تعلیم کا مقصد

یہ گدھا نہیں ہمارا معیارِ تعلیم ہے۔
بلند ہو رہا ہے۔

 ہم اپنا معیارِ تعلیم کس طرح بلند کر رہے ہیں، تصویر ملاحظہ فرمایے۔

گاڑی ہمارا تعلیمی نظامِ ہے، اُس کے آگے جو معزز جانور بندھا ہوا ہے وہ ہمارا معیارِ تعلیم ہے۔ گاڑی میں اِتنے بنڈل رکھ دیے گئے ہیں کہ بیچارہ معیارِ تعلیم  ہوا میں معلق ہو گیا ہے۔ ستاروں سے آگے جہاں اور بھی ہیں، شائد یہ وہاں پہنچ جائے کیونکہ اب اِس کا رُخ آسمانوں کی طرف ہو گیا ہے۔ مگر زمین پر تو دو قدم بھی آگے نہیں بڑھ سکتا۔

تعلیم کو سب اچھا کہتے ہیں مگر کوئی نہیں بتاتا کہ تعلیم کا مقصد کیا ہے۔ گھسی پٹی باتیں مت کیجیے۔ اچھا انسان وغیرہ بننے کے لیے تعلیم کوئی شرط نہیں۔ تہذیب اور شائستگی میں بھی آج کل تو اَن پڑھ لوگ انگریزی پڑھے ہوئے نوجوانوں سے آگے نظر آتے ہیں۔ دنیاوی کامیابی کی بات بھی مت کیجیے کہ بقول ابن انشا: تعلیم بڑی دولت ہے مگر جس کے پاس تعلیم ہوتی ہے اُس کے پاس دولت کیوں نہیں ہوتی اور جس کے پاس دولت ہوتی ہے اُس کے پاس تعلیم کیوں نہیں ہوتی؟

تعلیم کا صرف ایک ہی مقصد ہو سکتا ہے۔ وہ یہ ہے کہ آپ اپنے معاشرے کی باگ ڈور سنبھالنے کے قابل ہو سکیں۔ آپ جہاں رہتے ہیں وہاں کے حکمراں بن جائیں۔ 

مطلب یہ نہیں ہے کہ آپ الیکشن لڑ کر پارلیمنٹ میں ضرور پہنچیں۔ بلکہ جس شعبے میں بھی ہوں اپنے ملک کو چلانے، اُس کی راہ متعین کرنے اور معاشرے کے بارے میں فیصلے کرنے میں آپ اُتنا ہی حصہ لے رہے ہوں جتنا کہ حکومت۔ بلکہ حکومت کا کام صرف آپ کے فیصلوں کو نافذ کرنا ہو۔  

کیا ہماری تعلیم ہمیں اِس کے لیے تیار کرتی ہے؟ کیا یہ تعلیم ہمیں اِن معانی میں یا کسی بھی معانی میں "حکمرانی" کے قابل بناتی ہے؟

یہ مت کہیے کہ ہمارا معاشرہ ہی ایسا ہے کہ صرف جاہل اور دولتمند منتخب کیے جاتے ہیں۔ محمد علی جناح سے زیادہ ووٹ کس نے حاصل کیے ہوں گے؟ علامہ اقبال بھی اسمبلی کا الیکشن لڑے اور کامیاب ہوئے۔ ہمارے پہلے وزیراعظم ایک نواب کے بیٹے سہی مگر وزیراعظم بننے تک اُن کے پاس شاید صرف پھوٹی کوڑی ہی رہ گئی تھی اور مَرتے ہوئے تو بیوی بچوں کے لیے سر چھپانے کو  چھَت بھی نہیں چھوڑ کر گئے۔

وہ ہمارا آغاز تھا۔ اگر اُس کے بعد جاہل، ظالم اور حرام خور ہم پر حکومت کرنے لگے تو وجہ یہی تھی کہ انگریزوں کے جاتے ہی ہم نے نظامِ تعلیم بدل دیا۔ یہ اچھی بات تھی۔ مگر دانشوروں کی عقلوں پر پتھر پڑے ہوئے تھے کہ نیا نظامِ تعلیم بھی مغربی ماہرین ہی سے بنوایا۔ یعنی شکار خود شکاری کے پاس گیا کہ رنجش ہی سہی، دل ہی دُکھانے کے لیے آ۔

ذرا اُردو بازار کا چکر لگا کر پرانی درسی کتابیں تلاش کیجیے۔ معلوم ہو گا کہ 1953کے لگ بھگ ہماری درسی کتابیں موسسہ فرینکلن کی مدد سے تیار ہونے لگی تھیں۔ سِلور برڈٹ کمپنی دیدہ زیب کتابیں اُردو میں تیار کر کے ہمیں دے رہی تھی۔ غیر کی دہلیز پر ماتھا ٹیکنے سے معیارِ تعلیم بلند ہو رہا تھا۔

ہمارا معیارِ تعلیم اُسی طرح بلند ہوا جیسے تصویر میں گدھے کے پاوں بلند ہوئے ہیں۔ تعلیم نے ہمیں یہ نہیں سکھایا کہ اپنے ملک کی گاڑی کو دو قدم بھی آگے کیسے بڑھایا جاتا ہے۔ اپنے معاشرے کے لیے کوئی نئی راہ اختیار کرنی ہو تو کیسے کرتے ہیں؟

آپ نے بھی تعلیم حاصل کی ہے۔ کیا آپ کو معلوم ہے کہ ملک پر حکومت کیسے کی جاتی ہے؟ نہیں معلوم ناں۔ آئیے اِسی بات پر ویڈیو دیکھتے ہیں:

Why Islamic State

If certain features of “Islamic state” (as conceived by the founding fathers of Pakistan) overlap variously with theocracy, secularism and socialism, why not start with one of those? Many answers to this pertinent question are scattered throughout the writings and statements of Allama Iqbal, Quaid-i-Azam, Liaquat Ali Khan and other leaders of the Pakistan movement. Here, we may look at three of the simplest answers.

Firstly, the founding fathers believed that Western democracy (of which secularism is a corollary) played a very important role in history but had failed by the early decades of the twentieth century (Iqbal’s observations about the “reaction against democracy in England and France” have already been shared in some recent posts of this newsletter. Quaid was of the same opinion as will be seen here).

Secondly, if Western democracy had failed, obviously the world needed fresh input for the sake of freedom, equality and liberty. This fresh input, according to the founding fathers, was an “Islamic state”.

The following is one of the dozens of statements of Quaid which can be used for understanding the two above-mentioned points:

In Pakistan we shall have a state which will be run according to the principles of Islam. It will have its cultural, political and economic structure based on the principles of Islam. The non-Muslims need not fear because of this, for fullest justice will be done to them, they will have their full cultural, religious, political and economic rights safeguarded. As a matter of fact they will be more safeguarded than in the present-day so-called democratic parliamentary form of Government. (Bombay, February 1, 1943; quoted in Secular Jinnah and Pakistan by Saleena Karim on p.136).

The third reason was that the people wanted it (minus, perhaps, “the intelligentsia and the so-called educated”). Liaquat Ali Khan stated it best when he told an American audience in 1950:

We do not have to present this ideology to our people as a new manifesto. The principles I have stated are part and parcel of Islam and when we say that we want to follow the Islamic way of life what we mean is that we could not possibly do otherwise. (N.B. This quote is not from Saleena Karim's book).

By the way, if one thinks that only Muslim masses wanted this “Islamic state”, one is in for some surprise in Saleena Karim’s book – especially in Appendix II, ‘Non-Muslims on Jinnah and Pakistan’. The letters written to Quaid by a Lahore-based native Christian woman and from a Hindu in Darjeeling are eye-openers.

Just to check how much you know about Pakistan, try making a guess which prominent Pakistani Christian wrote the following words – as late as November 1977:

If you have looked at the basic doctrine of Islam, its truth and strength-in-simplicity, the potencies for growth, spiritual integrity for the individual, outward and visible power through unity for the community, that are built into its rituals of namaz [prayer], the fast and the pilgrimage, which are still being extensively practiced, the reason for the current of Islamicization [“Islamization”] in Muslim countries, that have re-sensed their identity and place in the World, will become apparent.

Yes, these words were written by a Pakistani Christian who was one of the most prominent public figures in our history. Turn to pp.261-2 of the book to find out who was he (and hopefully, there will be more about him in some future post of this newsletter).

Islamic State (2)

Presented in the previous post were a few salient features of an “Islamic state” as conceived by the founding fathers of Pakistan – especially Iqbal, Quaid-i-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan. Looking at these features, we find that some of these overlap with secularism, some with theocracy and some with socialism.

This could be one of the three major reasons why the founding fathers’ vision was seldom understood by the intelligentsia. Already by 1947, the Muslim intelligentsia of the sub-continent had become sharply divided between secularist, conservative and socialist positions. Each of these groups saw only what it wanted to see in the statements of Iqbal and Quaid-i-Azam (and very often disregarding Liaquat Ali Khan altogether).

To say that the founding fathers of Pakistan wanted it to be a secular, theocratic or socialist state was equally wrong. Such a statement could only border on intellectual dishonesty. Secular Jinnah and Pakistan by Saleena Karim furnishes ample examples of such intellectual dishonesty – most famously committed by none less than a chief justice of Pakistan who attributed a “fake” quote to Quaid-i-Azam.

The Quaid may have foreseen this too. “Corruption is a curse in India and amongst Muslims, especially the so-called educated and intelligentsia,” he had written to his friend M. A. H. Ispahani in 1945. “Unfortunately, it is this class that is selfish and morally and intellectually corrupt.” (Quoted by Saleena Karim on p.133; emphasis is mine). This seems to be the second reason why the founding fathers’ concept of “Islamic State” got thrown into oblivion.

A third reason could be that this was a vision of the Islamic state as constantly developing through history – through “deed” of the masses rather than “ideas” of the elite. Grasping an ever-changing concept is a difficult thing, especially when it also requires us to be non-judgmental towards the less privileged.

This series of review will be concluded in the next post.

Islamic State (1)

Allama Iqbal, Qauid-i-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan believed that the features of an Islamic state in modern times would include the following.

1. SOVEREIGNTY: Sovereignty belongs to God, which means that the people as well as the state must treat the entire humanity as family and cannot adopt policies that refute this organic unity of the humankind.
2. DEMOCRACY: Democracy is the most important aspect of Islam regarded as a political ideal, and therefore the state must be ruled by representatives chosen by the people.
3. EQUALITY BEFORE LAW: Non-Muslims can also become executive heads (such as prime ministers) as long as they get themselves duly elected. However, the state may restrict the office of the ceremonial head (such as President without any real power) exclusively to Muslims.
4. SOCIAL JUSTICE: Not only illegal means of acquiring wealth should be outlawed but also all forms of economic exploitation: the state must ensure economic equality through “Islamic socialism”.
5. INNOVATION: Islamic state is constantly evolving through history, and it may take some other form in future (possibly where government is not needed anymore). However, the development can only be towards more empowerment of the people, and greater democracy, rather than the other way around.

Is this really Islam? Did Iqbal, Quaid and Liaquat Ali Khan actually believe this? If so, why didn’t we know? These are the most common questions that come up whenever I discuss these ideas.

Usually, I do not answer the first question. I believe that every Muslim has the right to interpret religion in their own way, and also has the right to consult a religious scholar out of free will. I am not a “religious scholar” as such, and my role as a historian ends on telling whether or not a certain idea was shared by some people in the past.

I know it as a historical fact that Iqbal, Quaid and Liaquat Ali Khan were unanimous on the above-mentioned concepts but whether they were right or wrong is not for me to judge.

The good news is that all three questions (and many, many, more) have been answered – elegantly and at length, with all the supporting evidence needed for the discussion – in Secular Jinnah and Pakistan: What the Nation Doesn’t Know by the distinguished researcher, Saleena Karim.

In the previous post I shared my observation that contrary to some other interesting studies about the Quaid, this one doesn’t make a painful reading for an average Pakistani. You may or may not agree with the author, but nowhere shall you feel as if she is unsympathetic to your religious sentiments, or trying to impose her views. Besides, the enormous amount of archival material presented here is valuable for its own sake. This includes excerpts from the writings, speeches and statements of the founding fathers; passages from parliamentary debates; arguments from Quran, and much else beside.

In the presence of this book, it shall become increasingly difficult for anyone to prove that the above-mentioned five points about an Islamic state were not shared by the founding fathers of Pakistan (just for record: the statements here are worded by me, but I hope that I was correct in inferring them from the book).

So, let’s move on to the last question: if this was the founding fathers’ idea of an Islamic state, why didn’t we know? This shall be discussed in the next post, but here is a hint: the answer is in the five statements themselves. Look again.