims and Hindus had not fused into one nation but that is not the same as saying that two nations cannot live in one state. What Jinnah had ultimately wanted was a Muslim majority state with Hindu and Sikh minorities living side by side Hindu majority state with Muslim majorities in an over all union (either federation or confederation) of India. It was a question of sharing sovereignty instead of letting a permanent majority dominate by sheer numbers a permanent minority.
However Ishtiaq Ahmed’s repetition of these stock myths is hardly what is bothersome about his latest piece “Muslim League’s use of Ulema” (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-May-2015/muslim-league-s-use-of-the-ulema) which ironically does not address the issue of Muslim League’s use of ulema but is simply a vitriolic attack on the Ahmadi community.
While responding to my comment that Congress used Ulema like Madani in UP to attack Muslim League for having Shias and Ahmedis (suspect Muslims as Ishtiaq Ahmed calls them) Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed writes:
With regard to Punjab, ever since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (who died in 1908) declared that he received revelations from God and was a prophet, the munazaras have only become shriller and fiercer. In 1912, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad declared that all Muslims who had not entered the fold of Ahmediyyat were outside the pale of Islam. The Munir Report mentions this.
Frankly not being an Ahmadi I cannot comment on the veracity of this claim. However it strikes me as odd is that Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed should think it has any relevance to the question of Congress using Ulema to divide Muslim League along sectarian lines? Essentially what Ishtiaq Ahmed is saying is that it was alright for “Secular” Congress to use Mullahs against Shias and Ahmadis because Ahmadis also do it. What strange logic indeed.
It gets even stranger. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed writes:
Had not Sir Zafarullah already shocked the nation by refusing to take part in the funeral prayers of the founder of Pakistan, a standard practice of all Ahmedis because non-Ahmedis are not proper Muslims according to their beliefs?
Sir Zafrullah was Jinnah’s closest confidante. His book “Agony of Pakistan” is a testament to the high esteem he held the founder of Pakistan in. The reason Zafrullah did not attend the funeral prayer had to do with the fact that Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani did not consider Ahmadis as Muslims. I find it amazing though that a self described liberal, wary of religion like Ishtiaq Ahmed should press this point especially when otherwise he justifies Congress’ “takfir” of Shias and Ahmedis.
Amazingly he justifies the actions of Majlis-e-Ahrar (the same party which called Jinnah Kafir-e-Azam and Pakistan Kafiristan) in the following way:
Then, of course, we must remember that the anti-Ahmedi agitation of 1953 in Punjab broke out only after the Ahmedi leadership, including Zafarullah had made extremely provocative speeches in favour of the spreading of Ahmediyyat
The Munir Report is quite clear that no provocation was made least of all by Zafrullah. Of course Ahmadis were a missionary faith but that does not mean provocation. It seems that despite protestations of secular liberalism, Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed is intent on repeating the usual myths about Ahmadis. This is obviously not something new for Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed. Not long ago he was pedaling a rather unfortunate rumour against Sir Zafrullah. On the eminent authority of his friend’s grandfather, Dr Ishtiaq concluded that as a young man Zafrullah was expelled from a Railways job after being “apprehended in a compromising position with a man”. Amazing ! Because Zafrullah was not employed by Railways at any time in his youth. He did serve as Minister of Railways before being elevated as a judge. The question of him being expelled did not arise. What possible mileage can a professor draw from scurrilously calling Zafrullah a homosexual except embolden the right wing? I have long suspected Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed of being sympathetic to Majlis-e-Ahrar and Agha Shorish Kashmiri. He denies it of course but his defence of Congress backed sectarian Mullahs and his views on Ahmadis tells me a different story.
This is what happens when you operate entirely on hearsay as ‘evidence’. He once claimed Jinnah’s change from an Indian Nationalist to a Muslim Nationalist had to do with his alleged representation of Indian princes before the Privy Council. This is what he had heard. When I asked him to produce evidence for this claim (Jinnah’s cases before the Privy Council are a mater of record) he was not pleased (and made public remarks about me).
One expects more probity and diligence from a Professor of his stature and the one who is influencing students at LUMS as well as abroad.