Sense of unity and belongingness during partition and now

The sense of belonging to one country, nation, or community is not given but constructed at different times and contexts. People may form a bonding based on shared territory, history, language, culture, insecurities, socio-economic interests, religious and ethnic associations, so on and so forth.

In 1648, the modern state system, based on nationalism, was also established by mobilising a sense of community; togetherness among fellow citizens. Benedict Anderson seminal work, Imagined Communities, highlights the construction of the political community and argues that association is envisioned regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep horizontal comradeship.’ Lands are ‘cultural artifacts’ that may interpret in numerous ways or meanings. His thesis proposes that nationhood or ‘nation-ness’ may not be generated by living on or holding territory or area solely. Communities or nations, therefore, are imagined as much as located on the ground. Anderson is mindful of the social construction of the community and asserts that such a community is limited; it does not comprise of the whole humankind and sovereign; it imagines itself free under the emblem of the sovereign state. However, he does not address how the discourses of the existence of such a community that reifies nation-ness also serve material and political objectives of the power elite.

Employing the above framework on Pakistan, one may proclaim that by living on the Pakistani territory, does not eventually become a Pakistani. The Pakistani community instead exists in discourses of togetherness that are formed, on shared culture, norms, or ideals. In given situations, these discourses are articulated and represented by the elite power, in an intelligible language, to achieve assured political interests.

Muslims were a scattered minority on the Indian subcontinent. In the pre-1940 period, they were striving to achieve constitutional guarantees as a minority. However, in the post-1940 period, the whole orientation of Muslim politics was transformed from constitutional rights to the demand of a separate homeland. One of the prominent analysts of Pakistani politics Muhammad Waseem in his book 'Politics and the State of Pakistan' asserts that the community-ness/bonding among Muslims formed in the name of religion in the post-1940 period. Interestingly, Pakistan was ideate on the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent, where Muslims were residing in the majority. The Muslim League leadership, on the other hand, belonged to the Hindu majority area and had a first-hand experience of living under Hindu dominance. The message of a separate homeland, however, was exported to the northwestern part of the subcontinent.

By constructing a discourse of community in the language of religion, Muslim League leadership articulated the imminence of a separate homeland. In a public address at Urdu Park, New Delhi, on October 23, 1941, Muhammad Ali Jinnah reiterated that the purpose of a segregate land was the practice of Islam. He stated that ‘Today, unfurling the Muslim League flag, I want to reaffirm with all the emphasis at my command that we stand for Pakistan and faith, unity and discipline. I am confident that we will acquire a place in this land where we may live honourably according to Islamic tradition and culture.’ This narrative was further supported, with certain representations; Islam is in danger or Pakistan ka Matlab kya: La ilaha Illah. Allegedly, the leadership of the Muslim League was supporting partition for various socio-political and economic reasons. However, their narrative of togetherness in the name of Islam was intelligible and eventually mobilised the otherwise passive Muslims as a community in support of a separate homeland.

During the initial years of statehood, Islam proclaimed as the official religion and, Pakistan opted for a constitutional democracy as its state system. Mr Jinnah imagined that Islam accompanying constitutionalism may harness a sense of community among fellow Pakistanis. Therefore, at a broadcast talk on February 26, 1948, he explicitly stated that Pakistan would be a democracy and, only a democratic state system embodies essential principles of Islam based on ‘equality of men, justice and fair play to everybody…In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic nation —to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims —Hindus, Christian, and Parsis—but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.’ Islam and constitutional democracy identified as the new gelling factors of the Pakistani community. Instead of instituting the Islamic state system, the political leadership opted for western constitutionalism as the political structure of the nascent state. Later, several provisions were introduced to Islamise the constitution. However, the promise of democracy compromised by the elite power, and Islam alone could not accomplish the promise of togetherness in Pakistan.

Divided into two incongruent geographical parts; East and West, Pakistan was home to varied ethnic communities; Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, and Pashtuns. Because of such a diversified socio-cultural and geographical landscape, the problems of political representation in the new polity soon replaced the Islam based identity. Later, the separation of East Pakistan from the West further questioned the relevance of religious identity discourses in Pakistan.

Nevertheless, the Pakistani power elite kept Islam based identity discourse alive and kicking. In various situations, the political leadership reified Islam based identity of Pakistani nation. For instance, at the time of three major wars with India 1948, 1965, and 1971, the discourse of Islamic identity guaranteed support to state policies. Also, in the wake of terrorist attacks in the United States of America 2001, the then President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf constructed the imminence of joining the United States-led International Coalition against Terrorism by giving references to Islamic history. Even a U-turn on previous pro-Taliban policies of Islamabad was justified, by providing the reference to Islamic teachings and injunctions. By keeping Islam as a defining factor, the power elite not only justified its policies at national and international levels, but it also constructed a sense of community or nation-ness in an otherwise ethnically diversified landscape of Pakistan.

Political constituency, always raised slogans of Islam to legitimise their rule and generate unity. In these situations, democratic pluralism has distorted and, even fundamental human rights were compromised. Moreover, ethnic diversity and differences of opinion have been disregarded and treated as treason. The unity thus generated proved to be short-lived. Once the imminence of the situation disappeared, the voices of poor governance and political participation resurfaced. State’s instrumental use of religion extended sectarian as well as ethnic cleavages and, therefore, distorted unity in Pakistani society.

The present time requires unity more than ever, we need to stick to constitutional democracy, and pluralism as well as delivering of the promise made by state since its inception and particularly as envisaged in the 1973 constitution – as a social contract. The former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was right referring to the new social contract and to fix this turn-taking of democracy and dictatorship once and for all. Unity will evolve with an honest approach to our past, present, and future. The state must come up with delivering the promise of social and ideological pluralism and economic opportunities for all. Once done, a nation will surface that would protect the state and vice versa.

—The writer teaches International Relations at SPIR, QAU Islamabad and can be reached at aishayounus@qau.edu.pk

The present time requires unity more than ever, we need to stick to constitutional democracy, and pluralism as well as delivering of the promise made by state since its inception and particularly as envisaged in the 1973 Constitution – as a social contract