Opinion

What kind of Pakistan do we want?

In the global community of nations, Pakistan doesn’t figure very well, and that has been the case for many years now.

Rasul Bakhsh Rais May 30, 2011

Two American visitors in recent weeks, Senator John Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have made very bold and appropriate remarks, about what kind of state and society Pakistanis would like to have. Senator Kerry was direct in his comments, by posing the question of whether we wanted Pakistan according to the vision of its founder, MA Jinnah, or some other direction.

The question is, why is the future course of the country subject to such comments? Two things may answer this question. Firstly, the world community doesn’t appear to be satisfied with where we stand today. Secondly, Pakistan is an important country for the entire region and beyond. Whatever domestic, regional and international polices Pakistan may pursue could affect other countries.

Why should we pay attention to what other countries, notably the western powers, think about us? We live in an international world that has certain norms, values and practices and ways of judging how countries are progressing. Every aspect of national life is measured and a rank assigned. This is the way the image and reality of societies is portrayed today.

In the global community of nations, Pakistan doesn’t figure very well, and that has been the case for many years now. We cannot live in a state of denial anymore on the real challenges that we face. And they are so many, accumulated over a long period of time, but each successive government, so-called democratic and military have added more problems. Take for instance, the ranking of countries in three vital areas: Peace, development and governance. We are ranked the seventh most dangerous country in the world. We are one of the lowest in human development, within the South Asian region, and we are ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

On her recent fence-mending mission in Islamabad, Secretary Clinton said corruption is one of the biggest problems of Pakistan. These words truly echo what is in the hearts of many Pakistanis. Every layer of the bureaucracy and political class, from top to bottom, has a hand in corruption. There are always noble exceptions, but their ranks are shrinking and numbers insignificant. It is the poor state of rule of law, that breeds corruption because those who force citizens to pay bribes or plunder the national wealth, fear no law and ensure the law is either weak or it doesn’t operate to hold them accountable. In my opinion, there is a direct relationship between bad governance and political violence. Poverty, inequality, social underdevelopment and marginalisation are some of the factors that have turned a section of the society in way of the terrorists.

The whole world is telling us to reform and restructure the economy, law and society, according to the vision of our great founders. Otherwise, the future may not be different from the present.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 31^st, 2011.

COMMENTS (31)

Arvind Sinha | 12 years ago | Reply @tahir: The Indian model is not perfect either. However it is the only one that has worked the best in the South Asian context. And it will be the advanced version of this model that will become the basis for other countries as they become increasingly multicultural. I don't say this out of some parochial jingoist nationalistic pride but because in India, with its crushing poverty and diversity of faiths, belief systems, traditions, cultural mores, languages and attitudes; we have held together remarkably well, while allowing room for dissent. Pre 1947, partition / independence, in an undivided / united subcontinent, an even greater diversity existed, albeit in a population a fourth of the present day. The Indian model of creating states based on linguistic affinities, helps to excise the more divisive and exclusivist concepts of faith as the ground for a shared allegiance. Language serves this purpose remarkably well. This can be implemented with give and take in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Next, a secular federation, does the same on a national level where the allegiance is brought together by the economy and defense. Again, faith, the more divisive and exclusivist basis for allegiance is dispensed with. All languages are given full recognition. All people are free to practice their faiths. . Instead, let us look at where Jinnah erred. He started with the very concept of faith. Muslims first ... they need their own state. The result was that faith becoming the starting point, his speech of August 14, 1947 not withstanding. And when faith is the starting point it is often the endpoint too ... such is its nature. Also consider that the poor Muslims of the sub-continent didn't leave for Pakistan in the overwhelming numbers that Jinnah had envisaged. The elite left to the man, woman and child. It seems in retrospect, that the ones who managed to leave, actually held an entire nation and its freedom and integrity hostage to single handed blackmailing and bullying through public show of power (Direct Action Day). While Gandhi was saying "I am willing to die for any cause, but not to kill for any cause.', Jinnah's, Suhrawardy's and Mujib-Ur-Rehman (it is often forgotten, his role in pre-partition riots), were willing to kill for their cause, but not to die for it. Therein lies the sorry foundation of Pakistan.

Talisman | 12 years ago | Reply I find it interesting that Pakistanis are not outraged when Americans come there and criticize Pakistan. I wouldn't take advise from Hilary Clinton, who is despised by many even in the US. The US has played a huge role in impoverishing and destabilizing Pakistan, yet you will take a lecture from us? I have a hard time understanding this.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Mr.Khan | 12 years ago | Reply One Pakistani Giving an easy way to Indians to Question partition & Jinnah. & LOOK how they act like Opportunists. It seems to be part of Indian psyche to see Pakistan fail. Because a successful Pakistan legitimizes the grounds for partition. And if Pakistan fails, Indians feel vindicated. Indians ALWAYS start from partition In any debate. Am I Acting like a hardcore Nationalist ? yes I AM!!

dude | 12 years ago | Reply sleeping society! very heartening to see there is no visionary leader in Pakistan which is respected so much that the whole nation stands behind him and who will be able to control Military and ISI. ..every Pakistanis should prey to Allah to send a messiah.. a great leader. who can lead the country to unity, nationalism and prosperity..

Noor Muhammad | 12 years ago | Reply We feel proud to be the first ever country of the world gaining independence on the basis of being muslims from the cultches of British Empire. The problem with our beloved country is not that of religion as echoed by many, rather i would add that all the problems seem to be by design and not by default. We, unfortunately, have never been allowed to flower and flourish like a true democratic society, where the rule of law, equality of all, and development of human resource could take roots. We have got be vigilant and proactive in our response to our enemies both within and byond our borders. Pakistan can not afford to be sanctuary for militants, extremists to impose their obscurantic ideologies over the over the overwhelming majority who otherwise happen to be tolerant, progressiive, visionary, democratic and patriotic citizens of this state. Yes, accepted, that the very geostrategic llocation of this country has put it to many tests of the time, but we have always been the winner by the end of the day. We are proud to be muslims, but at the same time, we, the overwhelming majority, love to embrace the norms of todays indernational community, as we cannot llive in isolation space. Nobody from outsice will come to put our own house in order untill and unless we do it ourselves.

Ali | 12 years ago | Reply Rasul is not recommending anything different than what our ruling elite has been doing for a long time.Our ruling elite has always been doing dirty jobs of others.We love to be used and abused.Joining India will not solve the problem they have their own interests.Indian will never want a greater punjab,a greater bengal which will effect the political scenarios in India.It will certianly create more mess and choas.Infact, I think the Americans would really love to see a reversal of the 1947 partition. The only big difference between India and Pakistan is that India has managed to create a nationalism but we could not.We look helpless against everyone.

hariharmani | 12 years ago | Reply Faraz,has tried to articulate,what Mr Jinnah's vision,and also so doing undermind him.It is not Faraz's lack of ideas,it is just Mr Jinnah was a complex man and he was left with very little time and the lack of time overwhelmed him,in a strenge way the same thing happened to Gandhi's India,it is not looking like Pakistan,that is because the the real movers and shakers of India's economy are non political and non religious,their self interest is the welfare of themslves and they are not willing to commit 'hera-kari' for no dogma,isms or religion,that's the difference,rest these two cousins are identical twins(corruption,non goverance,nepotism,dynastic up bringinning and other traits).If the Pakistani were not crazy about'so called Islamicism',and not obssed about Islam,hell,heaven,and the other 9 yards they would have plodded along just as well or worse as their cousins to east.Most people get side tracked by a single speech of Mr Jinnah of Lahore 1947,they forget the rest,the same with India and Gandhi craze,they were both failures,there is no 2 way about it.I neither like or hate these 2 founders but there is nothing great about them,the proof is the pudding and eating it.What they had in hands was not something very great they messed it up as they had no other option,you can not make 'gulab-jamun,if you had S*T,instead of "MEVA',that is the most charitable I can be,no malice intended.

S | 12 years ago | Reply Farhad, I applaud your clearheadedness. A few points below. "... but Jinnah and Liaquat Ali weren’t exceptionally rich men, they weren’t feudal or businessmen. They had no constituency of their own. Why did these educated members of upper middle class become the main leaders of Muslim league?" Both Jinnah and Liaquat Ali were exceptionally rich men. Why did the educated members, and not the barely literate feudal landlords, become the main leaders of the Muslim League? Because Jinnah as a brilliant lawyer could talk and negotiate. That's it, beyond that they had absolutely no idea (and no real influence) on anything. "But then Jinnah could have clearly stated that he wanted an Islamic state. He could have brought clergy into the main leadership of Muslim League. He could have quoted verses from the holy text to rally the Muslims. " There was plenty of that in 1946 elections, which won Pakistan for AIML. Why didn't Jinnah clearly state what he wanted? Because Pakistan couln't have been won on a secular agenda. Religious dreamland was its sole selling point, and there can be no turning back after you sell on something as obsessive as Islam. "Why didn’t Jinnah clearly articulate his vision? .... he could have dictated a 20 page manifesto to his secretary." Because Jinnah was partly brainwashed and partly obstructed by the religious ideologues. A brainwashed and obstructed man is a confused man. I am sure Jinnah himself was confused as hell in his last few years. And today's Pakistani leaders are just following on his footsteps.

Porterhouse | 12 years ago | Reply Polls reveal that half of you want a moderate, secular state, and half of you want a radical Islamist caliphate. Hence the developing civil war.

Nasrat Baloch | 12 years ago | Reply What kind of Pakistan do we want? I, with everyone here is confused, we are playing a game where the umpires are confused, our own players are confused and the spectators are also confused. The people who are not confuse but enjoying the game are certainly here but hidden behind curtains and controlling it.

Zain-ul-abdin | 12 years ago | Reply Jinnah did wanted a Muslim state but this doesn't mean that a Muslim State doesn't gives right to non-Muslim.Islam does gives freedom to practice any religion but its the two faced people of our society that have made it corrupt.they want law and order and then they are the ones breaking the law saying that everyone breaks it here its Pakistan.

tahir | 12 years ago | Reply pakistan should merge into india... Problem is solved...we cant rule ourself.. Hindu indians are more tolerant and peaceful.

Tanzeem | 12 years ago | Reply Most Pakistanis would leave if given the chance. That says a lot about us.

faraz | 12 years ago | Reply @Vicram Singh I agree with your views on Muslim league, but Jinnah and Liaquat Ali weren’t exceptionally rich men, they weren’t feudal or businessmen. They had no constituency of their own. Why did these educated members of upper middle class become the main leaders of Muslim league? @Anti-Jihadi from India But then Jinnah could have clearly stated that he wanted an Islamic state. He could have brought clergy into the main leadership of Muslim League. He could have quoted verses from the holy text to rally the Muslims. He never claimed that he is a religious man. He appointed a low caste Hindu as law minister, and an Ahmadi (who aren’t considered Muslims) as foreign minister. If the sole aim of Muslim League and Jinnah was partition, then why did Jinnah accept the Cabinet Commission plan of 1946 which advocated a federation? We arent making any progress, people really don’t care what Jinnah envisioned. @Humanity Why didn’t Jinnah clearly articulate his vision? As "Anti-jihadi from India" rightly pointed out that he could have dictated a 20 page manifesto to his secretary. If welfare of Muslims was the sole aim of Pakistan, then why did Jinnah sign a pact with Sikandar. By admitting feudals of Unionist party into the Muslim league, Jinnah clearly ruled out any chances of land reform. Pakistan was a rural economy, so how did Jinnah expect to bring welfare through feudals? Men like Mamdot and Daultana, who became chief ministers of Punjab, were among the biggest feudals of pre partition Punjab. Did Jinnah expect Daultana and Mamdot to work for people’s welfare? The corrupt elite that is ruling Pakistan has its roots in All India Muslim League.

Chacha | 12 years ago | Reply @Talha: What if you get the second option instead of the first ? (i.e. get "no Pakistan" instead of Jinnah's Pakistan) - is that acceptable to you ? And what of your neighbours - can iran, and India handle 180 mln refugees ? Get real ! And how would you define Jinnah's Pakistan ? One of the issues is that Pakistan lacks a definition beyond Jinnah. Regardless of how great he may be, no one is so exalted that he may define a nation of 180 mln people. And it has been submitted by other commentators on this website that Jinnah's defintion of Pakistan did not extend beyond a safehouse for sub-continents muslims. There was no social definition, no constitutional articulation etc. All he provided was a motley and unfused collection of grand ideals. He was a Qaid-e-azam (released Pakistan from bondage) but not a nation builder.

Rahul Singh | 12 years ago | Reply @Cherish Raj: Totally agree with you. The problem with Pakistan started with its inception itself. Religion should never be associated with State, India chose to become a secular nation but Pakistan become an Islamic country. In a country where majority are poor and illiterate it is dangerous weapon in the hands of ruling class. There hatred towards India is also an important factor in their present condition. To fight India they establish factory for producing terrorists, but forget that its a double edged weapon and one day it will have to face them too. Its never too late to introspect, and Pakistan should sincerely do something concrete to come out of this situation.

Faiz Siddiqui | 12 years ago | Reply If US leaders like Hillery Clinton or Kerry pass remarks about Pakistan they either forget or intentionally do not mention that it was American who pushed Pakistani nation towards anorchy. It was America who has been vehemently supporting military governments. To my opinion, Pakistan is basically an unnatural country came out on horizen as a result of circumstances especially after world war-II. Their leadership had no vision what kind of structure of the state. And as someone said that Pakistan is like a child who never got vaccination for the prevention of disease. Now it has been grown but with full of diseases, corruption, nepotism, terrorism etc etc despite a nuclear power.

QuranVsHadith | 12 years ago | Reply @faraz: very true!!

Thinking | 12 years ago | Reply Why do people care about Jinnah's vision? Do the people of Pakistan want to be a free, democratic, peaceful, and economically successful country or do they want all of Pakistan to turn into Kurram Agency with Taliban "helping create peace so they may have room to roam around" between warring Sunnis and Shias while schools close down, economy dies, and people are left helpless.

mustafa | 12 years ago | Reply Quite lamenting, an american envoy would come up with suggestions to direct Pakistan to the right direction. Incapable and mediocre leaders can not set direction for the nation, at least, up till now.

sarmad ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply We want a secular pakistan where religion is not allowed to interfere in the affairs of the state.We want a pakistan where athiests,agnostics & ex-muslims can live freely without the fear of having their heads cut off like a goat or sheep.A pakistan where gays & lesbians are allowed to live as they please whithout threats & violence from islamic fundamentalists. A pakistan where one can disagree with others on matters of religion without having a religious terrorist pump 27 bullets into me.

harkol | 12 years ago | Reply Wonder if anyone has thought if Pakistan of today is perhaps the Jinnah's Pakistan? Jinnah wanted a nation for Muslims. He found Pakistan. While he spoke of 'tolerating' non-muslims, he was clear that Pakistan would be the Muslim homeland. His successors made sure it was exclusive muslim homeland by systematically eliminating Hindus from Pakistan. What was Jinnah thinking? You could create a nation on the basis of a religion without that nation assuming a purely religious identity? History teaches us that all nations which were religiously beholden were victims of long religious wars. Pakistan will have to find a non-religious identity for it to forge a modern nation.

amarjamali | 12 years ago | Reply rasul bukhsh rais has rightly pointed out that corruption and bad governence are main elements that are pushing our society towards terrorism.we should take hard steps to end the corruption in society specially in govt institutions and beaurocracy.

Humanity | 12 years ago | Reply @faraz wrote: Frankly, the more you study about Jinnah, the more clueless you get about his vision. Muslim League simply had no social economic agenda! What part are you clueless about the founding father's vision? His vision is clearly laid out in his August 11, 1947 speech. The Muslim Lague of the Quaid had a socio-economic agenda based on the upholding the fundamental human rights for all the citizens. In other words, his vision was to form a democratic system of governance with the aim of providing equal opportunity and justice to all the citizens, regardless of their origin, race, religion, gender, or age. What Pakistan has realized is an oligarchy where justice is for sale to the highest bidder, economic opportunity is availed by the highest briber, and life is to be lived according to the fatwa of the mullah who has taken on the role of the feared ghunda of the mohallah.

aa | 12 years ago | Reply I'll encourage Pakistanis to spend more money on defense - buy American, Chinese and French weapons - even if it means more loans. Give more to ISI. Spend more on developing nukes. Give more to LeT, JUD, HuM and other organizations. Ban free press- it is creating more problems than solving it. Suspend formal education - it just takes precious resources out of defense needs. Strengthen the madrassas - make madrassa education compulsory for all kids. Eliminate democracy - the leaders are corrupt and army runs most of the country including foreign policy anyway, so why not let them do it openly. Declare Army/ISI officers above the law (they already are so why not formalize it). Finally, declare Sharia law as only law of the country. That'll be so perfect. That'll take you closer to Jinnah's vision of Pakistan.

Cherish Raj | 12 years ago | Reply Majority of the countries in the world are poor. Corruption, nepotism, poverty, inequality are there in most of the countries. Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia are the poorest parts of the world. But how is Pakistan different? Why is there so much intolerance and suicide bombings in Pakistan? The decision to end one's life to destroy others goes against the orientation of human evolution. It can only be done by relentless indoctrination and incitement of hatred. This is where Pakistan is different from other poor countries including its neighbors India and Afghanistan. Take on the bull by its horns. Fight intolerance and hatred first. There should be a total revamping of the Pakistani society like the Germans did after the Nazi disaster. Otherwise, the cancer will spread like wildfire. This cancer emanating from Pakistan has already consumed Afghanistan, and it is threatening India and other neighbors.

Anti-Jihadi from India | 12 years ago | Reply Faraz I am amazed to read your comment assuming you are Pakistani. ML and Jinnah represented the feudal elite and were vey useful to the British to undermine thaw nationalistic struggle of Gandhi, Nehru and Azad. He could have dictated a 20 page manifesto to his secretary, he did not because he did not have one. Provoking mass agitation in the nMe of religious identity is the only thing known to Jinnah. A few days ago another Tribune columnist wrote how come Jinnah won freedom from British and Hindus but never went to prison! I guess you guys are making progress.

Vicram Singh | 12 years ago | Reply @faraz: " Muslim League simply had no social economic agenda! " Muslim League had only one social agenda - replace British Power with Elitist Muslim power. This is exactly what you have in Pakistan. The Muslim elite were not afraid of Muslim being ruled by Hindus - they were afraid to lose power to the representatives of the electorate.

faraz | 12 years ago | Reply Frankly, the more you study about Jinnah, the more clueless you get about his vision. Muslim League simply had no social economic agenda!

Syed Nadir El-Edroos | 12 years ago | Reply Some times I think that reverse psychology would be more appropriate. Intensifying poor governance because Hillary Clinton (The Amreekans) have asked us to bring it to an end will be interpreted as a great sacrifice to show that we are not doing Amreekas bidding.

Talha | 12 years ago | Reply Jinnah's Pakistan or no Pakistan at all. That is the only thing I can say.

Replying to X