restoring-pre-partition-names-doesn-t-make-pakistan-secular

There is so much paranoid euphoria among the “liberal elite” in India over the Punjab government in Pakistan restoring the pre-Partition names of some places and localities in Lahore. This is being celebrated by a section of people in India and also compared with India, where the original names of various places are being restored.

 

This elite has a problem with Allahabad’s name being restored to its original name, Prayagraj. By its own logic, with which this “elite” is celebrating the restoration of the pre-Partition names of some localities in Pakistan, it should also celebrate the restoration of original names in India. But that would sound “sectarian” and “majoritarian”, hence it has to be criticised.

 

The message conveyed by our liberal elite is that while Pakistan is becoming “secular and progressive”, India is turning “majoritarian and regressive”. This is obviously because this particular “liberal elite” suffers from a pathological hatred towards the current BJP regime and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

 

So, for this elite, restoring the names of a few localities in the city of Lahore makes Pakistan a liberal, secular and progressive country.

 

It is a classic example of “missing the woods for the trees”. Pakistani society intrinsically remains radically sectarian. It is surprising how this liberal elite could forget the rants of its army chief, ‘Mullah’ Asim Munir.

 

Just a week before the Pahalgam terror attack, ‘Mullah’ Munir publicly said, while addressing non-resident Pakistanis settled in different parts of the world, that “Muslims” cannot live with “Hindus”.

 

Munir identified not India, but Hindus, as the enemies of Pakistan. Mullah Munir remains the de facto head of Pakistan. He guides and governs the policies of the Pakistan government. Yet, our liberal elite, always keen to project our own country in a poor light, is celebrating the restoration of the names of a few localities to old ‘Hindu’ names.

 

There are two important aspects to this. The names have been restored in Lahore. Prior to Partition, Lahore observed a syncretic culture where Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs lived together peacefully. Moreover, Punjabis, irrespective of faith, were more or less secular. That is the reason Punjab, despite being a Muslim-majority province before Partition, did not accept the All India Muslim League and instead voted for the secular Unionist Party in the provincial elections.

 

It is a separate story, though, that at the time of Partition everything was forgotten and Punjab witnessed extreme brutality and bestiality, leading to the killing of over a million people of all faiths, including Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, in a communal frenzy.

 

‘Mullah’ Munir, whose full name begins with ‘Syed’, thus tracing his ancestry not to Punjab but to Arabia or Iran, was born in Rawalpindi to Punjabi parents who had migrated from Jalandhar at the time of Partition. ‘Mullah’ Munir is only pursuing the stated policy of Pakistan and its founding principle of an Islamic state which, according to this argument, cannot co-exist with Hindus.

 

Also read: Trump-Xi summit: High pageantry, no real outcomes

 

 

It is also a fact that a majority of people in Pakistan endorse and support his policy of hostility towards India, particularly towards Hindus. There are still about 50 lakh Hindus living in Pakistan and they constitute about 2.1 per cent of the country’s total population.

 

Yet, the country’s army chief not only disowned them but also conveyed that Pakistan had no place for them when he said Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. He made no exception for the over 50 lakh Hindus living in his own country.

 

Hindus constituted about 20 per cent of Pakistan’s population at the time of Partition. The percentage has now come down to 2.1 per cent. That, according to critics, explains how the Islamic state of Pakistan has treated its Hindu population.

 

Compare these figures with India, which the “liberal elite” claims has become intolerant and has no place for minorities, particularly Muslims. The Muslim population percentage in India right now is 15 per cent. It was less than 10 per cent — 9.8 per cent — at the time of Partition.

 

If India were as intolerant and hostile towards Muslims as it is portrayed to be, how would their population percentage have increased by over 50 per cent in 75 years? And if the “liberal and progressive” Islamic state of Pakistan was so generous towards Hindus, how did their population percentage decline from 20 per cent to 2 per cent?

 

As already stated, the “liberal elite” in the country seeks to find fault with everything Indian under the current regime. This elite does not hesitate to malign India because, it believes, the onus will fall on the Prime Minister and his government.

 

This, critics argue, is a symptom of extreme pathological hatred towards the Prime Minister, which leads this “elite” to side even with “enemies” like Pakistan while ignoring everything it does against India. This elite does not hesitate to praise Pakistan in spite of everything.

 

Restoring the pre-Partition names of a few localities in Lahore does not make Pakistan a secular country. Pakistan is still defined by the policy with which it came into existence and which it continues to pursue vigorously and ruthlessly — a policy articulated by its army chief, ‘Mullah’ Munir, that “Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist”.