Comments on: Pakistan Day 2009

By: Sikander Hayat

Sikander Hayat — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:18:36 +0000

On 4th April 1979, a dictator Zia Ul Haq oversaw a judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. We must not let this kind of thing happen again and the only way to stop us from repeating history is by not forgetting history.

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

By Sikander Hayat

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:46:26 +0000

I would argue that is because Bangladesh is more akin to a conventional nation-state (“conventional” in the sense that it is closer to the 19th century European conception at the heart of the very idea of the nation-state: one land, one people, one language, etc.) than are either Pakistan or India. Bangladesh is more like France or Germany than it is like the United States.* The latter, or Pakistan, Israel, or (I would argue) India, are no more or no less ideological constructs than the first group of nation-states I’ve mentioned, but have what I would call a “performative” ideology — i.e. in a world where most nation-states fall into the first category, the ones in my second category feel compelled to perennially “act out” their ideology, to justify it in a sense. In psychological terms, an anxiety underlies these conceptions of the nation-state.

*[I do not mean to suggest that nation-states like France, Bangladesh, etc. are more "natural" than the ones in my second category; I do not find such fictions persuasive, and one ought never to forget the large doses of violence needed to make multi-ethnic spaces into relatively mono-ethnic ones. Think of France, which over the course of the 19th century basically succeeded in culturally exterminating all cultures/languages other than French, or at a minimum in gravely subordinating them; to the point where it was illegal for street signs in Brittany to be in Breton, or for children to be given certain names, or for people to be taught their own language. Today, Provencal -- once a language more important than (what became modern) French -- is basically the province of academics.]

Aside: Bangladesh presents a fascinating picture, because although it is “like” Germany vis-a-vis Pakistan (i.e. the “one people state”), vis-a-vis India it is “like” Pakistan, i.e. its two nation-theory inheritance comes into play.

By: The Idea of Pakistan « Subcontinental Breakfast

The Idea of Pakistan « Subcontinental Breakfast — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:41:56 +0000

[...] can attempt to understand the very idea of Pakistan and it’s existential qualms at Chapati Mystery, as they commemorate Pakistan Day 2009. On March 23rd, Pakistan celebrates “Pakistan Day” to [...]

By: Long Time Chapati Lover

Long Time Chapati Lover — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:09:06 +0000

No-one ever says Bangladesh needs a “foundational ideology”, a “raison d’etre” or a “unifying theme”. Why does Pakistan need a “theme”?

By: sav

sav — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:01:55 +0000

I hope you’re right sepoy. Yours are the first picture’s I’m seeing of women’s participation, the media here only ever show men!

Also, I largely agree with Qalandar about people’s perceptions about MQM (though, they’re considered to be a terrorist organization in Canada, re: http://www.thestar.com/article/605196).

I don’t know where this fits in, it’s a speech given by Ch. Zafrullah Khan in Canada to the Empire Club about India’s involvement in the war and some of the Hindu-Muslim struggles, I’m sure you can place it much better than anyone else: http://speeches.empireclub.org/details.asp?SpeechID=966&FT=yes

By: Global Voices Online » Pakistan Day And The Lawyers’ Movement

Global Voices Online » Pakistan Day And The Lawyers’ Movement — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:41:24 +0000

[...] celebrated Pakistan day yesterday. Chapaty Mystery discussed the significance of the day and mentioned how the recent successful lawyers' movement [...]

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:16:43 +0000

My (largely uninformed) reaction is to question whether the pan-Islamic theme — which seems to have unraveled into oppositionalism and sectarianism pretty quickly — was authentic transnationalism or more rhetorical leverage. Maybe it’s my cynical side, but that kind of transnational talk should translate into some kind of action, whereas I don’t see anything happening beyond the independence movement which, as you note, doesn’t continue to cohere very long.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:36:56 +0000

I think many would disagree with your characterization of urban Sindh as “hostage” to the MQM — for the sorts of reasons you bring up re: Swat, many feel the MQM “delivers” in Karachi (I was there earlier in March, after a 2-year gap, and I was struck by how much better the roads etc. seemed. This is the sort of thing that leads many to overlook the thuggish aspects of the party’s rule)…

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:34:09 +0000

Re: “In their (limited) successes and their (dramatic) failures, each of these steps was monumental in articulating an alternative vision of Pakistan to its own people.”

I would also add the peasants in Okara, Punjab, that Pervez Hoodbhoy has written so eloquently about, who resisted the army a few years ago in an entirely non-violent campaign aimed at resisting their dispossession from their land. I don’t know the current status of this movement, but surely this must have been the largest resistance to the military, at elast prior to the Lawyers’ Movement…would love to get some additional info. on this…

By: Sahar

Sahar — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:23:03 +0000

Great stuff! I am still not fully convinced of your division of ideological thought into the transnational vs. anti-India frames. And of timing. Of course both have been there from the start, but it seems to me that post-Zia the link to the “ummah” has been articulated ever more vociferously. Our love affair with Saudi Arabia only began under Zia. And the commercial links to the Gulf have certainly strengthened sharply since the 1980s. And the hijabs and the thobes on Pakistani city streets (ugh) over the last 10-15 years. Of course it may also be the case that these two are not all that different (to show that we’re NOT India, we show our connection to the Arab world). So let me check – are you saying that these are two sides of the same coin?*

Also, I found the following excerpt from Jinnah striking: “It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it.” Jinnah was critiquing the British, of course, but that is exactly what happened post-1947 in Pakistan. In the absence of a real and inclusive nation, the Army has been imposing its will on the country, and of course failed to do so in 1971 (and is failing now in Baluchistan and NWFP). I think the separatist angle of the Taliban is also often unmentioned. As far as I know, the Taliban (any of them) haven’t expressed any interest in taking over GoP. They want autonomy over THEIR territory, and they want to aid their brethren in Afghanistan, but the story of NWFP as you say is another failure of the state to include people as real citizens. (Please note, I’m not defending the nutjobs, just trying to identify their particular brand of nuttiness.)

*And after your private clarification that the “second half” of the ideological turn you refer to is specifically Saudi-Arabia-focused, I am more convinced.