More than sixty years
have passed since the inception of Pakistan and a lot has happened since then.
The country swayed between democracy and dictatorship, developed a nuclear
arsenal, survived two major wars with the neighboring India and is still struggling
through the war on terror. Pakistanis learnt many things too. They learnt that
the cost of wars will always be paid from their pockets, that the world powers
are their friends only till their interests are aligned with them, that
democratic leaders and dictators can both somehow manage to get away with all
the corruption and still come back to power. But what they have not learnt till
now is the answer to the most basic question, “Who are we?”
Most of the people in
the world link their nationality to ethnicity. For example, Saudi Arabians are
the host of Arab tribes who have been inhabiting the deserts of central Arabia
for centuries. Iranians are a multitude of ethnic groups which have dwelled in
the region for hundreds of years and gradually consolidated into a nation. Same
goes for Afghans, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turks etc. Pakistanis don’t fall into this
group for multiple reasons. Firstly, they don’t comprise of a single ethnicity
or miscible ethnicities. Each province of Pakistan is home to a different
ethnic group having stark differences with other ethnic groups of the country.
Secondly, many of them had not even been living in what is now Pakistan before
the partition of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent. They migrated from the present day
India to live in the newly formed state. Moreover, most of the ethnic groups
found in Pakistan also dwell in India. For example, Punjab is divided between
Pakistan and India and Punjabis live on both sides of the border. So,
Pakistanis can’t define their nationalism on the basis of ethnicity.
Above mentioned scenario
is that of a land which is turned into a country by the people inhabiting it.
Another scenario is that of a people who become a nation by inhabiting a land.
Canadians, for instance, don’t share common ethnic background. They even
comprise of different races altogether. All they share is a common land.
Unfortunately, Pakistanis cannot define their identity even on this model.
Before the creation of Pakistan, the people of Pakistan and present day India
inhabited a common land. If the land is supposed to define the Pakistani
nationalism, then why was the Subcontinent partitioned in the first place?
The only grounds left
for defining Pakistani nationalism is ideology. The Two Nation Theory is what
made the present day Pakistanis break away from United India. But then arises
the question whether the Two Nation Theory necessitates Pakistan to be an
Islamic state, or can the theory remain intact while the country inches towards
secularism? Or precedently, is the theory even plausible?
The idea that the Two
Nation Theory is implausible is not new, but recently it has grown stronger in
the minds of many Pakistanis who tend to adhere to the secular principles. The
fact that most of the people who had experienced the events which defined the
postulates of the Two Nation Theory are no longer alive, and the next
generation was unable to grasp the concept of Muslim nationalism in the
Subcontinent, contribute directly to the dissatisfaction of many Pakistanis
with their national identity. Regardless, the reality is that Pakistan has been
created, and debating over whether the theory on which it relied for its
ideological foundation was plausible or not is now irrelevant. The events of
1947 cannot be undone. Living apart for half a century has surely turned the
Pakistanis and Indians into two separate nations even if it was not so at the
time of partition, and there is absolutely no chance of reunification,
particularly because of the blood that has been spilt on both sides.
What difference then
remains between the Pakistanis and Indians? Both shared a common land and
both share common ethnic background. The only difference that remains is that
of religion. Many have tried to negate this fact but its the only conclusion on
which everyone will arrive after going through the history of Pakistan
movement.
The question whether the
partition in the name of religion necessitates the establishment of an Islamic
state for the Pakistanis can be debated over. There are two possibilities;
either this country was created to be an Islamic state or a Muslim state. The
term ‘Muslim state’ might be new for some people, but it simply means a state
in which Muslims live in majority and can practice their religion freely
without any un-Islamic or secular principles that might come in the way of their freedom of
religious practice. It does not include the imposition of the Sharia by the
government. On the other hand, an Islamic state is one in which every component
of the state and the society is regulated by the Islamic principles. Regardless
of this decision, which must be taken collectively by the people of
Pakistan, the Pakistanis can only be defined as the Muslims of
Subcontinent who chose to live in a separate state to practice their religion freely and openly, which was not possible in a Hindu dominant society.
