Those feeling an overwhelming need of a ‘foreign minister’ seem to believe that the absence of this portfolio in the prime minister cabinet could have done better for the image of Pakistan at a time India is claiming to have conducted surgical strikes against Pakistan. But having seen how the defence minister has been rendered ‘irrelevant’ in this delicate situation, one can’t expect anything miraculous by a foreign minister as well. If a regime is divested of logic, how can it see its path clearly on the foreign policy front?
The fact of the matter is that we have been entertaining a defence doctrine evolved around the concept of sovereignty we had distilled from the Objectives Resolution of 1949. A whole set of Islamic injunctions dictates us who can be the president or the army chief of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The political parties went a step ahead in 2010, and also included in this list the head of the government as well.
The state is bound, as a matter of policy, to facilitate people to live their lives as per the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. The most serious allegations on power distribution companies constitute switching off power during prayer times. Not surprisingly, establishing close relations with the ‘Muslim’ countries is binding on our governments.
The fact that the Objectives Resolution has made sovereignty rest in the heavens and exercised through the representatives of the people as a sacred trust contains the seeds of our defence policy. It obligates the state to be receptive to mullahs rather than sages even when it has to defend its ideological frontiers, and consequently, have a foreign policy unacceptable to its neighbours. So we have none.
Deep down the concept of sovereignty lays a doctrinal faith in the two-nation theory, a conviction that Pakistan came into existence only due to the reason that the Muslims of the subcontinent did not want to live under Hindu majority rule after the colonisers’ departure. It is where we are destined to regard India as an enemy state. We don’t recognise Kashmir as a part of India due to this very fact.
Technically speaking, Taliban who were our allies but ended up rejecting our constitution and launched jihad on us were quite frustrated about our standing by a ‘Christian’ power while it launched war against the ‘Caliphate’ of Mullah Omar.
Maybe we are a unique nation not only in the ‘Muslim’ world but also in the entire globe. While our constitution declares us a Muslim nation, our democracy remains a check on the prospects of our state transforming itself into a theocracy. You may call it dualism, and perhaps we practise it due to the fact that we can’t part with some legacies of the colonial era.
So there are some fine lines ‘politicians’ can’t cross. They have to follow a ‘straight path’ to stay eligible for representing the ‘people’. Yes, they are stretched between two quite opposite poles: religion and democracy. Perhaps it is the major reason that they tend to be corrupt when entrusted with the power to run the state.
Pakistan, fortunately or otherwise, has to show a liberal face to the world while having necessary ‘constitutional’ arrangements by remaining conservatively ‘faithful’ at heart. Having responsibility to run the state but walking on a tight ‘ideological’ rope only corrupts the politicians and resultantly, the masses.
Looking closely at its affairs, Pakistan can’t remain divided from within for long. It has also become divided due to tensions from within. A state having only its survival as the prime objective can’t bear ideological burdens for long, especially when it is surrounded by states entertaining ‘territorial’ nationalism. It has to change its direction and redefine its relations with the ‘people’. It has to stop itself from discriminating its citizens on account of their creeds and colours.
Pakistan, if it casts off its ideological burdens, can become an exemplary nation in the whole ‘Islamic’ world. Fortunately, the guidelines to accommodate the new age were clearly provided by the founder of Pakistan. “You are free to go to your mosques; you are free to go to your temples or any other places of worship” were the words uttered by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah during his famous address to the first Constituent Assembly just a year before the Objectives Resolution was passed.
It would be wonderful to remodel our constitution as per the guidelines of the Quaid-e-Azam. If done so, the state will be bound to promote freedoms at home and abroad. It will have the opportunity to look around rather than being painfully preoccupied with itself. If we transform the polity as per the ideals of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, we will promote freedom at home and abroad but still have a unique identity, different from our neighbours including India. We have a strong tradition of preserving and promoting pluralism as a survival strategy. Our society is not the same as that of Afghans, Persians and Chinese. We depend on different ‘societal’ mechanisms to regulate our affairs as we sprawl between Himalayas and the Arabian Sea.
If ‘secular’ is that bad a word, be scientific in the matter of the constitution. The law of the land needs to be logical if it has to be respected and faithfully followed by citizens, top to bottom. We are a diverse society and are at the crossroads of two distinct worlds — Central Asia and South Asia. We need a foreign policy to act as a bridge between the two. Herein lies our prosperity and future. Our core interest is to protect and preserve diversity for the sake of socio-political stability.
If the state has to guard religion, we should expect the likes of Mullah Omar to dictate us which direction we should take. While we have rejected religious extremism, we have to get rid of duplicity in the matter of state as well so as to ease its burden of defence, and also help it to strike its roots in society. If we have got a chance to have a state after the lapse of whole millennia, we may seek prosperity of the people as a fundamental value. People will take care of their religion for they have had it by their own free will far before the state came into existence. It is a matter of trust. If we can’t trust people, how we can claim to be a democracy?
As for Kashmir, there are more appealing ways than just walking on the beaten track. Diplomacy, in the presence of a sound foreign policy, can do wonders.
The writer is Director at the Center for Policy and Media Studies