The unanticipated but unavoidable carry-over imprint of the Two-Nation theory on the emerging one-Pakistani nation, the compulsions in the early days to set Pakistan apart from India and the notion that Islam has the powers to unify the nation irrespective of differences within on ethnic, sectarian, cultural and economic lines all had caused the founding fathers to sidestep the challenges of nation-building and leave it to the Objectives Resolution (OR) passed by the Constituent Assembly in 1949 to take care of all the diverse challenges that confront a newly independent country. They had such unflinching faith in the unifying powers of the Ummah.
But the validity of the OR in the nation-building process was challenged within five years of its passage in the Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under the Punjab Act II of 1954, to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. Also called the Munir Report, it had concluded that the concept of a Muslim differed for different sects and if the fatwas of the ulema were relied upon to determine whether an individual is Muslim or Kafir, then no sect could be called Muslim because of the lack of a single, coherent and unanimous definition of a Muslim and an Islamic State.
The majority of Pakistanis belongs to the Sunni school of thought. Those who subscribe to the Shia school of thought are also in good numbers. Among the Sunnis, many are Barelvis and perhaps, as many are Deobandis now. Also, there are some who follow the Whabi/Salafi Islamic school of thought. And many are disciples of Sufi school of thought. In democratic pluralism, such differences in the interpretation of religion would be settled through the ballot box. Instead, these groups have lately started trying to shoot their way out to the victory stand, thanks largely to four extended periods of military rule.
Midway through the 1970s, we saw Iran and Saudi Arabia fight their proxy war in the streets of Pakistan. Middle East arms and funds are still pouring into the country with our security agencies looking on helplessly. The US-led jihad against the occupying Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s injected yet another divisive trend into Pakistan’s polity. And the 9/11 related UN-sanctioned war on terror has compounded the situation further, adding one more layer to the ongoing polarisation.
A full-blown insurgency is going on in Balochistan. The Pakistan-Afghanistan border regions, where the writ of the government was already loose by arrangement, are now being attempted to be swallowed by force by the so-called non-state actors. In urban Sindh, Islamabad’s writ exists only at the pleasure of numerous warring gangs engaged in the battle for Karachi. In rural Sindh, the feudal aristocracy rules the roost. And in Punjab, as many as 40 armed-to-the-teeth Lashkars exist — some of them specialise in sectarian killings and some are battle-ready all the time to bleed India in Indian-held Kashmir. Indeed, there is no country in the world, Muslim or non-Muslim, where Muslims kill Muslims in such a large number on a daily basis as they do in Pakistan in the name of Islam.
The strong-arm tactics being used by various political, ethnic and religious factions to impose their respective ideologies on the nation to the exclusion of all other ideologies are likely to polarise society further. Such societies wither away quickly. In fact, those who want to take over the country at gunpoint would have no country left to take over if they continue to kill. On the other hand, societies that allow room for various factions to accommodate one another’s viewpoints and practise democratic pluralism acquire a robust kind of vitality necessary for boosting the nation-building process.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2012.
COMMENTS (37)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
-(1)1714378140-0/AliAminMaryam-(4)-(1)1714378140-0-270x192.webp)
1714370039-0/ojwilson-(1)1714370039-0-270x192.webp)
@gp65: ."....But Pakistan has been more aggressive in revising history than others – surely you will agree. Apart from falsifying history outright which not many countries indulge in, all countries do present facts in a light that mirror their world view. ". . I did not want to digress and wander off but am trying to be concise. Pakistan does have a contrarion like attitude, having a lot of IQ-less people in decision making positions. Either you pretend not to see reality for what it is or you have devoted your observations to a geographically limited area. It may sound a bit blunt. It is more due to my lack of mastery of the art of expression than intent.
@Abid P Khan: "I am not sure whether Pakistan in particular has monopoly on such expertise."
I did not say Pakistan had a monopoly. Clearly the example you quoted did not pertain to Pakistan. But Pakistan has been more aggressive in revising history than others - surely you will agree. Apart from falsifying history outright which not many countries indulge in, all countries do present facts in a light that mirror their world view.
@gp65: . "...Sir, I think you are referring to Trotsky being airbrushed. That is revisionist history. Ofcourse that happens all the time and Pakistan in particular is an expert...." . Yes, I did refer to Leon Trotsky. I am not sure whether Pakistan in particular has monopoly on such expertise.
@Abid P Khan: "“…The thing is you cannot change the past but you CAN change the future….” . I agree with you on every point you mentioned except this one."
Sir, I think you are referring to Trotsky being airbrushed. That is revisionist history. Ofcourse that happens all the time and Pakistan in particular is an expert. What I was referring to is inability to change what actually happened. IF we learn from what happened instead of simply revising history to suit us, we can prevent repeating the blunders of the past.
Hopefully with this explanation, we have a consensus?
@gp65: "...The thing is you cannot change the past but you CAN change the future...." . I agree with you on every point you mentioned except this one. . You may have seen a historic picture of Lenin, addressing a crowd of eager listeners. The same picture published later, shows faces of certain politically "unfavourable" persons having been air-brushed away. . One can always try.
@Feroz: In addition to all that you said, there has to be some sense of history, some sense of belonging, some attachment to the Motherland. The clear-cut sign is the case of dual nationality of wealthy Pakistanis. The rich and educated Pakistanis who can make a difference, they are hedging their bets. These people themselves are not sure of the viability or longevity of Pakistan as a nation.
Which country cedes land to a distant neighbor ? Which country leases huge parcels of land, along with airstrips, to people of other countries to hunt ? Which country willingly allows killers from all over the world to take over a large tract of land and turn it into autonomous badlands ? Where is the sense of ownership and belonging and pride ? Why isn't the common Pakistani protesting against all these sellouts ? Look at how they protested against a third grade film made by a criminal in a distant country, and then wonder at the meek acceptance of Americans, Chinese and Arabs as overlords.
@Mirza: A nation State is a viable entity if the people within its geographical territory share common human values, aspire for similar goals, show tolerance for diverse opinions and do not infringe on the rights and freedom of any section in the population. Everything else about differences in culture, religion and language are not relevant factors but exacerbate the situation when the freedom charter and social order binding citizens is violated.
@Jat: "Where is the cohesive force to keep it all together ? You think nations can be manufactured that easily ?"
When did I say it was easy? Was it easy for India? No. But it has been done in India and it can be done in Pakistan if there is a will to undertake the necessary course corrections. Obviously more effort will be needed for Pakistan since it has traversed some distance in the opposite direction. The thing is you cannot change the past but you CAN change the future.
@Mirza,, @sabi, @jat
Poor me. Butt of all jokes. I am sulking now. Just kidding - all of you are amongst the people I really enjoy interacting with on ET.
@Jat:
"@Mirza: @gp65: I love you gp65!
Mirza ji aap se yeh umeed nahi thi ! :)" There must be some humor!.haha.
@Mirza: @gp65: I love you gp65!
Mirza ji aap se yeh umeed nahi thi ! :)
@gp65: Pakistan’s destiny thus is in its own hands not a fait accompli due to the presence of diversity as you seem to imply.
Where is the cohesive force to keep it all together ? You think nations can be manufactured that easily ? Take different groups of people from different part of India and plonk them together in one geographical region and hey presto we have a new nation ! It doesn't quite work like that.
India is like a mala (string) of different beads held together with many common threads running through them. Pakistan, on the other hand, is like a bunch of different beads held together by two hands. Take away the two external hands and the beads will scatter all over the place. Use of Islam as a glue didn't work.
@David_Smith:
Looks like it doesn't take much to impress you. I bet you are even more impressed after reading my comment.
@Mirza: "Thanks for explaining what I could not. Religion alone does not make nations. Otherwise there would be a Christian nation/country a Jewish, a Hindu, a Buddhist and a Muslim country in the world. There has to be more in common than religion only. The problem in Pakistan is we have been denying the presence of 4-5 distinct cultures (imposing Arab culture) of the provinces and the result is obvious"
Mirzaji, I have the highest regard for your opinion but even now I am unable to agree with you. If the presence of distinct cultures inherently made a nation viable, India with far greater diversity would be even less viable but it is not. The problem is the intolerance for the 'other' that has been systematically encouraged and also institutionalized which leads to oppression on one side and persecution/resentment on the other. But this intolerance is not automatic or natural, it has been deliberately bred and could therefore also be reversed if the powers that be chose so.
Pakistan's destiny thus is in its own hands not a fait accompli due to the presence of diversity as you seem to imply. It can become a vibrant energetic nation if it chooses to promote tolerance instead of the exact opposite.
Religion’s are for mankind, for whole planet earth. If we confined it to a nation state say that it is an Islamic Country, a Christian country or a Hindu Country and so forth. Won’t result in having a breed of mentality with a prospectus to serve mankind in general and see every one equal. Rather they would always be afraid of others and always be in competitive mindset more than in a collaborative mindset. Mankind’s progress so far is mostly based on collaboration and not on competition.
We have also seen in history that feeble mindsets are more susceptible to Jedi mind tricks. Unfortunately in case of Pakistan there are no Jedi’s
@Jat: Thanks for explaining what I could not. Religion alone does not make nations. Otherwise there would be a Christian nation/country a Jewish, a Hindu, a Buddhist and a Muslim country in the world. There has to be more in common than religion only. The problem in Pakistan is we have been denying the presence of 4-5 distinct cultures (imposing Arab culture) of the provinces and the result is obvious. Thanks and regards, M
@Jat: Thanks for explaining what I could not. Religion alone does not make nations. Otherwise there would be a Christian nation/country a Jewish, a Hindu, a Buddhist and a Muslim country in the world. There has to be more in common than religion only. The problem in Pakistan is we have been denying the presence of 4-5 distinct cultures (imposing Arab culture) of the provinces and the result is obvious. In addition the problem with current Pakistan is the freedom movement against the British was never strong in the current Pakistani provinces. In fact Muslim League never ruled Punjab before partition. Thanks and regards, M
I would not disgrace @Mirza: by implying that he can not even talk for himself. .
@Author: Another wonderful piece Sir !
What Mirza is saying is that the idea of Pakistan was wrong to begin with, and that even after the 1971 split, Pakistan is not viable as a nation. And this has nothing to do with India as a nation.
I tend to agree with Mirza on this one.
@Mirza: . India even today has more diversity, bigger in population, ought to have many more problems, yet they can live in acceptable harmony. . Indirectly you are trying to justify the butchery in Eastern Wing.
@Mirza: I am surprised by your post. By your logic India cannot claim to be one nation either but it is. A nation that believes in the principle of Unity in Diversity.
A very well written piece. However, I beg to differ from Author's statement: "In democratic pluralism, such differences in the interpretation of religion would be settled through the ballot box" on the ground that religion should not have any role in the politics.
Religion alone cannot bind a society, neither can an imported ideology. Religion and Politics are combustible mixtures which when combined destroy both. If having cleansed itself of its religious minorities from 15% in 1947 to 3% currently could not create homogeneity, nothing else can. Today what we see is a desire for bringing about change in the most violent manner possible. Those terrorizing the people with their Guns cannot be reasoned with -- religion has empowered them rather than providing spiritual solace to follower. The massage to followers of all religionsis simple --- if you try to use it and abuse it, society will be burnt to ashes. Being Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluch or Pashtun has nothing to do with intolerance and bigotry.
@sabi You've been to the India Office library in London? Impressed.
You've been to the India Office library in London? Impressed.
Terribly scary stuff. Who would have wanted Pakistan to come this close to impending disaster except our enemies. Is not it ironic that we ourselves have been instrumental in bringing this about. We are paying a dreadful price of pretending to become more loyal to Afghanistan than Afghans and extremely preturbed over their becoming socialists while knowing deeply that it is someone else agenda. Our shameless intervention in Afghanistan and violation of their sovereignity has bouned back and as spillover we have lost everything which we should have guarded closely. The quagmire of Afghanistan is too detrimental to to be mired in. I think we should leave Afghanistan alone and concentrate on collecting the bits and pieces that we have made of this lovely country of ours. It is never too late to realize ones diabolical mistakes
@Mirza: You are wrong. Unity lies in diversity. If your argument is to be taken into account, then India, which itself is a mesh up of different languages and ethnicities, would be an artificial nation. Any counter-arguments?
Well written and well argued article but we have to analyse why Muslims are killing Muslims. Is it due religious difference or there is something else which need to be unearthed? No doubt religion played significant role in the creation of Pakistan but it had twin objectives -- divide India on the one hand and unite Muslims on the other hand. Modern states, with vibrant civil society and political aware middle class, cannot rely solely on religion as uniting factor, states have to take steps to accommodate every one but it did not happen in case of Pakistan. First resistance came from more politically aware Bengalis when they realized that their rights were being usurped by the combo of civil-military bureaucracy in the security state of Pakistan. Rising wave of Bengali nationalism encouraged other nationalities like Sindhis, Baloach, Pathans and Seraiki to stand up and speak for their economic and political rights. So for the first time religion lost its efficacy to hold different nationalities together in the multicultural mosaic of Pakistani society. Rising political and economic and cultural nationalism posed threat to the very existence of Pakistani security state and to counter the phenomenal growth of peripheral nationalism which was embedded in the grievances and deprivation of people in three provinces and seraiki belt in Punjab, the centrist security state of Pakistan used religion to divide people and undermine their movement for the realization of their rights. And today, it is very successful in its plan. Baluchistan, KPK, Karachi are bleeding in the name of sectarian and ethnic conflicts..
Centralization of power in multi ethnic and pluralistic nation is a recipe for disaster. Political model of European union and Indian Union is the right way to approach in multi ethnic nations. Yugoslavia fell apart because excessive centralization which made the individual ethnic communities felt discriminated by majority Serbs. Excessive centralization of political power will lead to Punjabi domination and resentment by other ethnic groups in Pakistan. British PM pointed out example of multi ethnic nation India holding together to Soviet President Gorbachev when he expressed doubts about Soviet Union which was transitioning away from centralized communist model. Pakistani political model has never given chance to evolve into federalism because of successive dictatorships and strong centralized model. It took 60 years to evolve federalism in true sense in india after mistakes in past by Indira Gandhi
A Muslim is defined as someone who has submitted his will to the will of God. And according to Muslims God, an unlawful killing of another 'human being' is the same as killing the whole of mankind. So either these people are not Muslims, categorized as enemies of the state with an ulterior motive or somebody's trying to muddle the good name of Islam.
@thor: "This is the only country that was build in the name of Islam.. Need i say more?" Could you tell us why.If you visit India office liberary in london and spare some time there you will find another kind of history.It is up to you whether you put more weight on history recorded in India office library or one recorded by congres leadership in India.One thing is sure facts are different and so are the motives.
Author Brilliant thought provoking article Kudos and regards
Indeed, there is no country in the world, Muslim or non-Muslim, where Muslims kill Muslims in such a large number on a daily basis as they do in Pakistan in the name of Islam.
This is the only country that was build in the name of Islam.. Need i say more?
"Islam has the powers to unify the nation irrespective of differences within on ethnic, sectarian, cultural and economic lines" They don't know Islam has also powers to split them and tear them apart if they make business of that.Pakistan has done that and we can see the powers of Islam how it take revenge of itself.See Pakistan of today split split.