|
A
crime against Nation
By
Ameer Bhutto
 Pakistan is not a nation, but a multi-national state
composed of four nations that were independent and sovereign in the
past. Smothering the identity of a nation to needlessly produce an
absurd monism is characteristic of imperialist impulses.
There is a stigma attached to nationalism which 'nationalists' around
the world have not been able to shake off. This stigma exists due to a
deliberate confusion created by the anti-nationalist forces and vested
interests that seek to discredit genuine nationalists.
To clarify the position, it is necessary to draw a distinction between
two types of nationalism. One type may be described as 'aggressive'
nationalism, while the other type may be referred to as 'protective'
nationalism.
The impetus for action and the nature of change brought about by these
diametrically opposed ideologies is very different. Whereas aggressive
nationalism is an ideology that readily lends itself to imperialist and
fascist tendencies that seek to oppress and stifle, protective
nationalism acts as a barrier against oppression and can be a fertile
breeding ground for positive change, leading to freedom and liberty.
The brilliant Oxford Don and philosopher, Sir Isaiah Berlin, wrote,
"The sense of belonging to a nation seems to me to be quite natural
and not in itself to be condemned, or even criticized. But in its
inflamed condition - my nation is better than yours, I know how the
world should be shaped and you must yield because you do not, because
you are inferior to me, because my nation is top and yours is far, far
below mine and must offer itself as material to mine, which is the only
nation entitled to create the best possible world - it is a form of
pathological extremism which can lead, and has led to unimaginable
horrors."
This bellicose and belligerent form of nationalism is aggressive
nationalism and has thrown up the Hitlers, the Mussolinis and the
colonial empires that history is riddled with. It is an extreme form of
nation-worship that leads to suffering and subjugation and must be
abhorred by any liberal who values the freedom of man.
What defines and indeed distinguishes protective nationalism from
aggressive nationalism is the basic principle that whereas aggressive
nationalism is a matter of ideology promoted by a militarily and
materially advanced nation to hegemonize a less advanced and less
powerful nation, protective nationalism is an attempt on the part of the
less advanced nation to survive in the face of hegemonic designs of the
aggressor who seeks to obliterate its national identity.
Protective nationalism is thrust upon nations by history and
circumstances. It is the agonized throes of a nation as it struggles to
resist the current in an effort to stay afloat. These natural instincts
for self-preservation are erroneously referred to as nationalism whereas
it is, in fact, no more than a desperate struggle for the political,
economic, social, cultural and territorial survival of a nation under
siege.
If the struggle is successful, the nationalists are hailed as
revolutionaries and liberators. Statues and monuments are erected in
their honour and boulevards are named after them. If the struggle fails,
they are imprisoned and executed as traitors and terrorists. The process
of recording history is highly subjective. The victor has his say while
the voice of the vanquished is silenced.
Pakistan, too, has experienced protective nationalism in its relatively
short history. The secession of East Pakistan and the consequent birth
of Bangladesh was a direct consequence of Bengali protective
nationalism. They were pushed into a corner and forced to fight for
their national and cultural survival, which in their view was impossible
within the framework of Pakistan.
Sindhi, Baloch and Pushtoon nationalism, too, has, at one point or
another, been viewed as a threat to the state and treason cases have
been filed against a number of nationalist political leaders. More
recently, their brand of nationalism has been held responsible for
impeding development with reference to Kalabagh Dam.
The sad and frustrating part of all this is that no attempt whatsoever
is made to understand the protective nationalism that is fermenting in
Sindh, Balochistan and the Frontier, and the causes and circumstances
that gave birth to it and the fears that sustain it continue to elude
the grasp of those who seek to crush it. Preconceived, prefabricated and
highly inappropriate solutions are applied that further aggravate the
situation rather than repair the harm already done.
Understanding requires more than a mere superficial knowledge of how
things are. It implies an appreciation of why things are the way they
are. Rather than understanding and addressing the motives, fears, hopes,
ambitions and historical factors that generate ripples of nationalism,
we prefer to gag all dissent and plaster over such ungainly,
embarrassing and hard to deal with realities in order to give the
appearance of a veneer of calm, no matter how unacceptable and
distasteful it might be.
A good example of this is the way in which the federal government is
insistently pushing ahead with the Kalabagh Dam project in the face of
strong opposition in Sindh, Balochistan and the Frontier, even though
the provincial legislatures of these three provinces have passed
resolutions against this project.
Instead of trying to understand the apprehensions and causes of the
objections to the dam and allaying these fears in a spirit of
accommodation and trust, the government seems to have adopted a highly
provocative three-pronged strategy. Firstly, an all out attempt is being
made to discredit the opponents of the dam by labelling them as feudal
vested interests. Secondly, the political parties and representatives of
the people have been distanced and isolated and the task of resolving
the conflict and forging a consensus has been placed upon the shoulders
of the Civil Service and technocrats, who have no nexus with the public
and are, thus, incapable of swaying public opinion.
The only way to resolve this deadlock is through a political dialogue
between political leaders from all the four provinces, including
nationalists, aided by technical experts and perhaps with the assistance
of independent foreign experts to provide an impartial view. The
President is right in believing that this issue has to be resolved soon,
but the civil servants cannot resolve this issue and if any agreement
reached by them is imposed upon the nation, there could be serious
trouble.
Thirdly, the President has taken it upon himself to promote Kalabagh Dam
at every forum instead of remaining impartial. This has only served to
elevate the debate to a higher level and further antagonize the
opponents of the dam. Sensitive national issues require finesse and a
deft touch. They cannot be bulldozed or be stamped out under a heavy
boot.
It has been my experience that those in power simply do not understand
the problems of the three smaller provinces and continue to live in
denial of their genuine and urgent needs. Their ignorance on matters of
vital interest to the people of the three smaller provinces is
astounding.
During a recent visit to Lahore, a classmate of mine from Atchison
College whom I had not seen in over twenty-five years, and who now
happens to be a power to be reckoned with in Punjabi politics, invited
me for dinner with his family and some other mutual friends. The
conversation inevitably steered itself to politics, and I was telling
him about the mess in Sindh compared to which Punjab seemed like an
island of tranquillity, development and stability.
After listening to me patiently, my friend's wife finally spoke.
"The solution seems quite obvious to me," she said. "A
Punjabi man should be appointed the chief minister of Sindh so that he
may set things right for you."
For a moment I was not sure I had heard her properly or whether she was
serious or merely jesting. She was not jesting. This was not a careless
remark from some insignificant, illiterate person. It came from an
educated, responsible and knowledgeable member of a highly respected and
powerful family.
There followed a brief awkward silence. To break the tension, her
husband joked, "Why don't we get someone from Singapore?" I
went a step further. "Why don't we hand the whole country back to
the British? They seemed to have done such a marvellous job here in the
past!"
To be fair, I also had a rather pleasant meeting with an advisor to the
Punjab Chief Minister who surprised me with his balanced approach and an
understanding of the issues at hand. We need more people like him who
realize that nationalists are not out to dismember the country but are
merely protecting the vital interests of their regions. Alas, men of
that ilk are few and far apart up north.
Pakistan is not a nation but a multi-national state, composed of four
nations that have been independent and sovereign in the past. Each
nation possesses, in the words of Johann Gottfried Herder, a distinct
"centre of gravity". Multiple values and interests of each
component nation, which are an essential, indeed objective, part of
their identity, flowing inexorably from their past experiences, often
produce a diversity of opinion and sometimes conflict.
This cultural and national diversity, whether it be political, social or
economic in nature, need not be perceived as a threat to Pakistan. It
can become our strength if we let it evolve and flourish. Variety and a
difference of opinion unleash a dynamic process of creativity and
progress, but the inescapable prerequisite for that is an atmosphere of
mutual trust that can only be born of mutual respect. Protective
nationalism surfaces in response to a threat. Eliminate the threat and
nationalism loses its raison d'etre.
In Pakistan we have evolved a deep distrust of national diversity and
cultures and we view competing interests as a threat to state interests.
The nations constituting Pakistan have enough in common to coexist and
cooperate to their mutual benefit with a healthy display of tolerance
and accommodation, but problems arise when an attempt is made at an
unnecessary artificial unification of cultural and national identities
and interests to the extent of forging one all-encompassing identity at
the expense of its component parts. This cannot be done and can lead to
serious trauma, as it already has in our history.
Modern times demand a tolerant, pluralist approach. Smothering the
identity and vital interests of a nation to needlessly produce an absurd
and meaningless monism of national culture is characteristic of
imperialist impulses and is a crime against nations. Dawn Magazine
Sunday 25.1.2004
|
