Perceptron
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 0
Imran, Jinnah and Pakistans problem
By Aakar Patel
Published: January 14, 2012
The writer is a director with Hill Road Media and a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
In his short but magnificent speech of August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam begins by instructing his government to settle the chaos of Partition. He ends by revealing his beautiful, humane side, telling us he sees people without noticing their religion.
In the middle, he lists Pakistans problems. According to him, these are three: corruption, black marketing and nepotism (Jinnah uses the quaint term jobbery). Was he correct in assuming these were Pakistans problems? This question is important because Imran Khan also believes that Pakistans problems are the same. Corruption is his primary theme and he ended his Karachi jalsa by promising his supporters never to succumb to chamchagiri. If he were asked to name a third problem, he would likely say loss of Pakistans sovereignty. As a Pathan, he feels loss of honour in fighting Americas war and in asking for aid.
To return to Jinnahs list, were these Pakistans real problems? No. Pakistans breaking up, 25 years after being formed, was not because of corruption. The decades of military rule and the rise of the jihadis are not because of nepotism. Pakistans economic condition is not the doing of black marketeers.
What are the problems then? To the outsider, it appears there is only one. The orientation of the Pakistani state is wrong. And it isnt aligned correctly because of its ideology, whose prenatal trait is more pronounced each passing decade. This flaw produced the states resolve to defy India at all costs and the subsequent dominance of the army, which has led to the emasculation of its political parties and made politics irrelevant. The successful penetration of this ideology has resulted in the populations rejection of its own ancient culture. Indians are as corrupt as Pakistanis, as nepotistic and as poor. Most Indians dont like their politicians. However, they dont have a crisis of the state and no need for a saviour like Imran. Why? Simple. Indias secular constitution is accepted by all its parties, right, centre and left. Even the BJP insists on secularism.
India has one of the worlds most bigoted societies, true. But it has outstanding laws and a constitution as good as if not better than any in Europe. The state is aligned correctly, the orientation is right. In such conditions, progress is possible and despair is held at bay.
The equality of human beings is not something we should waste time debating in 2012. It can be argued that some articles in Pakistans constitution are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the second amendment (which apostatises Ahmadis), Article 41-2 (which excludes non-Muslims from being a president) and Article 91-3 (excludes non-Muslims from being eligible to be elected prime minister). Article 227 permanently keeps Pakistan unstable because its power to strike down anything interpreted as un-Islamic is open-ended.
As an example, we have before us the Supreme Courts opinion this week that Prime Minister Gilani may not be a good enough Muslim to hold office. Absolute purity of their faith is something that seems to be the exclusive concern of Pakistanis.
Imran defines a welfare state as one that gives free medical treatment, free education, free justice and unemployment benefits, as in Europe. He doesnt seem to understand that Europes progress is the result of its secularism. The individuals religion is irrelevant. This equality is the basis of their welfare state. Change cannot come to Pakistan without reorienting its state, its army and its culture.
This is Pakistans only real problem. Its settling down can come only from a change in ideology, not a change of governments. Building an Islami falahi riyasat, even by well-meaning saviours, is likely to cause more confusion.
In that sense, Zardari is a better leader than Imran because he understands the problem. He wants to normalise the state, soften its ideology.
Unfortunately, Pakistans army and media vetoed his no-first use and open trade policies with India. Now its courts are working on getting him out.
Its possible that Imran Khan will take power in Pakistan. At the Mazar-i-Quaid, he promised to finish Jinnahs work.
So long as he tilts at the old windmills of corruption and nepotism, not understanding that the problem really lies elsewhere, his messianic fervour will come to nothing.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2012.
By Aakar Patel
Published: January 14, 2012
The writer is a director with Hill Road Media and a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
In his short but magnificent speech of August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam begins by instructing his government to settle the chaos of Partition. He ends by revealing his beautiful, humane side, telling us he sees people without noticing their religion.
In the middle, he lists Pakistans problems. According to him, these are three: corruption, black marketing and nepotism (Jinnah uses the quaint term jobbery). Was he correct in assuming these were Pakistans problems? This question is important because Imran Khan also believes that Pakistans problems are the same. Corruption is his primary theme and he ended his Karachi jalsa by promising his supporters never to succumb to chamchagiri. If he were asked to name a third problem, he would likely say loss of Pakistans sovereignty. As a Pathan, he feels loss of honour in fighting Americas war and in asking for aid.
To return to Jinnahs list, were these Pakistans real problems? No. Pakistans breaking up, 25 years after being formed, was not because of corruption. The decades of military rule and the rise of the jihadis are not because of nepotism. Pakistans economic condition is not the doing of black marketeers.
What are the problems then? To the outsider, it appears there is only one. The orientation of the Pakistani state is wrong. And it isnt aligned correctly because of its ideology, whose prenatal trait is more pronounced each passing decade. This flaw produced the states resolve to defy India at all costs and the subsequent dominance of the army, which has led to the emasculation of its political parties and made politics irrelevant. The successful penetration of this ideology has resulted in the populations rejection of its own ancient culture. Indians are as corrupt as Pakistanis, as nepotistic and as poor. Most Indians dont like their politicians. However, they dont have a crisis of the state and no need for a saviour like Imran. Why? Simple. Indias secular constitution is accepted by all its parties, right, centre and left. Even the BJP insists on secularism.
India has one of the worlds most bigoted societies, true. But it has outstanding laws and a constitution as good as if not better than any in Europe. The state is aligned correctly, the orientation is right. In such conditions, progress is possible and despair is held at bay.
The equality of human beings is not something we should waste time debating in 2012. It can be argued that some articles in Pakistans constitution are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the second amendment (which apostatises Ahmadis), Article 41-2 (which excludes non-Muslims from being a president) and Article 91-3 (excludes non-Muslims from being eligible to be elected prime minister). Article 227 permanently keeps Pakistan unstable because its power to strike down anything interpreted as un-Islamic is open-ended.
As an example, we have before us the Supreme Courts opinion this week that Prime Minister Gilani may not be a good enough Muslim to hold office. Absolute purity of their faith is something that seems to be the exclusive concern of Pakistanis.
Imran defines a welfare state as one that gives free medical treatment, free education, free justice and unemployment benefits, as in Europe. He doesnt seem to understand that Europes progress is the result of its secularism. The individuals religion is irrelevant. This equality is the basis of their welfare state. Change cannot come to Pakistan without reorienting its state, its army and its culture.
This is Pakistans only real problem. Its settling down can come only from a change in ideology, not a change of governments. Building an Islami falahi riyasat, even by well-meaning saviours, is likely to cause more confusion.
In that sense, Zardari is a better leader than Imran because he understands the problem. He wants to normalise the state, soften its ideology.
Unfortunately, Pakistans army and media vetoed his no-first use and open trade policies with India. Now its courts are working on getting him out.
Its possible that Imran Khan will take power in Pakistan. At the Mazar-i-Quaid, he promised to finish Jinnahs work.
So long as he tilts at the old windmills of corruption and nepotism, not understanding that the problem really lies elsewhere, his messianic fervour will come to nothing.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2012.
