Re. ---New Pakistan <newpakistanblog@gmail.com> wrote:
<<...The lack of democracy and its many institutions — initially discarded
by the secular military dictatorship of Ayub Khan — is also a
prominent reason why the military and the establishment were left
stumped by the religious parties' mantra in this respect.
by the secular military dictatorship of Ayub Khan — is also a
prominent reason why the military and the establishment were left
stumped by the religious parties' mantra in this respect.
What was being repressed in the discourse by the military and the civil
establishment was the glaring fact that Pakistan, even as a Muslim
country, was a land of great ethnic and sectarian diversity...>>
establishment was the glaring fact that Pakistan, even as a Muslim
country, was a land of great ethnic and sectarian diversity...>>
If one were to surgically incise and psychologically analyze the second part of this, unfortunately, well entrenched schizophrenic mind set, only then one could (perhaps) begin to understand the reasons behind the cynical choice of the "new" name "Islamabad" for the brand new, grounds up capital of a diverse country, that included a sizable number of Hindus in the then East Pakistan and Sind, some in Balochistan and the NWFP, also, not to forget some Sikhs and Christians as well. For any rational, thinking, prudent and forward looking society, starting anew, this was a golden opportunity to be inclusive for integrative emotions and feelings of the minorities that one hoped would become part of shared ethos, a growing gluing and bonding of 'new nation', with budding seedlings and feelings of a new 'Pakistani-hood.'
But sadly and unfortunately that was not to be. By our insensitive and imprudent decision and action, in which the minorities and their sentiments were totally ignored and excluded, they were told: You all are lesser Pakistanis, because Islamabad belongs to the Muslims and only they alone could relate to it as 'their' capital at an emotional level as citizens of the state. You guys are 'Pakistani-lite' at best, therefore, as such, you are not equally deserving to have the same right to be able to emotionally invested and relate to the capital of a country of which you happen to be equal citizens under the law.
It's a tragic historic irony that 'the secular military dictatorship of Ayub Khan', for shortsighted relgio-political correctness and gains squandered an opportunity and left such a permanent imprint blocking blossoming of a hopefully inclusive and cohesive nation-hood.
I am sure this is an incomplete and inconclusive subject, for as far as I know, not many gave it much thought then or now, nor have written about it.
Regards,
-Kalim
In the end to quote from Nadeem Paracha:
"state-sponsored Islam is not an organic construct. Thus, it is an insecure ideology that continues to blame outside forces, secularism and democracy for its own, very obvious, failures."
Comments?
From: omarali502000@yahoo.com
To: asiapeace@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 12/7/2009 3:15:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Asiapeace (ACHA) Fw: Nadeem Paracha: One-unit-faith
--- On Mon, 12/7/09, New Pakistan <newpakistanblog@gmail.com> wrote:
From: New Pakistan <newpakistanblog@gmail.com>
Subject: Nadeem Paracha: One-unit-faith
To: "New Pakistan" <new-pakistan@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 9:36 AM
http://www.new-pakistan.com/2009/12/7/nadeem-paracha-one-unit-faith
Recently, while giving a speech to the Peshawar police, General Ashfaq
Parvez Kayani said that no one could separate Islam from Pakistan. One
wonders what prompted the army chief to digress, and start assuring
his audience about Pakistan's Islamic credentials.
I guess he chose the occasion to comment on the military's take on a
(albeit unsubstantiated) news report stating that the Awami National
Party (ANP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) wanted to change
the country's name from Islamic Republic of Pakistan to People's
Republic of Pakistan. Even though both the ANP and MQM were quick to
refute the news, General Kayani's reassurance in this respect yet
again underlines the dilemma the military and the state of Pakistan
have been facing for years.
The dilemma constitutes political and ideological factors in which the
military has had the biggest stakes; but unfortunately it is also a
dilemma which the military has been rather reluctant to resolve.
According to respected historians, like the late K. K. Aziz and Dr
Mubarak Ali, the whole idea that 'Pakistan was made in the name of
Islam' and/or as an 'Islamic state', was nowhere to be found in the
ideological discourse of the state before 1962, when it was first
raised by the Jamat-i-Islami — a party that was opposed to the
creation of Pakistan.
Though the civil-bureaucracy conglomerate that presided over the
affairs of the state and the government in the 1950s decided to
officially start calling the country an 'Islamic Republic' (in 1956),
there was really no mention of such a republic in the early years of
the new country. Scholars like Aysha Jalal and Pervez Hoodbhoy suggest
that right from the beginning the concept of Islam being a part of
Pakistan's nationhood and the state carried contradictory messages.
The country's founder was a secular Muslim, married to a non-Muslim
and a strong defender of the notion that the state should confine its
authority to the secular sphere. Throughout the Pakistan Movement, Mr
Jinnah's party, the Muslim League, overwhelmingly had secular-minded
leaders who treated the Muslims of the subcontinent as a separate
cultural (as opposed to a strictly politico-religious) entity. Their
demand was for a separate Muslim state and not an Islamic state.
There is no way that Pakistan was conceived as an Islamic state by its
founding fathers. This becomes apparent by the way orthodox Islamic
parties like the Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the creation of Pakistan.
Had Jinnah pictured the new country as an Islamic state, there was no
reason why parties like the Jamat would oppose its creation. It's as
simple as that.
However, unable to convincingly define its ideology, the state started
to capitulate in the face of the mounting pressure exerted by the
religious parties. Thus, from 1962 onwards, the largely synthetic
ideological construct of Pakistan being an Islamic Republic requiring
an Islamic state began taking shape.
The lack of democracy and its many institutions — initially discarded
by the secular military dictatorship of Ayub Khan — is also a
prominent reason why the military and the establishment were left
stumped by the religious parties' mantra in this respect. What was
being repressed in the discourse by the military and the civil
establishment was the glaring fact that Pakistan, even as a Muslim
country, was a land of great ethnic and sectarian diversity.
Its people constituted Urdu-speakers (Mohajirs), Sindhis, Pathans,
Siriakis, Baloch, Bengalis, and many others; and also people belonging
to various Islamic sects and sub-sects. By imposing the ruse that
Pakistan was 'one unit' (a collective body of homogenous Muslims) was
a naïve evaluation that only ended up alienating the many ethnically
distinct strains of Muslims and the minorities that made Pakistan
their home.
In other words, Pakistan's identity and ideology should have been
squarely based on a democratic acceptance of its ethnic, religious and
sectarian diversity, instead of the establishment's rather convoluted
'one ideology for all' brand of Islam. We are not an ethnically and
culturally homogenous nation following a singular version of Islam, or
of the state for that matter as far as religious minorities are
concerned.
We are a nation of various groups of diversified people who can remain
united as a country with the help of democracy alone. Only democracy
can achieve such a state of unity. But such a state usually has not
gone down well with Islamists and the military — even after years of
ethnic, political and religious turmoil and cleavages that the one-
unit-Islam has caused across the long dictatorships Pakistan has had
to suffer.
It is time our military and religious parties let go of the fear of a
democratically accepted, diverse Pakistan; especially the military,
which is now fighting a vital battle in the northwest — ironically
with the monstrous pitfalls of the synthetic state-sanctioned Islam
imposed through years of undemocratic rule and a crass undermining of
what Pakistani nation and society are really about: i.e. ethnic and
religious diversity requiring an uninterrupted stretch of democracy.
So what if some Pakistanis want to change the name of the country? It
is only the synthetic nature and fragility of the one-unit-Islam that
causes hearts to flutter, because state-sponsored Islam is not an
organic construct. Thus, it is an insecure ideology that continues to
blame outside forces, secularism and democracy for its own, very
obvious, failures.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Pakistan" group.
To post to this group, send email to new-pakistan@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to new-pakistan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/new-pakistan?hl=en.
__._,_.___
