What is the picture of a failed state?
- A state (or nation) which has spent most of its post-independence time under myopic military dictatorship, where everyday innocent blood is being shed due to unbridled terrorist activities, where insurgency is being going on in a certain geography for decades, whose people have been deprived of their basic fundamental rights and amenities, where in this age of advanced science and technology literacy rate is still around 54%, where students are being taught religious texts overruling progressive literature - if the picture is something like this, then sorry to say but Pakistan fits there very well.
But why? In 1947, two nations India and Pakistan started their journey with similar proportionate resources and now in the first quarter of the twenty first century, India is the most discussed nation in all type of progressive forum whereas Pakistan is lagging behind and often termed as a "Terrorist State". So, what happened and what are the reasons? Though the reasons are inter-mingled with one another, I have tried to divide them under separate headers. Let's see one by one - Today publishing the 1st part.
1. Failure of the Two Nation Theory:
In 1947, British got independence but in a partitioned format - India and Pakistan. The founding theory was the most debated and controversial Two Nation Theory where the demarcation line was religion. Now, in Indian subcontinent where demography is so diverse but internally assimilated, was religion the sufficiently able single factor on which a demarcation line could be drawn? So, naturally, the concept proved to be fragile and India, which did not declare itself a Hindu state, could carry on with its integrity but Pakistan could not. The incident happened in just within 25 years of independence.
Here I would like to refer Maulana Azad, a Muslim nationalist who did not favor the idea of Pakistan, actually the idea of Two Nation Theory citing the same as a utterly probable failure. He warned that upcoming nation Pakistan which was planned of being composed of East Pakistan (mostly eastern part of Bengal) and West Pakistan would be a profound disaster. He explained that people in East Pakistan and people in West Pakistan were so different from each other that except their majority religion, there was nothing similar. So, they could not move ahead together. Azad's premonition came true very soon. In 1971, after a long history of deprivation, suppression and brutal tortures, the erstwhile Pakistan was dismembered - East Pakistan emerged as a new nation called Bangladesh.
Actually, if we see the people in the Indian subcontinent, they can't be divided because the dividing parameters firstly are very difficult to be identified and then it's very difficult to be implement the model developed by using those parameters. The people have lived here mingled internally to such a degree that they can't be distinguished separately and secluded from one another. The same applies while doing the experimentation on the basis of similarity as well.
Anyway, the result of Two Nation Theory tasted failures. First, just before independence and just after independence in the form of an environment of mutual distrust which resulted into communal riots and mass exodus and second, as discussed the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971. Now, was the in-between period and post 1971 period of Pakistan successful from the viewpoint of Two Nation Theory?
Well, applying the theory, Pakistan was created as a natural homeland for the subcontinent Muslims and that was the main proposition of the theory. But what does the experience of the Muslim people who settled there in 1947 and after 1947 say? The Muslims who went there were never welcomed by their brotherhood in Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi. In India till now, there has not seemed any group or political party to be created asking for the rights and demands of the Hindus or Muslims who migrated from Pakistan. But in Pakistan, MQM has been formed advocating for the Muslims who migrated there.Frankly speaking, this is the most glaring failure of Two Nation Theory. I can't remember the exact literals, but one Pakistani poet who migrated to Pakistan lamented - "Hum jhulaste hue registan ke liye mahekte hue gulistan chhod aye (For the scorched desert land, we left the fragrant rose garden)."
2. Dissociation from Subcontinental Identity:
No nation can survive without a identity because identity places itself before the other nations in terms of its background, culture, economic solvency, political importance everything. In this section, let's see how intentionally the people of Pakistan under their erring leadership first tried to shed their original identities to dissociate themselves from their subcontinent heritage and then tried to assume new identities which spelled into a utter failure.
The 1947 leadership of Pakistan (and the next generations as well) used to have an imaginary superiority complex of being the descendants of the ruling Muslim dynasty in the Indian subcontinent - "Humne toh Hindustna pe raj kiya hai, hum bade hai unche hai (We have ruled the Indian subcontinent, we are the better, we are the higher)." They used to see the non-Muslims belonged to some inferior category, the people who were their subjects during the Mughal period and whom they have ruled upon. More ironically, these leadership mainly composed of people from West Punjab and old Delhi areas even were not ready to accredit equal status to their own people who belonged to Bengali Muslim community in East Pakistan (I will discuss this again with some citations in some later section). So, after achieving their objective of Pakistan, the leadership tried to shun their subcontinental identity and tried to assume a new identity. They encouraged their people to follow this as well.
On this context, while drawing a comparison with respect to India, the majority which is the Hindu community have never thought in this way. That's the reason why today India has the Tatas from the Parsi community, today Bollywood has a substantial number of Muslim artistes, one Muslim can dream to become the President of India following the footsteps of Mr. Kalam and on the contrary Pakistan has few achievements and many miles to go.
Anyway, to sway the people from their subcontinental identities, the Pakistani leadership came up with the concept of Pan-Islamism with a coveted desire of being included into the group of the revered Muslim races and to be a participant in establishing the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, there is no harm in aiming an objective but the base should be checked. Assuming something additional along with the existing and sacrificing the existing forsake of a new thing are totally different. Pakistan tried to mingle with the greater Arab community in this effort with the assumed identity of the new Muslim Brotherhood. Obviously, their efforts went nowhere but in vain. So, an active preacher of OIC ideology in 1960's and 1970's, Mr. Bhutto's efforts could not see substantial success while as a leader he and as the followers, the people of Pakistan completely sacrificed their own heritage, their culture, the rich history of their land - the land which was the cradle of the world's most ancient civilization, the Harappa and Mohenjodaro.
3. Non-Acceptance by the Arabs:
Now let's check the reactions of the Arab community towards the new assumed identity of the people of Pakistan as they tried to emerge with an idea of Pan Islamism. There is no doubt that the creation of Pakistan was very much applauded by the Arab, particularly the Sunni league of the middle east. The time was also favorable. The period of 1947, broadly the post world war scenario was very encouraging and it brought a new horizon in the life of Arab community as the importance and demand of the black gold saw a boom. So, the sympathy and generosity in terms of monetary help for Pakistan was no matter of concern at all but did this generosity start in some respectable or compassionate way? Did the Arab treat the people of Pakistan by allowing them in their own league?
There is a story, or rather I should say a narrative, a real life incident met by one Pakistani doctor in one middle east country, most probably Saudi Arabia. The doctor had some very good Arab friends there and one day they were discussing the historical phenomenon of the Arab people (basically Moor Arabs) losing Spain to the Europeans. The doctor narrated his view while expressing solidarity with his Arab friends that indeed it was a very tragic incident in their history, keeping himself aligned with his friends. By heart, he used to feel himself not different from the Arab community, rather two brothers of the same house. The interesting, but tragic part of the story was in the reactions and the concluding statements of his friends. It was something like this - "How did you people lose Spain? We lost it. You people are the Muslims from the subcontinent. Right?" So, such was the reaction of the Arab people towards Pakistan and even today, there is little change.
No doubt, every year Pakistan receives aids in terms of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and a few other middle east countries and the Pakistani leadership claims that their land reigns in the heart of the Muslim world. But is it so? They receive aid but do they receive respect from their Arab friends? The Pakistani migrant workers live in a pitiful condition in the middle east countries. They can never get nationality there even after spending decades. They are seen with suspicion and looked down upon by the communities there whereas, look at the USA. Many people have successfully migrated there - the Jews, the Asians, the Middle East people, people from many nations. After spending there, they have been successful to get nationality and thus have been successful to be a part of that country, When we look at the USA today as a powerful nation, sometimes we ridicule but we forget to consider these basic tenets in their policies. Do the Arab brothers of the Pakistani people exhibit such tolerance and welcome towards them? The answer is 'No'. In true sense, the Pakistani people were rejected by the Arab communities since its birth in 1947.
Not only the non-acceptance by the Arabs dealt a heavy blow towards the people and leadership of Pakistan in their efforts to assume a new identity, but also the mischievous behaviors and actions by the Arab leadership i.e. the royal families across the middle east to some extent have driven the Pakistani people into the darkness of identity crisis. The Arab world feels and frankly exercises what it wants to do with Pakistan in exchange of their oil dollars. One such example is every year, the Arab royals visit the deserts mountains of Pakistan for Houbara Bustard hunting and de facto no restrictions apply for them. In one incident, when the Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif and King Abdullah were addressing a joint session, there was no Pakistani flag kept in the podium whereas it's a mandatory norm to keep the flag of both the participating countries. Frankly speaking, such incidents demoralizing the concept of sovereignty of a country, here Pakistan were not a few and undoubtedly such incidents have a great negative impact on the people of Pakistan pushing them into state of identity crisis.
So, when USA in a covert SEAL operation hunted down Bin Laden in Abbottabad without the clearance and consent of the Pakistani government and military authority, all protests, all hue and cry spelled out nothing. When their own perceived fraternity has not accepted them, what can they expect from their friend turned perceived enemy?
Continued..
- A state (or nation) which has spent most of its post-independence time under myopic military dictatorship, where everyday innocent blood is being shed due to unbridled terrorist activities, where insurgency is being going on in a certain geography for decades, whose people have been deprived of their basic fundamental rights and amenities, where in this age of advanced science and technology literacy rate is still around 54%, where students are being taught religious texts overruling progressive literature - if the picture is something like this, then sorry to say but Pakistan fits there very well.
But why? In 1947, two nations India and Pakistan started their journey with similar proportionate resources and now in the first quarter of the twenty first century, India is the most discussed nation in all type of progressive forum whereas Pakistan is lagging behind and often termed as a "Terrorist State". So, what happened and what are the reasons? Though the reasons are inter-mingled with one another, I have tried to divide them under separate headers. Let's see one by one - Today publishing the 1st part.
1. Failure of the Two Nation Theory:
In 1947, British got independence but in a partitioned format - India and Pakistan. The founding theory was the most debated and controversial Two Nation Theory where the demarcation line was religion. Now, in Indian subcontinent where demography is so diverse but internally assimilated, was religion the sufficiently able single factor on which a demarcation line could be drawn? So, naturally, the concept proved to be fragile and India, which did not declare itself a Hindu state, could carry on with its integrity but Pakistan could not. The incident happened in just within 25 years of independence.
Here I would like to refer Maulana Azad, a Muslim nationalist who did not favor the idea of Pakistan, actually the idea of Two Nation Theory citing the same as a utterly probable failure. He warned that upcoming nation Pakistan which was planned of being composed of East Pakistan (mostly eastern part of Bengal) and West Pakistan would be a profound disaster. He explained that people in East Pakistan and people in West Pakistan were so different from each other that except their majority religion, there was nothing similar. So, they could not move ahead together. Azad's premonition came true very soon. In 1971, after a long history of deprivation, suppression and brutal tortures, the erstwhile Pakistan was dismembered - East Pakistan emerged as a new nation called Bangladesh.
Actually, if we see the people in the Indian subcontinent, they can't be divided because the dividing parameters firstly are very difficult to be identified and then it's very difficult to be implement the model developed by using those parameters. The people have lived here mingled internally to such a degree that they can't be distinguished separately and secluded from one another. The same applies while doing the experimentation on the basis of similarity as well.
Anyway, the result of Two Nation Theory tasted failures. First, just before independence and just after independence in the form of an environment of mutual distrust which resulted into communal riots and mass exodus and second, as discussed the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971. Now, was the in-between period and post 1971 period of Pakistan successful from the viewpoint of Two Nation Theory?
Well, applying the theory, Pakistan was created as a natural homeland for the subcontinent Muslims and that was the main proposition of the theory. But what does the experience of the Muslim people who settled there in 1947 and after 1947 say? The Muslims who went there were never welcomed by their brotherhood in Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi. In India till now, there has not seemed any group or political party to be created asking for the rights and demands of the Hindus or Muslims who migrated from Pakistan. But in Pakistan, MQM has been formed advocating for the Muslims who migrated there.Frankly speaking, this is the most glaring failure of Two Nation Theory. I can't remember the exact literals, but one Pakistani poet who migrated to Pakistan lamented - "Hum jhulaste hue registan ke liye mahekte hue gulistan chhod aye (For the scorched desert land, we left the fragrant rose garden)."
2. Dissociation from Subcontinental Identity:
No nation can survive without a identity because identity places itself before the other nations in terms of its background, culture, economic solvency, political importance everything. In this section, let's see how intentionally the people of Pakistan under their erring leadership first tried to shed their original identities to dissociate themselves from their subcontinent heritage and then tried to assume new identities which spelled into a utter failure.
The 1947 leadership of Pakistan (and the next generations as well) used to have an imaginary superiority complex of being the descendants of the ruling Muslim dynasty in the Indian subcontinent - "Humne toh Hindustna pe raj kiya hai, hum bade hai unche hai (We have ruled the Indian subcontinent, we are the better, we are the higher)." They used to see the non-Muslims belonged to some inferior category, the people who were their subjects during the Mughal period and whom they have ruled upon. More ironically, these leadership mainly composed of people from West Punjab and old Delhi areas even were not ready to accredit equal status to their own people who belonged to Bengali Muslim community in East Pakistan (I will discuss this again with some citations in some later section). So, after achieving their objective of Pakistan, the leadership tried to shun their subcontinental identity and tried to assume a new identity. They encouraged their people to follow this as well.
On this context, while drawing a comparison with respect to India, the majority which is the Hindu community have never thought in this way. That's the reason why today India has the Tatas from the Parsi community, today Bollywood has a substantial number of Muslim artistes, one Muslim can dream to become the President of India following the footsteps of Mr. Kalam and on the contrary Pakistan has few achievements and many miles to go.
Anyway, to sway the people from their subcontinental identities, the Pakistani leadership came up with the concept of Pan-Islamism with a coveted desire of being included into the group of the revered Muslim races and to be a participant in establishing the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, there is no harm in aiming an objective but the base should be checked. Assuming something additional along with the existing and sacrificing the existing forsake of a new thing are totally different. Pakistan tried to mingle with the greater Arab community in this effort with the assumed identity of the new Muslim Brotherhood. Obviously, their efforts went nowhere but in vain. So, an active preacher of OIC ideology in 1960's and 1970's, Mr. Bhutto's efforts could not see substantial success while as a leader he and as the followers, the people of Pakistan completely sacrificed their own heritage, their culture, the rich history of their land - the land which was the cradle of the world's most ancient civilization, the Harappa and Mohenjodaro.
3. Non-Acceptance by the Arabs:
Now let's check the reactions of the Arab community towards the new assumed identity of the people of Pakistan as they tried to emerge with an idea of Pan Islamism. There is no doubt that the creation of Pakistan was very much applauded by the Arab, particularly the Sunni league of the middle east. The time was also favorable. The period of 1947, broadly the post world war scenario was very encouraging and it brought a new horizon in the life of Arab community as the importance and demand of the black gold saw a boom. So, the sympathy and generosity in terms of monetary help for Pakistan was no matter of concern at all but did this generosity start in some respectable or compassionate way? Did the Arab treat the people of Pakistan by allowing them in their own league?
There is a story, or rather I should say a narrative, a real life incident met by one Pakistani doctor in one middle east country, most probably Saudi Arabia. The doctor had some very good Arab friends there and one day they were discussing the historical phenomenon of the Arab people (basically Moor Arabs) losing Spain to the Europeans. The doctor narrated his view while expressing solidarity with his Arab friends that indeed it was a very tragic incident in their history, keeping himself aligned with his friends. By heart, he used to feel himself not different from the Arab community, rather two brothers of the same house. The interesting, but tragic part of the story was in the reactions and the concluding statements of his friends. It was something like this - "How did you people lose Spain? We lost it. You people are the Muslims from the subcontinent. Right?" So, such was the reaction of the Arab people towards Pakistan and even today, there is little change.
No doubt, every year Pakistan receives aids in terms of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and a few other middle east countries and the Pakistani leadership claims that their land reigns in the heart of the Muslim world. But is it so? They receive aid but do they receive respect from their Arab friends? The Pakistani migrant workers live in a pitiful condition in the middle east countries. They can never get nationality there even after spending decades. They are seen with suspicion and looked down upon by the communities there whereas, look at the USA. Many people have successfully migrated there - the Jews, the Asians, the Middle East people, people from many nations. After spending there, they have been successful to get nationality and thus have been successful to be a part of that country, When we look at the USA today as a powerful nation, sometimes we ridicule but we forget to consider these basic tenets in their policies. Do the Arab brothers of the Pakistani people exhibit such tolerance and welcome towards them? The answer is 'No'. In true sense, the Pakistani people were rejected by the Arab communities since its birth in 1947.
Not only the non-acceptance by the Arabs dealt a heavy blow towards the people and leadership of Pakistan in their efforts to assume a new identity, but also the mischievous behaviors and actions by the Arab leadership i.e. the royal families across the middle east to some extent have driven the Pakistani people into the darkness of identity crisis. The Arab world feels and frankly exercises what it wants to do with Pakistan in exchange of their oil dollars. One such example is every year, the Arab royals visit the deserts mountains of Pakistan for Houbara Bustard hunting and de facto no restrictions apply for them. In one incident, when the Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif and King Abdullah were addressing a joint session, there was no Pakistani flag kept in the podium whereas it's a mandatory norm to keep the flag of both the participating countries. Frankly speaking, such incidents demoralizing the concept of sovereignty of a country, here Pakistan were not a few and undoubtedly such incidents have a great negative impact on the people of Pakistan pushing them into state of identity crisis.
So, when USA in a covert SEAL operation hunted down Bin Laden in Abbottabad without the clearance and consent of the Pakistani government and military authority, all protests, all hue and cry spelled out nothing. When their own perceived fraternity has not accepted them, what can they expect from their friend turned perceived enemy?
Continued..
