Pakistan: A vanishing state

In the 21st century, an ideological nation in possession of nukes and facing extremism has no place.

Shabbir Ahmad Khan April 01, 2013
The Writer is a PhD Scholar at West Virginia University in the US

Both empires and states fail or collapse. Examples include the Roman, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Mughal and British empires. From the recent past, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Sudan are the best examples. Professor Norman Davies, in his book Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations recounts the history of 15 European states which disappeared. Professor Robert Rotberg, in his book When States fail: Causes and Consequences provides empirical description on a state’s failure. Similarly, the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine publishes a list of failed states each year, on which Pakistan ranks 13. Pakistan’s score is just 13 points below that of the most failed state in the world, Somalia, and just five points below that of Afghanistan, which is at number seven on the list.

Why do empires and states fail or fall? There are a number of factors for state decline, including social, economic and political. The most common factor is global; it includes intervention by external political agents or forces. In such situations, the empires or states first fail to cope with the new challenges and later collapse. There is a new challenge before Pakistan, which no state in history has ever faced. Today, the world community is unified against religious extremism of any kind and a nuclear Pakistan is heavily convulsed by internal violence linked to religious extremism. After World War II, colonial powers gave independence to many nations, including Pakistan, with a clear rationale or prime motive. At a very critical juncture in history, if states lose their rationale, they lose their right to survive. Pakistan is passing through a critical juncture of her history. If she loses her rationale, she loses her right to exist.

Two questions are important to answer the above-mentioned query. Who creates states and what is their rationale — i.e., the cause of their birth? More than 140 states got independence after the two world wars. The winners of the wars designed the world map by decolonising nations. The process of giving self-rule to new states was intentional and purposeful. British rulers, in congruence with the US, wanted to split India for their long-term interests in the region. In my opinion, Pakistan — the same way as the state of Israel — was created as an independent state to guard Western interests in the region. In both times of war and peace in history, Pakistan proved herself as the guardian of vested interests of Western powers. In return, Pakistan also got the liberty to do a number of things, including attaining nuclear capability. Throughout history, Pakistan changed herself with the changing demands of the West to fulfill her utility and her indispensability.

Thus, a militant, extremist, rigid and nuclear Pakistan was in the larger interests of Western powers, particularly to contain the Soviets and its allies, i.e., India. Now, the Western world has changed its policy towards the region where Pakistan is located and has demonetised its political currency by putting immense pressure on the country to change her course accordingly. But Pakistan seems reluctant.

Is a nuclear Pakistan, with its extremist image, acceptable to the world? The answer to this question is simple: no. In the 21st century, an ideological nation in possession of nukes and facing extremism has no place. We have two options: a) start behaving like a nuclear power by modernising our political and social institutions in order to become partners of global forces instead of becoming their rivals or b) keep insisting on the old course declaring extremism as a tactical weapon and wait to join the club of African nations like Guinea or Somalia. We have to choose between a modern, progressive, secular and stronger nuclear power or a conflict-ridden, tribal and conservative society with extremist leanings. Ideology is no more relevant in modern global politics. History tells us that nations or states collapse only when they refuse to change and insist on being foisted to the moorings of a decadent and eroded social and political order.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 2nd, 2013.


Jan Kakar | 9 years ago | Reply

Really I will prefer not to go in more details about this country, but very briefly I will tell you one thing that the Ideological basis of this country are contradictory to the construction of Modern and Secular state and If chose the modern way to evolve this state it will melt down like ice under the heating Sun.As much as its present condition is concerned it is not acceptable to any one in the world, on the other side USSR is no more there, that is why there is no wall there is no shadow. This country is going to crash sooner or later, It is still keeping a lot of contradictions, the role of Punjabi army and establishment and so many dangerous thing are still on the way just wait and see.

Khurram | 9 years ago | Reply

Was about to agree with the last para but then "Ideology is no more relevant in modern global politics."

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