
The dangerous skirmish with our hostile larger neighbour has sparked a rare moment of national solidarity within Pakistan — a welcome feeling given the immense political polarisation we have been experiencing in recent years. However, major ethnic, regional and socio-economic rifts remain a dominant feature within Pakistani society, and it would be wishful thinking to assume that these serious problems will melt away just because we scored an apparent short-term win over India.
Carving out a new nation from colonial India, using the two-nation theory which aimed to unite diverse ethnic groups using a common religious identity, was an impressive feat. Yet, the way this rationale was operationalised through a hurried partition plan resulted in a truncated nation separated by nearly 1000 miles. A sizeable number of Muslims remained in India fearing displacement and believing that the transnational nature of their faith did not necessitate residing in a separate nation.
Those who migrated to the eastern wing of Pakistan also soon discovered that a shared religious identity was not an excuse to continue tolerating hegemony by more powerful ethnic groups. The traumatic separation of Bengalis from the rest of Pakistan did not result in other ethnic groups overcoming their differences either. Not only the Balochs or Pathans, but also the Sindhis and Saraikis have their own reasons for feeling disgruntled in the sort of Pakistan we have managed to create over these past several decades.
Ethnic disgruntlement is not the only problem corroding a common sense of national identity. Sectarianism and the extremist violence resulting from it remain another source of perpetual consternation.
One cannot oversimplify the root causes of such ruptures and blame the Punjabis as the cause of all discord. The proxy contestation between the Soviets and the US, alongside rivalries within the Muslim world, has certainly exacerbated religious tensions in Pakistan. Suspected Indian support to militants and insurgents has added fuel to the fire.
However, while these external factors exacerbated societal rifts, they cannot be blamed for creating them out of thin air. The way our post-colonial establishment has relied on top-down, patronage-based and unrepresentative models of governance must shoulder much of the blame for the glaring social tensions evident in our midst today.
Perhaps it is time for our leaders and decision-makers to revisit some of the ideas put forth by thinkers closer to our own cultural roots.
For instance, the work of a 14th century seminal Muslim sociologist, Ibn Khaldun, still offers relevant insights for addressing the growing polarisation in our contemporary society. Ibn Khaldun's concept of asabiyyah, or social cohesion, is particularly worthy of greater attention. Asabiyyah helps unite people and can foster solidarity through shared values which, in turn, remains essential for effective governance and the overall stability of any state.
The essence of Ibn Khaldun's ideas proposes a humanist and participatory approach to governance, wherein the well-being of a given society is a paramount goal. He aptly noted how inequality leads to social fragmentation and instability, and warned about the dangers of relying solely on military strength.
Ibn Khaldun certainly offers a more compelling basis for national building than the warped ideologies put forth by populist and divisive leaders who suppress dissenting voices to build hierarchical systems allowing accumulation by the few at the cost of marginalising the many. Even if the traditional characteristics identified by Ibn Khaldun to enable cohesion may be less relevant in our increasingly complex world of fluid identities, the notion of asabiyyah can be reinterpreted to prioritise universal values such as freedom, social justice and respect for differences.
If our leaders can honestly embrace such ideas, we may move closer to actualising the notion of Pakistan, which is supposed to be an acronym representing all the regions that comprise this nation.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ