This piece was originally written for the "Understanding Pakistan Project" initiated by Athar Ossama, a renowned Pakistani American scholar and activist found here: http://www.understandingpakistan.com/

When I was first asked to contribute to the "Understanding Pakistan" effort I was not sure what it meant: What Pakistan were we talking about or what Pakistan were we trying to understand? The country, the state, the people or the historical ideal which led to its creation? But as the project has progressed it has become clear that this is a serious effort to understand why and how a country named Pakistan actually came into existence and what it is all about. Allow me to start off by saying that you cannot understand Pakistan until and unless you understand how the demise of the ideal of Pakistan was brought about by its own people.

I will venture so far as to say that Pakistan has ceased to exist and what exists in its place is an imposter at best, kept alive by forces which need this part of the world for their own agendas. However unlike other self styled arm chair analysts, I will not pin point 1971 as the death of Pakistan- partly because history tells us that Jinnah was ready to concede an independent Bangladesh in 1947 and that it was Nehru who had insisted on there being two countries instead of one (See "Shameful Flight" by Stanley Wolpert on this issue). In my opinion it was 1974 which was to Jinnah’s 1947 what 1984 was to Orwell’s 1948 for 1974 marked the same end of idealism and beginning of perversion in its name that was depicted so brilliantly by Orwell both in 1984 and the Animal Farm. For all the oaths taken in order to preserve the ideology of Pakistan, it was this tragic events of this year, coming so soon after Pakistan’s first unanimous constitution, that dealt a deathblow to the true ideology of Pakistan. Make no mistake about it- The real Pakistan no longer exists. It died at the very young age of 27. What it needs is another Messiah with the power to raise the dead.

Consider: The cornerstone of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah and Muslim League’s struggle to achieve Pakistan was that a permanent majority should not, by sheer numerical weight, be allowed to dominate a permanent minority- that whatever constitutional scheme is ultimately adopted should have unanimity and support of every community of India. When Jinnah took over the realm of the Muslim League, he did so with every intention of fighting for every Muslim – regardless of his sectarian or theological bent. Himself an Ismaili shia-turned Ithna Ashari, Jinnah understood the majority and minority dynamics within the Muslim community very well. Being a liberal of the Morley school, he was free of bias and prejudice himself, be it against another sect or religion. He, therefore, resisted tooth and nail any and every effort by certain elements of the Muslim community to get Ahmadi sect thrown out of the Muslim League, going so far as to declare that those who were advocating such beliefs were trying to weaken Muslim Unity. As long as he remained alive, no one dared raise an objection to his dependence on Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan, a leading Ahmadi Muslim and Jinnah’s foreign minister, for constitutional and other matters. Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan had, it must be noted, played a key role in the drafting and vetting of the famous Lahore Resolution which became the founding document for Pakistan. When the time came for pleading Pakistan’s case before the boundary commission, the Muslim League took the solemn position that certain regions of Gurdaspur should fall into Pakistan simply because- and this is the irony- Qadian was a Muslim Holy Place.

That was a different Pakistan. In Jinnah’s Pakistan, where a scheduled caste Hindu could be trusted to head the law ministry of the country, the question of an entire sect’s status as Muslim would never have been discussed in the parliament. Soon after Jinnah’s departure, when Pakistan was barely six years old, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami – both of whom had decried the creation of Pakistan and abused Jinnah as long as he was alive- raised the issue of Ahmadis’ status as a Muslim. This was encouraged by some quarters in the country to bring down the government of Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin, a thorough gentleman politician and a very pious Muslim, who to his credit refused to give into such blackmail. On the contrary, Pakistan’s courts handed down a death sentence (which was never carried out) for Maulana Maududi for fanning sectarian hatred in Pakistan. It was 21 years later, however, that similar agitation against another Prime Minister, probably the strongest Prime Minister in Pakistan’s history , succeeded in forcing his hand and getting the status of the Ahmadiyya sect changed to non-Muslim.

Imagine this – a country founded on the principle that no permanent majority ought to dictate to a permanent minority any terms or conditions, negated and rubbished its own basic principle by declaring that an entire sect- and a sect that had so actively supported Jinnah and his ideal of Pakistan at that- was no longer Muslim. "Democracy" declared the supporters of this callously wrong step which brought down the very structure upon which Pakistan was based. After having valiantly fought and won against the tyranny of the Hindu majority in United India, the Muslims of Pakistan had suddenly discovered that tyranny of the majority was perfect "democracy" as long as it was they who were in the majority. Thus Jinnah’s Pakistan was laid to rest amidst "democratic" applause by Pakistan’s supreme body and the Mullahs had finally extracted their pound of flesh from the idea of Pakistan.

The whole idea that a state can tell a citizen what his or her faith is thoroughly an alien concept for modern statehood. It was also a direct violation of the basic principle that was embodied in the very unanimous and the very Islamic constitution of 1973 i.e. interpretation of Islamic injunctions according to each sect’s own interpretation. Presumably this principle was given expression to put an end to the controversy of who is Muslim and who is not. Yet in 1974 this principle was set aside in favor majoritarian fascism in order to win over the votes of a certain small group of people. Had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto- the self proclaimed Quaid-e-Awam- been made of sterner stuff like the Quaid-e-Azam was, Pakistan’s early demise could have been averted but this was not to be so. Pakistan’s Napoleon chose his own power over the country he claimed to love.

The result has been both disastrous and absurd but least of all for the community it has targeted. The persecution that followed forced the best and brightest minds in the Ahmaddiyya community- hitherto in service of Pakistan- to leave the country. Today this community has spread world wide and is one of the fastest growing missionary movements in the world. But the absurdity that was created as a result has guaranteed that the remnant of the Pakistan that died in 1974 shall forever remain on the wrong side of history. This has been cemented by further Kafkaesque tragedies like Zaheeruddin v. State, where our courts applied Intellectual Property Law to religion (as if Islam is an incorporated business entity) in complete contravention to Article 20 of Constitution of Pakistan. Apparently, Ahmadis are not even allowed to give Azaan because it may outrage the feelings of the majority- forget religious freedom, doing so can land an Ahmadi into jail for three years without recourse.

Further absurdities include the ex post facto continuation of the claim that Pakistan was unjustly treated in 1947 when Gurdaspur was given to India. Forget that the Muslim majority in Gurdaspur was only a majority if Ahmadis were counted as Muslims. In a discussion about the creation of Pakistan with a colleague who insisted Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and two nation theory, I repeated Jinnah’s 1940 address in Lahore, which is quoted as the best articulation of the two nation theory, and asked my colleague, a well intentioned religious minded fellow, if according to the points mentioned by the Quaid, Ahmadis fell with the Muslims or the Hindus. My colleague’s answer was: "Yes I admit Ahmadis according to Quaid’s articulation of the two nation theory fell with the Muslims, but falling with the Muslims is not the same as being Muslim." In other words, Ahmadis maybe part of the "Muslim nationhood" but are not Muslims by faith. Absurdities abound.