With smoke filled skies and skyrocketing prices, Pakistan’s fortunes reach the apex of yet another winter of discontent. In between the frauds and fantastic claims that have dominated our political arena, a secret weapon goes disregarded. A weapon supposedly at the helm of the nation’s creation, the pedestalization of her armed forces, and countless political careers. A weapon that has safeguarded our security prerogatives with its strategic genius, and lynched blasphemers at its very worst – Nazariya-e-Pakistan
The popular version of Pakistanniyat is a confused combination of dreams of Islamic conquest tailormade to fit into the modern conception of a nation state. As power in our nation has little to do with the nation itself, identity might cede to the background of commonplace discussions of Pakistan’s fate.
In isolation, the lynched blasphemers and oppressed minorities appear to be singular occurrences; individual fanatics committing horrific crimes, not an ingrained phenomenon and certainly not one propagated by the State itself.
To demark the issue, let us revert to the basics. A nation is driven by national interest; much like an individual, a nation’s interest is defined in the overarching sense of identity that it embodies. A guiding star, so to speak. Interestingly, this identity not only evolves organically with the socio-political currents of the time, but is actively informed by shifting state prerogatives. An endeavor our state has uptaken in a spirit of indulgence.
In terms of our own identity, the roots of the problem can be found in the very historical foundations of the country. Driving the communal carnage in the wake of Pakistan’s creation was overwhelming public support, justifying any “sacrifice” - support that interestingly emerged in about a decade preceding the movement. The historical nuances of the matter are indeed up for debate, but the narrative of an existential threat to Islam seems to be purely borne out of political utility in rallying the mass of Indian Muslims behind a much Anglicized leadership.
Whether principled conviction or a political ploy, the narrative certainly worked. A population surviving horrific violence to win a stronghold for Islam would accept nothing less; the rest is history.
Our infatuation would later turn towards Ghazwa-e-Hind or the mystical forces that defended Lahore against artillery shells in 1965, thanks to the guardians of our nation. The national imagination of our grand destination might baffle many. Pakistan not only ought to be the garrison of Islam, they claim, but it was always bound to be, according to Ahadith about the great armies of the subcontinent and fancy numerology. Rather convenient, isn’t it?
A nation that is overwhelmingly dominated by its military establishment just happens to harbor an identity enshrining worldwide conquest. A nation whose security apparatus recognizes Islamic proxies as means for security just happens to appreciate the services of the Jihadi madrassahs against infidelity.
Our establishment has remembered well to heed lessons of the past; utility of the Islamic touch in the rallying masses has aged rather well with time. Defining ourselves as the antithesis of India from the very beginning, the ethnic roots of our people had to be suppressed for a united Pakistan to come about; a Pakistan united in “its love of cricket and hatred of India.” A hatred that forms the very crux of not only national unity, justifying an extended security state and all that comes with. Whether it be strategic aims in Kashmir or Afghanistan, naming missiles after foreign war lords or negating the better part of Indian history, the national project has been rather successful. As long as the nation has a militarized religious finality, a garrison state is almost inevitable. Such a disposition not only elevates the military to a ‘mythical entity’ in charge of protecting Pakistan’s ideological frontiers but also allows for greater logistical flexibility as well; Jihadi requirements become much easier with national glorification, don’t they?
Our misfortune is that ‘snakes’ in our backyard have had a tendency towards poisonous betrayals. Our special relationships with such elements have proved to be rather toxic; resurging terrorism and extremist violence to name a few. Once a beast has tasted blood, it is equally likely that the next drop it draws is likely your own. Just as the taming of such a beast requires a steady supply of flesh, so has our own identity been sustained by scapegoating each and every failing as the result of grand conspiracies. Minorities have provided a steady supply of flesh to keep the beast satiated.
Yet when the beast turns, organizations such as TTP and TLP demand an overhaul of the country, lecturing us about the ‘true’ Nazariya-e-Pakistan.
Once the nation accepts the grand finality of Pakistan’s destiny, the military becomes the champion of this destiny; public opinion enshrining the establishment in spiritual shrouds. National interest must come before petty nuances of constitutionalism, who better to define it than the guarantors of its ultimate destination.
The civilian supremacy crusade is no different; Khan has introduced a Turkish touch to our delusions, essentially propagating a national image of Islamic revivalism that the establishment has benefitted from for decades. Even if Khan manages to replace the boys as the defenders of our ideological frontiers, the end result does no good.
From the Rehmattu Lil Alimeen authority, which aimed to counter ‘propaganda’ against our culture to promoting research on the ills of Western society, the Rayasat-e-Madina endeavor seems to be another political ploy to sprinkle a bit of the ‘Islamic touch.’
Even if Khan has sincere aspirations for Islamic socialism, a restructuring of the national consciousness is in order. As long as the narrative of great revivalism is pursued, ills remain. The mob will continue to chant catchy slogans that vilify one imagined enemy or the other, violently suppressing any argument to the contrary. The mechanization of these threats might evolve but the garrison state will persist; a battle for our values or security announcing the death of reason and persecuted minorities.
As we reflect on our misfortunes, let us consider misplaced fiscal and ideological policies together. From Jinnah to Zia Ul Haq and our recent Mr. Handsome, the utility of Islamic identity has fallen short. A ‘special Afghan relationship’ ushered petrodollars into certain coffers, but the rogue snakes we fed haunt our lives to this day; Hakeeki Azaadi certainly ushered Khan to extreme popularity, yet an anti-imperialist movement without rooted reform simply devolves into populist sloganeering.
Jinnah’s political genius altered history, yet his ‘confused politics’ has left a nation oscillating between extremes -- not to mention broken in half.
The popular version of Pakistanniyat is a confused combination of dreams of Islamic conquest tailormade to fit into the modern conception of a nation state. As power in our nation has little to do with the nation itself, identity might cede to the background of commonplace discussions of Pakistan’s fate.
In isolation, the lynched blasphemers and oppressed minorities appear to be singular occurrences; individual fanatics committing horrific crimes, not an ingrained phenomenon and certainly not one propagated by the State itself.
Defining ourselves as the antithesis of India from the very beginning, the ethnic roots of our people had to be suppressed for a united Pakistan to come about; a Pakistan united in “its love of cricket and hatred of India.”
To demark the issue, let us revert to the basics. A nation is driven by national interest; much like an individual, a nation’s interest is defined in the overarching sense of identity that it embodies. A guiding star, so to speak. Interestingly, this identity not only evolves organically with the socio-political currents of the time, but is actively informed by shifting state prerogatives. An endeavor our state has uptaken in a spirit of indulgence.
In terms of our own identity, the roots of the problem can be found in the very historical foundations of the country. Driving the communal carnage in the wake of Pakistan’s creation was overwhelming public support, justifying any “sacrifice” - support that interestingly emerged in about a decade preceding the movement. The historical nuances of the matter are indeed up for debate, but the narrative of an existential threat to Islam seems to be purely borne out of political utility in rallying the mass of Indian Muslims behind a much Anglicized leadership.
Whether principled conviction or a political ploy, the narrative certainly worked. A population surviving horrific violence to win a stronghold for Islam would accept nothing less; the rest is history.
Our infatuation would later turn towards Ghazwa-e-Hind or the mystical forces that defended Lahore against artillery shells in 1965, thanks to the guardians of our nation. The national imagination of our grand destination might baffle many. Pakistan not only ought to be the garrison of Islam, they claim, but it was always bound to be, according to Ahadith about the great armies of the subcontinent and fancy numerology. Rather convenient, isn’t it?
A nation that is overwhelmingly dominated by its military establishment just happens to harbor an identity enshrining worldwide conquest. A nation whose security apparatus recognizes Islamic proxies as means for security just happens to appreciate the services of the Jihadi madrassahs against infidelity.
Once the nation accepts the grand finality of Pakistan’s destiny, the military becomes the champion of this destiny; public opinion enshrining the establishment in spiritual shrouds.
Our establishment has remembered well to heed lessons of the past; utility of the Islamic touch in the rallying masses has aged rather well with time. Defining ourselves as the antithesis of India from the very beginning, the ethnic roots of our people had to be suppressed for a united Pakistan to come about; a Pakistan united in “its love of cricket and hatred of India.” A hatred that forms the very crux of not only national unity, justifying an extended security state and all that comes with. Whether it be strategic aims in Kashmir or Afghanistan, naming missiles after foreign war lords or negating the better part of Indian history, the national project has been rather successful. As long as the nation has a militarized religious finality, a garrison state is almost inevitable. Such a disposition not only elevates the military to a ‘mythical entity’ in charge of protecting Pakistan’s ideological frontiers but also allows for greater logistical flexibility as well; Jihadi requirements become much easier with national glorification, don’t they?
Our misfortune is that ‘snakes’ in our backyard have had a tendency towards poisonous betrayals. Our special relationships with such elements have proved to be rather toxic; resurging terrorism and extremist violence to name a few. Once a beast has tasted blood, it is equally likely that the next drop it draws is likely your own. Just as the taming of such a beast requires a steady supply of flesh, so has our own identity been sustained by scapegoating each and every failing as the result of grand conspiracies. Minorities have provided a steady supply of flesh to keep the beast satiated.
Yet when the beast turns, organizations such as TTP and TLP demand an overhaul of the country, lecturing us about the ‘true’ Nazariya-e-Pakistan.
Once the nation accepts the grand finality of Pakistan’s destiny, the military becomes the champion of this destiny; public opinion enshrining the establishment in spiritual shrouds. National interest must come before petty nuances of constitutionalism, who better to define it than the guarantors of its ultimate destination.
The civilian supremacy crusade is no different; Khan has introduced a Turkish touch to our delusions, essentially propagating a national image of Islamic revivalism that the establishment has benefitted from for decades. Even if Khan manages to replace the boys as the defenders of our ideological frontiers, the end result does no good.
From the Rehmattu Lil Alimeen authority, which aimed to counter ‘propaganda’ against our culture to promoting research on the ills of Western society, the Rayasat-e-Madina endeavor seems to be another political ploy to sprinkle a bit of the ‘Islamic touch.’
Even if Khan has sincere aspirations for Islamic socialism, a restructuring of the national consciousness is in order. As long as the narrative of great revivalism is pursued, ills remain. The mob will continue to chant catchy slogans that vilify one imagined enemy or the other, violently suppressing any argument to the contrary. The mechanization of these threats might evolve but the garrison state will persist; a battle for our values or security announcing the death of reason and persecuted minorities.
As we reflect on our misfortunes, let us consider misplaced fiscal and ideological policies together. From Jinnah to Zia Ul Haq and our recent Mr. Handsome, the utility of Islamic identity has fallen short. A ‘special Afghan relationship’ ushered petrodollars into certain coffers, but the rogue snakes we fed haunt our lives to this day; Hakeeki Azaadi certainly ushered Khan to extreme popularity, yet an anti-imperialist movement without rooted reform simply devolves into populist sloganeering.
Jinnah’s political genius altered history, yet his ‘confused politics’ has left a nation oscillating between extremes -- not to mention broken in half.