All states construct their identities for the purpose to unite its peopl
All states construct their identities for the purpose to unite its people and legitimize its being. This identity serves as a glue between various diversities. Peace and prosperity of the state lies in boarding all regional and ethnic identities to struggle for collective good.
While, conceptualising the idea of identity, it leads us toward many complexities. Identity is multi-layered structure appending cast, religion, gender, sect, nation and many more. The question here sucks our mind which identity among the above is opted and why? The need of opting an identity is to seek political space and recognition in a certain environment. In addition, the elites (both political and economic) determine the identity of an individual to ensure interests and achieve the perceived “general will”, while masses lordly follow it.
Specifically, analysing the constructed national identity of Pakistan, one may come to know the practical manifestation of the above concepts. During the independence movement, the elites opted Islam as national identity for it united Muslims of all factions in subcontinent to struggle for a seperate state. By adopting the Islamic identity, they come off with the new state, but didn’t realise its regional and geographical diversities. Though, the Islamic identity unite them in independence movement, the political and military establishment had no framework to run such an ethnically diverse country. New questions of national language, political participation, economic development and equal distribution of resources arose. The state couldn’t settle these problems in an appropriate way.
The over centralisation of power led to the economic disparities within the centre and peripheral ethnic groups. This created a feeling of resentment towards the new state and compelled them for right movements. The use of iron hand and suppression of right movements by state machinery led these into separatist movements and Pakistan witnessed the fall of its eastern wing.
Islamic identity became much problematic when it supersedes the other structures of identities in its practical manifestation
Furthermore, the institutional imbalances created frustrations among the desperate ethnic identities. The strong influence of military over civil institutions further diminished the possibility of political participation and economic development of regional groups. The socio-political and economic marginalisation of various ethnicities in guise of Islamic identity vague its sense of national identity.
The regimes have tried to alter national identity for their own interest and to seek legitimacy. Ayub Khan, the first military dictators, was a modernist and believed in the secular state. He removed the word “Islamic” from the official name of country and declared it as the “Republic of Pakistan”. He focused more on the economic development rather than Islam. On the other hand, General Zia focused more on Islamic ideology and Islamised the country’s constitution. Zia legitimised his rule in the white sheet of Islamisation and it coincided with Afghan war. Musharraf was also not indifferent and like Ayub, presented himself as liberal and reformist to track the stability and development of Pakistan. He answered to the old-age question: what was its Islamic ethos? Musharraf replied for “Enlightened Moderation”. He believed that the Muslim world should resist extremism and focus more on socio-economic struggles.
Hence, it is self-evident that identity is dynamic and specifically, our national identity altered with the changing of regimes. New powers at centre tried to fix it accordingly and used it politically since its inception. The attractive aspect is that no power holder has put the “Islamic identity” upside down but have slightly changed it. Likewise, it was termed in different names; moderate Islam, Islamic socialism and political Islam.
Islamic identity became much problematic when it supersedes the other structures of identities in its practical manifestation. When centre exploits the rights of peripheries under the guise of ideology without realising regional identities, it generates deprivation and conflicts.
Now, the question; what is the way forward? As Rasul Bakhsh Raees in his book “Islam, Ethnicity, and Power politics” has rightly argued, that it’s not possible to melt down all the regional identities in the nation- building propose. All that effort to homogenise diversities have created resentment and resilience. This process of assimilation evolves with the flow of time when all regional ethnicities have objective opportunities and political space for recognition.
Both civil and military establishment should now realise the importance of diversities in uplifting the socio-economic condition.Taking them into confidence will not only diffuse differences, but will also create a sense of ownership to the country.
e and legitimize its being. This identity serves as a glue between various diversities. Peace and prosperity of the state lies in boarding all regional and ethnic identities to struggle for collective good.
While, conceptualising the idea of identity, it leads us toward many complexities. Identity is multi-layered structure appending cast, religion, gender, sect, nation and many more. The question here sucks our mind which identity among the above is opted and why? The need of opting an identity is to seek political space and recognition in a certain environment. In addition, the elites (both political and economic) determine the identity of an individual to ensure interests and achieve the perceived “general will”, while masses lordly follow it.
Specifically, analysing the constructed national identity of Pakistan, one may come to know the practical manifestation of the above concepts. During the independence movement, the elites opted Islam as national identity for it united Muslims of all factions in subcontinent to struggle for a seperate state. By adopting the Islamic identity, they come off with the new state, but didn’t realise its regional and geographical diversities. Though, the Islamic identity unite them in independence movement, the political and military establishment had no framework to run such an ethnically diverse country. New questions of national language, political participation, economic development and equal distribution of resources arose. The state couldn’t settle these problems in an appropriate way.
The over centralisation of power led to the economic disparities within the centre and peripheral ethnic groups. This created a feeling of resentment towards the new state and compelled them for right movements. The use of iron hand and suppression of right movements by state machinery led these into separatist movements and Pakistan witnessed the fall of its eastern wing.
Furthermore, the institutional imbalances created frustrations among the desperate ethnic identities. The strong influence of military over civil institutions further diminished the possibility of political participation and economic development of regional groups. The socio-political and economic marginalisation of various ethnicities in guise of Islamic identity vague its sense of national identity.
The regimes have tried to alter national identity for their own interest and to seek legitimacy. Ayub Khan, the first military dictators, was a modernist and believed in the secular state. He removed the word “Islamic” from the official name of country and declared it as the “Republic of Pakistan”. He focused more on the economic development rather than Islam. On the other hand, General Zia focused more on Islamic ideology and Islamised the country’s constitution. Zia legitimised his rule in the white sheet of Islamisation and it coincided with Afghan war. Musharraf was also not indifferent and like Ayub, presented himself as liberal and reformist to track the stability and development of Pakistan. He answered to the old-age question: what was its Islamic ethos? Musharraf replied for “Enlightened Moderation”. He believed that the Muslim world should resist extremism and focus more on socio-economic struggles.
Hence, it is self-evident that identity is dynamic and specifically, our national identity altered with the changing of regimes. New powers at centre tried to fix it accordingly and used it politically since its inception. The attractive aspect is that no power holder has put the “Islamic identity” upside down but have slightly changed it. Likewise, it was termed in different names; moderate Islam, Islamic socialism and political Islam.
Islamic identity became much problematic when it supersedes the other structures of identities in its practical manifestation. When centre exploits the rights of peripheries under the guise of ideology without realising regional identities, it generates deprivation and conflicts.
Now, the question; what is the way forward? As Rasul Bakhsh Raees in his book “Islam, Ethnicity, and Power politics” has rightly argued, that it’s not possible to melt down all the regional identities in the nation- building propose. All that effort to homogenise diversities have created resentment and resilience. This process of assimilation evolves with the flow of time when all regional ethnicities have objective opportunities and political space for recognition.
Both civil and military establishment should now realise the importance of diversities in uplifting the socio-economic condition.Taking them into confidence will not only diffuse differences, but will also create a sense of ownership to the country.
The writer is pursuing a degree in political science from GCU Lahore
Published in Daily Times, March 26th 2019.