In a recent article published in ‘The Dawn’ and later published in ‘The Print’, Pervez Hoodbhoy imagines how disastrous would it have been if Modi was the first Prime Minister of India instead of Nehru. A completely hypothetical scenario deliberately used to sow seeds of disharmony among the Indians. Of course, if one agrees with the article, one would allude to Modi being actually a disaster for India; and if one defers, would imply that Indians didn’t choose wisely to make Nehru their first PM. Both the conclusions would bring a smirk to the agenda driven Pakistani’s face and hence I would refrain.
There were many problem areas in the article however which deserves clarification. First of all, it is laughable for a Pakistani to allege that in one textbook of one subject of one class of one state of India, the RSS is trying to tweak the Nehruvian history when they have whitewashed and distempered their generations with a false history.
Pakistanis still read that 1857 was a movement led by ‘Muslims’ for an independent country. There are confusions in your books whether Muslim League was formed in 1906 or 1911. The real purpose of formation of Muslim League which was to show the loyalty of Muslims towards the British has been concealed with a false narrative that it was an anti-British party. You teach children such blatant lies that Pakistan has won all wars with India including 1948, 1965, 1972 and even Kargil 1999 and still have the audacity to prick holes in our correct narrative?
The writer goes on to allege that India would go on to become ‘garbage dump for crackpot science’ under Modi. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Modi’s stress on technology is evident in most of his speeches, developmental work and even his election campaigns. So, there is no evidence to suggest that Modi would not have opened the IITs and the numerous science museums if he was in Nehru’s place. He might have done more, if not equal. Of course, this is painful for Pakistanis for whom evolution is ignored but the creation by Almighty has space in the syllabus.
Pervez describes the Army under Rawat as interventionist – a deliberate and malicious propaganda, an attempt to create a rift between the Government and the Army which should be strongly criticized. We are not Pakistan where not a single PM has completed his 5-year term ever in the history, mostly obstructed by military coups; and where Army has ruled the nation directly or through a proxy for a greater part of history. Whereas, Indian Army has the full backing of Modi in their actions, be it surgical strikes or Doklam standoff. Government – Army synchronization is something beyond the imagination of a Pakistani.
So, while it is understandable that vile and mischievous attempt by the author to create disharmony and a false narrative against the present government is the key intention behind the article, it is uncertain why liberals would fall for it, heaping praises on it, unless they are blinded by hate to use Pakistani narrative as their own against Modi.
Here is a food for thought. What if Hafiz Sayeed was the first Prime Minister of Pakistan instead of Liaquat Ali Khan? Well, it would not have made any significant difference as religious extremism is in the fundamentals of Pakistan and we would have still seen a Jehad exporting state – a motherlode of terrorism.