Daily Times

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is tormented by both ‘liberals’ and Islamist fundamentalists. This is a misfortune. The tunnel vision of its liberals is scarier than the guns of the terrorists, for it is these liberals who claim to be the real well-wishers of Pakistan. Moreover, they are scarier because they do not have the required knowledge, vision and imagination to lift the Islamic Republic from the chaos it finds itself in.

For example, some liberal friends here have taken it upon themselves the task of proving that Pakistan was meant by its makers to be a secular state. But the need for a secular Pakistan can be proved on many rational grounds rather than basing the same on the personal lifestyle and speeches of Jinnah. Jinnah uttered on as many occasions — if not more — that Pakistan was going to be a state based on Islamic texts, as he said that religion was the personal affair of each and every individual. But my liberal friends are doing more harm (if they indeed are taken seriously, which I believe they are not) than good to the republic by sticking to their guns with regards to making their case for a secular Pakistan because Jinnah wanted it to be so. This only proves the bankruptcy of intellect. It is bankruptcy of intellect because they know they are speaking only half-truths, while a real intellectual can never rely on half-truths. Truth in its entirety is the hallmark of intellectuals. And this troubled republic needs intellectuals more than anything. Half-truths will not help in redemption and rising.

We can build the case for a secular Pakistan on the simple logic that the nation-state contains secularism as an important and essential ingredient. Unfortunately, we need to know the definition of the nation-state in order to understand this, which many of us simply do not take the trouble to learn.

The modern nation-state system emerged after centuries of evolution. The state as we know it today took shape when western political philosophy resolved the debate over the raison d’être for the state. The raison d’être on which most of them agreed was that each man had the fundamental right of liberty, a happy life and political equality. Moreover, it was resolved that men could be ruled only according to laws made by a group of individuals who were chosen by them. And these laws were to emanate from considerations of optimising the people’s welfare. This was the basis of the modern nation-state system. Here we can see that ‘man is the measure of all things’ is at the root of the modern state system.

In the case of Pakistan, God Almighty, instead of man, was put at the helm of the state. Muhammad Iqbal and Jinnah substantiated the same on dozens of occasions. Liaquat Ali Khan formalised it through the Objectives Resolution in 1949.

Therefore, making the views of the makers of Pakistan as the basis of our case for a secular Pakistan just makes it look absurd. My liberal friends would be more effective if they focused their energies on understanding the foundations of the modern state system — secularism is right there — and apply the same to a Pakistan that we want. Only then will they be able to return sovereignty back to the people of Pakistan as against the one defined in the mullah-backed Objectives Resolution.

Our energetic young liberals need to understand that it is not our elders (who have long since passed away) who are going to live in the Pakistan of today and tomorrow. It is we — those living today — and our children who live the Pakistan experience. We should take the lead in defining what kind of Pakistan we want: a secular one or a religious one? And this we can do better by dwelling deeper into the concept of the modern state system, rather than quoting (selectively) from the speeches of the founding fathers, which are confusing at best.

The Islamic Republic needs more people who talk sense rather than just talk. For example, one has never seen any of these liberals dwelling on the implications of secularism for Pakistan. What justification do they offer for a centralised state if it is stripped of its Islamic ideology? Why should we think that the Baloch, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Punjabis would live together in a single state? Why should the languages of all not have official status? These are questions that are very relevant to understanding the character of the Islamic Republic. Believing that Pakistan can remain the same as it is today — minus Islamic ideology — is a symptom of deep ignorance. Pakistan has had a centralised state, ruled from Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Lahore, thanks to this Islamic ideology. Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baloch people are branded traitors when they talk of their rights, thanks to the Islamic ideology of the centralised Islamic Republic. If my friends think that, with secularism, Pakistan will become the US, the UK or India, they have seriously misunderstood the composition of its population.

A secular republic will entail a very weak federation, at best, in which the federating units have full autonomy except for a few essential subjects that require a central administration under certain arrangements. No federating unit will be able to exploit the resources of any other unit. All languages and cultures will attain due status. Foreign policy will not be made in Rawalpindi and Aabpara. This is what the Awami National Party (ANP) and Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party want. They want a secular Pakistan. But my liberal friends abhor them, without knowing that they contradict themselves! But we know they do.

The writer hails from Waziristan and can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com