Though Pakistan is fervently trying to moderate her image as a failed state and end her global isolation by various means- mediating in US-Iran conflict, developing security ties with Saudi Arabia, projecting as only Islamic nuclear power and acting as non-permanent member of security council, its fundamental national identity, and democratic deficit remain as her fundamental hurdles. This Article focuses on India’s national identity and demcractic deficit as well as the role of military and religion in the political order.
As Pakistan passes though the 79th year of her existence as an independent nation, it evokes many images- it is passing through acute financial crisis propped by China and IMF; its democratic institutions have suffered deep erosion even before their development; it is a failed state; or it is a textbook example of state-sponsored terrorism (Kapila: 1999; Gupta: 2009). None of these images is reassuring. Since her birth as a new nation on 14 August, 1947, pursuing unsustainable goals has been the hallmark of Pakistan’s destiny. However, in last five years, its economy and polity have simultaneously faced severe strains, which raised question about its survival as a nation-state. While economy faces unprecedented crisis characterized by high debt mainly owed to China, unbearable inflation and erosion of production base, the polity too witnessed the decline of all democratic institutions- parliament, rule of law, judiciary and law and order. While the IMF and China may bail out Pakistan’s economy for the time being, its viability will be remain questionable in coming years. It appears the entire political class cutting across political divide is destined to contribute to undermine every element of democratic process, from bottom to the top. This is the only message of the ongoing political process in Pakistan, though Pakistan has managed to install a new political regime after contested elections in February, 2024. If any idea and practice survives in Pakistan, it is nothing but the Army and the Fundamentalism. In spite of many undesirable outcomes both these ideas have utility in Pakistan. Both have kept Pakistan and its people together for many decades. Nations create armies to secure their frontiers. In Pakistan, army this role at the frontier may be dismal, but its internal role as a unifying force cannot be denied. This is a classic case of role enhancement and role displacement.
Worst of all that is wrong in Pakistan, it seems that Pakistan has lost the capacity to self-introspection, which means no hope for future. There are observers who (Rajgopalan: 2023) claim that Pakistan is not a failed but an insecure state which makes wrong choices. Yet the moot question remains as to why Pakistan always makes wrong choices? Was not the very demand for creation of separate state based on religion a wrong choice? How Pakistan has landed in this situation? What are the fundamental factors which shape Pakistan’s unsustainable choices? These questions constitute the theme of this paper.
Pakistan: Birth and National Identity
National identity is one key driver which shapes the behavior and choices of a state. Pakistan’s national identity has evolved from the context of its creation in early part the 20th century. There are three factors inherent in this context. It was based on the idea of imagined replication of historical part when Muslims ruled the united India for many centuries. History repeats but not in the exact manner we imagine as one cannot cross the same river twice. Second, this imagination coincided with the British design of divide and rule. It was Muslim League which spearheaded the movement for separate Pakistan, but it was created in 1906 as a part of the British design to balance the rise of Congress, which represented the majority in India. The third, element is negative imagination about the future of Muslim community in independent united India. Thus, the imagination about past and future accompanied by present favourable conditions created by the British shaped the idea of Pakistan. It was in this context that Rahmat Ali (1933) launched the idea and name of ‘Pakistan’ through a Pamphlet issued in London in 1933, which reads, ‘I am enclosing herewith an appeal on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of PAKISTAN, who live in the five Northern Units of India–Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan) Province, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. It embodies their demand for the recognition of their national status, as distinct from the other inhabitants of India, by the grant to Pakistan of a separate Federal Constitution on religious, social and historical grounds’. Pakistan derives its name from these five Muslim majority areas.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah picked up the idea, elaborated it on the basis of his Two-nation theory and made it a political project. The essential point of two-nation theory is that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct communities with distinct culture and aspirations and hence they cannot live together. Thus, the very idea of Pakistan is rooted in anti-Hindu and hence anti-India identity of Pakistan. It would not have created problems for Pakistan, had India too have been a small theological state like Pakistan. But the reality is different and Jinnah could not fathom the repercussions of this reality as he was neither a freedom fighter, nor a nation-builder nor a visionary. He was at most a skilled politician to exploit the given opportunity but he lacked any vision for future of Pakistan. This fact is even admitted by Pakistani scholars like Ishtiaq Ahmed, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Stockholm, who remarked that Jinnah was “to blame” (for present crisis of Pakistan) because he had “no vision” for the country. He further added that no doubt Jinnah was the architect of Pakistan but, very importantly, after creating Pakistan Jinnah had no vision for the country (Thapar:2023).
If we go by the spirit of creation of Pakistan as a separate theological state, is anchored around anti-Hindu and Anti-India identity. But Pakistan always needs the ‘OTHER’ India to sustain its national identity. But this identity platform is not unsustainable as India is far ahead of Pakistan is all demographic and development indices like population, area, natural resources, economic growth potential and technological development.
Reflections of Pakistan’s Anti-India Identity
This anti-India identity of Pakistan has shaped Pakistan’s domestic and external behavior, which displays three broad tendencies:
1. Imagining India as a Real and Potential Adversary- Since its creation,Pakistan’s political, military and religious elites have projected India as real and imagined adversary. This is rooted in Jinnah two-nation theory and the conflict ridden process of creation of Pakistan as an independent nation, in spite of hurdles created by India. India was projected not only hurdle in the growth of Pakistan but a perennial and potential military threat. This fact has been so important in Pakistan’s domestic and external life that it has been used by political elites as well as Army to justify their rule and unsustainable and even self harming policies. Talk of reconciliation with India has become synonymous with anti-Pakistan or anti-national. This is how Pakistan’s internal dynamics and her external postures get intertwined with each other, reinforcing each other in a vicious circle.
Political and military elites of Pakistan share a common perception about India as a permanent adversary. This perception has three key impacts in the domestic politics of Pakistan.
First, it has been selectively circulated among people as and when Pakistan faces internal crisis to divert the attention of people from real issues. Second, this perception has justified the political role of army in Pakistan. Since India is adversary, it is the army which can protect and save Pakistan from India. In this respect, political class is found in lacking in playing this role of Army. As a side effect, Army has come to dominate the political landscape directly and indirectly both. During the seventy-nine year history of Pakistan, she has faced 34 years of direct military rule, with three long spells- 1958-1971; 1977-1988; and 1999-2008. For example, in 1999, Army waged unprovoked war against India (Kargil war) and organized military coup to against the elected government led by Nawaz Sharif.
However, when not ruling directly, Pakistan’s Army has always been a dominant player in Pakistan’s democratic politics, turning it into a sham democracy. Since her independence in 1947 till 2024, 14 national elections have been held in Pakistan interspersed with Army rule. However, since 2008, Pakistan has been on the path of electoral democracy with regular elections with many political parties. During 2008 elections Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) won the majority, but in 2013 elections Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) emerged victorious. During 2018 elections, Army effectively helped Imran Khan led Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf party (PTI) to form the government. However, Imran Khan failed to serve Army’s domestic and foreign interested and was removed in April 2022 in no-confidence motion backed by Army. He along with the key leaders of his party has been placed behind bars. The February 2024 elections were without the direct participation of PTI, as it was not allowed to participate under its banner. The PPP and PML (N) joined hands and the government is formed by Shahbaz Sharif as Prime Minister with the participation of PPP. This political regime can survive only to the extent they obey the dictates of army. Imran supported independent candidates emerged as the single largest group, but without support of the army they have no chance.
Second, the direct or indict dominance of Army in the political process of Pakistan has effectively undermine democracy and its key institutions like legislature, judiciary and other institutions. The larger than mandated role of army in Pakistan is the root cause of thinning of democratic institution. Parliament, Judiciary and other institutions have been influenced by Army to undermine democracy in Pakistan. Pakistan faces peculiar position as the army which influences the exercises political power is not effectively accountable to any authority and the political authorities which are responsible to people do not have effective political powers as they are not able to escape the shadow of Army.
Third, Pakistan was created and subsequently sustained as a theological state. Pakistan has declared Islam as state religion. Article 228 of the 1973 Constitution provides for the establishment of Islamic Council, with mandate to ensure that the laws enacted by legislature adhered to Islamic code. Article 203 provides for the Federal Shariat Court which ensures that judicial decisions do not violate Shariat law. Zia-ul Haq regime (1977-1988) is often blamed for religious radicalization of Pakistan’s polity as he introduced Islamic laws, Islamized the educational curriculums, opened up thousands of religious seminaries across the country, inducted Islamists into judiciary, bureaucracy and the army, and created institutions headed by Islamic clerics to oversee the affairs of the government. However, roots of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan are deeper. Ahmed Rashid and Ijaz Khan argue Pakistani decision makers have found religious extremists a natural choice for alliance as tools of foreign policy due to its own religious identity basis; perception of India as a Hindu state which has not accepted Pakistan as an independent state; and the army perceiving democratic forces a challenge to its hold on power (Shams: 2016). Thus, the various shades of extremist Islamic religious groups enjoy respectability in Pakistan. This religious extremism has not only undermined development of a secular democratic polity in Pakistan, but has undermined the rational decision-making process in public affairs.
However, the most Vitriolic development has been the marriage between religious extremism and militarism in Pakistan in the form of rise of state sponsored terrorism since 1990s. By this time Islamic radicalization was complete in Pakistan and its militant capabilities were tested in Afghanistan against the Soviet forces. After the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, Army or the establishment directed Islamic terrorism as a foreign and strategic policy tool mainly against India. Pakistani Army fought three major wars against India in 1948, 1965 and 1971 and resolutely defeated in there wars. The state sponsored terrorism seemed to be viable strategy to bleed India. This has become a major issue in bilateral relations between the two countries as India has demanded renouncing state sponsored terrorism as precondition for starting any negotiations with Pakistan. The terrorism has domestic fall out inside Pakistan. Now Pakistani Army is facing the challenge posed by Tahreeke-I Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the northern frontiers, bordering with Afghanistan. Pakistan has blamed Afghanistan for supporting TTP and the relations between the two has gone bad to worst in 2024. Thus, sustaining extremism and terrorism has boomeranged on Pakistan.
2. Attempt to Gain Parity with India- Pakistan has been to achieve parity with India in every field, which has proved unrealistic and unsustainable. Pakistan has always followed irrational policies in her pursuit to either opposing or gaining parity with India. But this is an unrealistic goal. India conducted nuclear test in 1974 and Pakistan announced the development of nuclear weapons and finally conducted nuclear test in 1999. Pakistan’s defence modernization programme is directed with goal of gaining parity with India. This demonstrates how scarce resources are siphoned away in unrealistic pursuits. In 2017 India joined membership of SCO and Pakistan followed the suit. India is now claiming the membership of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), but China has also applied for membership. Pakistan is also member of Uniting for Consensus group to oppose India’s bid for permanent membership of UN Security Council. Pakistan’s policies and strategies are India centric and fail to take into account domestic conditions. Thus, desire for parity with India is a part of Pakistan’s genetic code. However, given India’s size and scale of development, this is a self-inflicting goal as it will compound Pakistan’s woes.
3. Co-Opting Major Powers to Balance India- Unable to maintain parity with India, Pakistan has always tried to balance India by forging strategic alliances with great powers like US or China or with Muslim countries and organizations like OIC in the name of Islamic cause. Pakistan has followed this policy since her emergence as independent nation. In 1950s, Pakistan joined the US led military alliances like CEATO and CENTO to balance India’s growing profile under her non-alignment policy. The US supported Pakistan during 1971 war. After the entry of Soviet forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan got another opportunity to develop strategic relations with the US. This worked well due the very logic of cold war in South Asia. This strategic alliance continued after 9/11 as the US needed Pakistan to fight Afghan based Ali Qaeda and Taliban. American interest waned after the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Now Pakistan turned her eyes towards China to cultivate strategic partnership to balance India. It is also working well as both China and Pakistan have common goal of opposing rising India. China has not only helped Pakistan in her nuclear development and defence modernization, but has also emerged as the biggest investor in Pakistan in recent decades. It has launched $64 billion CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) to gain access to Gwadar port, which is another access for China to the Indian Ocean. India is a cementing force in China-Pak strategic partnership. Scholars argue that Pakistan has geopolitical significance, but this is not inherent in Pakistan as such but is derived from circumstantial factors arising from global or regional strategic conditions.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s economic, political and foreign policy challenges have become acute now, in spite of her fervent efforts to emerge as a peace broker. Pakistan’s woes have infinite list-debt and inflation, slowing down of economy, undermining of democracy and rising political violence, violation of human rights rising violence and extremism in Baluchistan and her borders Afghanistan, rising resentment and protests in Pak-Occupied Kashmir and downslide in her global image to name a few (TOI:2024). Pakistan has not reached to this situation in a day but it is the outcome of her unsustainable and irrational domestic and foreign policies for long time. The major feature of Pakistan domestic and foreign policies have been their India-centricity. Ever since her birth as a nation and state, Pakistan has built her national identity around anti-India narrative. Now that anti India narrative has become a self- proclaimed truth. It is reflected in her religious-national identity, desire to gain parity with India, and co-opting major powers to balance India. This narrative has undermined every domain of her public life- political process and democracy, independent foreign policy and rational policy making. The Army and extremist groups are logical outcrop of this narrative and they form a vicious circle. For more than seven decades, Pakistan has failed to overcome India-centricity and this is not going to fade away soon as various stakeholders like Army and political and religious groups have interest in perpetuating it. If Pakistan wants to stand up as a nation, its choices should emerge from its own political and economic dynamics rather than from unsustainable goals and pursuits.
REFERENCES
Ali, Rahmat (1933) NOW OR NEVER, Are We to Live or Perish Forever. Open Appeal in Pamphlet, issued in London on 28 January, 1933. Available At: https://franpritchett.com/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html
Gupta, Arvind (2009) Is Pakistan A Failed State? IDSA Comment. Available At: https://idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/IsPakistanaFailingState_AGupta_160609
Kapila, Subhash (1999) Pakistan-A Failed State. Institute of Conflict and peace Studies, 277, 26 October, 1999. Available At: https://www.ipcs.org/comm_select.php?articleNo=277
Rajgopalan, Rajesh (2023) Pakistan is an Insecure State, not a failed one, Its Crisis gives India a Breather. The Print, 24 April, 2023. Available At: theprint.in/opinion/pakistan-is-an-insecure-state-not-a-failed-one-its-crisis-gives-india-a-breather/1533059/
Shams, Shamil (2016) Pakistan: Before and After Zia-ul Haq. DW, 17 August, 2016. Available At: https://www.dw.com/en/pakistans-islamization-before-and-after-dictator-zia-ul-haq/a-19480315
Thapar, Karan (2024) ‘Jinnah to Blame for Repeated Military Takeovers, Pakistan’s Failure to Become a Democracy’. The Wire, 23 February 2024. Available At: https://thewire.in/video/watch-jinnah-to-blame-for-repeated-military-takeovers-pakistans-failure-to-become-a-democracy
TOI (2024) Crisis Deepens in Pakistan as human rights activist warns of complete melt down. The Times of India, 06 April, 2024. Available At: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/crisis-deepens-in-pakistan-as-human-rights-activist-warns-of-complete-meltdown/articleshow/109089972.cms
PSIR Simplified 
Leave a comment