What's new

To save Pakistan, we have to let go of the idea of Pakistan

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
upload_2015-4-15_21-36-39.png

The Verdict
To save Pakistan, we have to let go of the idea of Pakistan
By Shehzad Ghias Published: April 13, 2015

27145-SHEHZADcopy-1428919186-696-640x480.jpg

Why is it that non-Muslims only have the white portion, which is completely separate from the rest of the flag? PHOTO: AFP

“We are fighting a fight for Pakistan.”

This is an oft repeated statement from politicians, military personnel, bureaucrats and journalists.

Let me tell you unequivocally, we are losing the fight for Pakistan.

In our attempts to salvage an archaic idea of Pakistan, an idea relegated to the back shelves of the global landscape, we are losing the Pakistan that we have.

We will not win this war in North Waziristan, we will not lose this war in Lahore, we will either win or lose this war in the minds of our countrymen. Yes, that is what they are, our countrymen, and every single one of them should matter more to us than any idea of Pakistan that was conceived a century ago.

If we have any hopes of saving Pakistan, we have to let go of the idea of Pakistan. Neither the sub-continent, nor the world needs a separate homeland for Muslims. We need a country where people can live freely regardless of their creed, caste, religion or political affiliation.

The emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has convoluted any concept of an ‘Islamic state’. The global landscape simply has no space for such a transcontinental organisation. The ISIS harkens to the dream of a Muslim Ummah but the state structure prevalent around the world simply does not allow for one.

Vested interests

Every Muslim country around the world has its own vested interests. They make decisions based on those interests rather than any religious association. Upon the creation of Pakistan, leaders and the military establishment of Pakistan extensively wrote to Muslim countries with the idea of forming a Muslim block led by Pakistan, but even 60-years ago, the idea was not broadly welcomed.

As Pakistan learnt in the United Nations, Muslims countries do not necessarily support other Muslim countries, especially if it is against their economic interests to do so. Yet, subsequent governments have tried to rehash the Islamic coalition model. Both, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Organisation of Islamic Countries and Ziaul Haq’s Islamisation debacle did not yield much.

The world politics fundamentally changed post 9/11, yet the narrative in Pakistan failed to change with it. Pakistan’s establishment failed to anticipate the changing landscape. Following Zia’s policies during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we once again formed a precarious partnership with the US. A partnership of deceit, double-cross and unreliable allies, it may be a personal badge of honour for the bureaucrats to successfully outwit a global superpower but the embarrassment caused to the country may be irrevocable.

The same narrative

Pakistan has been called a failed state, a terrorist state, yet our narrative continues to be the same. The jihad discourse promoted effectively to galvanise our countrymen during the wars with India continues to dominate the narrative.

The raison d’etre of Pakistan is a Muslim homeland. However, the same Islamic narrative that united us against India, has now divided our own country. The global Islamic narrative has been hijacked by terrorist outfits, and with Pakistan failing to radically redefine itself in the modern world, it has allowed its own narrative to be hijacked by them too.

The thing about monsters is that you can create them but you cannot control them; it is the same with ideas. Unfortunately, we not only created monsters, we also provided them with the ideas, giving them the legitimacy to exist. We are now finally fighting the monsters but we are not still fighting the ideas.

I am not bemoaning the Islamic nature of our state, neither am I criticising Pakistan turning into a security state. My criticism is directed towards the culture we have created that acts as the incubator for violent extremism in the country, especially in the name of religion. The culture has been created at times unwittingly but mostly it has been done consciously without realising its full consequences.

And how do we create a culture? A narrative? A history, even?

We tell stories. And at the crux of my argument are the problems I have with the stories we tell.

Our stories

Stories that are produced, reproduced and perpetuated through our society. Stories combined together which create the idea of Pakistan, an idea that was noble in its conception but needs to be re-examined in the socio-political context of the modern world.

We harken to this mystical idea of ‘Quaid ka Pakistan’, a never-ending debate as to how exactly Quaid-e-Azam wanted Pakistan to be. I too have my own conception of what I feel Quaid wanted Pakistan to be, but ideas are not born in a vacuum. They emerge out of the historical epoch.

Unfortunately, Quaid’s historical epoch is over.

Many of Quaid’s ideas are still relevant and fundamentally important but they should be applied for those reasons rather than the fact that those ideas belonged to Quaid. He was a great man but we are not ordained to follow every single word of any of our forbearers.

Rather than debating whether Quaid wanted an Islamic state or a secular state, we should invest our energies in researching which one of the two would be best suited for the country, and which is the preferred model for most Pakistanis alive today. As Pakistanis, we have more stakes in the future of Pakistan than the ones we have lost to the passage of time.

Naya Pakistan

It is a futile exercise to repackage all the old ideas as Naya Pakistan; if we are to build a Naya Pakistan, we need to redefine our history. I would go to the extent of saying that we need to correct our history. As KK Aziz has exposed in his magnificent book Murder of History, our Pakistan Studies book might as well belong in the fiction section.

When you have stories glorifying Ilmuddin, a man revered by Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal for killing an alleged blasphemer, then you should not be surprised to find that Mumtaz Qadri is a national hero.

Our stories make us who we are.

The story of Ilmuddin defines who we see as our heroes, and if Ilmuddin was a hero, then so was Qadri. And the retelling of these stories in this light will ensure our future will see many more such heroes.

Both Islamic Studies and Pakistan Studies curriculums in Pakistan heavily highlight the wars and the violence. The glorification of jihad and shahadat (martyrdom) in both ensures generations are bred into that culture at a young age. It is important for a security state, especially a state under threat for an antagonistic neighbour, to cultivate such a culture but without any resemblance of the writ of state such a culture is allowed to run amok.

The culture of violence perpetuated by our education is easily rerouted to fit the narrative of militant terrorist organisations. The use of the same symbols and ideas make the people of Pakistan the idle recruits for these organisations. It is no coincidence that Pakistanis worldwide flock to join every cause masking itself as jihad. We grow up idolising jihad, whether it is against non-Muslims or India.

The trauma of partition

The very existence of Pakistan is defined in terms of the violence of partition. As a nation, we have become apathetic to violence because we grow up reading about millions of death before even lunch time. At home, our television informs of us of hundreds more.

It is important for people to know their history but the politics of language heavily pollute the narrative of language. The death of Muslims during partition is heavily highlighted whereas Muslims who committed killings of non-Muslims is glorified.

In my own research in Lahore, I met people who were extremely proud of the number of people killed by their family members during partition. During and post-partition, people in both India and Pakistan enjoyed impunity to commit mass violence against who they perceived to be the ‘other’. Unfortunately, these violent crimes have never been addressed hence they continue to repeat themselves in Bangladesh, Kashmir, and Balochistan.

Any movement for self-determination in the country is tinted with our constructed memories of the partition. The glorification of both the martyrs and the killers of non-Muslims in the partition narrative ensure Pakistanis are ever ready to take up violence to protect what they perceive Pakistan to be. And this is where the problem is.

Need of narrative

The idea of Pakistan, created through our stories, is a group of people using violent means against the state to protect their idea. The moment we were successful in creating a state, the idea should have been addressed and redefined but we continue to tell the same stories, and thus create a culture where people feel it is their duty to take up violent arms against the state to protect their ideas.

The hammering of the idea of unity further amplifies the problem by the perception that a multiplicity of ideas is against the fundamental virtue of Pakistan. The matter is only made worse for minorities and non-Muslims. And every single story that we tell within this paradigm, only perpetuates the core problem. Even if it is something as coincidental as our flag, our flag is basically a piece of art. An artist’s rendition of the idea of Pakistan; an aesthetic choice rather than the objective definition of our country. However, the strict demarcation of the flag between the non-Muslims and Muslims is highly problematic.

Why is it that non-Muslims only have the white portion, which is completely separate from the rest of the flag?

In isolation, these things may mean nothing but collectively, they all add up to form a narrative that we have all subconsciously internalised. We take these things as given but we are surprised when the inevitable consequences of perpetuating such a culture play out.

If we do not forego our fascination with our past, we will lose our future.

If we do not let go of all our individual ideas of how Pakistan should be, and continue to fight against each other for our piece of land, then there will be no Pakistan left to fight for.
k

1517.jpg

Shehzad Ghias
A graduate from the LUMS Law School and is running his own theatre production company, Cogito Productions.He works as a theatre teacher at various schools. He tweets @Shehzad89 (twitter.com/Shehzad89)
 
.
Solomon2 note: the title strikes me as a bit inflammatory but the mods' policy is that I'm not allowed to change the titles of the articles I post.
 
.
There is nothing in this article that breaks new ground. The only rationale a state needs to exist is to exist. 'We think therefore we exist' Period.

This applies to every country in the world. Every country had a determinant that caused it to exist in the first place. No country busts itself over why it exists or worry that if it can't find a rationale it will disolve away. That is ridicalous and sadly in Pakistani too many people with time to waste blow hot air discussing something that needs no discussing.

I think therefore I am. Do you think I really need to wake up every morning and ask why I exist? Does anybody need to do that. Instead we get up and make the best life we can. We all exist and it is silly to bust ourselves or justify why we exist. "I think therefore I am". No more needed.

"Cogito ergo sum" Rene Descartes.
 
Last edited:
. .
Quite a stupid article. An identity is not created in a complex that the writer is in.

Whoever calls whatever - failed state , terrorist state or what the current trend is to call our country, we cant carve our identity unless we go through trials.

Nations are not made out of thin air. They evolve and become nations. If we keep thinking who will call us what, we will always be in a complex to catch up with others.
 
.
No. I am afraid you have it wrong there. That is the perspective you have from India. The reality is there is now calculus that has formed within the peoples of Pakistan. It just needs to be rationalised and clarified instead of being left in a semi state of flux. That lends itself to being amorphous and subject to twisting by too many groups with their own vested interests to the detriment of the state.

This frankly should have been nailed and casted as soon as Pakistan came into existance. What ever political tricks and slogans were used to demand the state should have been buried and a simple national construct should have been formed firmly based on the peoples of the country. This I am afraid for variety of reasons out of the remit of this thread was not done.

But it is high time it is done and I have faith that we are now moving in that direction.

Edit: Air Marshall I am afraid we failed in the 1950s to build up a solid foundation. We are now one of the oldest along with India post war ex colonial states in the world. We are not young anymore. 80% of UN members are younger than us.

I am no doubt that we have solid unity and all we need is to sharpen and define our identity. It is not one dimentional like what our friends from across the border think.
 
Last edited:
.
The biggest success for example we have had is how we have managed to co op the Pashtuns with the Punjabi. That has helped to integrate the country. With the Pashtun-Punjabi integrated the main danger to the country is over. Sindhi would always be with Pakistan.

Nowdays Pashtun of Khyber Pak are proud to be Pakistani. Very few want or even think of Afghanistan. They know their future is with Islamabad. So contrary to what Indian's think Pakistan is here to stay. The only headache is Baloch but they are a tiny minority. Even in their own province at least 40% of the population is Pashtun or Hazara.

I repeat : "Cogito ergo sum" Rene Descartes.
 
. . .
i already suggested that first we need to go back to the original blueprint of this country as advocated in 1930s. Secondly we need to take stock of the country and see for what it is. Let me expand point by point and you will see both first and second points match.

1. As advocated first by Sir Allama Iqbal and Ch. Rehmat Ali.

Link: Choudhry Rahmat Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rehmat Ali 1933

""At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan."

Sir Allama iqbal - Allahbad Address 1930

Link: Allahabad Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“ India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions [...] Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India".

Read the above blue prints very carefuly and you will see they match. Both were asking for almost the same thing within three years of each other.

Now let us look at what we have in 2015 Pakistan. Below is the federation we have today and it is almost the exact copy of the blueprint of the country as asked for in 1930 and 1933. This is where we need to focus. This is the backbone of this country today. If these peoples are happy and united they can overcome anything.

pakistanmap.jpg

I repeat again : "Cogito ergo sum" Rene Descartes
 
Last edited:
. .
Another Qadiani writing about Pakistan. What else do you expect from them.

Must we bring our discussion to the lowest common denominator? It does not matter who wrote it. It could have been written by the Baba of Rastafarians. What matters is the content. dissect it, cut, slice it, rationalize it. This is supposed to be a Pakistan Defence Website not some village gathering of ignorents letting off steam while smoking Hookah.
 
.
Must we bring our discussion to the lowest common denominator? It does not matter who wrote it. It could have been written by the Baba of Rastafarians. What matters is the content. dissect it, cut, slice it, rationalize it. This is supposed to be a Pakistan Defence Website not some village gathering of ignorents letting off steam while smoking Hookah.
He is a Nadeem Fcharsi wannabe of Express Tribune aesey chusun ko ignore karo
 
.
Well you just dug your grave. But nothing that I have not been saying; Mohammad Ali Jinnah's Pakistan is dead, gone , buried and NEVER coming back. What remains now is a tattered fabric of a state with multiple nations living within it. How they choose their destiny will either create a strong stable state where citizens are guaranteed safety of life and equality of justice.. or a warzone the likes of which the world may have never heard, a proverbial hell on earth.

None of these outcomes however, will come by either the marujana high of "secular" utopia or by the murderous intent of the Mullahs. Islam was/is an integral part of Pakistani society.. trying to work against it in an attempt to be more western than the west will only work in the favour of those who wish to use it for evil a.k.a Mullatoons.
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom