Why Pakistan is not a nation and how it could become one : Pervez Hoodbhoy

[SQ8]

Any idea of the accompanying story.. mentioned as "the question of balochistan"

 

[sparklingway]

He is an interesting personality actually. Very arrogant and intelligent.

I won't say he's arrogant. Very humble and down to earth. Takes time to become part of the circle though (the new version of the Eqbal Ahmed-Edward Said circle).

 

[Hammy007]

i think this pervez guy should be put even 4 levels above asma jahangir or altaf hussain

 

[MilesTogo]

There have been so many articles on similar theme but this one actually gives some hope and solutions.

 

[ajpirzada]

Pakistan has been a state since 1947, but is still not a nation. More precisely, Pakistan is the name of a land and a people inside a certain geographical boundary that is still lacking the crucial components needed for nationhood: a strong common identity, mental make-up, a shared sense of history and common goals. The failure so far to create a cohesive national entity flows from inequalities of wealth and opportunity, absence of effective democracy and a dysfunctional legal system.

very interesting. this guy is asking for common ground and mental make up but he later ends up criticising zia for doing the same. secondly pakistan is very much a nation and the most recent example of this is earthquake 2005 when boundaries or races did not matter. if u want a much more recent example then we have got Malakand IDPs as an example infront of us. in house problems are common every where but ppl lik hoodboy use them to create panic.

The founder of Pakistan, Mohamed Ali Jinnah, also echoed the separateness of Muslims and Hindus, basing the struggle for Pakistan on the premise that the two peoples could never live together peacefully within one nation state.

yup. and therefore he demanded for muslims (where they are in majority) right to make their own constitution. again wats wrong with that? and there was no such talk of an independent country untill nehru (then president of congress party which mainly won in hindu areas) expressed his thoughts of not abiding by the agreement after Britishers leave.

It did not help that Jinnah died in 1948, just a year after Pakistan was born, with his plans still ambiguously stated. He authored no books and wrote no policy paper. He did make many speeches, of which several were driven by political expediency and are frankly contradictory. These are freely cherry-picked today, with some finding in them a liberal and secular voice; others, an embodiment of Islamic values. The confusion is irresolvable.

there is not even a single thing contradictory in Jinnah's speeches. its only our ill understanding of issues which fail us to bring them together in a harmonious way. Jinnah wanted a state based on Islamic principles which according to Jinnah were equity, social justice and democracy. well yes if you look at these principles separately you might think that Jinnah wanted a typical secular state but no these principles are 100% compatible with islam. im amazed Jinnah knew much more about islam than us 'modern' Muslims.

Barely a decade was needed for Pakistan’s transformation from a moderate Muslim-majority country into one where the majority of citizens wanted Islam to play a key role in politics. The effects of indoctrination are now clearly visible. Even as members of the Sharia-seeking Taliban were busy blowing up schools in Swat and elsewhere, a survey in 2008 by the online World Public Opinion found that 54 percent of Pakistanis wanted strict application of Sharia, while 25 percent wanted it in some more dilute form. Totalling 79 percent, this was the largest percentage in the four countries surveyed – Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan. A more recent survey, of 1226 young Pakistanis between 18 and 29, was carried out across Pakistan by the British Council in 2009. It found that ‘three-quarters of all young people identify themselves primarily as Muslims. Just 14% chose to define themselves primarily as a citizen of Pakistan.’

another amazing analysis. how can he expect ppl to change their preference just because few thousand ppl out of 170 million population have gone crazy? also this data cannot be used for any comparison as no pre zia era survey is available. however interestingly this reveals another fact that ISLAM is indeed a binding force providing common ground to roughly 80% of the population.

Notwithstanding the enormous impetus given by Zia, final success still eludes Pakistan’s Islamists. The explosion of religiosity did not produce a new Pakistani identity, and a Sharia state is nowhere to be seen. Why? Ethno-nationalism is part of the answer. This natural resistance against melding into some larger entity is the reflexive response of historically constituted groups that seek to preserve their distinctiveness, expressed in terms of dress, food, folklore and shared history. Assimilation of Pakistan’s diverse peoples into a homogenised national culture is opposed by this force that, like gravity, always acts in one direction.

another classic. shariah state is no where to be seen not because of ethno nationalism but bec of the question of who is capable enough to implement shariah without pursuing any agenda. this reasoning makes sense bec according to the article 80% of population does want some sort of islamic law. at the same time this negates hoodboy's explanation as 80% of population does want some sort of shariah despite ethno nationalism. meaning the writer is contradicting himself in the same article.

All this was easily predictable, as sectarian divides are almost as old as religion itself. Basic questions are fundamentally unanswerable: Which interpretation of Islam, for instance, is the ‘right’ Islam? Of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafii, Maaliki, Hanbali), which version of the Sharia should be adopted? Will all, or most, Pakistanis accept any non-elected amir-ul-momineen (leader of the pious), or a caliph? And what about the Shia? Democracy is excluded in any theocratic state, which, by definition, is a state governed according to divinely revealed principles wherein the head of state, elected or otherwise, interprets such principles and translates them into practical matters of the state.

his lack of knowledge is very much visible. first of all shariah law is not a one for all. each person is to be treated according to his belief system. secondly caliph or PM are two different names for the same thing. all the first four caliphs of islam were elected through consultation, counsel vote or public vote. in other words they were elected through the process of democracy. that is y i said earlier than Jinnah knew about islam much more than us 'modern' muslims.

In fact, religion cannot be the basis of Pakistan, or move it towards integration. This can be said categorically, although religion was undoubtedly the reason for Pakistan’s formation. Coming over a half-century after Partition, Pervez Musharraf’s call for ‘enlightened moderation’ was indeed a tacit admission of this fact. He realised that a theocratic Pakistan could not work, even though this conflicted with his other responsibility, that of being chief of the Pakistan Army.

this 'enlightened moderation' or 'moderate muslim' concept is nothing but twisting religion in the other direction. such reforming of religion will only strengthen the extremes of both sides.

 

[iioal malik]

What a waste of time this disloyal fool azz ***** made punk have no idea about wat he is saying

 

[fatman17]

^^^not read the above posts but a recent PEW survey showed that 86% who were interview said they were 'pakistanis first and foremost' then they were muslims.

so much for the identify issue!!!

 

[ajpirzada]

this recent pew survey does not ask about muslim first of pakistani first but asks about pakistani first or ethno national first. so this pew survey cannot be used to look at the religious dimension/landscape.

89 per cent of Pakistanis say they think of themselves as Pakistani first, rather than a member of their ethnic group.

and yes this survey is a strong answer to hoodboy who sees lack of nationhood. here 89% of pakistanis are rising above their race and embracing nationhood.

 

[Old School]

The interests of Pakistan as a nation state supersede all other interests. No matter how important religion is for someone , that should never compromise the national interests of Pakistan. After all , where will you practice your religion if there is no Pakistan ? Therefore , we need to promote pure Pakistani nationalism in every corner of Pakistan. If Pakistan survives , we all will survive.

 

[Hammy007]

^^^not read the above posts but a recent PEW survey showed that 86% who were interview said they were 'pakistanis first and foremost' then they were muslims.

so much for the identify issue!!!

lol, which so much experience, how can u deduce this???

i have asked this intriguing question to many students, the replies have been quite opposite..

the image of pakistan is being damaged by people which give different image of pakistan by showing it secular type!!, not real pakistan

 

[Hammy007]

The interests of Pakistan as a nation state supersede all other interests. No matter how important religion is for someone , that should never compromise the national interests of Pakistan. After all , where will you practice your religion if there is no Pakistan ? Therefore , we need to promote pure Pakistani nationalism in every corner of Pakistan. If Pakistan survives , we all will survive.

i dont get it, can you explain it please by examples.

 

[Old School]

i dont get it, can you explain it please by examples.

General Parvez Musharraf already answered this question. He is a true Pakistani by heart.

 

[sparklingway]

this recent pew survey does not ask about muslim first of pakistani first but asks about pakistani first or ethno national first. so this pew survey cannot be used to look at the religious dimension/landscape.

and yes this survey is a strong answer to hoodboy who sees lack of nationhood. here 89% of pakistanis are rising above their race and embracing nationhood.

I'd like to point out one thing. If you ask people for a survey whether they are "Pakistani first" then yes they will say they are Pakistanis first. The issue of ethno-nationalism being suppressed over the years has not led to an outright identity proclamation rather a political proclamation of identities and a disenchantment towards the centre.

 

[ajpirzada]

I'd like to point out one thing. If you ask people for a survey whether they are "Pakistani first" then yes they will say they are Pakistanis first. The issue of ethno-nationalism being suppressed over the years has not led to an outright identity proclamation rather a political proclamation of identities and a disenchantment towards the centre.

agreed 100%....

 

[Developereo]

I almost stopped reading after the phrase

While it is true that most Punjabis think of themselves as Pakistani first and Punjabi second, this is not the case with the Baloch or Sindhis

Now I am neither Sindhi, Punjabi or any of the major ethnic groups, but I have no patience for bigots who believe and promote such gross generalizations. This is not the only instance: Hoodbhoy continually promotes his belief that wearing a hijab is a sign of fundamentalism and sympathy for terrorism. A man who fails to appreciate the cultural and religious diversity around him is in no position to lecture anyone about national cohesion.

I had heard great things about Pervez Hoodbhoy, but I lost all respect for him after I watched him interviewed on the Australian TV show Dateline.

As for his post, let's dissect it piece by piece.

First, as others have pointed out, Hoodbhoy is ignorant of Jinnah's real history. Being an out-and-out Westernized man, there are no illusions about Jinnah's piety. He had a great love of expensive wines and even more expensive suits. What he also had was a keen sense of pragmatism and an uncanny ability to gauge the people's mood. As any good manager or sports coach will tell you, you first find out what motivates the team, and then you use it to rally the team to achieve the goals. Once Congress proved intractable and partition was inevitable, Jinnah was smart enough to recognize and capitalize on the pent-up frustration and support for Muslim statehood -- something the 'leaders' of the mainstream Muslim parties obviously missed.

Secondly, on the issue of mistreatment of Bengalis and Zia's sellout to the Saudis, these are all well known facts. Nothing new there.

Hoodbhoy claims that recognition of minority rights was a mistake and counter to democratic ideals. By his definition, most Western countries and India are undemocratic, since they explicity protext the rights of minorities. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Somebody should send the good doctor a copy of the most famous and respected modern document on democracy after the Magna Carta.

Thirdly, as for the solutions proposed by Hoodbhoy, these again are nothing new or earth shattering. Rule of law, better social equality, better education --- these form the basis of all political party manifestos worldwide. Imran Khan's party has the same demands/promises almost verbatim. So, once again, Hoodbhoy is simply rehashing old news with no new insight of his own.

Finally, as to the issue of whether religion can form the basis of a nation, the question is irrelevant. Religion, like ethnicity or language, can be a uniting tool. Nothing more. It is then up to capable leadership to use that tool to form a nation. Judaism, like Islam, has different sects and internal ethnic conflicts, but the leaders of Israel have managed to maintain national cohesion (I don't want to digress, but only mentioned Israel since it is the only other modern state formed on the basis of religion.) Pakistan clearly hasn't. The fault is not with religion, but lack of leadership.

The main problem for Pakistan is that it has always been under the yoke of the feudal-military alliance which abhors true democracy. As such, they will do all they can to slow the growth of a vibrant middle class, which is the driving force sustaining democracy in other countries.