At Last...Nationalism at Last

ahmad hayat

I would give you a slightly different view than that presented by Ranjit. Disclosing, of course, the obvious: Ranjit is quite knowledgeable about Pakistan and Pakistani people, and is an Indian with a good heart. My views are totally impersonal. I possess only the most rudimentary understanding of, or the barest of interest in, the internal politics of Pakistan. I am drawn to the topic only because of connection with Badshah Khan/ANP, and for any implications all this may have for India.

My speculation is that you, my friend, have a significant challenge on your hands. In your heart, you do not really belong to Pakistan - the nation as conceived in 1930s, formed in 1947, or as re-formed in 1971. Just as Baadshah Khan did not belong to Pakistan, either in 1947 or till the date he died.

You are being very unfair to Urdu. Urdu is not at all the language just of the descendants of the Mughals/Nawabs of Delhi/Lucknow. During the course of the Muslim League's struggle for national freedom, it became the language of educated Muslims living in India. A Gujrati Muslim was its greatest champion. A Punjabi Muslim its greatest poet.

Post-Pakistan, barring inevitable laggards within different groups, Punjabi Muslims, Kashmiri Muslims, Sindhi Muslims, and your own Pushtoon followers of Islam willingly learnt/took pride in the (Indian Islamic?) language of Urdu, on a tacit but well-understood project of forging a common Pakistani nation - clearly distinguished from the nation of Hindus/Sikhs sharing indigenous ethnicities.

True, Baadshah Khan, and many ANP stalwarts even at later dates, never joined in that (Indian) Islamic consensus and Pakistani view. There wasn't any need. Baadshah Khan never belonged to Pakistan, nor Pakistan to him. For instance, did it matter whether a Sindhi Hindu, or a Punjabi Sikh, or a Pushtoon Hindu accepted the Pakistani view? It did not. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was irrelevant to Pakistan.

Now, sixty years down the line, promoting ANP (or even Hindu) brand of land-based/geographical nationalism is very unfair to the millions of Pakistanis who left the safety and comfort of 'their own lands' on a clear and unambiguous promise of religious nationalism, nurturing the dream of building a great Pakistani nation.

A solemn promise that Punjabi Muslims, Sindhi Muslims, Pakhtoon Muslims, and Balochi Muslims made. And a bargain that these other Muslims who risked everything worked very hard to keep.

----------------
You may not like it, but logically, too, they are on a strong wicket. You did not explain why land-based nationalism may be better. Nikhat, OTOH, presented excellent arguments in favor of promoting religious nationalism among human beings. Ana thoughtfully expanded on the grave risks posed by/general undesirability of ethnic/land-based nationalism.

One guesses, other than unreformed ANP people and Balochi nationalists most Pakistanis sympathize with Nikhat and Ana's pov (just as most non-communist Indians/Hindus are hard-wired to ridicule and oppose that sort of religious nationalist narrative).

Unlike Ranjit bhai, I see no change. Pakistani leaders did not reject indigenous traditions and nationalities and 'India' because they were not wise, but because Pakistan would not have made the remotest sense otherwise (as it did not to Baadshah Khan - right or wrong). With his "5000-years of Punjabi separation from India" thesis, Aitzaz Ahasan can appear no different to an Indic person than did either Jinnah sahib or Allama Iqbal.

There isn't any difference. If someone spoke with Mr. Ahsan, I am quite confident he will himself acknowledge an identity of opinion. The difference is completely perceptual - based on specific national and international conditions that exist today, at this moment alone.

----------------

Where does that self-confessedly speculative view leave true ANP believers living in Pakistan?

Unless they take the route of (once Jiye-Sindh supporting) Sindhi Muslims, probably nowhere comfortable, not for too long. But then, Sindhi Muslims did not produce (could not have produced) a Badshah Khan. Their pride, their joy, their hope, PPP, is no ANP and has never been one.

For whatever it is worth, I would suggest they stop this nationalist business, and take the Sindhi Muslim route, turning themselves from a people of Baadshah Khan and Asfandyar Wali Khan to a people of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto.

They have no other realistic choice. For, IMO, these elections were not about Bachcha Khan/Indian style nationalism at all. Nor will ANP be the net or long-term gainer unless it totally changes itself and becomes a Pakistani party like all others.

Ahmad sahib,

The basic reality is that pakistan is finally maturing as a nation. For most of the past 60 years, the focus was on opposing india due to the legacy of the pre-partition political feud between congress and muslim league. That feud naturally translated into the adoption of a non-Indian identity. Indian identity is tied to Indian languages, culture and indigenous religious practices, just like Arabian identity is tied to Arabian language and culture and inigenous religious practices (islam). Therefore, in order to be 'non-Indian', pakistan wanted to negate the local languages and culture and cling on to Islam for all sources of identity.

Now the key thing to note is that the Indian leadership displayed a lot of maturity in the early stages of Indian nationhood, where they did NOT allow the pre-partition feud to carry over after partition, at least within Indian borders. In other words, India made a conscious decision thanks to Nehru to divorce its identity from local religious practices i.e. hinduism and focus only on an identity based on language and culture by adopting a secular constitution. This decision was driven by a mature outlook to the reality of having a large muslim minority as well as an opportunistic mindset to get Kashmir and other muslim majority areas into India.

Pakistan leadership never showed the same level of maturity. The pre-partition feud continued even after partition by continuing to reject local language and culture in favor of an exclusively religion based identitity, mainly due to insecurity of somehow negating the partition process by supporting anything else but an islamic identity. It has taken nearly 60 years for Pakistan to grow out of that insecure mindset and give some weightage to other attributes. It is not surprising that today Aitzaz Ahsan is a leading candidate for PM while the MMA has been routed. This change has happened because pakistan now realizes that india has no apetite for change of borders and there are nukes on both sides. Therefore, the need to clutch on to a purely religious identity at the cost of suppressing local identities makes no sense any more.

The long term issue is how to avoid the fate of Yugoslavia, which is the natural result of unrestrained nationalism. India was able to get away from that fate, by a very crafty constitutional process that enabled everyone to have a place at the table while enabling economic advantages of staying together. Even then, we have seen many attempts to split up in punjab, kashmir and elsewhere. Therefore, unfettered nationalism is not the panacea for all evils, its just a natural state of being of every country and pakistan has merely transformed into a normal country at last. The bigger issue is whether synergies can be built across pakistan so that people will find it beneficial to stay together in spite of all the nationalist forces.

#16

1. You didn't answer if you are a federalist or a separatist?
2. I am neither Urdu speaking nor a MQM supporter. All I can say is that MQM and ANP have a great deal in common: secularism, women rights, progressive social policies; they are both hated by jihadis, etc.
3. Nobody wants a 'defragmented country', not ANP, and not MQM. That's not what they mean by reforming the federation.

Good night.

Re: # 15
Why not force urdu-speaking people to learn Pashto? The rest of the nation has learnt urdu for past sixty years. What kind of equality is this that puts you at ease and puts me in jeoprady??? or why not make everybody learn Punjabi because 55% already have that as their mother tongue? Hollow arguments...chowk really is a human waste dump...you can't even see that a foreign language is being imposed on people...
A defragmented country runs counter to the MQM followers interest because they have no region of their own...(thats the reason for the Yasser's 'not very far-fetched inquietude)...as I have said let's see what happens once the assemblies have been sworn in...

Ahmad Hayat
p.s. no not every country needs a national language. Only artificially created countries feel a need to impose a national language on their populations. As did Russia in former USSR...go consult some books on Switzerland and Belgium...

#14

Sorry, now I get it. I thought you were a reformer like Wali Khan, who wants a reformed federalism. But I see now that you are a separatist. You want your own country.

In defense of Urdu and English I would say that the 55% Punjabis, the Sindhis, all relate to Urdu. That's more than 70% of the population. Every country needs a national language, why not Pakistan?

Re: # 12
Because ethnicity translated into political power defines a nation and hence "nationalism". this is the answer of the first question.

Your second question is outright enraging. Why URDU? because the remnants of Mughal (and other pre-mughal empires) empire obtained a piece of land and imposed their mother tongue on it? This sham concept of a national language for a sham nation is about to end...

A committe of bureaucrats decided that Pakistan's

national game would be hockey
national flower would be jasmine
national tree would be deodar
national drink would be "gannay ka juice" rotflmao
national bird would be "chakor"

Its so ridiculously saddening that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Pakistani nation...bad joke...only fit for Govt. School going preteens and chowk readers and interactors...

Ahmad Hayat

Re: # 10
Just like interact#1 , cheap sentimentalism and minimalistic logic. This is not a question of supporting MQM, this is a question of helping the centralizing forces as a community. This is a question of supporting, as a community once again, each and everything that erodes indigenous cultures, languages, customs and ethnicities. This is a question of enforcing a bigoted version, again as a community, of history down the throats of indigenous populations with the help of Feudal, Bureaucratic and Military cohorts.
Your naïveté ( depicted by the statemnt : "to be honest its a very troubling issue that needs deep introspection and ability to accept reality" ) doesn't surprise me. You never honestly admitted in your articles that this troubling issue needed deep introspection. Fake Chauhan/Turk is more realistic in that respect.
Yours was the typical urdu-speaking mantra (not very different from sham Islamic/socialist propaganda): We are all Pakistanis. Renounce regionalism. Pakistanis first and Baluch, Punjabi, Pathan, Baluch second. Very convenient preaching of equality in own interest and on self-described terms.
What would happen to those who are neither Baluch nor Sindhi, Punjabi or Pathan. They would be obligated to support these centripetal forces of either Islam or Military and this is what we see in Karachi. Half of the urdu-speakers support military via MQM while the rest support JI. It is this intellectual dishonesty of urdu-speaking thought stream that could only be revealed by analysing the sub-continental political situation with a nationalist point of view.
The Taliban spring offensive, that would define US dependence on ANP, would define everything. Lets wait and see...and for those who believe...pray...

Ahmad Hayat

Haji,

Why do you use the word 'national' where you should use the word 'ethnic'?

Secondly, why does it have to be either or with languages-- why not teach children English, Urdu, and their native language?

BTW, great win for ANP!

Re: # 9

Jewish led socialism has killed more people in USSR than you can imagine and the apparently benign anti-nationalist (Jewish dominated and influenced) governments of USA, UK, France, Germany etc. are the biggest despots in essence.
p.s. In the hands of authoritarian regimes every political ideology is brutal and despotic, being nationalist makes it no different. US, the self-appointed enforcer of democracy, has supported every despotic regime in Pakistan and elsewhere as well for that matter. Is there a more brutal regime on the planet than the existing Jewish/Zionist led US state???
Ahmad Hayat

Re: # 8

haji004

If defending Mohajirs or confronting unjustified attacks on Mohajirs can be called supporting Mqm then I am guilty. If not, then show me one post where I have supported AH and then label me as Mqm supporter.

Having said that, I have no shame in admitting that I also believe and support nationalists, socialists, leftists, anarchists, openly oppose religious bigots, militarists and hidden racists.

Coming back to your very valid questions regarding the fate of Mohajirs in Sindh, to be honest its a very troubling issue that needs deep introspection and ability to accept reality. Mohajirs have no other choice but recognize the reality that they will be the minority in Sindh even though a significant minority. Good news is the political maturity shown by Zardari and other sindhi leaders. Problem lies not in Sindh but Punjab's need to continue with their political hegemony.

As for the support of Musharraf/Establishment is concerned, well u r ignoring the eighties and nineties when Mqm was at the receiving end.

We can only hope for the best.

how does tauheed get accused of being MQM or a musharraf supporting bigot because he says that nationalism is animal behavior? goodness, I know that we make some awful stretches here but more and more it is out of nothing.

Michael Ignatieff wrote a book called Blood and Belonging in which he discusses that while nationalism can be a constructive uniting force, in the hands of authoritarian regimes, in its extreme form it can be brutal and oppressive. The break-up of Yugoslavia was in large part due to a nationalism that was not inclusive of all ethnic groups. Nationalism in this sense has been the cause of more strife in the past century. . . if this is what Tauheed is referring to. . .

rf786...what would happen to urdu-speaking people living in Sindh? and the urdu-speaking bureaucracy that has imposed Urdu as offical language on non-urdu-speaking indigenous people? How would the resources be shared between urdu-speaking and non-urdu-speaking in Sindh? Who would get/control Karachi?
I think that you are urdu-speaking...hence you should keep in mind all this before endorsing my views...plus several of your own articles contradict what you have said in this interact...you should (as an MQM supporter) not only see the "break the back of Feudal lords" statement...you should also read "end of centralist/centipetal mforces' (Army, bureaucracy, pas-Islamist Mullahs, MQM) hegemony" and try to analyze the possible backlash that could be inflicted on MQM supporters who have whole-heartedly backed Army during Musharraf rule and who have always backed the forces of centralisation that have undermined the real democratic processes...

AH,


{ANP, hence can affect the current political situation in two ways. By pushing forward an agenda of greater provincial autonomy on the lines of an eventual loosely based federation of autonomous provinces and by pushing a powerful land reform programme that would break the back of the existing Feudal ruling class.}

That is a very good view, even more than provincial autonomy Pakistan needs a loose federation and parties such as ANP can provide that political maturity.

Re: # 5
Nikhat you st**k of the sham education and the brain-washing that the state media and education ministry have been polluting the minds of the indigenous populations of Pakistan with.
Just read the interacts of my article "Militant Liberalism".

http://chowk.com/articles/11903

We are muslims of conquest. I am totally against this sham philosophy of "Islam-is-a-mode-of-life"...complete BS...This Islam is just the slavery of Arabs...intellectual, moral, psychological, cultural and finally economical.
India does support nationalism...by giving autonomy to its states and by not meddling into their affairs...they have recognised the eminence of regional politics. State (read urdu-speaking Pan-Islamic hegemonists ) propaganda has just blinded the Pakistani populations but the tables are starting to turn now...and soon we'll see a revival of nationalism in all four provinces of Pakistan...

ANP is anti-feudal, anti-Mullah, anti-centralism, anti-military and hence the only party not driven by vested interests...MQM (urdu-speaking centralists forces hands in hands with army) ,PPP (feudal), PMLN(Feudal Punjab plus Industry), MMA (Mullah Military) PMLQ (Military Feudal Complex)...

hope that wakes you up

Ahmad Hayat

Wow and Oh Dear Allah, help us! So you are a believer of nationalism and you smell success. And I just wonder was Allama Iqbal really a dreamer,a wishful thinker or a visionary? Does new political scene in Pakistan really ridicule two nation theory and creation of Pakistan???? Are sixty years enough in case of any theory, any ideology or a system to get validated?
I consider myself as a student of Iqbal. Whatever I have gathered of Allama's Islamic Umma theory (Neil ke sahil se le ker taaba khaak-e-kashgir) I saw its total contrast as a Pakistani living in Pakistan and through traveling west, studying and observing politics around the world. No wonder Arab Muslims and Pakistani Muslims do prefer their ethnicity over their faith many times (which shows their lack of true practice of Islam) but at the same time, an Indian Muslim, Pakistani Muslim, an Arab Muslim, African Muslim or African American Muslim do care for each other when the stake is on their faith. Indian Muslim soldiers do suffer horrible dilemmas when they encounter war with Muslim countries.
Today's world and history of yester years indicates how power hungers, the warriors and occupiers had exploited every 'ism' and ideology in their pursuit of sovereign power. They all had only one motive to extend their land, their authority their power. They rode in the bandwagon of religion, language, ethnicity etc.
I feel that ideology like Islam (I consider Islam as an ideology and not a mere religion of beliefs and rituals), Communism or Sufism for that matter is a bigger and stronger unifying chord as compared to the 'nationalism' in bringing people together. 'Nationalism' confirms diversity which could fragment the group of people living within one geographical boundary as a nation on the basis of language, race, colour or religion any time. Ideology like Islam or Communism or any other ideology asks a person to raise above all the trivial dividers and form bigger group of humans based on social equality system. Basic Human rights charter was given to Muslims not in the last century but many centuries ago. The ideology of Islam is two folded comprised of faith and for new social system. And this is where Islamic ideology becomes a threat for other nations. In fact nationalism’s theory serves the interest of western Imperialist while Pan Islamism frightens them. This is the core problem. Imperialists (now in the form of multinationals, corporate giants) continuously struggle to restrain Muslims to achieve that goal of Pan Islamism (Islamic Bomb that ZAB strived for).
The vision of Allama Iqbal, the philosophy of Pan Islamism begins with the creation of Pakistan. It does not end there. Abhee manzil bohaat duur hai.
The road towards our destination is real tedious and bumpy becoming rougher to tread day by day.
I do agree with Hayat sahib that nationalism did win this election which could be exactly what the establishment wanted. West wanted moderate forces to win the election and the public pressure through lawyers’ movement, media and civil society’s activism was so tremendous that they did succumb to public opinion as well as got what they wanted. Public of Pakistan do want Musharraf to go away. Now it is not very easy for these leaders to commit some under the table deal( A regular crime which is a norm to them now).
Let USA, India and many other countries enjoy ‘Nationalism’ based on land, ethnicity and language but we are Muslims first and Pakistani later. And this fact serves our interest for today and in the longer run.

Nikhat Riaz

Good article. Its not that I am not in favour of federation based on any common adhesive element but it should not be at the cost of suppressing the identity (cultural, linguistic or whatever) of constituent parts. Both needs to be balanced. If not then we have not learned anything from 1971 fiasco...