http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\16\story_16-6-2010_pg3_6
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
VIEW: Morals of nationalism -Muhammad Aftab Afzal
The first casualty of disregard to nation-building goals was the
evaporation of popular sentiments of pre-partition Muslim nationalism in the
eastern wing of the united Pakistan when the road signs were changed into Urdu
overnight in Dhaka in 1950
Does anyone know the differences between nationalism and
ultra-nationalism in practical terms and how Muslims can be defined and placed
in a particular set of things - a nation by state or a nation by community? And
more precisely, what would be the status of non-Muslim communities living in
Pakistan who are as much loyal to this land and the people as are their Muslim
similitude?
The dilemma is not that we lacked the ability to reach a consensus on
certain issues and devise a future course of action for the new state at the
time of Pakistan's inception, but we lacked discipline and integrity to
implement the vision of Quaid-i-Azam in the years after his death. The Quaid
wanted to see his creation as one country and one people, despite the fact that
the two wings of the state were geographically separated by 1,000 km and the
nation consisted of a diversity of people from different religious, cultural,
ethnic and racial backgrounds.
A trail of leaders who held the highest offices of the state after him
believed that the spirit of Islamic brotherhood, which prevailed during the
independence struggle, would remain intact by default. They chose to ignore
their failure at nation building, which accentuated religious, ethnic and
cultural differences. The first casualty of disregard to nation-building goals
was the evaporation of popular sentiments of pre-partition Muslim nationalism
in the eastern wing of the united Pakistan when the road signs were changed
into Urdu overnight in Dhaka in 1950.
The whims of the rulers were unnerving and unacceptable for the people
and proved to be catastrophic for the state. It not only changed the chemistry
of national politics, but also the course of history in East Pakistan. The move
was taken as an unequivocal message from the super-patriots of the western wing
to the Bengali populace that they had to learn Urdu without any other choice,
and that this was the only parameter to check their patriotism in a specified
term of reference. The result was the birth of an independent Bangladesh after
less than three decades of independence, while Islam had been nowhere in sight
as a binding force in the whole state of affairs.
Pakistan faced more challenges and fewer opportunities avowedly in the
early years of independence. The foremost area of concern for the leaders at
the helm was to frame the shape of state organs. The Quaid's death came as a
major blow to the nascent nation, but the friction between the second and third
tier of the Muslim League leadership also contributed to the destruction of the
nerve plexus of the state and the nation. And what they had sowed, we are still
reaping.
Then military intervention came in as our saviour, but the political
vacuum became amplified, only to be filled by politico-religious elements. The
soft and moderate image of Islam introduced by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto at the time,
met with tough resistance from rabble-rousing religious elements, who were
backed by the propertied classes, whose interests were severely damaged by his
socialisation policies. They were not ready to compromise on anything less than
his death for this unpardonable crime. The rest is history. The conflict
continues between those wanting to make Pakistan a theological state and those
looking to make it a liberal state.
The question remains: are we Muslims or Pakistanis by definition based on
the modern nationalist concept? Going by the rule of thumb, a person is
acceptable as a member of his clan besides being a member of a family, and a
house on a street is part of the locality, and, in a broader sense, of the city
and the country. What is the harm if a person is a Muslim and a Pakistani at
the same time? I do not think it will violate any code of Islamic jurisprudence
if a non-Muslim is placed in the same matrix. What if religion is placed in its
right place and confined to our hearts and minds only?
But the problem is more complicated than it appears. A majority of people
in this nation think they are right and all others are wrong. They want others
to be good Muslims without applying the same principles to their own personal
affairs. We are ever ready to challenge the qualifications of other Muslims
without making even the slightest effort to mend our own ways to conform to
Islamic principles. We accept the sanctity of Islam as far as it serves our
purpose, but sneak out when it comes hard on our interests. We never shy from
dividing the nation on ethnic, sectarian, regional and racial lines, as long as
it satiates our lust for power and money. When it comes to defining this nation
on secular lines, no one dares challenge the undaunted authority of the clergy
in this country. If a nation-state is nationalism, a binary approach to
religion and state may be ultra-nationalism.
The writer is a staff member and can be reached at [email protected]
<<20100616_dr-aftab.jpg>>
