Revisiting the Spirit of Pakistan Resolution—I

When seen in isolation from the general historical currents that have shaped the contemporary world, the emergence of Pakistan is often described as a consequence of polarization between Hindu and Muslim polities—a  schism that is said to have been fermented by the British Raj as part of its “divide and rule” policy and capitalized upon by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his associates. This view then describes the Indian subcontinent as a single geographical unit in which many religious, racial and ethnic communities have existed for centuries. It claims that the obvious cultural, ethnic, and racial similarities between people now living in Pakistan and India are self-evident proofs of their common heritage and hence the division of the Indian subcontinent into two nation-states was not a logical, historical process, but the one which was imposed upon these people by various superficial factors. A certain warming of relations in recent months has even prompted the talk of abolishing the borders.

While peaceful relations, and closer economic and cultural ties are beneficial to both people, one can neither rewrite history nor wish away the larger historical context in which the emergence of Pakistan took place. In fact, when seen in the proper context, the creation of Pakistan as a state embodying a worldview rooted in Islam is of immense importance for the contemporary currents running through the entire Muslim world. It is true that Pakistan has so far not attained any of its foundational goals, it is equally true that this failure is not an unalterable destiny. Likewise, it is also true that while certain recent developments have led to the imposition of a state-sponsored secular agenda on the people of this unfortunate country, 150 million people of this ancient land remain deeply committed to Islam.

At this critical juncture in its history, Pakistan faces numerous challenges but the gravest comes from within: from an elite that is busy at dismembering its ideological foundation. Thrust into the forefront of a seemingly perpetual war against that ubiquitous and yet undefined phenomena of our times, terrorism, Pakistan is being torn apart from within by an elite that refuses to see this country as part of a distinct global polity whose defining characteristics come from a religion. This imposed isolation, then, reduces Pakistan to an agglomeration somehow pieced together by chance of history and kept together by sheer habit or artificial unity. A violent sectarian divide and a fractured political process that now define Pakistan, provide additional credibility to this secular view of history. All of this results in forecasts of a hopelessly divided country, destined to remain perpetually underdeveloped.

What is even more dangerous is the fact that this secular view of the “enlightened elite” is now being ascribed to the “founding fathers” of the country. This view has also become the official line of the rulers who now control the state institutions. It is often said that Pakistan was established by its founding fathers as a moderate, progressive, and enlightened state. This view is propagated through selective quotations from the speeches of the “founders” of Pakistan.  Given these trends, it is important to reiterate certain time-honored truths and set historical record straight.

The first important point to note is that while individuals play an active role in history, their participation in any historical change of such magnitude as the division of the Indian subcontinent does not make these individuals  the cause of the historical event; the phrase “makers of history” is an empty phrase, devoid of any substantial meaning, because history is not made by individuals. History has its own laws, its own mechanisms, and its own almost unfathomably complex ways of unfolding. Thus no individual can be called “father” or “mother” of a nation without falling into a blind lane of personal glorification at the cost of a true understanding of history.

Second, the emergence of Pakistan as a nation state on a given day (August 14, 1947) was not the result of events of the preceding two or three decades; rather, it was a historical synthesis which originated several centuries ago and which has centuries-old roots in the religious, intellectual, social, economic and political climate of the Indian subcontinent.

The arrival of Muslims in the subcontinent cannot be separated from the general spread of Islam in the world. Likewise, one cannot ignore the larger historical currents that shaped the contours of Islamic identity in the subcontinent. There are literally thousands of events and millions of small and big factors that make up this larger canvas: the rise and fall of various dynasties, the emergence of a sufi movement that helped in mass conversions, the maintenance of a distinct Muslim identity in a subcontinent where every other polity had dissolved in the common culture, the birth of a new language (Urdu) which maintained ties with Persian and Arabic, and above all the fact that even after hundreds of years of existence as neighbours, Hindus and Muslims remained two distinct polities.

All of these factors were responsible in the eventual emergence of Pakistan as a separate homeland for Muslims. Therefore, to say that “so and so” is the father of Pakistan is as absurd as saying “so and so” is the father of a civilization. True, there were political leaders who played an active role in the realization of the idea of a separate homeland and their contributions remain immense, but these contributions do not make the resulting entity a hostage to their thought, worldview or ideas. Respect, even admiration is due, but not idolatrous projections of individuals who were merely human beings with ideas shaped by their times.

No nation, state or community can progress and meet new challenges without continually developing the ideological framework which provides raison d’etre for their existence. For instance, had the United States remained bound by the vision of its so-called “founding fathers”, it would have become a static society without a global impact. Its present influence and power arises from a continuously changing self-assessment. It is another matter that if its “founding fathers” were to somehow come back to life, they would be shocked to see the ideology of the contemporary neocons who consider the whole world as their backyard and who have, on the basis of an erroneous glorification of the American dream, made the rest of the world their killing field. Regardless of the negative aspect of this development, what is of importance in the present context is the fact of redefinition of a polity which provides for its expansion and growth. Had America remained within the ideological framework of its “founding fathers”, it would not have spread its eagle’s wing over the entire globe.

One can also cite a positive example. Had Europe remained the fractured amalgamation of various nation states as it was forced to become after World War II, its present unification process would not have emerged. Although the European Union is still in its infancy, the future of Europe is not going to be what its past was; there is a yet undetermined, but surely different destiny for Europe because of the emergence of a new idea and a new vision.

In the case of Pakistan, there has been a static reliance on ill-defined ideas about its foundational principles generally ascribed to its “founding fathers”. Since time, by definition, is movement, this static ideology has become rotten. Thus, instead of any onward development, even the foundational basis of the country are dissolving. What is needed, therefore, is a new vision of Pakistan that takes it to the next stage of its logical ideological development.

(To be concluded)