Pakistan: 65 years of paranoia: Is there anything to celebrate?
We have such misplaced priorities that sometimes I feel whether the entire nation has gone bonkers. We get agitated over drone attack which are supposed to kill the militants and yet silent when Hazara Shias are murdered by militants. As a nation, we do not have the basic morality to stand up for minorities. In fact we are not able to condemn monsters like Taliban even when they target the urban areas of Pakistan. by Raza Habib Raja
NB - Thank you Raza, for your fair-mindedness. On this side of the border too, we are flirting with insanity - DS
Some say that it was never the founder’s intention and consequently the entity when it materialized had no solid footings to begin. The political entity, which came into being on the fateful day of 1947 was born out of chaos, confusion and bloodshed. All of these constituted the birth environment of the country and resulted in a deep paranoia which has prevailed to this date. This environment was dominated by fear of a breakup and consequently the newly formed country lived its early years in constant insecurity. This insecurity was further enhanced due to lack of any powerful leadership and also due to virtual absence of institutional arrangements which are generally essential for keeping an ethnically diverse state cohesive.
Such institutional arrangements were not there for two reasons. First, Pakistan’s founding party Muslim League only became a mass party (that too is arguable whether it ever became one) at a very late stage and it did not have well entrenched roots in all the provinces of Pakistan. At least two provinces, namely NWFP (now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa ) and Baluchistan were less than eager to join the federation and in both Muslim League was relatively weak. The demand for Pakistan was not uniform and even Bengal and Sindh (the two provinces who had voted for it) had perhaps supported it as a means to greater provincial autonomy in the future. It is argued and with justification that one of the reasons as they voted for Pakistan was that they assumed that they would be granted greater autonomy in Pakistan compared to India as they shared at least the same religion with the other inhabitants.
Secondly and as mentioned earlier that Pakistan was not even what perhaps the founder himself had really wanted. A credible and a well-established narrative actually states that Pakistan had been thought of as a bargaining ploy to ensure a better representation for Muslims in a United India. However, the circumstances in the last days of British Raj did not shape up that way and the bargaining ploy instead materialized into reality which perhaps no one was prepared for.
Pakistan thus came into being as a weak state characterized by constant fear of break up which due to its ethnical diversity was only going to worsen with time. In those early years, it was perhaps natural that country tried to over centralize and went for a very strong center with even stronger establishment institutions. But that was not all. In the absence of democratic traditions as well as mechanism (which Pakistan movement did not have) in order to resolve the issue of ethnical diversity in a rational way, the country also went for a host of supplementary measures to foster cohesion. Chief amongst those were stress on strengthening Islamic identity and whipping up fear of India.
Both these ideological tactics, political usage of Islam and fear/hatred of India, were used to “unite” a country that had come into this world virtually unprepared. These measures over the years were not gradually phased out but rather further enhanced. Rather than try to build a nation through granting enough space to various ethnicities, we have just relied on centralization, political Islam and supplementing these two with fear and hatred of India. These tactics have not solved the issue of ethnic demands of greater autonomy but have created a bigoted schizophrenic mentality which hates minorities, fear diversity and looks for foreign conspiracies everywhere.
Centralization over the years has led to a state structure favoring Punjab and has deepened fissures in the polity. We are apparently united and in reality breaking apart. We created one unit to negate the population advantage of Bengalis, denied them their demand for greater autonomy all the way carrying the paranoia which had marked our birth. Lost East Pakistan and instead of learning the lesson went back with a renewed vigor to imposing more of “real” Islam.
Whipping up religion has made us bigoted and relegated us to nothing but a polity riddled with sectarian violence and mindless extremism. And yet we seek further solace in religion and get ourselves even further entangled. Today the world mistrusts us and the green passport has become a bane to its holders. Literally every major act of terrorism is traced back to Pakistan and yet we are unable to even recognize the linkage. Everything becomes either a grand conspiracy of our enemies or when the evidence is just too damning then a reaction to US atrocities.
The state cultivated fear of India though weakened in recent years (as the main enemy needed to “unite” Pakistan has been replaced by our friend of yesteryears, the United States) continues and we keep dreaming about Ghazwa Hind and feeding the big white elephant, the Pakistan army. As our neighbor zooms ahead in economic sphere, we lag behind still deeply engulfed in the paranoia that it wants to “conquer” Pakistan and undo partition. Frankly, now the fear is completely nonsense is actually an outcome of our misplaced image about us. Who will like to takeover Pakistan with its so many social as well economic problems? Ironically today India’s interest is more likely to be a stable Pakistan not a weak Pakistan. And yet the threat is still needed to keep us together and to keep on feeding a large army.
Sixty five years have passed and today looking back, I ask frankly what is there to celebrate? ..
Read the full article: http://pakteahouse.net/2012/08/16/the-65-years-of-paranoia-is-there-anything-to-celebrate/
Also see: Sris Chandra Chattopadhya on the Objectives Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan March12, 1949
Pakistan's First Law & Labour Minister, Jogendra Nath Mandal's Resignation Letter, October 1950
NB - Thank you Raza, for your fair-mindedness. On this side of the border too, we are flirting with insanity - DS
Some say that it was never the founder’s intention and consequently the entity when it materialized had no solid footings to begin. The political entity, which came into being on the fateful day of 1947 was born out of chaos, confusion and bloodshed. All of these constituted the birth environment of the country and resulted in a deep paranoia which has prevailed to this date. This environment was dominated by fear of a breakup and consequently the newly formed country lived its early years in constant insecurity. This insecurity was further enhanced due to lack of any powerful leadership and also due to virtual absence of institutional arrangements which are generally essential for keeping an ethnically diverse state cohesive.
Such institutional arrangements were not there for two reasons. First, Pakistan’s founding party Muslim League only became a mass party (that too is arguable whether it ever became one) at a very late stage and it did not have well entrenched roots in all the provinces of Pakistan. At least two provinces, namely NWFP (now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa ) and Baluchistan were less than eager to join the federation and in both Muslim League was relatively weak. The demand for Pakistan was not uniform and even Bengal and Sindh (the two provinces who had voted for it) had perhaps supported it as a means to greater provincial autonomy in the future. It is argued and with justification that one of the reasons as they voted for Pakistan was that they assumed that they would be granted greater autonomy in Pakistan compared to India as they shared at least the same religion with the other inhabitants.
Secondly and as mentioned earlier that Pakistan was not even what perhaps the founder himself had really wanted. A credible and a well-established narrative actually states that Pakistan had been thought of as a bargaining ploy to ensure a better representation for Muslims in a United India. However, the circumstances in the last days of British Raj did not shape up that way and the bargaining ploy instead materialized into reality which perhaps no one was prepared for.
Pakistan thus came into being as a weak state characterized by constant fear of break up which due to its ethnical diversity was only going to worsen with time. In those early years, it was perhaps natural that country tried to over centralize and went for a very strong center with even stronger establishment institutions. But that was not all. In the absence of democratic traditions as well as mechanism (which Pakistan movement did not have) in order to resolve the issue of ethnical diversity in a rational way, the country also went for a host of supplementary measures to foster cohesion. Chief amongst those were stress on strengthening Islamic identity and whipping up fear of India.
Both these ideological tactics, political usage of Islam and fear/hatred of India, were used to “unite” a country that had come into this world virtually unprepared. These measures over the years were not gradually phased out but rather further enhanced. Rather than try to build a nation through granting enough space to various ethnicities, we have just relied on centralization, political Islam and supplementing these two with fear and hatred of India. These tactics have not solved the issue of ethnic demands of greater autonomy but have created a bigoted schizophrenic mentality which hates minorities, fear diversity and looks for foreign conspiracies everywhere.
Centralization over the years has led to a state structure favoring Punjab and has deepened fissures in the polity. We are apparently united and in reality breaking apart. We created one unit to negate the population advantage of Bengalis, denied them their demand for greater autonomy all the way carrying the paranoia which had marked our birth. Lost East Pakistan and instead of learning the lesson went back with a renewed vigor to imposing more of “real” Islam.
Whipping up religion has made us bigoted and relegated us to nothing but a polity riddled with sectarian violence and mindless extremism. And yet we seek further solace in religion and get ourselves even further entangled. Today the world mistrusts us and the green passport has become a bane to its holders. Literally every major act of terrorism is traced back to Pakistan and yet we are unable to even recognize the linkage. Everything becomes either a grand conspiracy of our enemies or when the evidence is just too damning then a reaction to US atrocities.
The state cultivated fear of India though weakened in recent years (as the main enemy needed to “unite” Pakistan has been replaced by our friend of yesteryears, the United States) continues and we keep dreaming about Ghazwa Hind and feeding the big white elephant, the Pakistan army. As our neighbor zooms ahead in economic sphere, we lag behind still deeply engulfed in the paranoia that it wants to “conquer” Pakistan and undo partition. Frankly, now the fear is completely nonsense is actually an outcome of our misplaced image about us. Who will like to takeover Pakistan with its so many social as well economic problems? Ironically today India’s interest is more likely to be a stable Pakistan not a weak Pakistan. And yet the threat is still needed to keep us together and to keep on feeding a large army.
Sixty five years have passed and today looking back, I ask frankly what is there to celebrate? ..
Read the full article: http://pakteahouse.net/2012/08/16/the-65-years-of-paranoia-is-there-anything-to-celebrate/
Also see: Sris Chandra Chattopadhya on the Objectives Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan March12, 1949
Pakistan's First Law & Labour Minister, Jogendra Nath Mandal's Resignation Letter, October 1950
