Pakistan could have been an example of a modern nation-state. Founded in 1947, soon after the Second World War when the pre-WWII global political order underwent serious redrawing and an iconoclastic model of a nation-state instituted itself with a clarity not seen since the genesis of the idea in Westphalia, a nation like Pakistan had everything going for it. A nation that had begun to define itself as a nation — the Two Nation Theory was emblematic acceptance of the bona fides that gave the Muslims of India their separate stature and hence equal partnership in the process of sharing the political and territorial dividends when the British left — and a leadership in Mohammad Ali Jinnah that had envisioned a state essentially political and socially just. Jinnah said so in his oft-mentioned August 11, 1947 address. What went wrong? Where did we falter? Why this enigmatic search for what Pakistan stands for? Why is that nation lost in seeking its meaning and purpose? Two books, Ayesha Jalal’s Sole Spokesman and Farzana Shaikh’s Making Sense of Pakistan, are perhaps the most eminent exposes of our self-inflicted set of predicaments. Both must carry their own lens into the historical phenomenon of Pakistan, as any historian, but in stating the events and their context on how the Pakistan movement gradually shaped itself, both are ruthlessly honest. Ayesha Jalal investigates Jinnah as a politician and a man when the mantle, over time, for him is raised to holier levels by his people. Were it not for his modernist tastes in his personal life, he may well have been ordained to the holiest pedestals. Jalal opens the chinks up in Jinnah ever so reverently — heretical in Pakistani terms but truthful in helping detail this hapless nation’s ailment. Not a mean feat when Islam and Pakistan are considered synonyms in distorted but popular perception. Yet the roots of this perceptual conflict lie in the contradictions that were subsumed in developing the Pakistan narrative during the quest for a separate homeland. Jalal’s entire thesis and that of Shaikh are built around the contradictions that were variously used in employing religion, communal awareness, cultural identity and a suave political motive against nemeses such as Gandhi and Nehru, which formed the opportune impetus in giving shape to the idea of Pakistan. Jinnah said so many things at different times; if he made the August 11 address, he also advised the Constituent Assembly to strictly pursue formation of all laws and statutes guided by the Quran and Sunnah. As soon as he passed away, the Quaid-e-Millat, Liaquat Ali Khan, formulated and incorporated the Objectives Resolution as a preamble to the constitution. Ziaul Haq, in his time, assimilated the preamble as a regular statute of law. Who will now ever question the fidelity of such an act or even audaciously consider reversing the anomaly? Ever since, Pakistan’s definition as a nation-state has diluted, losing both its meaning, purpose and intent. On the nationhood spectrum between secularist idealism and theocratic disposition, today’s Pakistan hangs in limbo. Clearly then the nation appears lost and uncertain. Our leaders in the independence movement used religion with careless abandon to coalesce support for a political end. This dichotomy of means to a different end has rendered asunder the psychological makeup of this young nation. Farzana Shaikh, in her book, has devoted considerable effort to explain how religion has come to dominate the discourse in our national outlook. A leadership that remained myopic in using religion as a vehicle to their short-term ends had to soon contend with a nation made to believe that religion was the basis of its formation. Since then this trapeze has virtually morphed into a death dance where the elites — political, religious or military — have continued to resort to such manipulation of religion and the nation. Today’s strains of extremism, militancy and terrorism in society stand testimony to the failures of a manipulative leadership that desperately lacked depth in their assimilation of the far-reaching consequences that have today become a reality. Let us go back to the Two Nation Theory — it could only give us two conclusive identifications: one, of being Muslim, different than a Hindu, never as an Indian and two, to secure what we got as a nation from the more likely perceived predator, India, from whom this territory was carved. Both, our Muslim identity and a defiance against India, became the pegs of our survival as well as our definition as a nation-state. Sixty-four years on, these attributes manifest themselves as conflicts within society. Why would it be so if indeed Pakistan’s meaning was intended to be the two characteristics that now define societal contradictions? There exists an anomaly in our societal makeup that needs immediate redress. What may that be, 64 years on? It certainly is not in trashing the historical validity of the Two Nation Theory. Though what we must understand and widely inform is that it was the politicians’ plank meant to accrue political advantage. It served its purpose. Instead, it gradually translated into ideological underpinnings that have found traction simply because there never existed another narrative. Following on what should have been reframed, but never was, were the founding principles for a progressive Muslim society not merely adorning its modernist colours but instituting a socio-cultural ethos reflecting some core pillars of development. Pakistan chose the right political philosophy but failed to develop the tradition of inquiry and reflection through education as the main plank of nation building. We continue to criminally neglect the need to encourage an intellectual society. Such an initiative right at inception would have helped reassess Pakistan’s founding narrative. Instead, the leadership has let itself be led by incidental and episodic manifestations of a similar brand of manipulative culpability. Once formed nations do morph, at least, there is no shame in reframing the context of a people’s existence. The US gradually evolved into a nation despite the disparate ethnicity and origin of its people. It formed right at inception a basic human rights charter to enable inclusivity and ensure equality and freedom from control or communal oppression for the different mix that was to gradually become a nation. While those statutes have more or less guided the US’s social development, the meaning of being an American has changed with time. From a democracy to a technological giant to a super society to a knowledge society, each has defined an American. We in Pakistan have only tended to untangle the conflicts and contradictions in our founding narratives. A narrative, any narrative, is time bound as is its relevance. The need for reformulating a narrative for Pakistan has long lain unattended. For that to happen we shall need to move away from the historical anomalies in our foundation. A nation has formed and survived to be 64. It should have looked far different than what it is but time past is a lost commodity; we need not lament that forever. Only know that no more may be lost. Pakistan’s paradigm must seek an economically resilient nation with a progressive, educated society. Our pillars should be knowledge and intellect. Religion will have its place in an inclusive society without it being overbearing. A combined social intellect will gradually give it its right place. Somebody, somewhere, needs to do this on the trot. We may otherwise remain a lost society and a forgotten nation. The writer is a political and defence analyst