Pakistan is in crisis. Overcoming this will mean completely rethinking long-held assumptions about what the country is meant to be.
Pakistani society is in crisis. But trying to understand the roots of this crisis all too often feels like a futile endeavour. After all, there’s no shortage of explanations for why the country is economically impoverished, why its government is chronically unstable, or why Islamist terrorism has permeated so many levels of its society.
Some observers believe the crisis is due to the lack of economic opportunities, while others argue that it’s a result of foreign meddling and disproportionate military power. The reality, though, is that these are all consequences rather than the cause of Pakistan’s troubles. Taken as a whole, they underscore a deeper crisis within Pakistani society that goes right to the nation’s very foundations—a crisis of identity that originates in the late 19th century, when the idea of an independent Muslim nation in South Asia first emerged.
As Pakistan was founded in truly modern terms—inspired by the principles of self-determination that were prospering during the wave of independence movements in the post-World War II era—the best place to start understanding Pakistan isn’t actually one of these former colonies, but a future colonist: post-revolutionary France.
Not only does Pakistan’s post-independence trajectory bare an uncanny similarity to that of France’s First Republic, but the critiques of its path are similar to those of the French Revolution.
Consider that both the First Republic and the Islamic Republic began with a radical social movement that ostensibly fought for the rights of impoverished and underprivileged minorities: in the case of France it was the ‘common man’ who had lived under centuries of feudal and aristocratic rule; in Pakistan it was the South Asian Muslim who had experienced Hindu-dominated rule in colonial India.
But soon, the fervour of these movements degenerated into a world of radicalism and terror. While attempting to unify the new nation through a common language and state-directed education, the nations’ leaders resorted to political repression, turning the movement’s supposed beneficiaries into victims. Ultimately, the high spirits of revolution collapsed into political disorder, ending in a coup d’état followed by military rule.
Instead of pursuing reform from within the existing structures under which they lived, the leaders of both movements attempted to radically recreate the idea of their societies (Indeed, this was the source of Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution in his Reflections). No longer was France, and later Pakistan, bounded by actual history. As Lord Acton observed in 1862, in France, ‘The Revolution repudiated alike the agencies to which France owed her boundaries and those to which she owed her government. Every effaceable trace and relic of national history was carefully wiped away.’ A similar process occurred in Pakistan’s independence movement.
Indeed, in the early 20th century, a group of elite Muslim intellectuals in British India began to argue that the Muslims of South Asia weren’t simply a religious group in a pluralistic society, but instead a separate nation with their own culture, customs and history that directly descended from the Islamic empires that once ruled parts of the subcontinent.
Photo Credit: Khaum / Wikicommons
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Norbert Gonsalves
Good try Garry, Article 110 of the Indian Constitution has nothing to do with banning of cow slaughter. And as pointed out in an earlier post, beef is easily available. I should know, I lived in Mumbai.
Student
I agree with the premise of the article that Pakistan is in crisis and they should re-evaluate who they are. But not convinced about the analogy to the french revolution. If anything, it might more closely resemble German unification. In Pakistan’s case, the unification was poorly conceived as the political system never developed before chaos began.
asher
The whole purpose of this article seems an attempt to rob Pakistan of its struggle to sepaprate from India. Those who spearheaded the Pakistan movement realised the huge impedements muslims in india will have to face under the hindu majority. That seemed to have convinced enough people to rally behind them and support it.
Look how the minorities in India continue to struggle (Siks,Muslims,Assamese,Kashmiris). The Golden Temple massacre,the Babri Masjid destruction,the Gujrat killings,The New Delhi massacre of Sikhs…It is an endless cyclke of violence against minirities in India.
Pakistan’s future does not lie in some mythical “reincarnation” of their roots with the hindu culture,it lies in preserving the ides behind the gift called Pakistan achieved after so much struggle and dedication. That India needs to be reemphasised.
Farhan
@ Indian Academic
Babri Mosque demolition can be forgotten. While the Muslim want the Babri Mosque to be reconstructed, the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have a temple constructed at the very location. Hindu radicalism prevails in India to a very large extent. Pork or beef is not a debate due to globalization of the world, but it is the mindset that matters.
Regarding being a economic, giant India is being pampered by the west to have an opposing power to China. The future of Pakistan does not lie with India, which has made attempts to destabilize Pakistan by its strong influence at the western borders with Afghanistan. Pakistan had made attempts at several platforms to come over a table for dialogs with India, but India has been backing out again and again. Blaming for terrorism would never solve issues.
Indian academic
Mr. Apoorva Shah needs more education and prospective. Pakistan is more like Mexico after the Mexican-American started by President James Polk. Although many Mexicans still have believe Texas, California and much of the American Southwest was “stolen” from them by the US Army and Govt, the Mexican govt reconciled itself to the fact that its border with the US would end at the Rio Grande. The Mexicans were also mature enough to realize that it future lies with the economic giant to the north. Likewise, Pakistanis should do the same. They should reconcile themselves with the land they now have and forget about acquiring land from India (ie Kashmir) and also realize that their future lies with the economic giant to the east where there are still deep cultural and linguistic ties. Please Pakistan, grow up !!!
Gerry Faulkner
Why was Pakistan formed can best be summed up in the way the Constitution of India was projected prior to independence and ultimately drafted and passed. Article 110 of the constitution bans the slaughter of cows and ostensibly the consumption of beef in deference to majority religious sentiments. India is perhaps the only nation that by a legal caveat puts a dietary constraint on its population. The Afridi tribesman of the NWFP in pre-Partition India was unlikely to change his diet simply because a majority vote in a parliament in far off Delhi asked him to do so. With five states of a different religious composition a simple Western style parliamentary democracy where laws are made by majority vote was recipe for civil war. Even marginal religious differences in the Western world have caused chaos. The British were not able to convince the Roman Catholic Irish that their church and loyalties lay with the British Monarchy when the Irish are as much Christian as anyone else. How a united India governed by majority vote would have convinced Baluchis for example to worship a mother goddess of the nation given their religious sensibilities was a fact not very well appreciated by the Indian nationalists such as Nehru, Patel and Gandhi whose thinking was still mired in the Western ” one man, one vote ” policy. The creation and existence of Pakistan is evidence of the stark failure of the Indian majority elite to acknowledge that a pluralistic society can only be held together by complete separation of religion and politics and governing by consensus on common issues. Given the endemic communal violence that India wreaks on its own minorities today and the failure to bring even the lone minority state into the mainstream is evidence that the mind set has not changed much since 1947.
Peaceful Muslim
@Gerry Faulkner, You are completely clueless. First, do you know that it illegal to have pork in many Muslim countries ? Try having a sausage or pork ribs in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Second, did you know that in India over 30% of the population is non-Hindu ? There are more Muslims in India than in another other country except Indonesia. Muslims and Christians in India eat what they like; always have, always will do. Finally, India is the one country with different marriage laws for Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslim men are allowed to have four wives (as per the Koran) but non-Muslim men are only allowed 1 wife (the bigamy laws are enforced against non-Muslims). Imagine the US or the UK allowing its Muslim men to practice polygamy.
Shahzeb
@ Peaceful Muslim and Gerry:
I totally agree with Gerry. And peaceful Muslim you are wrong when you say that India has more Muslims then Pakistan. This was true until 2005. Check the latest population statistics and you will get to know that after Indonesia, it is Pakistan which has the highest number of Muslims. Get your facts straight before you point out at others. As for India’s marriage law, you talk about India having separate marriage laws for Muslims. How can you justify India not having a separate Sikh marriage law when it is India itself from where the Sikh religion takes its origin? The point to be noted here is that Pakistan has separate Marriage laws for Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs. If you do not know this then do some research before you start uttering poison for your neighboring countries. And hey, as for pork, who said it is not available in Pakistan or is banned? There are foreigners in Pakistan who know the specific places from where they can get pork. Likewise, there are at least over 50 alcohol shops licensed and authorized by the Pakistan government to sell Alcohol to the non-Muslims. This is despite the fact that Pakistan is an islamic republic. Unlike a widely Hindu India which does not allow consuming cows even to non-Hindus who do not consider her a holy object.
otosan
Wow, you really are clueless. Beef is widely available in India anywhere you go. You don’t have to “know where to get it, nudge, nudge, wink, wink” like pork in Pakistan. It is available openly, and everywhere. Have you ever been to india? Didn’t think so.
captainjohann
Muslim Population in Pakistan has increased due to Blasphemy law of Pakistan . Its minority population which was 10% has shrunk to 2% now .Indian Muslims have four wives eat anything they want and as an Indian Christian I eat both pork and beef.India is the only country which gives Haj subsidy to Indian Muslims.
Gerry Faulkner
Mr. Peaceful_M. We are discussing India and its “secular democratic constitution” prior to the independence and how its draft failed to convince the minority provinces that their basic rights would be protected and hence Partition and Pakistan. The best arguement against Pakistan would have been a secure, prosperous,confident and integrated minority in India. India has failed to achieve this 60 years after its constitution. Other diverse nations such as Singapore have achieved this, and even Malaysia is well on its way to an integrated population. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia has a dietry constraint by law given the large Malay and Chinese populations in the respective countries though sensibilities are respected by consensus. The economic and political benefits are evident. Whether pork is available in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant because there is no constitution or democracy as such in that country and it is hardly a role model to follow. Yet even Saudi Arabia has implemented a fair wage and working environment and non-harrassment of minorities and Hindus in particular. The proof is that a million and a half Indians choose to live and work in that nation, their fondness for a meat of choice notwithstanding.
The North-Eastern Indian states of Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya have larg Christian populations which are in ferment precisely because the Indian milieu has failed to be inclusive and they do not care for Article 110 of the Indian Constitution either.
SM
Gerry, let us agree that you have no idea on the constitution that was debated.
It was stunning that you objected the one vote idea…It is pathetic to see that people exists in 21st century, who could do another stupid british communal votes idea. But then there are talibans, neo nazis…
The cow issue is not related to this. Cow is like dog in west, lil more intense. even though there are no dog laws, people away from west are respecting rights of dogs to die with honour. People see a life, a vision, a symbol when you see meat. This compassionate thing was an obstacle only to bone heads. Nations are not formed by opposition to cow worship.
Only today I saw how they kill the goats when went to buy some fresh meat, it is not a pretty sight to see the goats scrambling their legs to make a final appeal to the world, only to find their throat is slit so they can’t shout loud. Then they are sorrounded by people who are as sensitive to all this as the insects – ready to feast when the vitality evaporates.
Try to roast your dog, you would understand it partially…though again it had nothing to do with the communal constitution you are alluding to.
SM
The author of this article is typical colonial Indian intellectual type who trace human civilization to french revolution, just as Taliban looks to 7th century.
1- There was no hindu majority rule …It is a British canard to fight off the Indian resistance. There was British rule before 1947, Indians who colluded with British were officers along with the British.
2- The present day Pakistan area had hindus reduced to minority, one of its famous rulers was a sikh, Hindus have been attacked by muslims since quite long. How many hindus are there in Punjab, Lahore, Sidh Pradesh today ? Just because infatuation with french revolution pays some intellectuals their money, doesn’t imply fight of Pakistan was a fight for minorities. Minorities were slaughtered in Pakistan, as well as Bangladesh.
3- Pakistan was propped up by useless intellectuals propped by British. It is not that a mullah postulated the idea of nation…these ideas were from new doctrines of empire, to manage the colonies. Pakistan is more in line with national socialist regimes of Germany, of one nation based on religion ( instead of race) , rather than the revolution inspired by likes of Voltaire. Voltaires stood for freedom, the socialists of various stripe ( race, religion, nation, international) prospered through their infatuation of Europe.
arul
@SM,
I agree with your first two points, but not with the last. In my opinion, the best contribution by British to India is partition. Imagine 35+ % of Muslim population in the united India. I do not have to die and go hell to experience it. There would not be any difference between united India and Somalia now. Call it Karma. British did it for their benefit and it turned out to be a best gift for India.
The author should have written as “South Asian Muslim who were expecting Hindu-dominated rule in post colonial India” not as “South Asian Muslim who had experienced Hindu-dominated rule in colonial India”. It is typical subcontinent mindset. It seems that nearly thousand year slavery made some genetic change. I hardly find anyone who writes using his/her head in subcontinent. All they do is take it from western view and remake it.
Sanjay Kumar
Very valid point. Living in denial of its history is living in denial of its future.