Skip to main content

Our Problems

Smokers’ Corner: Let’s let go, Nadeem F. Paracha 
Two of the most common comments I receive through emails are: ‘If only Pakistan imposes true Islamic system, we’ll be able to get rid of the hypocrisies committed in its name.’ Of course, most of such suggestions are purposed by my fellow Pakistanis. The other comment in this regard is usually from Dawn readers living in India or the West. It’s a simple question: ‘Why are Pakistanis always so engrossed about religion?’
But, the problem is, the less equipped or inclined we are to questioning what we’ve been told, the more one-dimensional remains our understanding of the diverse range of people that reside in Pakistan; and also, that we become more vulnerable to the continuous volley of half-truths and glorified delusions that have been coming our way from dictators, textbooks and certain media crackpots.
The whole notion of being a country buzzing with ethnic, sectarian and religious diversity becomes something to be afraid of. To many this is something to be repressed with the help of an ideology that has, over the decades, been imposed upon this diversity by a curious nexus of so-called modernist Muslims and their more myopic and puritanical counterparts. At the centre of this all is an ever-weakening state, which, from 1947 till 1977, shunned recognising the dynamics of Pakistan’s diversity by imposing a nationalistic Muslim identity.
It didn’t work. In the absence of the kind of democracy that a diverse nation requires, this all-encompassing Muslim nationalism only ended up alienating the centuries-old cultural moorings of the numerous ethnicities in Pakistan. So, as the Baloch, Sindhis and Pashtuns rose up in anger; Bengalis of the former East Pakistan did the same, who eventually decided to rip themselves away from Pakistan’s ideological equation.
Though the anti-diversity dynamics of Muslim nationalism were, by and large, successful in keeping this ideology’s more radical advocates at bay, the 1971 East Pakistan debacle left this ideology vulnerable to the influence of what was once dismissed as being the Islamist fringe. Gradually, especially with the arrival of the dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq, the ideology’s early modernist dictum of modernising Islam was turned on its head when the new ideologues decided to Islamise the modern. Sir Syed gave way to Abul Ala Mawdudi.
The kind of theological, political and cultural damage this long-winded attitude has inflicted in the past three decades has made the state and governments of Pakistan willing hostages to the abrasive and reactionary ways of the puritanical ideologues. What’s more, today, even some of the most educated young Pakistanis have lost the capacity to question what is dished out to them as Islamic/Pakistani history and ideology. We are still not prepared to face an obvious truth that may put the very essence and foundation of our so-called ideology into question.
Has not this ideology — first of modernist ‘One Unit’ Islam, and then the exhibitionistic and militaristic version of it — completely failed to achieve what it wanted to? That is, to turn a diverse Pakistan into a united, ideological whole based on religion? It was always an over-ambitious and Utopian task. We were never ‘one people’ in the organic sense of the word. The majority of us were Muslims (and still are), but our understanding of the faith is intricately linked to and informed by the cultural moorings of our own distinct ethnicities and sects.
Laws and policies cannot be made to succeed based upon the simple idea that all Muslims believe in the same God and the same book. What passes as Islamic law in certain Arab countries would be an anachronism in Pakistan. In the same way, what may be a success (as an Islamic law) in certain areas of the Deobandi dominated Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could be offensive to the Barelvi or Shia dominated areas of the Punjab and Sindh. There has never been a consensus among the sects and ethnicities of Pakistan about the ideology of Pakistan. How can there be?
Shouldn’t the consensus be more about recognising the ethnic and sectarian diversity of this country, giving all the democratic participants of this diversity as much autonomy as possible (through a fair democratic process) to take responsibility of just how much religion, or what sort of religion (if at all), would every ethnicity and sect want to use in their respective communities’ politics and society? The state’s role should be to make sure that such a national consensus holds and that none of the state’s institutions is allowed to identify with any one ethnic or sectarian group or its ideology.
We have to finally recognise (on an official level) that we live in a land of manifold ethnicities and multiple interpretations of Islam. This phenomenon has to be harnessed and celebrated, not repressed or be afraid of. This kind of repression has produced nothing but an ideological neurosis that we suffer from today.

Popular posts from this blog

A historic moment in the Arab world

لحظة تاريخية في العالم العربي
As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera's director-general, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what's happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond. In the first talk posted online from the TED 2011 conference in California, Khanfar describes the powerful moment when people realised they could step out of their homes and ask for change. "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير العام والأسهم وجهة نظر متفائلة بشكل كبير ما يحدث في مصر وتونس وليبيا وخارجها. وفي اول حديث له نشر على الانترنت من مؤتمر تيد 2011 في ولاية كاليفورنيا ، خنفر يصف لحظة قوية عند الناس أدركت أنها لا يمكن الخروج من منازلهم ونطلب من أجل التغيير." This talk was given on March 1, 2011 in Long Beach, California. TED 2011 is taking place between March 1 and Mar…

Our Captured, Wounded Hearts: Arundhati Roy On Balakot, Kashmir And India

With his reckless “pre-emptive” airstrike on Balakot in Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inadvertently undone what previous Indian governments almost miraculously, succeeded in doing for decades. Since 1947 the Indian Government has bristled at any suggestion that the conflict in Kashmir could be resolved by international arbitration, insisting that it is an “internal matter.” By goading Pakistan into a counter-strike, and so making India and Pakistan the only two nuclear powers in history to have bombed each other, Modi has internationalised the Kashmir dispute. He has demonstrated to the world that Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous place on earth, the flash-point for nuclear war. Every person, country, and organisation that worries about the prospect of nuclear war has the right to intervene and do everything in its power to prevent it.  Keep reading  >>>>

India has built around itself an aura of a global power whose time has come. For at least the last t…

Kashmir Jihad - Analysis & Options


Kashmir is an incomplete agenda of partition of India. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars on this issue. According to UN resolutions, Kashmiris have to decide their accession to Pakistan or India through impartial plebiscite, which could not take place due to Indian reluctance. Recently, India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to Kashmir, it was done to unilaterally integrate occupied Kashmir. This is a violation of the UN resolutions and the Simla bilateral agreement, which demands to maintain status quo until the final settlement. The US and world powers are emphasizing that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally, though India has refused to hold talks with Pakistan. In the present scenario, while India has turned Kashmir into the largest prison of 9 million people, denying basic human rights and oppressing the Kashmiris' who want freedom from India, Pakistan cannot watch as a silent spec…