Persistence is a quality that Mani Shankar Aiyar’s political adversaries possess abundantly. When he came to speak at Forman Christian College in Lahore, where I teach physics, who could have guessed they’d be able to follow him across the Wagah border? Here is a wall that few Indians or Pakistanis attempt to scale these days. Still, if a political opponent somehow manages to cross over, it is easily possible to record his every move and word by secretly hiring a professional local camera crew.
And so it was. Barely an hour after his lecture concluded, Mani Shankar’s “treachery” was splashed across multiple Indian TV channels. There he was shown being welcomed on to enemy territory and, after I introduced him, speaking to an audience of 200-250 students and professionals.
Alas, he cheated those who shadowed him because finding fault with his lecture must have been so difficult. Still, they tried valiantly. Anchor after anchor shrilly excoriated him for betraying India: how dare Mani Shankar refer to Jinnah as the Quaid-e-Azam (greatest leader)? How could he possibly allege that S.V. Savarkar preceded M.A. Jinnah in articulating the Two Nation Theory?
In our part of the world, television anchors are expected to be loud and quick with words. But they are not expected to be well-informed about history or, for that matter, know much beyond what their bosses would like them to say. In fact, there were two glaring obvious problems with the accusations they hurled against Mani Shankar.
First, a browse through historical records of the time shows that the honorific title “Quaid-e-Azam” was repeatedly used for Jinnah by none other than Mahatma Gandhi. This does not at all imply that Gandhi liked Jinnah or agreed with his politics. On the contrary, in philosophical terms they were as widely apart as could be. But to refer to one’s political opponents respectfully brought a measure of civility at a time when it was desperately needed. Similar civility, though less important, is welcome today as well.
Second, it is a matter of fact that Veer Sarvarkar broached the idea of Hindu-Muslim separateness well before Jinnah’s famous 1940 Two-Nation speech in Lahore. In 1937, at the open session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Savarkar, in his presidential address, asserted: “India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main – the Hindus and the Muslims.” (Vide writings Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, Vol. 6 page 296, Maharashtra Prantiya Hindu Mahasabha, Pune).
In its frenzied attempt to portray Mani Shankar Aiyar’s ‘treachery’ at Forman Christian College in Pakistan, Indian TV channels conveniently overlooked valid and salient points in his speech.
My worry, as Mani Shankar’s host, was a different one. Although left unmentioned by Indian TV anchors hostile to his person, his speech contained some deep potential provocations. First, that 1947 witnessed the partition of Muslims as much as the partition of India. Second – and of much greater contemporary relevance – that peace is possible only if the Pakistani establishment dispenses with its Hafiz Saeeds and Masood Azhars.
In my opinion, both points are correct. In fact, for well over two decades my friends and I have vigorously criticised the use of extra-state actors to settle Pak-India issues, including Kashmir. That fact that ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has recently called for the Mumbai investigation to be speedily pursued is a vindication of our belief that the initiative in this regard lies with Pakistan.
But my concern was – how would the largely student audience react? They have, of course, been subjected to brain-washing from childhood. But to my relief, although Mani Shankar steadfastly challenged the Pakistani establishment’s line, there was no negative reaction either then or even subsequently. In fact, the conclusion of his lecture brought much clapping and a good feeling all around.
Pakistan is not a tolerant country. It is harsh on dissent, its media is manipulated, and our minorities are fearful. We embattled liberals are subject to all kinds of abuse, threatened, and kept at arms length from positions of power and influence. But what has become of India, a country we once admired for its secular ideals and its commitment to an open society? Every passing day makes it easier for us to recognise our own mirror image on the other side of the border. Imitation is said to be the highest form of flattery but I do wish India didn’t feel compelled to copy.
