In light of the recent statement by IK of granting citizenship to illegal Bangladeshi migrants and Afghan refugees and the ensuing discussions and debates that took place (on this very forum included) one cannot help but notice that in the minds of many Pakistanis there is a vague and questionable idea of what it means to be a
Nation, because what it means to be a
Pakistani has not been defined properly. There are only vague definitions, mostly copy-pasted from Western Liberal conceptions of Nationhood and citizenship because apparently by simply being born on its soil one can become a Pakistani citizen if one so chooses, or another ludicrous example is that all it takes to qualify for being a Pakistani citizen is to be a Muslim because Pakistan was "founded on Islam", as if religion is the sole basis of Nationhood. The arguments presented in favor of this conception need to be addressed.
But first we must clarify what it means to be a
Nation.
Nation Defined
A Nation is not simply an aggregate of individuals living in the present. A Nation includes all of those who have passed away (its founders) and all of those who have yet to come. The former group, which
includes heroes, martyrs, leaders, thinkers, men of culture (poets, writers etc.), etc., is the one which has contributed to the cultural, traditional and thus spiritual development of the Nation, its National consciousness, and thus its unique identity which bonds all members of the Nation together, giving it not only an understanding of its past but also an understanding of its destiny. All succeeding generations must not only cherish this heritage but must also contribute to it's growth and pass it down to those generations succeeding them.
In addition to the above, a Nation is forged through struggle in times of hardship, for it is these trials and tribulations which test the driving idea behind its inception, its unity, and should this Nation withstand and overcome the challenges facing it then it has proven its internal vitality, thus becoming worthy of the title, and out forth will come new heroes and positive role models for succeeding generations, in addition to the ones already known, and thus as a result further increase in cultural vitality and strengthening of the National consciousness of its members.
One can argue that Pakistan is currently comprised of various ethnic groups which are nations in themselves, which is true if one were to single out the individual ethnic groups and focus solely on that fact, however due to the thousands of years of coexistence in close proximity of each other and shared historical experiences, e.g. wars and conquests against a common enemy in the East, being descendants of the many original inhabitants of the Indus region, etc. the differences have been long since reconciled.
This is why, for example, when Pakistan gained its independence in 1947, during the First Kashmir war, Pashtun tribesmen volunteered to go and liberate Kashmir without hesitation or second thought, on the command of Quaid e Azam who was not even an ethnic Pashtun. There was no economic incentive for them to join Pakistan, which according to many wouldn't last long. This particular experience proved the loyalty of Pashtuns to the idea of Pakistan as a Nation for the Muslims of North Indian-Subcontinent and their willingness to commit to its further development.
Same is true for the original Muhajirs from territories in today's India, who left behind all property and familial relations and risked life and limb to make the journey which they were not guaranteed to survive, indeed which many did not survive. What motivated them was their belief not only in their religion but in the idea of a Pakistani Nationhood.
Anyone can immigrate in times of peace and claim citizenship. But it is hardship which is the true test of faith.
On the other hand, Bangladeshis did not identify with the idea of Pakistan and decided to opt out of the union because of their ethnic, geographic and cultural differences with the ethnic groups comprising modern Pakistan. However despite these differences they were lumped with Pakistan because of a misperceived notion that a shared religious faith was sufficient enough to qualify being included within this union and to hold it together. History proved this notion to be incorrect in 1971. Religion
alone is not sufficient. Common historical origins, history, struggle, culture, traditions and a common goal etc. are just as important, if not more.
In Pakistan's case it's moments of truth were 1947 and 1971 when those who were devoted to the idea of Pakistan were distinguished from those who doubted it through the sacrifices they were willing to make, first towards its inception at a time when many doubted its existence and then later in 1971 when again it's founding idea was put to the test. It was during these two decisive moments that National unity triumphed over purely religious unity, particularly in 1971 when Bangla Muslims opted out of the union, viewing themselves as a distinct nation incompatible in a union with the Muslims of then West Pakistan.
In light of the above clarification of what a Nation is as holistically understood, let us now tackle the issue of citizenship and the arguments put forth by those favoring Imran Khan's position.
The Four Arguments Presented
Below are the four arguments pertaining to citizenship presented by those in favor of IK's suggestion :
1. Jus Soli argument
First one is the
Jus Soli argument (the
magic soil theory, that if someone moves to, or is born on a particular parcel of dirt within a given country they
magically begin to think and act like the people of that nation and become its loyal citizens, and this is all it takes to qualify for citizenship).
This law exists within Pakistan however as
@Nilgiri pointed out it is only valid for those who enter the country legally.
However the obvious problem with this concept is that most people migrate to a given nation (legally or illegally) for economic purposes and not out of love for the cultural, historical or ethnic makeup of that particular Nation. An obvious example of this is people who migrate to Western countries. They don't migrate to the West to study the Magna Carta, or to write a scholarly dissertation on Thomas Jefferson's life. They move to the West for its material benefits. Now of course there might be a very small minority of people who
might leave their down trodden village in a third world country to move to America or Britain purely to study the Magna Carta or write a scholarly dissertation on Thomas Jefferson's life, but these people are exceptions to the rule and the exception does not define the rule.
Loyalty to material interests does not translate to loyalty to a Nation. To test this theory just ask any Pakistani in the West that in the hypothetical event that their host country goes to war with Pakistan, who's side will they choose? Will they choose the host nation which provides them material comfort? Or will they choose the homeland in which their forefathers are burried and with which they have a historical, cultural and ethnic connection? For most of us the answer is obvious.
In the case of refugees they migrate to flee danger and seek personal safety, and not to become a part of their host nation out of any genuine interest in the historical forces involved in it's inception or love or admiration for its founding fathers, culture, etc...
Therefore based on the above observable reality
Jus Soli is not a valid basis for qualifying for citizenship and should be discarded.
2. The Ummah/religion based argument
The second argument being made was one based on some vague humanist/Ummah sentiment that does not really exist in real life because of its naivety and impracticability, especially considering the well-known historical event pertaining to the creation of Bangladesh as a separate country through a bloody divorce with Pakistan, founded on Bangla Nationalism. If being Muslim alone qualified for being a citizen of Pakistan then Bangladesh would have never separated. But that
it did separate goes to show the importance of ethnicity, culture, common history, traditions, etc... Therefore a Nigerian cannot become a Pakistani purely on the basis of his faith when his ethnic/racial, cultural and historical identity lies with Nigeria, just as Bangladeshis strongly identified with Bangla Nationalism and not united Pakistan or its various ethnic groups which historically, ethnically and culturally have more in common with each other than they do with a Bangladeshi or a Nigerian.
3. The "they have been here for three generations" argument:
"They have been here for three generations! Pakistan is the only country they ever knew. Surely by now they must be integrated within Pakistani society?"
They were in Bangladesh for hundreds of generations, yet that didn't stop them from leaving their homeland for economic incentives and coming to Pakistan
AFTER 1971, (particularly in the 70's & 80's when Pakistan's economy was league's ahead of that of Bangladesh) whether to stay here or to go further abroad to the West. Three generations is supposed to make them loyal to Pakistan? The same Pakistan which the ethnic government of their motherland taught them raped and killed 3 million of their ethnic kinsmen?
The fact remains these people are Bangladeshis and arrived here for economic incentives, and as long as Bangladesh exists as a symbol of Bangla Nationalism, in the back of their minds they will always identify with Bangla Nationalism because that is their ethnic homeland (land of their heroes, poets, etc.), whereas Pakistanis will always be alien to them and remain the nation which oppressed their people.
4. When all else fails
The last and final argument was nothing but emotional blackmail:
"since Pakistanis immigrate to the West and would not like it if the West began to deport and deny citizenships to Muslims & Pakistanis therefore we should shut up and continue to take in the spawns of Sheikh Hasina and Ashraf Ghani."
What other nations do with their internal immigration policy is not our concern. We should be making these important decisions based on what is in the best interest of the Pakistani
Nation (
Nation in the truest sense of the meaning, as defined above). The fact that this even needs to be explained shows why foreigners have taken our country for a ride for so long and are still doing so as we speak.
Revolutionary Conception of Citizen
It is not enough to point out a problem if one cannot propose a solution or guide in that general direction at the least.
Of the four arguments presented by those in favor of IK's proposal, the
Jus Soli argument was the strongest but its obvious flaws have been pointed out above and therefore it is not a viable option.
So logically one would assume that the only other alternative is the concept of
Jus Sanguinis, citizenship conferred upon an individual based on the fact that either one or both parents are citizens of that particular state. However
this concept too is flawed for the very reason that being born to parent(s) who are already citizens doesn't necessarily mean that one will be loyal to his/her Nation. As Pakistanis we know this better than anyone considering that we have no shortage of disloyal individuals in positions of power despite them being born within this nation to citizen parents.
Citizens, Subjects & Foreigners
In place of the above two conceptions, both of which are flawed in one way or another, we offer a radically different conception of the citizen
based on a hierarchical order of the inhabitants of society into three categories:
citizens, subjects and foreigners.
NOTE: As an important side note, this concept of citizen, subject and foreigner is not originally my own idea. I have gotten this from another source who's name i cannot remember at this moment. Within this essay i have added a few of my own modifications here and there to the original concept in my attempt to tailor it to the unique requirements of the Pakistani Nation.
The
subject is anyone born to parents who are either subjects themselves or are citizens of the state.
The
foreigner is anyone who is a subject or subject equivalent of a foreign state (tourists, foreign diplomats, dignitaries, etc.).
What differentiates the
subject from the
citizen is that the former does not possess the privilege of participating in major decision making processes on the political level nor can they hold any public office.
In order for a
subject to transition to the status of a
citizen they would have to go through several phases which includes an obligatory patriotic education teaching them the importance of their heritage and National identity along with virtues like honesty, commitment, persistence, discipline, in addition to the regular subjects like math, science, and language along with physical education pertaining to fitness and physical health. The subject of history should be a patriotic National history. World history should only be optional for those who wish to pursue further studies in this field.
For the male
subject, the final phase to go through in order to obtain the status of citizen is voluntary military service. Because it is voluntary it will naturally weed out those who are truly committed to the well-being of the nation, and thus are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, from those who are not.
The military in this regard will play a very important role because unlike civilian institutions, especially of the Liberal type, a military will always be patriotic because by its nature it must be, otherwise it would be nothing but a glorified police organization (current German
Bundeswehr is an example).
Unlike Democratic civilian institutions which are full of humanitarians and blind sentimentalists, the military cannot spare the resources of its own troops to armies of adversaries. Whereas a Democrat will welcome the very enemies of his nation into his arms, an officer of the military cannot open his barracks to enemy troops, if he does he is considered a traitor (need i mention the fate of traitors in all militaries?). The lines are drawn and the distinctions are made. A soldier thinks for the long term (necessary for formulating strategies and tactics) whereas a Democrat only thinks for the next election cycle.
The hard life of a soldier will further inculcate necessary virtues within the subject which are unique to the military 'culture'; discipline, loyalty, obedience to authority, importance of hierarchy, merit, individual initiative in service of ones unit etc. Without these no military worth its salt can exist.
Once the male subject has completed his voluntary military service he has now obtained the
right of citizenship and can now return to civilian life.
For the female subject in order to transition to the status of a citizen she must get married and have at least one child with her husband with three being the maximum recommended limit. If the female subject happens to divorce her husband she loses her citizenship status. This is the case because women who are married and have at least one child think and make decisions for the long term because their children's well-being is intertwined with the Nations well-being since they now have a steak in it's future, whereas single women and single mothers vote differently. There are studies that indicate this and which can be searched on google.
The status of citizen comes with privileges but also obligations. The individual without honor or character, the common criminal, the traitor to the Nation, whether man or woman, will be deprived of their citizenship status and thus again becomes a subject.
Special Cases
But what of those who are born of a parent, either citizen or subject of the state, and a foreign national, say for example a Pakistani father and a Indian mother (or Pakistani mother and Indian father)? In that case such a person can never become a citizen of the state due to questionable loyalties, particularly within the Indo-Pak context, and the parent, should they be a citizen, will be deprived of their citizenship status. Such unions would be discouraged to begin with through the educational process as well as the phase of obtaining citizenship.
And what of those who are born of a parent, either citizen or subject of the state, and a foreign national not from the subcontinent, say for example a Nigerian? In that case too such a person can never become a citizen due to the
identity issues that bi-racial persons experience which causes resentment towards those who have a coherent & mono-racial identity, and thus will not be able to make decisions in the interests of the Nation with whom they cannot relate with due to the incoherence of their own personal identity.
Quality Population over Quantity
So earlier i mentioned children being one of the pre-conditions for a female subject to qualify for the status of citizenship. I'm aware that currently there is an overpopulation crises in Pakistan and family planning is necessary.
For this reason a quality population is preferred over a quantity population. Thus the maximum recommended limit for children will be three and not more which is enough to cover replacement levels for aging population while also maintaining a surplus young population to prevent an aging crises like the one faced by the Chinese as a result of their
One Child policy. Also should a war break out a surplus young population is necessary.
Concluding Thoughts
Defining the concept of Nation and what it means to be the members (citizens) of this Nation is an issue of national importance and thus must be confronted with the best of interests at heart for the Nation and its future well-being. This is just my suggestion. Obviously theory on paper and theory in practice are two different things. Perhaps some things might need to be modified. I am open to productive criticism and counter suggestions.
@Psychic @Indus Pakistan @Taimur Khurram @Maarkhoor
If they want citizenship then they should at least have to intermarriage with actual Pakistanis. If no... then no citizenship. 
