Forging a Naya(new) Pakistan from the Ashes: In Memoriam to Jinnah's Remarks

History is perhaps replete with ironies. One poignant irony that continues to impinge on the lives of the peoples of the subcontinent is the formation, ideological premise and the subsequent nature of the state of Pakistan. It is ironical because the tactical maneuvering of the founder of Pakistan, Ali Mohammad Jinnah, was at odds with the vision he had for Pakistan. This vision can be gleaned from the concluding remarks of his 11^th August, 1947, address to the Constituent Assembly. Jinnah asserted,

“You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”

Clearly then Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was that of a secular, liberal entity wherein people of different, creeds, religions and faith would co-exist. Or, in other words, he envisaged a secular, vibrant political community which had been accorded a state whose nature would be liberal, pluralist and liberal with equal citizenship rights to all. However, the subsequent trajectory and nature of Pakistan belies this vision and is at stark odds with this vision. Pakistan has inexorably drifted into a semi authoritarian entity with an Islamic tenor. This raises a set of questions:  What accounts for this discrepancy and dissonance? Does the fault lie in tactical maneuver of creating and crafting a polity as a homeland for South Asian Muslims and then articulating a vision that was at odds with this?  Is the condition that Pakistan finds itself in reversible? How can this political decay be reversed? And how can Pakistan morph into a normal entity?

It would perhaps be safe to posit that the tactical maneuvering and the slogan of Pakistan as a homeland for South Asian Muslims has laid the seeds of the mess that Pakistan is in.  There are multifarious reasons for this. One salient one is that the state, in the final analysis, cannot but be a secular and liberal entity. The state, in any form or shape, owes its genesis to the Treaty of Westphalia and the subsequent convolutions that gripped Europe. And it is the reification of the postulates and principles of secularism and liberalism (not in all cases though) that informs the state and its formation. As such, there can be no such thing as an ‘Islamic state’, a ‘Hindu state’ or a ‘Christian state-save in notional terms. Numerous groups comprise the state and they just cannot realistically be subsumed under an all encompassing rubric and citizenship, by its nature is secular. State society relations, by and large, have to be aligned and this can only happen in a liberal, democratic and secular state.

It is then the tension between the slogan of/for Pakistan and the nature of the state that explains the dissonance and the attendant confusion that defines Pakistan. The results of this dissonance are rife in Pakistan. Be it the Pakistani or sections of the Pakistani society at odds with the state(read Pakistani Taliban) or the praetorian-oligarchical nature of the Pakistani elite, different groups vying for the definition of Pakistan and the attendant morass, it can all be traced to the fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of the Pakistani state. The nagging question then is: Can this be reversed?

This is a million dollar question. It can. Or it cannot. One reason for the latter assertion- a pessimistic one-is the path dependence of institutions and their ‘lock in’. This ‘lock in’ favors the status quo as interests-vested or otherwise, expectations and paradigms converge, get entrenched and are resistant to change. But this condition is not irreversible. Nations and paradigms and philosophies change and mutate. The same can possibly hold true for Pakistan. What would bring about the salubrious change that would redound positively to Pakistan and the world?

Bold and beautiful leadership is the answer. This would mean leadership by commission and omission and would entail introspection by the Pakistani power structure and reconsideration/ redefinition of its national interest. More specifically, this means that the praetorian elite of Pakistan, that is , the Army, in the interests of Pakistan’s longevity as a healthy nation state, withdraw from the politics of the nation. Concomitantly, it means the rejigging and reformulation of the governing ideology of Pakistan. This can be done by the emergence of a charismatic leader who works in sync with the power structure of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan in directions envisaged by its founder.

Or, in other words, somebody has to do a Chavez in Pakistan (sans the insalubrious aspects of Hugo Chavez’ approach). Populism that brings and aggregates the aspirations of Pakistan and guides them into salubrious directions along with the retreat of the army from politics is perhaps the only way out of the morass.  Someone has to rise from the masses and have an enlightened agenda for Pakistan and embark on a spree of creative destruction. A new Pakistan has to be forged from the ashes and a final consensus be arrived at over its nature and identity.

Killings on a quotidian basis, the pervasive political instability and economic torpor and an insalubrious foreign policy orientation all accrue from the contradictions that define Pakistan. This ,in turn,  is predicated upon the nature of the formation of the Pakistani state. It is about time that the political decay accruing from a mélange of these factors be reversed. Pakistan’s future is at stake here. Let the powers that be in Pakistan introspect, review and course correct. And let Jinnah’s remarks be taken as sacrosanct and form the grist and mill of the naya(new) Pakistan.