Recently, Prof. Zia Mian sent me a gift. A book of essays and writings by Eqbal Ahmad: Between Past and Future.

I had read about Eqbal Ahmad but this was my first opportunity to read his writings extensively. My first impression was related to the clarity and honesty of his writings. Clarity in the positions he takes, how they impact other issues and what the implications are in a wide area of affairs covering South Asia, the USA, Europe, in fact the whole world and including a variety of affairs including economics, local and global policies and politics, and international relationships. Honesty in being able to articulate these positions and their implications even when they are with respect to events he is tied with emotionally, for example, the killing of Biharis by the East Pakistani militia.

It is rather unfortunate Eqbal Ahmad continues to be rarely read or hardly recognized within much of South Asia. Unfortunate, not for Ahmad, for he was hardly looking at being the next public voice of South Asia, but for South Asians leaders and intellectuals who are trying hard to understand our pasts and design our futures and quickly running out of ideas that are coherent, and sustainable.

Born in Bihar, as the book introduces him, to parents who were part of the freedom movement, he is said to have met both Gandhi and Tagore – two intellectual and activist leaders of the Indian freedom movement. When his father was murdered during the partition riots, he moved to Pakistan and grew up there. He later studied, lived and taught in the USA where he was also charged during the Vietnam era protests. Having been closely in touch with a wide set of global leaders, he was a true internationalist. And yet, his understanding of Pakistan and India – of South Asia – during the latter half of the 20^th century was detailed and insightful.

This book, containing letters and essays written during his life as he engaged on a number of issues – from demanding that Pakistan stop killing East Pakistanis and then later urging that East Pakistan be given autonomy, even independence despite being in complete disagreement with the ideology of the Bangladeshi leadership, his analysis of hostilities between India and Pakistan and its impact on rights and democracy within our countries, his scathing criticism of the nuclearization of South Asia and his analysis of breakdown of Pakistani civic society – highlight his commitment to democracy based on active participation by people.

As he analyzes the economies of both countries and critiques the praetorian bureaucracies – their traditions with the British and leanings for gentlemanly charity (I paraphrase) while opposing policies that encourage participative democracy – one cannot help wonder about the relevance to the current attempt by the Indian bureaucracy to scuttle the Right to Information Act. His analysis of the bureaucratic-military partnership and the consequent breakdown of civic society in Pakistan owing to ill-visioned strategies by politicians points to the state of democracy in Pakistan while at the same time reminding India how close its own democracy is to a state of anarchy driven by similar strategies.

One aspect of his analysis that I find incomplete – and that may be because this is not an exhaustive collection of his writings – is his construction of religions in South Asia. He briefly talks about it and its role in pre-Independence India as well as in Pakistan and India in the context of rising fundamentalism. However, this set of writings do not present a construction of what may be the role of religion in strengthening democracies, if any – or he merely presents a glimpse of that analysis in his presentation on Sufi traditions. I look for this aspect specifically in the context of his quote “No significant change occurs unless the new form is congruent with the old. It is only when a transplant is congenial to a soil that it works. Therefore, it is very important to know the transplant as well as the native soil.”

Perhaps, the most fascinating part of his writings is his clarity in urging democracy in South Asia and relating it to peace. On one hand, he is absolutely critical of the Pakistani state in its debilitation of democracy in Pakistan – tying it to its anti-people protocols vis-à-vis East Pakistan, first and then its interested meddling in Afghanistan and the rise of religious fundamentalism and its impact on Pakistan’s future. On the other hand, the clarity of this position are reflected in describing the bind alley into which India and Pakistan have walked vis-à-vis Kashmir and the absolute absence of democracy and rights of people in Kashmir, whether ruled by India or by Pakistan.

He also temporally correlates external policies of India vis-à-vis repression in Kashmir and stances with Pakistan with the democratic crises at home. In essence, it is a clear thesis on how peace in South Asia is tied to the destinies of all of these nations, their democracies and the welfare of its people. Based on this analysis, he urges new strategies for India and Pakistan to resolve their differences keeping Kashmiri sensitivities in mind. These new strategies (also described in the movie by Hoodbhoy and Mian on South Asia), while understanding of Pakistani and Indian realities are also radical in envisioning Kashmir as a start of an era of collaboration between India and Pakistan which might become one pillar of a framework for a strong South Asia.

At the very least, Ahmad's writings provoke – provoke angst at the short term vision and blinkered policies of our States and frustration at what might have been. Provoke ideas of what may be possible – even now necessary, going beyond the blame game of South Asian politics.

- Sanat Mohanty( Another review of the book by Justin Podur is also listed and I found it useful relating my experience with this review.)