• Tuesday, August 4, 2020

The Ideology of Pakistan

Discussion in 'Pakistani Siasat' started by third eye, Mar 5, 2014.

  1. third eye

    third eye ELITE MEMBER

    Aug 24, 2008
    +25 / 24,555 / -11
    The ideology of Pakistan

    It is known that, in 1958, the then General Ayub Khan circulated a questionnaire amongst a select few to comment on the ideology of Pakistan. However, it is not known what prompted him to do so. Secondly, it is also not known on what standards he selected the people to circulate the questionnaire amongst. Thirdly, it is also not known what the exact format of the questionnaire was (reportedly having nine questions), as even the (latest version of the) book, The ideology of Pakistan, and its Implementation, published originally in 1959, written by Justice (retired) Javid Iqbal in response to the questionnaire, is devoid of the format in its appendix. The book was lauded by General Ayub Khan when writing its foreword. Hence, it was a seal of approval on the ideology of Pakistan.

    Out of the nine questions, the first question asked by General Ayub Khan was, “What is the ideology of Pakistan?” Before answering this question, one should read the second question: “What kind of socio-economic order does the ideology aspire to establish?” In the second question, there was no mention of the words ‘political order’. Perhaps it was required that the response should be focused on the socio-economic domain only. Moreover, in the second question, there were at least two underlying assumptions: the ideology aspired to establish an order and that order would be a socio-economic order, not a political one. It is apparent that the original idea was to establish a new socio-economic order but the idea of founding a new political order clicked later on.

    The third question is also important: “How should the state be brought into conformity with the ideology?” One may argue that the word ‘state’ means the words ‘political order’. However, the word ‘state’ cannot be defined in terms of the ‘political order’ because the meaning of the word ‘state’ may be the ‘country’ or it may be the ‘government’, which is formed after a political order is defined or established. Moreover, the (third) question was based on at least two assumptions: the state of Pakistan was, somehow, not functioning in conformity with the ideology of Pakistan and that the status of non-conformity was producing certain adverse effects. Hence, there was need for a mechanism to bridge the gap.

    The fourth question was this: “What are the duties of the state to the individual and of the individual to the state in terms of the ideology?” This question was based on an assumption that the ideology would answer issues pertaining to the state-individual relationship. Moreover, the question was also a declaration that the constitution of 1956 had failed to address the issues related to the state-individual relationship.

    The fifth to ninth questions were these: “What is the significance of fundamental rights according to the ideology?” “What does the ideology recommend for realising the ideals of the national solidarity and territorial integrity of Pakistan?” “What constitutes an ideal citizen in the context of the ideology?” “How can the offensive of Hinduism against the ideology be combated?” and “How can the goal of complete self-reliance or self-sufficiency be secured through alignment and bilateralism?” Taken together, the last eight questions were the guidelines on which the answer to the first question should be given. Moreover, the last eight questions reveal that the originator of the questionnaire already had an idea of the kind of ideology he was asking about. Additionally, the last two questions were about political relations at the regional and international levels.

    It is not difficult to understand that questions can be framed in the light of the expected answers and it is also not difficult to understand that questions can be answered in the light of the expectations of the originator of the questionnaire. If someone at the helm of affairs, after being a party to the abrogation of the constitution of 1956, was asking these nine questions, it meant that he was trying to justify the violation of the constitution on the grounds that the constitution was actually taking Pakistan away from certain ideals. This point begs another question: why did the subsequent constitution of 1962 fail to fulfil the objectives and principles ascertained through the discovery of the ideology of Pakistan in 1958?

    Before 1958, it was known that Pakistan was founded on the basis of the two nation theory. However, after 1958, it was said that Pakistan was founded on the basis of the ideology of Pakistan. It is not yet known why people of all hues failed to discover the ideology of Pakistan before 1958. Likewise, it is not yet known what was missing in the Objectives Resolution of 1949 to necessitate the discovery of the ideology of Pakistan. Equally, it is not known that had the ideology of Pakistan been discovered before 1949, what the shape of the Objectives Resolution would have been. Similarly, it is not yet known how the 1971 debacle can be seen in the context of the ideology of Pakistan. Also, it is not known what the future of the two nation theory is in the presence of the ideology of Pakistan.

    After the discovery of the ideology, a new political order was disseminated in certain ways. First, General Ayub Khan became a role model for the next military chiefs to devise ways that could be sanctified through the religious (or sentimental) route to justify their takeovers and prolong their stay in power. Secondly, the concept of pan-Islamism was rationalised and perhaps legalised. Third, the ideological frontiers of Pakistan were constructed and the military took upon itself the task of defending those borders. Fourth, a crop of sycophants surfaced, which supported military actions of all sorts by forwarding religious justifications.

    Now, in 2014, a group of Pakistanis is trying to convince another group that the Objectives Resolution already overshadows the rest of the constitution. A ceasefire has been declared between them to mull over this point.