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
What kind of Pakistan do we want?

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 31st, 2011.

COMMENTS (31)

Arvind Sinha | 13 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 | 13 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
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ