Gues Post by Salim Chowdhrey
It was late summer in 1984 or 1985. I received a surprise call from a friend in Pakistan. We had been friends since kindergarten but our destiny had carried us on different trajectories. However, to date we have managed to keep abreast of what is going on in eachother’s lives. When my friend called me he said that he was in New Jersey, USA. He said he was sent here from the then President Zia-ul-Haq. I was very impressed that he was sent here by the President and conveyed my thoughts to him. He gloomily said that that he may not be able to meet the goal of his visit.
Zia came to the dinner that evening. No not the President Zia-ul-Haq but Zia Hussain my childhood friend. In our conversation that evening he shared that he was the General Manager of Oxford University Press (Pakistan) – a Publishing house in Karachi. Their parent company in New York had published the biography of the Father of the Nation titled as Jinnah of Pakistan. Though the book was full of unvarnished facts, it was also scholarly honest and unbiased. Most of all; the image of Jinnah that came through the book was of a once in a century hero– much like George Washington of the US.
Amazingly enough the book got banned in Pakistan. President Zia-ul-Haq, on the other hand, not only wanted the book be published, but he also wanted it to be the core of all undergraduate studies in the Universities across Pakistan. In his mind President Zia could not smudge Jinnah Sahib’s image. So the mention of Jinnah Sahib ‘s indulgence with whiskey and eating forbidden flesh was unacceptable to him. It had to be excluded from the book. This was Zia Hussain‘s mission. He had to convince Mr. Stanley Wolpert to expunge a part of Mr. Jinnah’s Life, in order to make him a “True Hero”.
Zia Hussain‘s mission failed. Wolpert didn’t even feel the need to meet Mr. Hussain. His publisher Oxford University Press and Zia Hussain were told firmly and politely (which was his style as I later found out) that the book was written to document the life of a Great Man. A part of President Zia‘s message contained the temptation of selling millions of copies in Pakistan as it was proposed to be part of a perpetual curriculum of all the Universities in Pakistan. Mr. Wolpert alluded that having written many books, text and otherwise; and being a Professor at Stanford University (He is now Professor Emeritus there), he was financially more than secure and riches were not his goal.
Years later Mr. Wolpert came to Asia Society in New York City, to introduce his book Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan. I had the good fortune to meet him. He had flown in from California; and had directly arrived at the Asia Society. It was dinner time. A few friends and I invited him for dinner. He graciously accepted. We instantly arranged for a catered Pakistani meal at Tariq Malik‘s place. We spent five unforgettable and precious hours with Mr. Wolpert. In an informal setting one could see that he himself is a great man. No pretensions, but very proper, gentlemanly, polite and firm. We talked about ZAB, Nehru and Gandhi. He has since then written books about all of them. He was respectful talking of his subjects but there was a special respect for the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. In the conversation, more often he called him the Quaid than Mr. Jinnah. He said that no one suggested to him to write about Jinnah Sahib. It was his own admiration that led him to research and write about this remarkable hero. I was left wondering whether great historians have heroes too? And heroes from far off lands?
About the Author: Salim Chowdhrey M.D. is a Clinical Associate Professor at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an Attending at St Barnabas Medical Center. He practices Psychiatry in Livingston. NJ
Athar:
I am not sure what in particular impressed Wolpert with Musharraf. But to be fair, even if we don’t look at him through the secular vs religious glasses, there were some commendable things that he started off with. Yes, his lack of legitimacy and the fact that he put his survival above everything else also led to reversals on most of these things and that’s why he has lost the support of most Pakistanis.
A few things that Mush started with but backed away later:
* Accountability (even though Faujis and judges were exempt, if he had continued it instead of dealing with Ch Shujat and others, it would have been very good for the country)
* Devolution (again, if he hadn’t started undermining it himself later on)
* Police reforms( package announced in 2002, but not implemented to keep his political allies happy)
* Higher education sector (despite the controversy over HEC, it’s hard to deny that no previous govt even tried it)
* Overall level of corruption (no major corruption scandle in Mush’s first three years, but now, corruption is back with a vengence)
* The cabinet (a small, reasonably sized cabinet comprising of technocrats in his first three years, now turned into a circus of 70 odd ministers)
* Independence of the media (it would be a lie on our part to deny that Musharraf allowed cable TV and private channels, which previous governments were refusing to allow. However, the behaviour towards the media has been hostile in recent months)
* intra-party democracy (the clause for this purpose in the LFO was very weak, but it was at least a start.)
* An LFO amendment requiring that a bill would be passed only after a certain period of debate in the parliament, thus promising to make it difficult for amendments to be passed in minutes (went back on it big time)
(Note that in this list, I haven’t mentioned any of the issues that trigger a ‘secularism vs religion’ debate.)
I was personally in that very small minority that regarded the coup as a negative development even on Oct 12, 1999 when almost everyone around was celebrating the ouster of NS. But in the first few years of Musharraf, the above initiatives were clearly visible and one would have to be an extremist Musharraf basher not to acknowledge these things. I think history will regard Musharraf as a man who probably meant well initially, but then got so pre-occupied with the continuation of his rule that he started putting it above everything else.
Thanks for a brilliant piece, Mr. Chawdhrey.
Stanley Wolpert is indeed a very intellingent and fair scholar about South Asian affairs.
I have had the opportunity to invite him at McGill University in Montreal (Pakistan Students Society) in the early 1990s and was very impressed by his demeanour and clever insights how different personalities have shaped events in South Asia as well his keen foresight of volatile conditions which were to befell Pakistan in the later years.
Hope he continues to produce such brilliant works and possibly write about the short-coming of his “second Quaid-e-Azam”.
We all look forward to such a discourse on General Parvez Musharraf.
Regards,
One sentence will be sufficient to describe this great man….
If Muslim League had 100 Mahatma Gandhis ..and 200 Abul kalam Azad….and congress had only 1 Jinnah…Sub continent would have never been divided….
Vijay Laxhmi Pandit
Sister of Jawahar Lal Nehru
Salim Saheb, I’ve corrected the typo and the sentence now reads: “In the conversation, more often he called him the Quaid than Mr. Jinnah. He said that no one suggested to him to write about Jinnah Sahib.”
I was an undergrad at Rutgers College 1998-2002.
My interests were mostly political… and in many ways Jinnah-related… who I studied extensively at the Alexandar Library… amongst others.