The Quest for Nation-State
*****
Are Pakistanis A Nation?
by
Syed Muhammad Waqas
(DG BIRF)
***
by
Syed Muhammad Waqas
(DG BIRF)
***
The most critical national debate of our times, namely redefining the ideological foundations of Pakistan, traces its origin in the qualification of “nation-hood” in regard to its particular application on Pakistani people. The question is whether we can class ‘Pakistanis’ as a monolithic nation or not. The question is indeed demanding and mind-boggling; therefore, we must explore it by critiquing all aspects of the subject.
Insofar as the case study shows, Pakistani masses can at no level be considered a single, homogeneous nation. There are a number of factors at work behind the propounding of this theory. A mass of 170 million cannot be declared a well-knit nation on the grounds of political identity and superficial religious shell as opposed to the witness of history. It is beyond doubt that ever since the birth of “Nation-State” at Westphalia, the ideology of a sovereign political entity, defined as ‘state’, has gained a great deal of popularity in world politics. This entity of state seeks it raison d’être from the fact that it represents a mass of people sharing a piece of land within the framework of ethnic, cultural and/or religious identity and economic interests. No other doctrine can, presently, challenge this conception of a people’s status of being a nation on solely political grounds. For instance, Germans have many nations i.e. races within their mainstream. They, however, define and identify themselves as “German” exclusively. Furthermore, the British are, historically, a plethora of many mutually distinct nations, such as Angles, Saxons, and Normans. However, we class them as “English” people today with a great much of emphasis on their historical global role. This can be a case study of modern state concept with the formula applied and judged against several other possibilities. The most number of countries falling under this category belong either to Europe or to Americas. When coming to Asia, we have only a few instances, such as China, Korea and Japan, becoming nations through a systematic politico-historical transformation.
Now let us turn to the problem of Pakistan. It is a matter of historical interest that neither Pakistanis nor Indians are ‘a nation’ by any definition of the word in question. Both of the countries are ‘ideological’ and ‘historical states’ rather than ‘nation states’—India being ‘historical state’ and Pakistan ‘ideological state’. There is a great deal of polarization in almost every aspect of Indo-Pakistani society—be it a religious, linguistic or ethnic side of Subcontinent’s life. Historically speaking, the Indian Subcontinent has welcomed and accommodated almost every invader coming from northwestern and southern directions. The layers of invaders beginning from Aryans to end with Europeans all brought with them new cultures, languages and religions. These linguistic-cultural elements were deeply absorbed by the land of India in such a way that, in fact, transfigured the original shape of those primitive cultures. The process of the assimilation of foreign cultures in the Subcontinent—particularly in the present-day Pakistan—developed into an intricate social system of heterogeneous—rather internally ‘dichotomous’—characteristics. The best example of the current argument may be sought in the dialect shift of Pakistani land taking place once every five miles. The same is the case with India, for India accommodates thousands of sub-cultures and sub-castes in its length and breadth.
On the eve of Partition, Indian Subcontinent was home to 587 independent principalities that had autonomous or semi-autonomous rulers. The example of such principalities being Kashmir, Bahawalpur, Qalat, Jonagarh, Haiderabad etc. Thus, forming those 587 mutually distinct people into one homogenous nation was by no means possible. Whatever formula you apply, whatever education you provide, whatever insignia you superimpose, the millennial culture of Subcontinent is not going to wear out its fabric in such a desired rapidity. One of the tragic ultimate of this cultural diversity was experienced in 1971, when Bengali-speaking half population of the Federation forced West Pakistan to surrender them their rights solely on the basis of their ‘distinct identity’. Identical is the case with today’s remaining Pakistan.
Let us now have a more empirical glance at our nation as we find it in 2011. Major ethnic races of Pakistan are Punjabis, Pathans, Balochis, Sindhis, Hazaras, Gojris, Saraikis, Brahvis—to name only the major ones. The case becomes really interesting when we try to compare and contrast them in the socio-historical mechanism. None of these races heavily shares respective culture with other(s). The only common feature among all of them is ‘religion’, Islam. Indeed, Islam can be used as a common threshold to save the concept of single identity in Pakistani federation, but neither secular nor religious politics can redeem the bedeviled people of Pakistan. Islam, being the ideological foundation of the country, can indubitably serve as a solid ground to relocate the polarized mass of Pakistan . However, while pushing the nation into the process of unification on the bedrock of religion, the precepts and concepts of religion must not be abused or hijacked by a particular group—as is the case presently.
Of course, we are called ‘Pakistanis’ wherever we move in the world. Nevertheless, the fact is that being “Pakistani” is only a superficial and a historical identity having no well-grounded roots whatsoever. Let me therefore conclude that Pakistanis are but a disorderly crowd by every definition of a crowd and not a nation by any definition of the word ‘nation’. Let us look forward to the most desired moment in the future course of time when Pakistanis really turn into a nation.
Insofar as the case study shows, Pakistani masses can at no level be considered a single, homogeneous nation. There are a number of factors at work behind the propounding of this theory. A mass of 170 million cannot be declared a well-knit nation on the grounds of political identity and superficial religious shell as opposed to the witness of history. It is beyond doubt that ever since the birth of “Nation-State” at Westphalia, the ideology of a sovereign political entity, defined as ‘state’, has gained a great deal of popularity in world politics. This entity of state seeks it raison d’être from the fact that it represents a mass of people sharing a piece of land within the framework of ethnic, cultural and/or religious identity and economic interests. No other doctrine can, presently, challenge this conception of a people’s status of being a nation on solely political grounds. For instance, Germans have many nations i.e. races within their mainstream. They, however, define and identify themselves as “German” exclusively. Furthermore, the British are, historically, a plethora of many mutually distinct nations, such as Angles, Saxons, and Normans. However, we class them as “English” people today with a great much of emphasis on their historical global role. This can be a case study of modern state concept with the formula applied and judged against several other possibilities. The most number of countries falling under this category belong either to Europe or to Americas. When coming to Asia, we have only a few instances, such as China, Korea and Japan, becoming nations through a systematic politico-historical transformation.
Now let us turn to the problem of Pakistan. It is a matter of historical interest that neither Pakistanis nor Indians are ‘a nation’ by any definition of the word in question. Both of the countries are ‘ideological’ and ‘historical states’ rather than ‘nation states’—India being ‘historical state’ and Pakistan ‘ideological state’. There is a great deal of polarization in almost every aspect of Indo-Pakistani society—be it a religious, linguistic or ethnic side of Subcontinent’s life. Historically speaking, the Indian Subcontinent has welcomed and accommodated almost every invader coming from northwestern and southern directions. The layers of invaders beginning from Aryans to end with Europeans all brought with them new cultures, languages and religions. These linguistic-cultural elements were deeply absorbed by the land of India in such a way that, in fact, transfigured the original shape of those primitive cultures. The process of the assimilation of foreign cultures in the Subcontinent—particularly in the present-day Pakistan—developed into an intricate social system of heterogeneous—rather internally ‘dichotomous’—characteristics. The best example of the current argument may be sought in the dialect shift of Pakistani land taking place once every five miles. The same is the case with India, for India accommodates thousands of sub-cultures and sub-castes in its length and breadth.
On the eve of Partition, Indian Subcontinent was home to 587 independent principalities that had autonomous or semi-autonomous rulers. The example of such principalities being Kashmir, Bahawalpur, Qalat, Jonagarh, Haiderabad etc. Thus, forming those 587 mutually distinct people into one homogenous nation was by no means possible. Whatever formula you apply, whatever education you provide, whatever insignia you superimpose, the millennial culture of Subcontinent is not going to wear out its fabric in such a desired rapidity. One of the tragic ultimate of this cultural diversity was experienced in 1971, when Bengali-speaking half population of the Federation forced West Pakistan to surrender them their rights solely on the basis of their ‘distinct identity’. Identical is the case with today’s remaining Pakistan.
Let us now have a more empirical glance at our nation as we find it in 2011. Major ethnic races of Pakistan are Punjabis, Pathans, Balochis, Sindhis, Hazaras, Gojris, Saraikis, Brahvis—to name only the major ones. The case becomes really interesting when we try to compare and contrast them in the socio-historical mechanism. None of these races heavily shares respective culture with other(s). The only common feature among all of them is ‘religion’, Islam. Indeed, Islam can be used as a common threshold to save the concept of single identity in Pakistani federation, but neither secular nor religious politics can redeem the bedeviled people of Pakistan. Islam, being the ideological foundation of the country, can indubitably serve as a solid ground to relocate the polarized mass of Pakistan . However, while pushing the nation into the process of unification on the bedrock of religion, the precepts and concepts of religion must not be abused or hijacked by a particular group—as is the case presently.
Of course, we are called ‘Pakistanis’ wherever we move in the world. Nevertheless, the fact is that being “Pakistani” is only a superficial and a historical identity having no well-grounded roots whatsoever. Let me therefore conclude that Pakistanis are but a disorderly crowd by every definition of a crowd and not a nation by any definition of the word ‘nation’. Let us look forward to the most desired moment in the future course of time when Pakistanis really turn into a nation.