Whats Holding Pakistan Together?

[VCheng]

...............
I repeat, we are Muslims first, Punjabis, Baluchis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Mohajirs second and Pakistanis last. To cap it all short-sighted leaders exploit the differences for political mileage. Therefore Ayaz Amir’s conclusions that Army is the only force that is holding Pakistan appears to correct.

The basic problem with the author's train of thought is that an Army can exist only with the backing of its nation if it is to do its job of defending the country. If there is no common religion, democracy or a sense of nationhood binding a nation together, an Army can only serve to occupy a country, never hold it together.

And all occupations come to an end.

 

[Secur]

That is a mystery, one thing that you cannot state and yet state? Are we talking a religious factor here.. some unforseen power of god?

Have the angels descended below again ?

Always a mystery ! There's a relative of mine who would have answered " God runs Pakistan from his throne " in the very thread . After all , its always about some divine power and blessings .

 

[Chak Bamu]

One issue which appears to an outsider as dichotomous is putting religion before country. No that one is less than the other but Islam is all over the world and shall stay forever , Pakistan is only where it is. While Islam is spreading Pakistan has diminished. Yet the need to shift focus on the nation does seem important to most. A stable Pakistan can do more for Islam than an unstable one.

Pakistan is a bit of a special case. King Farooq of Egypt made a jest that "Islam has been born in 1947" or something like that. I already noted opposition of a large number of Ulema (esp. Deobandis) to the cause of Pakistan in 1940s. I have also mentioned that Islam does not really support nationalism as a supreme ideology. Herein lies the answer to our unique perspective. Large number of Pakistani Muslims do not consider nationalism above religion. That is what we have been taught directly or indirectly. Whereas an Egyptian Muslim maintains two separate-but-parallel identities without any problem or feeling of dichotomy, a Pakistani Muslim necessarily mixes the two. That is just a function of the process of Pakistan's creation. So, in this sense Pakistan is a polar opposite to India, which chose Secularism as national value. That is why Pakistan seems so incongruous to you guys. But that is how it is. Pakistanis are generally practically secular, in that they do not make religious affiliations of others an issue, but then there are those who do make distinctions - some do so with threat of violence. This explains my reference to internal contradictions.

Just an example of such contradictions is the issue of foreign Jihadists living in Pakistan. Not all of them were terrorists to begin with. Many of them were ordinary Islamists who got chased out by repressive regimes (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Chechniya?) and had no where else to go. Then there were those who had settled peacefully after Jihad in Afghanistan because going back would have meant jail. A third group were perhaps unapologetic terrorists, pure and simple. Now these people are the toughest opponents of peace process because for them it means death. What to do about them??? Simply killing them would be against Islamic ethos, while tolerating them has cause Pakistan much trouble. This is a contradiction and needs to be addressed.

Another contradiction is hosting many millions of refugees. Though our attitudes have hardened over the years, they were accommodated in the name of Islamic brotherhood. Now what to make of that? Which other country would have willingly tolerated such an influx?

It is a long list of issues and needs to be sorted out. Within such process lies the answer to the problems that we are facing. The definition of Pakistan is what is bothering us. If it is about nationalism, then what was wrong with being Indians? If it is about Islam, then why be selective per seasonal convenience? My guess is that Pakistan would need to define what it means to be a Muslim majority state which manages to strike a balance between our background and modernity in a democratic context. Long forgotten notions of Ijtehad need to be used creatively to find answers. I shall leave this weighty subject here, since one could write a series of books on this subject (and indeed some people have done so!).

Now why would an outsider worry on what comes first in Pakiatan ? The reason is that when Pakistanis kept the nation first till the 70's the nation, the region & the world was relatively stable. This does not hold good now.What happens or does not happen in Pak impacts the region & as OBL showed - the world too.

Pakistanis never kept the nation first. Not the way I see it. The first few decades were an age of incredible tumult, confusion, development, and increasing repression. It is hard to see that such mixture could be sustainable. What ever that happened, had to happen. Pakistanis were not equal to the vision or the task. We were given a country without knowing what to do with it. There were only two models that we could see: 1. Recent British Colonial mode. 2. Moghuls of yesteryears. Clearly both these models were unsuitable. It is only with great difficulty that we have a general realization that we need to develop independent institutions within a democratic framework. But, be-as-it-may, nationalism is still a matter of practicality, and not ideology for a large number of Pakistanis.

Next , how is Pakistan still a young country ? When does a nation become old or mature ?

Hard to say, but I would guess it would take more than four generations for a country to become not-young. Now that is not the same as old, mind you. So, I would guess a little more than a century is required for emergence of signs of maturity as a nation. There has to be no more than a historical interest in what USED to be. That would happen after the third generation.

65 years is a very long time, BD has showed remarkable maturity & resilience in getting their basics right. SL is a ' younger' country, it went through hell but has pulled out of it . Why - because it had the basic national institutions in place. One of these nations is not Islamic , both of them have put nation first.

BD is largely mono-ethnic, even though its borders are hard to square. But even then it is geographically the delta of Ganges river system. So, it is not like Pakistan. Plus the shared memory of wrongs suffered acts like glue. As far as SL is concerned, it is an island nation. Before major influx of Tamils during British times, it was largely mono-ethnic. Plus they have different ways of dealing with an dominant neighbor. But I must note prevalence of a strong sense of Sinhala nationalism in conjunction with Sri Lankan interpretation of Buddhism. A visit to SL makes is quite clear. But still, they do not need to emphasize Buddhism as part of national identity.

Sure , Pak has problems and is making efforts to rectify them. But what I read here, every attempt at rectification is derided.

That is a matter of perspective my friend. I hope I have made that much clear. The only issue that matters is whether Pakistan can sustain itself during this crucial period. But what you call rectification may be poison. After all, if Pakistan opts for strict secularism, then one needs to wonder if creation of Pakistan was really necessary. If we can not define a modern Muslim-majority state, then why exist as Pakistan at all?

It does not need a unique geographical feature to define a nation.

You are right. But then there needs to be a shared culture or language, or ethnicity. Pakistan has none of that as such. There is only a diffuse geographic factor and some shared values.

Had Pakistan not existed, this area would have been a source of instability because it would be a Muslim majority area with an uneasy diffuse geographic feature that could not make it a country, nor would it allow to be part of a larger whole. Now that Pakistan exists, both Indians and Pakistanis need to make the best of it without getting into too many discussions.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I am not advocating anything I am merely saying someone's personal habits or his views dont make him a less Pakistani than you and me and simply refuting someone's point of view only because he drinks is absurd. As far as breaking Pakistani laws, show me where its implemented first those responsible for implementing laws are the first one to break, police using unregistered cars, Najam Sethi drinking openly with a bottle in his hand, I see no laws and if there was there should have been an FIR against police and Najam Sethi would be in prison. Laws are only for the poor and I dont think Ayaz Amir is poor.

I am not saying any of what you are imputing to me.

A person who drinks in Pakistan is more likely to have liberal views rather than Conservative ones. However, my mentioning Ayaz Amir's advocacy for lifting prohibition was for two reasons: 1. His liberal views that come across in many of his articles; 2. His failure to secure a PML-N ticket. He got too much negative publicity for his advocacy of Alcoholic drinks. Pakistanis in general do not like people who enjoy Alcohol. There is still stigma attached to this habit, even though certain circles do indulge in it.

BTW Najam Sethi is not really known for drinking in open. He was often invited to Salman Taseer's parties at Governor House a few years back and of course Salman Taseer was such a loose character. He did not only indulge in Alcohol, but in a lot else...

Anyway, I hope I have clarified how I had to establish context. Anymore discussion might take us into major OT. Plus I'm tired of this topic.

 

[SQ8]

Have the angels descended below again ?

Always a mystery ! There's a relative of mine who would have answered " God runs Pakistan from his throne " in the very thread . After all , its always about some divine power and blessings .

What one must remember about the divine power is that there is a limit to that patience it has. After all, there are various accounts of what happened to the people of Israel when they strayed.. shall we forget those lessons?

 

[livingdead]

offtopic: whatever said about pakistan is more or less true about India.
we are a hindu majority country and religion does act as a glue (although not a very good one)
We dont mind nepalis and bhutanese or even tibetan refugees among us because they are from similar religion.
There are regions where people want to separate, they are mostly dealth with by IA.
there are a few things that were done differently in India:

Govt of India tried hard to forge an Indian national identity, but the way they did was to celebrate differences (because differnce was too stark to ignore).
Continuous democracy with an emphasis on federalism is another reason why most people dont want to break away. This is truer since age of single party ruling everywhere is over.

 

[SQ8]

I am not saying any of what you are imputing to me.

A person who drinks in Pakistan is more likely to have liberal views rather than Conservative ones.

More likely.. but not always..
A certain very heavy and rotund personality who is a regular haunt on Aamir Liaqats Aalim Online was caught drunk in Islamabad after attending a session at the US embassy.

 

[Amaa'n]

one thing, I am confused about is what did Ayaz sb mean when he says "Whats Holding Pakistan together?"
whether it is a question based on geographical terms or whether he is asking about the "The Nation".
because if its the later then the answer is : are we held together??? nope I don't think so.
You put one step outside that front door and say it out loud " I am a Muslim"
the next question you might hear will be " wahabi ya sunni, salafi ya shia" - there is more to say from side but this crap keyboard of mine is so damn fked up

 

[scorpionx]

offtopic: whatever said about pakistan is more or less true about India.
we are a hindu majority country and religion does act as a glue (although not a very good one)
We dont mind nepalis and bhutanese or even tibetan refugees among us because they are from similar religion.
There are regions where people want to separate, they are mostly dealth with by IA.
there are a few things that were done differently in India:

Govt of India tried hard to forge an Indian national identity, but the way they did was to celebrate differences (because differnce was too stark to ignore).
Continuous democracy with an emphasis on federalism is another reason why most people dont want to break away. This is truer since age of single party ruling everywhere is over.

Yes, you are very right in the sense that the cultural divergence was to big to ignore. But after Independence, much emphasis was not put on India's "Hindu" identity as such,mostly because Congress' supposed secular structure (It's a debatable subject in reality and not going into that) which they had tried to shape since it's formation since 1880's. Their policy for an United India irrespective of religion had a huge influence on the engineers of national polity.

One thing we are massively indebted of is our partial success in constructing an Independent judiciary system and a liberal democratic structure. In this system, almost everybody has their right to raise their voice. No doubt this system has been largely misused by politicians and rich businessmen class but a poor had always a chance to utilize this system.
Secondly media has played a monumental role to put the liberal structure in it's original shape. I won't say they act independently always or unbiased completely but in the other way around, the polarized media has most of the times brought out the bitter truth about the rulers and the oppositions as well.

There is no doubt, we Indians too have messed up things, committed sins which we were never supposed to think of but the above two factors have quite been effective to bind us together so far.

 

[IND151]

offtopic: whatever said about pakistan is more or less true about India.
we are a hindu majority country and religion does act as a glue (although not a very good one)
We dont mind nepalis and bhutanese or even tibetan refugees among us because they are from similar religion.
There are regions where people want to separate, they are mostly dealth with by IA.
there are a few things that were done differently in India:

Govt of India tried hard to forge an Indian national identity, but the way they did was to celebrate differences (because differnce was too stark to ignore).
Continuous democracy with an emphasis on federalism is another reason why most people dont want to break away. This is truer since age of single party ruling everywhere is over.

Indeed.

Unity in diversity is our way.

we are a hindu majority country and religion does act as a glue (although not a very good one)

Then we have patriotism, which becomes particularly strong when we face external enemies.

Plus the memories of history, in my opinion, has also contributed as binding factor.

 

[Icarus]

Am I the only one who is frustrated every time Pakistan's Muslim Identity is given as the raison detre of Pakistan's Ultimate Demise ?

Have we lost all sense of Reason & of History ?

Nations aren't born & they don't die because of some Romanticized notion of an Identity; they do so because of one reason & one reason alone 'Governance' !

India is not kept together because of its 'Unity in Diversity' mantra nor America because of its proclamations of being 'the Land of the Free & the Home of the Brave' & neither is China because of their 'Unique rendition of Socialism' - They are kept together solely because of Governance & would drift apart because of Governance & Governance alone & no amount of romanticized pious sentiments would be able to stop that !

Pakistan's dilemma is not & never has been 'Ideology' for even when it comes to Pakistan that ideology has been conceived, abandoned, evolved & demonized many times over as it is; its hardly been monolithic throughout Pakistan's 65 year History & even at a Popular Level it has been & is defined by different people in different ways !

Pakistan will neither succeed nor be rendered a failed state because of the Ideology of Muslim Nationalism; it would be because of Good or Bad Governance - That & nothing else !

In fact if we deconstruct Pakistan's present problems in an unbiased manner without letting either our Secularists or Islamists leanings superimposing over it, its quite evident that none of Pakistan's current problems have anything to do with the validity or the invalidity of the Identity of Muslim Nationalism & yet everything to do with atrociously bad Governance !

Take the example of one of the major problem facing Pakistan today & let us contrast it with times in Pakistan's History when things were better....markedly better :
Religious Fanaticism !

In 'informal logic' one of the most elementary modes of determining whether a conclusion is valid or not is to look at the validity of its premises & then whether what is 'concluded' really does follow from those premises as asserted or not, therefore lets make good use of that for a change :

If the major premise here is that Sectarianism & Religious Fanaticism, even of other kinds, is rampant in Pakistan !

If the first minor premise is that Sectarianism & Religious Fanaticism is a product of pandering to a Muslim Identity !

If the second minor premise is that Pakistan is pandering to its Muslim Identity !

Then the conclusion must follow thus : Sectarianism & Religious Fanaticism is rampant in Pakistan because of it pandering to its Muslim Identity !
Now let us examine the validity or the invalidity of each & every one of those premises !

First the Major Premise then : Is Sectarianism & Religious Fanaticism rampant in Pakistan ?

There are Sectarian Killings & Religious Fanaticism here in Pakistan of that there can be no two opinions; but how does one define whether something is 'rampant' or not ?

If being 'rampant' is to imply that the Society is Sectarianized or Religiously Fanatical than how does one account for the following :

(a) By & Large there are no Shia Only or Sunni Only areas in Pakistan; no ghettos....no exclusive zones...no nothing of the sort !

Even the predominantly Shia Populated Areas are heavily populated by Sunnis & vice versa !

(b) Surely if Sectarianism & Religious Fanaticism had seeped through the Society than there would be some evidence of that in terms of Institutionalized Discrimination even at a Private Sector Level let alone at the Public Sector One but barring completely unsubstantiated hearsay of both the 'ayes' & the 'nays', I can't imagine where & when has there been something of the sort ?

(c) How is it that the Pakistan we see before us has Sectarian Killings & Religious Fanatics running about but the Pakistan of yesteryears did not ? The Muslim Identity - Its always been there even with its implied biases as far back as one can remember; then what changed ?

Maybe thats the question worth asking ?

Let us then look at the first minor premise : that Sectarianism & Religious Fanaticism is a product of pandering to a Muslim Identity !

If the Muslim Identity that has been the causation of Pakistan's conception is the reason why we've got a bunch of self-proclaimed Muslims running about slitting each other's throats on sectarian or other fanatical basis then how is it that country's like Iraq & Lebanon who've got nothing to do with an Islamic Identity in terms of their raison detre, are or were facing Sectarianism of the highest order ?

Surely if this was a product of a Muslim Identity gone horribly awry than Secular States like Iraq & Lebanon who's Existence had nothing to do with their Islamic Identity would've been spared this Sectarianism & yet they weren't - Why ?

Maybe thats a better a question ?

Thirdly, let us look at the second minor premise : that Pakistan is pandering to its Muslim Identity !

Is it ? Is it really ?

Are implied biases within the Constitutions of Countries or Controversial Laws what settle for an 'Identity' these days ?

If that were so how does one account for the presence of English Legal System forming the back-bone of Pakistan's Judicial System ?

Would that in some manner imply as if we're still British Indians or worse we're Englishmen from across the Seas just because we've got some Englishness to our Laws & our Constitution ?

Take the example of the United States of America once more & the premise of the presence of Controversial Laws providing Identification for a Nation, together & then consider two things :

(a) The United States of America, for all intents & purposes, is a County of Immigrants !

(b) According to Article II, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America only a 'natural-born citizen' of America can hold the office of the President of the United States of America.

What do you propose we extract from this somewhat 'controversial' law ?

Do we extract that the whole notion of the United States being sold as a Country of Immigrants is a Farce ?

Or do we extract some other meaning from it ? Perhaps that the United States of America is for born-Americans & born-Americas alone & that Immigrants in America are Second Class Citizens at least in the Presidential sense ?

Or do we simply realize that everything, even Equality, is Qualified !

And that the Pakistani Constitution's proclamation of only a Muslim holding the office of Presidency or the Prime Ministership of Pakistan, as controversial, as it maybe is as reflective of the country's Muslim Identity as the above are of that of the United States & no more or no less heinous or responsible for its success or failure than what is aforementioned !

In times like these I'm astounded at how our discourse takes us fluctuating from one 'ism' to the 'other' & from one 'ideology' to the 'other' where we try to situate the appraisal instead of appraising the situation so as to fit our 'ism' or our 'ideology' of choice onto the analysis !

What follows from that is perhaps the realization that the most pertinent questions to ask is not pitching one 'ism' against the 'other' nor fuming & frothing in our advocacy of our ideology of choice but rather :

What is common between Pakistan, Iraq & Lebanon ?
Was is it the raison detere of the State's Existence ?

Was it Institutional biases ?

Was it the Religiosity or the Secularity of the State ?

Was it the common glue that held the Nation together ?

I can't imagine if anyone would answer the above in the affirmative !

As I understand the common denominators between the trio were as follows :

(a) the Arab-Persian Rivalry picking up strength after the Iranian Revolution !

(b) giving Non-State Actors a space to exist on their Soils !

(c) a severe....severe lack of public trust in their Governments !

(d) the failure to check the many foreign funded Madrassas & Consulates/Cultural Centers popping up all over their Countries !

(e) And the presence of religious (sectarian) diversity in the Country !

Is any of the above truly related to an 'ideology' 's failure or success or do they purely fall within the domains of Law & Order & Public Trust - both of which are obtained or lost through Governance & Governance alone !

No amount of Trojan Horses can survive & no amount of Proxies of another's can thrive if you've got a Zero Tolerance Policy towards Law & Order from the beginning & the People trust you; which means Conspiracy Theories of every shape & size don't pop up after every Incident !

@Joe Shearer @Talon @Icarus @Oscar @niaz @niaz @Pakistanisage @Aamna14 @Chak Bamu @Irfan Baloch @DESERT FIGHTER @Spring Onion @LoveIcon @chauvunist @TaimiKhan @Xeric @blain2 @notorious_eagle @Aeronaut @Developereo - I suppose I've written a novella again !

Don't pop a vein Butt Sahab!

 

[Kompromat]

Don't pop a vein Butt Sahab!

We just need to play our cards right. Nothing can harm us if we engineer, isolate and kill our way through these issues.

@Armstrong

Butt sahib, all great nations have one thing in common, they have all been tested to their absolute breaking point.

 

[T-123456]

Pakistani Nationalism is rising..

What is Pakistani Nationalism,dont know what it means?

 

[Armstrong]

What is Pakistani Nationalism,dont know what it means?

A conscious desire of those Ethno-Linguistic Groups who've inhabited these lands for thousands of years, fought & died with each other & for each other, to shun parochial Ethno-Linguistic Nationalism & define Nationhood through what is common between all of us - Islam !

In a way, as we believe, the idea of Pakistan lies at the very heart of Islam that whatever else you maybe whoever else you are - You are a Muslim & you must remember this the next time you differentiate between each other on the basis of blood or language

What that means is not some Ultra-Fascistic 'Muslim Version' of Nazi Germany but the simple realization that Ethnicity & Linguistics should be a cause for pride in one's Culture & Traditions but not something that serves to create discord & disunity between Brothers who've lived on this Sacred Homeland we now call as Pakistan, for thousands of years !

 

[T-123456]

A conscious desire of those Ethno-Linguistic Groups who've inhabited these lands for thousands of years, fought & died with each other & for each other, to shun parochial Ethno-Linguistic Nationalism & define Nationhood through what is common between all of us - Islam !

In a way, as we believe, the idea of Pakistan lies at the very heart of Islam that whatever else you maybe whoever else you are - You are a Muslim & you must remember this the next time you differentiate between each other on the basis of blood or language

What that means is not some Ultra-Fascistic 'Muslim Version' of Nazi Germany but the simple realization that Ethnicity & Linguistics should be a cause for pride in one's Culture & Traditions but not something that serves to create discord & disunity between Brothers who've lived on this Sacred Homeland we now call as Pakistan, for thousands of years !

And there is no missuse of that?
Is your Islam and that of the TTP the same?
There is only one Islam but why are there so many different interpretations?