Source/Credit: The News | Pakistan
By Talat Farooq | September 11, 2011
The creation of Pakistan was hailed as the creation of a democratic, tolerant and forward looking country by Jinnah. Ideology played an important role in drawing the masses and the middle class into the folds of the Muslim League during the freedom movement.
Jinnah was a realist who resorted to pragmatic political strategies to unite the Muslim community, especially in the areas comprising West Pakistan. However, the quality of human endeavour during a struggle is always more unified and tolerant. Once a political target is achieved the quest for power takes on a different hue.
When Jinnah died on September 11, 1948 his successors were required to objectively assess Pakistan’s socio-economic and international priorities, based on the available elements of national power.
What was needed was far-sightedness and prudence; instead the new nation was given massive doses of ‘double-I’ – Islam and India; a trend that continued unabated even after the loss of East Pakistan, finally culminating in the Afghan policy of the 1980s; a policy that has become the bane of our lives since the end of the Cold War and especially after 9/11.
The fragmentation of the Pakistani society along ethnic and sectarian lines as manifested in Karachi recently is the long-term consequence of the closed mindset of successive military and civilian decision-makers.
What we see in Karachi today is evidence of the fact that once the country became a reality, ideology was not enough to hold it together. The early high-handed approach to political, ethnic, linguistic and sectarian problems in the form of primacy of Urdu, One Unit and Ahmadi-bashing were counterproductive. The only thing that could ensure a united Pakistan in the long run was acceptance of its ethnic, cultural and sectarian diversity. What was required was a realistic and not ideological approach.
Ideology, whether secular or religious, tends to impose uniformity on a diverse population by imposing preconceived parameters. A realistic, clear-eyed approach may have helped the early decision-makers to realise that complex social identity is central to evolving societies. Single identity, whether individual or collective, is impossible to achieve and is in fact unnatural. Self-concept is always an integrated whole consisting of multiple identities.
In an ethnically and culturally diverse society like Pakistan, the only way forward was to accept the social structure as differentiated along many dimensions including religious and political. It should have been understood that people can share common values within one particular group while be different in another. Provincial autonomy in recognition of such a complex identity phenomenon was the only way to build a nation.
It was imperative to realise after independence that appreciation of diversity breeds tolerance and promotes a generalised social acceptance of varied human facets. It also spawns creativity, innovation and progress in human thought and leads to self awareness, self-respect and human dignity. Ideological trends tend to suffocate creativity and balanced growth of individuals seeking to turn them into unthinking zombies – a situation that has suited Pakistani vested interests over the decades. The long term ideological underpinnings of our educational curricula have effectively killed analytical skills primarily because such skills encourage questioning of authority.
This has eventually created a large number of men and women unable to critically analyse or assess issues crucial to their well being. Instead of taking responsibility for our own interests it has become easier to bequeath our welfare to a coterie of thugs in the garb of political leaders. In return the politics of patronage and the personality cult has prevented the growth of genuine political dispensation based on national issues. Bad governance and corruption therefore exist and thrive unabated.
External danger from India has dictated our domestic policies since 1947, not realising that internal prosperity is a vital element of national power required to cope with outside threat. After September 11, 1948, we needed to look inward to choose the best possible foreign and domestic policies not based on fear but prudence. Again, such reassessment was required after 1965, 1971 and 1989. We did profess to do so after 9/11 but it has been a mixed bag of objectives that has further added to the murkiness and ambivalence of the national environment. There does not seem to be any fundamental change in our policy making. It is time to rethink our India centric foreign policy and our highly polarising domestic political arrangements.
Pakistan was born out of fear of socio-cultural and economic exclusion; it has continued to exist in existential fear that has hampered the politics of inclusion. We have allowed our fear of the ‘other’ to dominate not only our foreign policy but also our domestic preferences. Somewhere along the line hatred of a foreign enemy turned inwards and consumed our love for ourselves.
Yet in a nation of 180 million there are bound to be a few good men and women whose vision is clear and who can rise above petty politics of factionalism. Expecting our current civilian or military leadership to usher in a change for the better is a pipe dream. A few resourceful and persevering members of the civil society, however, can provide a platform for all the downtrodden of this country, regardless of ethnicity and religious orientation. Only an intellectual conviction for a need for change in major national attitudes can alter the civilian and military discourse and in the process initiate a change for the better.
The writer is a PhD student at Leicester, UK. Email: talatfarooq11@gmail.com
-- From September 11 to 9/11 | Talat Farooq | The News International, Pakistan
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.