Silencing the past: Erasing the Pashtun struggle from historiography of Pakistan

 

There is a difference between history as a socio-historical process and history as a narrative. Reproducing the facts, the context and the motivation of the actors in all their complexity (and messiness) and to be called a history is never possible. Marx can focus on finding the concrete in history but the concrete if found will be done so by narrators who will transform the historical socio-political processes through their own ideological and epistemological lens. And the argument can be made that the grain of “Truth” (with capital T representing the actuality of the day to day in the linear conception of the time past) captured by an investigator will be proportional to the ratio of solidity and bias in the theory that the investigator is practicing.

The argument that producing history without theory becomes a useless jumble of facts with no sense of meaning remains true for if history is not to inform our today and give a sense to the reality of today then what it is useful for? Finding each and every micro-fact of history will result in a historical overdose. But treating history just as another myth will result in a collective alienation. The narration of history cannot be separated from the historical sociopolitical events as it will erase the role of power in the creation of historical narratives. There is always an overlap of the historical processes and the creation of knowledge about those processes of the past and in there lies the crucial task to define the boundary of operation of power on the creation of knowledge.

If power is an all-encompassing reality, limiting our choices and governing our lives, then history becomes a reality that is alive in our present. We may be unaware of history but as Michael-Rolph Trouillot pointed out, “we are never as steeped in history as we pretend not to be…
 and subsequently, “For those upon whose power is exercised, naivety is always a mistake.” Naivety to historical processes and their reproduction as knowledge is always a mistake. Analyzing the morphology of power, the legitimacy that a power carries is drawn from a retelling of a past in a way agreeing to or enforcing the semantics and message of the power. Power cannot be transparent and so can be the narrative of the past on which the power is based. And in here the challenge to power to be a judicious and inclusive process can be framed by presenting a challenge to the one-sided, fictionalized narration of the past. Such narration of the past which erases parts of history for the sake of a linear and thus convenient to the current morphology of power has to be undertaken to problematize the narration of the erased parts of history. 

That non-inclusive, myopic and arbitrary morphology of power is derived from a fictionalized, constructed and ahistorical narration of the past is evident like nowhere as is in Pakistan. If the way power is exercised in Pakistan is a totalitarian force then the way history is told in Pakistan is a totalizing force and is deeply embedded with the project of the state to find a singularity throughout history to legitimize the unitary arrangement of today. The people and the region that now constitute Pakistan come from traditions and struggles of the past which had trajectories of their own. Although they worked under the larger regional historical sociopolitical dynamic each one had a story of its own to tell and each one draws inspiration and meaning from their own pasts. But under the project of nationalizing or unifying the diverse trajectories of historical development the state of Pakistan has forced the official historiography to bulldoze the unique memories of the people it contains in its borders.

One such instance is bulldozing of the history of the struggle of Pashtuns. That history spans from the struggle for autonomy under the Mughal Empire to the movements of liberation from the British Empire and to the struggle for a true federation under the state of Pakistan. The official historiography of Pakistan presents history of the Mughal Empire as one singular reality which embedded all ‘Muslims’ and thus was representative of the Muslims from the North to the South. In that totalizing telling of the Mughal history for some of the ultra-patriotic nationalists the aim of Pakistan was to reenact the glory of the ‘Muslim’-Mughal Empire. To that misplaced reading of history the struggle of autonomy of Pashtuns against Mughals is a narrative working as an antidote.

That story of Pashtun resistance against the Mughal Empire begins with the revolt of Bayazid Ansari who is popularly known as Peer-e-Roshan (apostle of light). He was a dynamic personality who was brought up in the Sufi Chistia tradition and he traversed the length and breadth of the Mughal India before marching on the Mughal troops. Before his taking up arms he formed a spiritual movement which was called Tehreek-e-Roshnai (the movement of light). He merged the various Sufistic traditions, the rituals of different sects and came up with a program of reformation of the practice of religion. He wrote one of the earlier texts in Pashtu named “Khair-ul-Bayan”. In a way he founded the tradition of modern Pashtu language and its writing. He also is said to have come up with Pashtu alphabets. The book he wrote presents the reformed set of beliefs, the practice of religion as a rebellious, liberating ideology which drew its inspiration from the very mystic belief to not bend to no one other than God. The aim was to proclaim autonomy from the Mughal and allow the Pashtun tribes to govern themselves.

But there was a counter-movement, led by one Akhund Darweeza. He was a hardcore fanatic who first engaged Peer-e-Roshan in polemics and then seeing that he is unable to counter his influence and dent the popularity of his revolutionary appeal he declared him and his followers as Kaafirs and pronounced Jehad on them. The Jehad was a front guard for the Mughal armies. He also renamed Peer-e-Roshan as “Peer-e-Tareek” (apostle of darkness) and pursued his followers to use that name. Bayazid Ansari is now called with either of the titles depending on one’s ideological position. Peer-e-Rokhan was defeated by a mighty Mughal force. His son Peer Jalalla continued the struggle.

But the struggle against Mughal Empire continued in other parts of Pashtun lands. Some were the continuation of that struggle and some had impetus of its own. There was a Yousafzai revolt against the Mughal Empire in the now Swat, Bunir and adjoining regions. Due to the mountainous terrain and the ability of the tribes in guerrilla warfare the Mughal armies sent to the valleys were met with crushing defeats. On the frustration of the repeated attempts, Akbar sent a large force in command of the famous Raja Beerbal to tame the rebellion. Beerbal was marching with confidence not knowing the trap that mountains had for him. He was killed in action and Akbar is said to have regret for rest of his life to not give proper last rituals to one of his pearls. Akbar then led the expedition himself with all the might of the empire to crush a tiny group of people in mountains in the north and he did succeed.