Imran, Jinnah and Pakistan’s problem

Change cannot come to Pakistan without reorienting its state, its army and its culture. This is its only real problem.

Aakar Patel January 14, 2012

In his short but magnificent speech of August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam begins by instructing his government to settle the chaos of Partition. He ends by revealing his beautiful, humane side, telling us he sees people without noticing their religion.

In the middle, he lists Pakistan’s problems. According to him, these are three: corruption, black marketing and nepotism (Jinnah uses the quaint term ‘jobbery’). Was he correct in assuming these were Pakistan’s problems? This question is important because Imran Khan also believes that Pakistan’s problems are the same. Corruption is his primary theme and he ended his Karachi jalsa by promising his supporters never to succumb to chamchagiri. If he were asked to name a third problem, he would likely say loss of Pakistan’s sovereignty. As a Pathan, he feels loss of honour in fighting America’s war and in asking for aid.

To return to Jinnah’s list, were these Pakistan’s real problems? No. Pakistan’s breaking up, 25 years after being formed, was not because of corruption. The decades of military rule and the rise of the jihadis are not because of nepotism. Pakistan’s economic condition is not the doing of black marketeers.

What are the problems then? To the outsider, it appears there is only one. The orientation of the Pakistani state is wrong. And it isn’t aligned correctly because of its ideology, whose prenatal trait is more pronounced each passing decade. This flaw produced the state’s resolve to defy India at all costs and the subsequent dominance of the army, which has led to the emasculation of its political parties and made politics irrelevant. The successful penetration of this ideology has resulted in the population’s rejection of its own ancient culture. Indians are as corrupt as Pakistanis, as nepotistic and as poor. Most Indians don’t like their politicians. However, they don’t have a crisis of the state and no need for a saviour like Imran. Why? Simple. India’s secular constitution is accepted by all its parties, right, centre and left. Even the BJP insists on secularism.

India has one of the world’s most bigoted societies, true. But it has outstanding laws and a constitution as good as if not better than any in Europe. The state is aligned correctly, the orientation is right. In such conditions, progress is possible and despair is held at bay.

The equality of human beings is not something we should waste time debating in 2012. It can be argued that some articles in Pakistan’s constitution are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the second amendment (which apostatises Ahmadis), Article 41-2 (which excludes non-Muslims from being a president) and Article 91-3 (excludes non-Muslims from being eligible to be elected prime minister). Article 227 permanently keeps Pakistan unstable because its power to strike down anything interpreted as un-Islamic is open-ended.

As an example, we have before us the Supreme Court’s opinion this week that Prime Minister Gilani may not be a good enough Muslim to hold office. Absolute purity of their faith is something that seems to be the exclusive concern of Pakistanis.

Imran defines a welfare state as one that gives free medical treatment, free education, free justice and unemployment benefits, as in Europe. He doesn’t seem to understand that Europe’s progress is the result of its secularism. The individual’s religion is irrelevant. This equality is the basis of their welfare state. Change cannot come to Pakistan without reorienting its state, its army and its culture.

This is Pakistan’s only real problem. It’s settling down can come only from a change in ideology, not a change of governments. Building an ‘Islami falahi riyasat’, even by well-meaning saviours, is likely to cause more confusion.

In that sense, Zardari is a better leader than Imran because he understands the problem. He wants to normalise the state, soften its ideology.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s army and media vetoed his no-first use and open trade policies with India. Now its courts are working on getting him out.

It’s possible that Imran Khan will take power in Pakistan. At the Mazar-i-Quaid, he promised to finish Jinnah’s work.

So long as he tilts at the old windmills of corruption and nepotism, not understanding that the problem really lies elsewhere, his messianic fervour will come to nothing.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2012.


SS | 10 years ago | Reply

By the way, the obsession with India and militant/aggressive policy towards India was neither created nor initially supported by the Religious lobby. Deobandis weren't in favor of creating Pakistan to begin with. Maududi opposed the 1948 war on Kashmir calling it a war for land and not jihad. He even stated that jihad cannot be done with a country with which you have diplomatic relations. On the other hand, people who pursued highly aggressive/nationalistic policies against India were highly secular. The architects of 1965 war were Bhutto and Gen. Akhtar Husain Malik. First was as secular a person as you can get in Pak and second was a respected Ahmadi General. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and his Generals were hardly the model of religious inclination. The anti-India attitude was only inherited but not created by religious lobby in 70s. Real issue with Pak elite is their tribal/fuedal thinking that looks for conflict and domination inside and outside. It has nothing to do with religion or secularism.

desigoy | 11 years ago | Reply

@Lobster: Enlighten us.

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

Most Read