Daily Times

Any political state is an outcome of a social contract between the citizens and the state. While the concept of a political order in the form of a societal compromise — a state resulting from such a contract — was first talked about by Plato, followed by Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century, Rousseau articulated that the raison d’etre of state authority over citizens was that individuals agreed to withdraw some of their rights in favour of a sovereign political entity, which in turn provides said individuals with protection and welfare. It’s ironic that modern nation states have reduced their citizens to mere subjects. This problem is most apparent in those societies where democratic systems could not grow deeper roots.

Interestingly but not surprisingly, those states where citizens’ consent and trust is not given due priority always suffer from instability. In Pakistan’s context, one can see that the lack of political stability, peace, and consistent pace of development that has identified Pakistan for decades now is essentially because the citizens are treated like subjects. Born out of a democratic exercise which was preceded by years of a freedom movement, Pakistan was envisioned as a modern Muslim-majority republic. It was no coincidence that while opening Pakistan’s constituent assembly, three days before independence, Jinnah urged the assembly to come up with a constitution which would ensure an inclusive citizenry without any distinction based on religious or communal identities.

Jinnah was well aware of the danger of government officials running the affairs of the state like a monarchy, and warned the civilian and military bureaucracy of such a scenario. Addressing the civil servants in Chittagong in March 1948, he advised them to forget the time when civil servants lorded over the people

And it didn’t stop here. Jinnah was well aware of the danger of government officials running the affairs of the state like a monarchy, and warned the civilian and military bureaucracy of such a scenario. Addressing the civil servants in Chittagong in March 1948, he advised them to forget the time when civil servants lorded over the people, as now it was the peoples’ own government to which the officers owed service. Similarly, his speech at Staff College Quetta in June 1948 spoke volumes of what he exhorted the military officers to desist from; taking their oath of service for granted. In his speech, he categorically mentioned that their oaths required the officers to understand that the state’s executive authority emanates the head of the government, and nowhere else.

Sadly, Jinnah’s warnings were not heeded. Political leaders, military generals, top civil servants and the judiciary instead chose to follow in the footsteps of British colonists; treating ordinary Pakistanis like expendable subjects.

At the hands of the aforementioned ruling elites, Bengalis, who were the majority in Pakistan when it was founded, were consistently denied their right to govern themselves and enjoy their due cultural identity. They were also humiliated for their physical features and cultural affinities with Hindus. Pakistanis don’t realise it for most part, but it was this breach of an overarching social contract by a state represented by ruling elites that completely alienated the Bengalis from the Pakistani state. What we saw in 1971 was a mere outcome.

We have continued to see for decades now that individual liberties, democratic rights and the idea of civilian supremacy in the affairs of the state have gone from bad to worse, even though the 1971 debacle should have served us a lesson to be remembered. The grievances of ethnic groups and sectarian minorities have only increased in the last fifty years. This is the reason insurgents are still a grave threat in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Meanwhile, the country is become more dangerous for Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus. State agencies seem free to kidnap, torture or murder at will. The abduction of Gul Bukhari, a pro-democracy rights activist and columnist, was the latest such incident. Although she was released just few hours after she went missing, the message to her and her ilk was clear; obey.

Certainly, reducing citizens to subjects, muzzling dissenting media and rights activists, in addition to the not-so-subtle political engineering against a very popular political party of the most populated province of Pakistan might serve the interest of some. However, as in the past, the state is unlikely to come out strong enough to face the economic, existential and diplomatic challenges facing its citizens after doing all this to its citizens. Strong sub-national identities, a citizenry empowered through civil liberties, rule of law through democratic system and civilian supremacy strengthen the state.

The writer is a sociologist with interest in history and politics. He Tweets @ZulfiRao1

Published in Daily Times, June 14^th 2018.