Posted on 06/24/2002 8:17:54 PM PDT by swarthyguy
A false consciousness of 'Muslim-hood', instead of nationhood or 'Pakistan-first', and jihad as an instrument of foreign and security policies, elevating our status to a 'failed and rogue state', had brought us into conflict with the whole world. Thanks to the successive reversals of our flawed course of militancy spread over three decades, we are out of the woods, but are still suffering from a conflict of ideology and new found pragmatism.
A paradigm shift is most warranted, after we have had to abandon our so-called ideological and security straitjackets. But we still live in the ideological past while negotiating our present in the post-Cold war and post-9/11 world.
Deviating from the path set by the Quaid, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, we failed to evolve nationhood in the modern sense of the word. Despite the creation of Pakistan in the Muslim-majority regions, the 'two-nation theory', that served the historical purpose of creating a separate state, was wrongly extended to justify Pakistan's existence as juxtaposed to a multi-religious secular India. Failing to respond to the national aspirations of the constituting units, the dominant Punjabi-Mohajir elite imposed its hegemony in the name of "ideology of Pakistan" that, in turn, alienated the Bengalis, the Sindhis, the Baloch and the Pakhtuns. If the 'two-nation theory' helped create a state in the Muslim-majority regions, it caused ethno-lingual divisions when extended to Pakistan -- resulting in the creation of Bangladesh and causing Sindhi, Baloch and Pakhtun national exclusivism.
Divided between our concrete Pakistani entity and an illusion of stateless estrangement, Umma ('Muslim-hood'), we continued to deepen a self-contradictory notion of our historical personality, both as an individual and state.
Although the creation of Bangladesh should have helped us overcome our false-consciousness of 'Muslim-hood', we failed to build a modern and democratic nationhood on the basis of unanimously adopted 1973 Constitution. The conflict between the strong-centrist Bhutto government and the two autonomy-seeking provincial governments of NWFP and Balochistan, on the one hand, and a liberal PPP and orthodox PNA, on the other, showed how far away we still were from a national consensus on nationhood.
Most devastating deviation from Quaid's national-democratic path took place under General Ziaul Haq who used the sacred name of Islam to perpetuate his authoritarian rule and fight America's war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, regardless of its devastating implications for Pakistan. The jihad became the state paradigm not only in Afghanistan, but also a state-guaranteed lifestyle of many a militias we encouraged to takeover the indigenous Kashmir struggle in the Indian-occupied valley. A reactionary process of 'Islamisation' of culture, laws, education, institutions and society created a premise that was in conflict with the growth of civil society and modern nationhood. Coupled with the 'jihadification' of our security and foreign policies and patronisation of jihadi militias at home, a process of militarisation brought us into conflict with not only our own national-self, but also with the whole world.
Thanks to the Cold-war, it partially worked while eroding the necessary conditions of our national existence. Both pro-Taliban and pro-militancy Kashmir policies continued in a vacuum till the time they threatened the world and eroded the capacity and writ of our state to rein in the forces we have had unleashed. So far, we have only learnt partial lessons and, under coercion, pragmatically adjusted our most flawed policies that have been inimical to our own national interests and, by extension, to whatever civilised world we have today in a post-bipolar era. With a reactionary ideological mindset we can't even maximise the benefits of our pragmatic compromises since it inhibits our vision and reach to open new avenues and create exceptional opportunities. A false ideological guilt, coupled with the crisis of legitimacy, makes things even worse. Now, after we have been forced to retreat from a self-suicidal path, it's time to find a new paradigm that essentially reflects the interests of a modern nation-state and a democratic nationhood at peace with itself and the world.
While taking theoretical inspirations from a liberal-democrat par-excellence, the Founder of the Nation, a new paradigm of a modern-democratic Pakistan, which is essentially different from Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian models in the Muslim world, should locate itself on the following premises: One, the constituting national units of Pakistan are a part of both South and South-western Asian regions and it should be a bridge between various civilisations of the Asian continent. Two, resolving a kind of schizophrenic duality of its personality, it should primarily focus on its own Pakistani nationhood, based on the equal democratic participation of its people without any discrimination whatsoever, that is not deluded with the false notion of 'Umma', on the one hand, and doesn't exclude the peoples of its federating units from participating in a modern-nation state building. However, it doesn't mean that we will be excluding the Muslim-ness as a part of our multi-facet cultural life and solidarity with the Muslim world.
Three, as a medium-sized nation-state, living next to the two largest populated countries and regional powers, it must first of all build its sound human and economic foundations to survive as a prosperous and modern nation that is neither in conflict with either of its two neighbours, nor seek asylum in religious revivalism. All energies and resources are to be concentrated on the foremost task of developing human resources and expanding a sound and sustainable economic base. Four, with peace as defining element of this paradigm, we must redesign our security and foreign policies in the interest of our own progress that is possible through peace and cooperation in both South and South-western Asian regions in a way that they create necessary external conditions for our own survival as a nation and, in due course of time, help resolve the resolution of bilateral disputes, such as on Kashmir, the way the Great Chinese have done.
Five, most important feature of this paradigm is the democratisation of Pakistan. This will not be possible without reversing present equation of civil-military relations in favour of civil society. The army will have to take a back seat, despite getting the time to rein in the terrorists, even though it is conceded some space to clear the mess it created under a duly elected government. The first step towards that end will be to hold fair and free elections to let, for the first time, the army to orderly retreat to the barracks, instead of perpetuating its domination and subverting the whole political and constitutional process. But it pre-supposes a new social contract between the civil society and the state that the latter will help the former, rather than hinder, in this transition towards a democratic, peaceful and modern nation-state.
General Pervez Musharraf has remarkably brought Pakistan back from the brink twice; first on pro-Taliban policy and now on pro-militancy line in Kashmir, he once championed more than anybody else. It is quite disappointing to note that even the political forces who have suffered at the hands of these policies expeditiously exploit his intelligent retreats. The religious right is understandably opposed to these shifts since they have lost out and exhibit militarisation of their mind out of frustration to retain a smaller constituency. Ironically, the Musharraf government too favourably responds to the sectarian and reactionary clergy by conceding to its demands, such as reviving the section of oath and separate non-Muslim electoral lists despite restoring the system of original joint-electorate, instead of conceding to the genuine constitutional demands of the democratic opposition.
Such a historic transition from a reactionary, authoritarian and militancy-oriented state to a national, democratic and modern nationhood is only possible if both the military and civilian leadership get together for sometime to set everything in its due place and in the right direction. If the army leadership tried to dominate and exclude the major civilian political forces, then we will again be committing yet another mistake we have been committing all these decades. A new paradigm is most warranted. But more than that, a reversal of current civil-military equation is required on the basis of a new social contract. Modern-nation state building is the job of all stakeholders, not just one person or an institution. Does our helmsman understand this and ready to take along all those who can share this gigantic task?
The writer is a staff member
First step: acknowledge the invalidity of the Two Nation theory along with the Umma.
If after 50 years of independence, they're having such an existential crisis, what validity was there to the Two Nation, now three,(indo-pak-bangla) Concept.
You can't invalidate the concept of Ummah without invalidating Islam itself. A tall order, one which would require a more potent ideological counter-force than anything that currently exists in Pakistan.
Whoa! Now that's amusing; except that it comes from the ChiComs' chief ally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.