In response to my previous article, a few readers have asked me to elaborate on what I mean when I say that Pakistan was an accident of history born out of politics inter se the Congress and the Muslim League. Am I questioning the validity of the nation state itself? No. Far from it, in my opinion, it is this very accidental nature of the formation of Pakistan that lends it its most enduring validity. Accidental occurrences need to pass no tests to justify their existence. Consider. The creation of Pakistan was admittedly a controversial undertaking. People had and continue to have very strong opinions about it, either for it or against it, but then what idea does not? Jinnah — the man credited or blamed, depending on what point of view you take — said about the partition of India: “Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement, which is now final and binding on all. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done…On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.” The truth is that an academic debate about whether Jinnah’s final acceptance of the partition was the best solution or not will never end, and while historians will write and re-write about the partition, the one thing that we must be certain of is that the partition of 1947 will not be undone and those who wish to undo it are living in a fool’s paradise. So how do you act honourably according to an agreement that is final and binding? Factor in whatever you will of the great secularism versus Islam debate about Jinnah’s vision, but the sum total will always add up to an inclusive, constitutional and democratic state that treats its citizens equally, regardless of what their personal beliefs or choices may be. Aside from being an extraordinary advocate, Jinnah was — in Woodrow Wyatt’s words — someone who having been brought up in the English legal tradition was fighting for equality, justice and fair play. Indeed, this is the one constant in his 40-year long political career. There are a few other facts that need to be underscored. The age of nationalism has passed. As much as national boundaries have become accepted legal facts, they have also become irrelevant to human interaction. The nation state is now merely a service provider. The relationship between the state and the citizen is no longer that of unfettered loyalty of subjects but that of a service provider and an end user. Constitutions are the contracts that govern the relationship between the two. By its very nature then the end users can alter the terms of the contract as they deem fit. Patriotism, therefore, needs to be redefined. A patriot in the 21st century is no longer someone who unquestioningly supports everything the state tells him or her, but is someone who strives to ensure that the terms of contract between the state and citizen are upheld as closely as possible to the benefit and betterment of the greater good of the majority within one jurisdiction. Unbridled nationalism, and more specifically, as in our case, neo-nationalism, redefined by the generation of General Zia’s children, clashes with this modern notion of patriotism. Perhaps the example that most notably demonstrates this clash is how shabbily certain sections of our media have treated Malala Yousafzai. It is important to emphasise that the anti-Malala opinion is greatly exaggerated because of the overprojection of some of its nastier proponents, such as Ansar Abbasi and Orya Maqbool Jan. Why are these middle-aged men so scared of a teenager asking for education? If you ask me, the Ansar Abbasis and Orya Maqbool Jans pose a greater threat to Pakistan’s future than even the Taliban. The Taliban’s butchery is physical; such people are butchering the soul of Pakistan. There is no question that Ansar Abbasi and Orya Maqbool Jan will be forgotten in good time just as Ataullah Shah Bukhari and Agha Shorish Kashmiri were forgotten, but just as the damage done to Pakistan, its national narrative and ideology by Majlis-e-Ahrar and other subversive reactionary groups has persisted and is now taken as fact, the poison the Abbasis and Jans are likely to leave behind will have long lasting consequences. Therefore, the state, on its part, must remove the cobwebs in the minds of people that have been put there by three decades of ideological neo-nationalist propaganda. Most importantly, it must not stand in the way of the increasingly global and integrated world but should instead facilitate its citizens into becoming productive members of the global community. It is on this alone that the failure or success of Pakistan will depend. The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah: Myth and Reality. He can be contacted via twitter @therealylh and through his email address yasser.hamdani@gmail.com