The question of the “national narrative” of Pakistan, representing our collective identities, values and aspirations as a people, warrants consideration, especially now as we set out to determine the direction of our nation. A national narrative is a nation’s story, an articulation of its ideology and ambitions that rationalises its existence and provides a sense of community, interconnectedness and shared identities that underpin the structures of nationhood. The “story” may be constructed and manoeuvred or evolve indigenously through shared experiences and a common history. It may, therefore, be propounded from above and accordingly enforced on the constituent parts of the nation or emerge from the grass roots and find affirmation across divides and hierarchies.
Yet, can such narratives exist in today’s polarised, heterogeneous and violent Pakistan? Or is a Pakistani national narrative essentially exclusionary, drowning out the voices of the marginalised and “have-nots” to propound a story that reinforces existing inequitable power structures, to which only the “haves” can relate? Ought there not to be a national narrative at all, but a plurality of narratives, all coexisting? No.
It is because of this plurality of narratives propounded in a vacuum left unattended by a unifying national story, that Pakistan is bereft with anti-state, anti-nationalist, extremist and terrorist forces, its integrity and ideology under attack. Plurality is not the issue, but rather the inability to accommodate such pluralism and re-articulate it in a cohesive, unifying national discourse, which does not silence discontent, critique and diversity.
Our historical narrative as an “Islamic” nation or homeland of Muslims, (however one may look at it) — created in response to the oppression suffered and foreseen by Muslims of united India — as a polity where all would be guaranteed equal rights and opportunities, regardless of religion, caste, class or gender, no longer serves, as effectively, to bind us as a collective. This is not a challenge to the two-nation theory, which some hold to be inherently flawed, an assertion that is anarchist and self-defeating. Instead, this is an acknowledgement that the political paradigm in Pakistan has changed.
We are a nation at war from within, the cohesiveness of our historical narrative faltering in the face of attacks on our ideology and integrity by terrorist, anti-state forces. These have expounded alternative narratives that challenge our nationhood and have inspired waves of violence across the sociopolitical milieu. We have lost lives, property and a sense of who we are. Does our state mandate a firebrand theological state, averse to religious tolerance or diversity? Do our provincial identities render the idea of a federalist Pakistan null? Who are we? What is our story?
These questions are real and especially pertinent in today’s context, as we move forward from a bloody election campaign, losing inspirational leaders and tireless political workers. This nation has stood resiliently against these attacks, against odds, and asserted its right to the democratic determination of its future.
There is a narrative already emerging from this tense and tight political struggle, clear, at least, in its broader vision of our nation state. It is a narrative that holds across the three major political contenders of these elections and has found support across their ranks and beyond. It is a narrative that condemns extremism, militancy and religiously- motivated violence. It is a narrative that espouses equality, tolerance, respect and protection of diversity. It is a narrative of resilience and courage. It envisages a nation that rejects fanaticism, both religious and sectarian, and propounds a tolerant, secure state. This narrative is neither constructed nor manoeuvred, nor thrust upon us through external forces. It is real and pervasive, and our collective response to years of strife and bloodshed. It is the reinvigorated narrative of Pakistan that must fill the vacuum and overcome the discourses opposed to our nationhood.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2013.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
It is a narrative that condemns extremism, militancy and religiously- motivated violence. It is a narrative that espouses equality, tolerance, respect and protection of diversity . Sounds nice - but during your recent election this "narrative" was somehow overlooked by every major candidate. I would argue the author is using wishful thinking rather than actual observation.
I found it hard to cut through the verbose writing style to get to the essence of her opinion. Should we have a plurality of national narratives, or not? She starts off with saying No, but then seems to switch over and say that its OK as long as there is a "unifying national story" which ties it all together. She further claims if we had this unifying strand running through us, we would have been spared the onslaught of "anti-state, anti-nationalist, extremist and terrorist forces [which have put our] integrity and ideology under attack". That's where she totally lost me. There is the usual littany of how we have moved beyond our initial need for a monolithic Islamic identity, but in so doing achieved a diversity which has left us "polarised, heterogeneous, ... violent ... exclusionary". Wow! Finally we are given a wish list of "equality, tolerance, respect and protection of diversity", which this election supposedly demonstrated. Actually we saw and continue to witness the opposite. She goes on to simply state the various hopes we all have but which in no way were evident in the conduct or results of this election, i.e. that the evolving narrative "condemns extremism, militancy and religiously- motivated violence ... rejects fanaticism, both religious and sectarian, and propounds a tolerant, secure state". There is evidence of the opposite in most constituencies. The only narrative we do see, let's be objective here, is that the people wanted to toss out the old guard and were not allowed to. PTI is in the ascendancy and everyone is scared of the diversity they will bring to the national discourse.
I realize you love the word 'propound', even though you use it incorrectly as in "propounded from above" or "propounded in a vacuum". But must we also endure its close cousin 'expounded' as in "expounded alternative narratives that challenge our nationhood". I always wonder why the phrase "sociopolitical milieu" is used when it confuses more than it illustrates. You could also have dispensed with envisages, espouses, interconnectedness, inequitable, firebrand, faltering, cohesiveness. You're trying too hard to impress us with your vocabulary. My advice - complex ideas are best expressed in simple words.
My oh my, what a waste of precious foreign exchange Cambridge is. Don't they teach writing any more?
why do you protect your writers so much? do you only want to hear nice things? don't you believe constructive comments are useful to a writer, as long as they aren't personal? i don't like ET's policy of filtering stuff to make their newspaper look like one big happy self-congratulating lot. do you think it makes the quality of your newspaper better if you "manage" the comments to your liking?
In response to Peace, I believe Dee Cee meant that PTI had ceded space to JI, and PML-N to TTP.
And yes, I'm sure she meant "beset" instead of "bereft". Why the excessive verbiage in this article? Found it quite pointless.
@Dee Cee: JI and TTP. How can you evaluate them together? :s
It would be nice to reinforce this "emerging narrative" of a tolerant and equal society with facts. No party called for equality and tolerance for ALL it's citizens. Non-Muslims and Ahmadis continue to be discriminated against. There is no debate on the issue, there is no call for changing the constitution. The tyrannical majority continues to express its will - this time through the ballot.
"...that Pakistan is bereft with anti-state, anti-nationalist, extremist and terrorist forces..." Did you mean beset with? Sloppy editing ET. :) And @author a rather simplistic conclusion in the last paragraph without mentioning the political space left to JI and TTP by PTI and PML-N respectively.
Redundant, flamboyant words.....what was the point of this article?
Well written piece indeed.
Nicely argued, really liked your closing paragraph.
Pakistan's narrative ever since had been that they are "not Indians". Good luck with that!
Interesting and rare take on the issue. I agree with your view 100% that in the midst of our worst crisis, we have a new identity emerging where we are bound together by collective pain and resilience. As unfortunate as it sounds, it is a counter-balancing narrative to the one of theocratic state or national security state or client state and projection of this narrative will become more pronounced as time passes and new thought leaders continue to emerge on the national horizon.
"A national narrative is a nation’s story, an articulation of its ideology and ambitions that rationalises its existence and provides a sense of community, interconnectedness and shared identities that underpin the structures of nationhood."...
talk about wordiness...
I must concur with Sahar for writing a brilliant opinion piece. I am truly very impressed by the profundity of your thought process on such a critical issue as the conception of nationhood and the Master narrative of the state.