Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan

this clown is still blaming dead hindus from 50 years ago. look around Rutgters middlers..the answer lies closer to home.

`Before the British colonised the subcontinent, the people of this region existed in overlapping sets of multiple identities, where contending sovereignty of identity groups was negotiated and power was shared at several levels.`

Yes, among many overlapping multiple identities, there were those of serfs and lords, aaqaa and ghulaam, slave and slave owner, sultan and awaam.

It was a shame that the british introduced democracy and freedom to protest to the mix..

[[[First and foremost it would require Pakistan and Pakistanis to accept that Pakistan is a multicultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and even a multi-national state, that a Pakistani citizen has multiple identities encompassing multiple situations and multiple classes, that there is no hard and fast distinction between majority and minority but rather an accommodation between the various identities and classes that contribute to making Pakistan one whole.]]

YLH sahib
Excellent article!!!
Very timely,intelligent, sensitive and relevant geo-political analysis of past, current and future strategies of and for Pakistan.
Yes,I do accept that Pakistanis should realize that Pakistan can only survive ,if, all ethnicities gather under one Pakistani flag as one Pakistani nation (yet practicing their own faiths and clinging to their own multiple identities)...

All Pakistanis(regardless of religion/ethnicity/region/culture) must realize that, there is no other solution to their problems, except,living together as one Pakistani nation ,but, respecting eachother`s identities..................

Pakistan is @ it`s critical juncture.......Pakistanis can not afford to lose Pakistan based on their ethnic differences...........this country is for Urdu speaking Karachiits, for Punjabies, for Balochis, for kashmiris, for Pathans and for sindhis.......No one is superior to anyone, no one is more Pakistani than other.......

We should have one and only goal to achieve....to see a Progressive and modern Pakistan.....

From an old Chowk Article (1999)
Falsehoods Galore by Fauziya Khan

<<< Since its creation, Pakistan`s leadership has defined its existence by saying, ``Pakistan is the savior of Muslims in all of the Indian sub-continent,`` ``Muslims should not be ruled by Hindus as they will be oppressed,`` etc. The true reason, though, is not the fear of oppression. It is fueled by a greed for power and control by three groups of people -- feudal lords, clergy, and most importantly, the army.

The feudal lords, who to-date control Pakistan`s polity, feel bitter that the Afghan/Persian/Mughal feudal empire that flourished for about 800 years is gone and in a democracy like India`s they have no chance of coming to power. They cannot reconcile to the democratic concept of majority rule, which would turn their world topsy-turvy. A true democracy where the electorate is educated (not just literate) is a pure meritocracy. Their feudal aspirations would come to a screeching halt in India.

The second group is Pakistan`s clergy who hate every other religion -- both philosophically and strategically. If their constituents were to become truly educated (not just brought up on a religious preaching) -- as would happen in a democratic country -- and exposed to the broader world around them, no one would be interested in their narrow-minded theocratic tirades. Their educated constituents would clearly say that anything short of full respect and tolerance for their fellow human beings is against, God forbid, God`s word. Their flock would desert them the moment it sensed the wolf in sheep`s garb.

So, they hatched this wonderful blueprint for Pakistan about half a century ago. A country based on a seemingly valid concern -- subjugation of Muslims by Hindus. Mohammed Ali Jinnah became the ideal fall guy. Who would not trust the word of that irreligious man? Never mind that Hindus and populations of the other native religions had been the ones subjugated for over a thousand years by the forefathers of the elite who were making innocent and injured noises now. Once Pakistan was formed, Jinnah was promptly thrown into a cell, albeit well furnished, and declared ill. Now the country was the feudal lords` and the clergy`s to rule. To enforce their ironclad laws, they brought in the army. However, the army and its sister agencies, instead of listening to these people, became the center of power for Pakistan. There are no guarantees in Pakistan -- the constitution is after all written on paper and in a country where over 70% of the people are illiterate there is not much chance of many knowing the constitution. We all know how long paper lasts. A gun on the other hand, lasts a lot longer and is very effective in disposing off certain elements that are inconvenient. It takes a whole lot of paper to do any serious damage.

Pakistan has thus turned into an oligarchy well versed in the art of making things disappear. The feudal lords, the clergy and the army top brass, all have found wonderful ways of pocketing the hard cash their country comes by through the generosity of the foolish West. Most of this money goes to ensure a comfortable and notably un-Islamic retirement for many of these kleptocrats (sic.) in places far away from the dirt and squalor of their own country. In addition, the arms that the United States furnished the Afghan mujahideen have been found to have developed a certain liking for Pakistan, and hence acquired permanent residency there, having expressed the desire to fly east of the border to burst forth on the infidels.

It is amply evident that the elite that has founded and administered Pakistan has no interest in the liberation of the people whose cause they so wholeheartedly espouse at every given opportunity. Their agenda is clear -- power at any cost and disregard for other religions. If that means a few million human lives, so be it. In addition, for the Pakistan clergy, the only way they can ever control their people is through teaching them hatred. >>>

YLH:
Here is a wonderful song on the Quaid. Sayaa tha Muhammed, Ali ka tere sar pe! Islam ke sipahi! Islam hota hai zinda har Karbala ke baad!

A good article indeed but rather belated! Where we stand now we seem to have lost the very identity on which the movement for Pakistan was based. I mean the very Muslim identity which one could claim as of right before partition has become questionable now. Presently, the single identity represented by MQM, is challenging all other identities with their `Matarwa gardi` by converting Karachi, the real `Shah rag` of Pakistan, into a `No-go` area for even the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Let us wait and see what comes of this `Ghunda gardi` out to save shaky `Matarwa Shahi`.

Muslim League into a Pakistan League open to all citizens of Pakistan


Well that problem`s solved, seeing as how Pakiland is 97% muslim....

So you and your fellow 3% non-muslims can`t be part of it..but 97% of pakis can...

``the centralised Indian identity proved itself to be intolerant of smaller communal and ethnic identities``

Factually incorrect my friend. Smaller religio-ethnic groups have been making India their home for a few thousand years. e.g,

THE JEWS OF KERALA
There is no consensus of opinion on the date of the arrival of the first Jews in India. The tradition of the Cochin Jews maintains that after 72 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, 10,000 Jews migrated to Kerala. A second tradition says that the Jews are the descendants of the Jews taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar and then released by Cyrus of Persia in the sixth century B.C. A third theory holds the view that they came to India
in 370 from Majorca where they were exiled by the Roman Emperor Vespasian. A fourth tradition, the Christian tradition, says that when St. Thomas the Apostle visited Muziris in 52 A.D., he stayed in the Jewish quarter. The only verifiable historical evidence about the Kerala Jews goes back only to the Jewish Copper Plate Grant of Bhaskara Ravi Varman of 1000 A.D. This docu-ment records the royal gift of rights and privileges to the Jewish Chief of Anjuvannam Joseph Rabban.

http://www.shelterbelt.com/KJ/khjews.html

These groups amalgamated themselves with the local culture which gradually rose into an Indian identity, as it exists today. These groups, notably the Jews & Parsees never went into converting locals to their religion and were noted for their community service.

Please do get your facts right before posting.

Yasser,

“First and foremost it would require Pakistan and Pakistanis to accept that Pakistan is a multicultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and even a multi-national state, that a Pakistani citizen has multiple identities encompassing multiple situations and multiple classes”

Pakistani liberals, democrats, leftists and the nationalist all have been asking for this since 1956. The non recognition of the Bengali nationality and the language led to 1971.However, after 1971, the smaller provinces and nationalities have been put against multiple forces backed by the army to deny these very natural and reasonable demands. Pakistan is a country of many nationalities. The recognition of this fact is heavily tied with the demand of sharing resources.

“One way would be to introduce a third house, shall we say a ``People`s Assembly``, to the parliament. While the existing houses of parliament should continue as is, it would make sense to have a larger house elected along and across communal, ethnic, sectarian and other divides in our society.”

Senate in Pakistan was specifically created in the 1973 constitution to provide equal representation to all provinces. The purpose was to have equal number of senators from all provinces and their job was to ensure that the National Assembly would not create laws that adversely effect one or more provinces. Pakistani Senate is different than the Rajia Sabha in India or the upper house in UK. It is modeled after the US senate where every state has equal number of Senators regardless of the population.

The effectiveness of the senate was first diluted by ZAB himself and then the Zia regime amended the constitution to add “technocrat seats” to the senate to further dilute the Senate role. That way Zia regime was able ensure that the Senate is unable to protect the rights of the provinces.

My suggestion to you would be to demand the restoration of the constitution to its original form of 1973. There were many flaws in 1973 constitution but it did provide the framework for future political and constitutional debates.

Any effort to create a ``Peoples Assembly`` along the lines that you are suggestion would actually work for the non political forces to foment and encourage disputes and dissent between many competing interests. The people’s assembly would become a forum for promoting hatred and would be used to divide people.

We need to understand the undemocratic forces we are dealing with in Pakistan. Despite proclaiming one nation, one religion and one language, they have been very successful in creating fissures along the sunni-shia, Mohajir-Sindhi and Wahabi and non wahabi lines.

The Peoples assembly that you are suggesting would actually be a tool to further divide Sindh into Sindhi and Balochi, Balochistan in to Balochi and Pathan. Punjab in to saraiki and Punjabi, and NWFP in to Pathans and Hazarawal.

I cannot figure out your thought process behind this suggestion.

Manto:

The constitution of 1973 is sufficient. Allow it to work and Pakistan can save itself from its contemporary failure.

While we often debate on why Pakistan couldn`t work, in the end it comes down to allowing individuals to GET AWAY with breaking the law. Independent institutions can ensure checks and balances. The people need to make it known that their laws and institutions cannot be fiddled with. This spirit was always lacking in Pakistan. I would like to dream it is no longer lacking today. If people side for the supremacy of the law and the institutions, no one can get away with treason - such as what Musharaf has done.

The humiliation of being Pakistan was evident on May 12th - and those us - myself include, who welcomed Musharaf`s treason in 1999 should redeem ourselves by calling for his ejection from the country at best to facing the penalty for committing treason.

If the supremacy of laws is not shown or implemented, it is pointless trying to create idealistic whims. If something as basic as the 1973 Constitution acceptable by all cannot work, nothing ever will or should. If Musharaf is made an example of, Pakistan will be the better for it. If he comes out victorious this place will remain a miserably failed, could-have-been state.

If the Turkish can rally to defend their laws, so can Pakistanis. This act, ie the struggle for ensuring rights, is more important for a nation than any one ideology.

HP,

My idea is clearly open to misunderstanding and I recognised this when I wrote it.

The idea is very simple. Instead of ignoring the fact that people do have identities, we make people realise that they are not just Mohajir or Pathan in exclusion to all else but they may be Mohajir and Barelvi ... and/or Pathan and Barelvi ... and so on and so forth.
Such a recognition and its democratic expression would force people to accomodate and make alliance across and along ethnic, sectarian and religious boundaries.

Contrary to your fear, I think this will do the exact opposite... build a Pakistani identity ground up. Thanks for saying ``Peoples assembly``... I should be ``Peoples` Assembly`` instead of ``people`s assembly``. My idea is not inspired by Left, right or any ideology but simply from what I feel is the only way to empower all groups sufficiently enough in a truly democratic framework to come together as Pakistanis.



Rozaiba...

I used to believe that untill I applied myself to reading the horrendous document that our constitution is. In my view... it is precisely the inadequacy of the 1973 constitution that is the problem.

The constitution of 1973 is unworkable, anti-minority and has too many trojan horses of fascist tendencies.... for it to ever work to the benefit of Pakistan.

Chennai mian,

It seems to me that you haven`t read the article... because what you`ve quoted seconds my entire spiel...

The centralised Indian identity did not exist for thousands of years... which is why the over all Indian identity was accomodating to many different religions and cultures.

Yasser,
Boy have you matured over the last few years! An interesting article. At points it almost seemed you were wistful about a unified India...I believe that too was Iqbal`s original idea and not a separate country...but history cannot be rewritten.

I think the problem with your vision of a pluralistic and tolerant society is that the vast majority of pakistanis are uneducated, those who are educated by the state are poorly educated and it is only those who are rich enough to have the privelege of a private education that can think in these modern terms.
So, my solution would be to change pakistan`s education system so that the state can provide decent education which makes one think and not learn `facts` by rote. Because it is a globally observed phenomenon and the more educated people are the more tolerant they are of difference.

As for democracy, adding a third chamber would only add to the confusion and corruption.
I really think democracy works best in societies which have high levels of literacy i.e. approaching 100%. otherwise people just vote for their local candidate whom they know based on tribal considerations. Iqbal`s criticism that `democracy merely counts heads, and not the intelligence of voters` is an apt one.
I think there is a strong case to only allow those with a minimal level of education --i would say a degree--but in the pakistani situation, let` say matriculation to vote.

and all that AFTER the army fucks off back to their barracks and stops interfering in the running of the country. Will that day ever come?
Maybe we need a pacifist constitution FORCED on us like Japan after WW2?

Arjun,

(So you and your fellow 3% non-muslims can`t be part of it..but 97% of pakis can...)

The problem with that is that everyone`s definition of Muslim isn`t the same. Someone can be disqualified from the definition of Muslim according to sect, language, belief, dress, food habits, gender, sexual orientation et al.

For instance Manto mian may claim to be Muslim but Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) would be horrified at that claim.

Manto mian/Rozaiba,

(The constitution of 1973 is unworkable, anti-minority and has too many trojan horses of fascist tendencies.... )

I dont know much of the Pak 1973 Consitution but any document which refuses to treat each and every citizen as having equal rights and responsibilities and fails to give citizens/institutions/governments a fair mechanism to ensure their rights is liable to failure in the long run.

(Independent institutions can ensure checks and balances. )

Absolutely. It does not matter what system of government you choose, you have got to have independent institutions which can ensure checks and balances.

One fundamental right that the Indian Constitution defines is the ``Right to Constitutional Remedies`` a provision by which any Indian citizen can question any trampling over his rights (I am not of course suggesting that these rights are always enforced)

(introduce a third house, shall we say a ``People`s Assembly``, )

I am not sure what incremental advantage your proposal would secure. Firstly, how would you define identities- is it just ``communal, ethnic, sectarian`` identities that you propose or others like gender, sexual orientation, food habits, single or married, economic status and such other labels ad infinitum. Secondly once you have deifned these labels how do you assign weightages etc. Thirdly, what will be its role and how do you resolve conflicts between the Third House and the existing houses- who gets priorities?

If merely representation of smaller groups is an issue, reservations or a PR system of election will suffice.

Rather than create a new house a better step would be to:

Inculcate a sense of accomodation, toleration and respect of differing identities through the educational system, state owned media and example set by head honchos of the government themselves.
Creation of strong and independent institutions such as judiciary, Stock Exchanges, HRCs and last but not the least Election Commissions.

I know what I am saying is easier said than done but I think we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that nation building is an easy exercise in the first place.

Regards