The people are the source original of all legitimate power. They are sovereign and as such they may go whichever way the spirit moves them. They may act both as individuals and as collectivities. In the latter capacity they act through representatives they name periodically. This is how it works out in a democracy. Let us now imagine a situation in which men living in close proximity have to interact with one another. We may want to know what the patterns of their interactions will be. Following Thomas Hobbs, sceptics concerning human nature in politics anticipate that left to themselves and living beyond the civilising confines of an organised social order, they will engage in a war of every man against every man, threatening the very existence of the species. Optimists on the other hand expect that while certain inconveniences and excesses might result in this state of nature, where there is no regulating authority, men will be reasonably cooperative and solicitous of one another’s needs and aspirations. One may ask where we should place the people of Pakistan: in Hobbes’s state of war or in Locke’s gentle and cooperative community? Persons who are kind and solicitous of one another’s comfort are not entirely absent but, undoubtedly, they are in short supply. Decency and civility in their interaction are uncommon. This goes all the way from the tone of voice to the substance of that which is being said. Those having a conversation feel that they will not convince their listeners unless they speak aloud, almost as if the latter were hard of hearing. There is then the inclination to overstate one’s position. Resort to physical force is often made even though it is needless or frivolous. John Locke’s mutually cooperative community resulted from a recognition of the common good. Preachers in Pakistan do concede its primacy in a normative sense, but it does not surface in the actual conduct of affairs. In the great majority of cases an individual’s personal interest dominates his calculations. There is not enough of the material means of well-being to meet the needs and aspirations of the generality of the people. Conflict of interests, more than their commonality, dominates their interaction. It can take the form of the Marxian class struggle between the owners of the means of production and the workers in which the strong oppress the weak and the latter take it lying down. It can also create situations in which the intended victims of oppression resolve to fight back. Conflict in both of these forms is taking place in Pakistan. Little peasants are made to work for large landowners on a traditional, rather than a contractual, basis under which they and their family members are reduced to servitude. They are no longer free to make even their personal decisions according to their own preferences. The people’s power expresses itself in several forums. In the first and most wholesome instance it is exercised to choose the people’s representatives who will sit in legislatures to make laws and public policies. It is also exercised in ways that are pernicious. In Pakistan where order and public tranquility have been shattered, and where the proverbial law of the jungle prevails, the citizen’s life and property are open to unprecedented hazards. Killers abound and they will kill not only to settle personal conflicts but also because they relish the act itself. Then there are those who assume that they are the inheritors and preservers of the correct ideology, and that those who disagree with them are infidels who deserve to be eradicated. Greed and inclination to lawlessness combine to perpetrate unspeakable atrocities. Brothers kill not only one another but even their parents to seize the family’s property. Abominable acts have been visited upon minorities, such as Hindus, Christians, and Ahmadis in recent years. The militant and self aggrandising among Muslims accuse a non-Muslim of having used pejorative expressions against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) of Islam amounting to blasphemy that invites death penalty. To the universal disgrace of Pakistan a group of Muslims recently burned down Christian houses and places of business in Badami Bagh (Lahore), allegedly because someone there had spoken ill of Islam. The religious establishment has been unleashing violence not only against non-Muslim minorities but also against segments within the Muslim community of which its spokesmen do not approve. In Karachi, Quetta, and various other places hundreds of persons, notably the Hazaras, have been killed merely because they subscribe to the Shia persuasion. Antagonism towards the Shia is a recent development in our culture. Members of the Shia and Sunni communities lived next door to one another in the same neighbourhoods in peace and harmony. If I may speak from personal experience, I will say that in all my adult life, which covers a long span of time, no one has ever asked me whether I am a Shia or a Sunni. Ulema of our time have been highlighting issues of sectarian identity, designating some of them as misguided or even vicious. Many ulema as a class operate as a disrupting force. If they limit themselves to preaching piety, which is what they should do, they would not attain a whole lot of recognition. They are then likely to be ignored. But if they take on the role of defenders of the true faith and as champions of opposition to the infidel, they expect to rise in popular esteem with the possibility that paths to predominance and leadership would open up for them. The Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema Islam, and Majlis-e- Ahrar from an earlier era are cases in point. The inclination to violence shows no signs of abatement in Pakistan. In fact, it seems to be on the increase. One may say that this is the kind of society we are and this is the way we are going to remain. This route of escape is not really viable because we were not as prone to violence as we are today. It is militant extremism that has given us this frame of mind. It will continue to distort our operational values until we discard the hypocrisy that Pakistan was made to enhance the glory of Islam by creating a genuine Islamic social order. The alternative explanation, to wit that this country was made to enable the people of this area to order their lives according to their own preferences merits serious consideration. The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net