The Pakistani Spectator

August 14, 1947 is important because an independent and sovereign country called Pakistan was added to world atlas on that day. The creation of Pakistan was one of the best things that could have happened for a majority of the people living in this part of the sub-continent. One can weigh the pros and cons of whether independence was more desirable on religious, economic or socio-political grounds, or on none of these grounds. But following the theory of the ‘benefits of decentralization’, it can be safely said that decentralized, autonomous, and independent states have turned out to be more beneficial for people than living in united India could have been.

People who opted to become Pakistanis had very high hopes and expectations from the new country. They were keen to spend their lives in a system that was expected to be based on religious tolerance, equity and justice. They thought that becoming free from colonial rule would change their lives dramatically as they would be ruled by their own representatives. What happened to their expectations is for historians to judge but here it may suffice to say that the changes in their lives were far less spectacular their hopes.

Now that Pakistan has turned 59, an impact assessment process has begun to evaluate its post-independence performance. In this process, however, most analysts tend to ignore the multifaceted significance of two ideas: ‘freedom’ and ‘Pakistan’.

Geographic freedom does not always denote other types of freedoms, especially economic and geo-political ones. How free we are in economic terms is evident from the statements of various rulers who keep accusing their predecessors of accepting tough ‘conditionality’ imposed by the Breton Woods financial institutions, most significantly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Once these accusers themselves become part of history, there is very little to substantiate their claims to have won back the economic sovereignty of the country. Their successors blame them for all the wrongdoings and the cycle goes on. Speaking of our geo-political freedom, it was totally compromised from the very beginning when Pakistan aligned itself with the United States during the Cold War.

An important methodological flaw in carrying out ‘Pakistan’s post-independence performance assessment’ is that we are not conceptually clear about the prime variables; that is, ‘Pakistan’ and ‘independence’. We have already faced the consequences of this conceptual ambiguity when, immediately after Independence, criticism of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), then the ruling party, was considered to be criticism of Pakistan. Those who differed with the League leadership were considered at worst traitors and at least as unreliable. Loyalty to the ruling party and the rulers became one of the unwritten prerequisites to being a good Pakistani.

Geographic freedom does not always denote other types of freedoms, especially economic and geo-political ones.

This approach influenced the phenomenon of nation building from the earliest days of independence. Since a prerequisite of being a good Pakistani was to be a good Leaguer, old Muslim Leaguers like G. M. Syed and Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi were declared traitors when they dissented from the League high command and left the party. In the meantime, what had been the All India Muslim League until Independence began to split into various factions. The faction that happened to be in the government, by virtue of power, always declared itself as the ‘true and genuine Muslim League’. Thus Fatima Jinnah’s Council Muslim League was not genuine when it had to compete with Ayub Khan’s Convention Muslim League, which was ‘genuine’ simply because it enjoyed official blessing.

The nation-building process was amended so frequently that, after a certain period of time, there was no consensus on what constituted a binding force for Pakistanis. As Aziz Zafar Azad, says, “We got a country but could never build a nation”.

Following the rules of the game set by the Pakistan Muslim League of 1948, all successive governments (civil, military, semi-civil and semi-military) were - and are - of the opinion that allegiance to the government is the binding force for Pakistanis. A vast majority of Pakistanis think that religion is the binding force for them, while many others continue to believe that culture and ethnicity are their common bonds. Some people, like the late General Zia ul Haq, cleverly blended religious, cultural and ethnic forces to create a hybrid nation: one in which everyone suspected the other of not being a ‘true’ Pakistanis.

The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 is attributed mainly to socio-economic and socio-political disparities between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. The separation revealed, however, that there were some flaws in the earlier methodologies adopted to define and form a nation. It was also a major setback for those who advocated religion as the only force binding Pakistanis together as a nation.

In addition to the partition of Pakistan, the early 1970s also witnessed the phenomenon of mass emigration by unskilled Pakistanis, mainly on economic grounds. This was followed by a wave of economic emigration by skilled Pakistanis in the early 1990s, mainly through self-assessment schemes. Most of these emigrants opted for naturalization in the countries of their employment whenever this option was available. Many now enjoy dual or even triple nationality.

This phenomenon is also true of citizens of other developing countries, including Bangladesh, who are more than willing both to emigrate and to adopt their host country as their homeland. This puts paid to the theory of independence as a geographical phenomenon alone. As soon as Bangladesh became independent, its citizens started leaving in large numbers, almost all of them willing to trade their national identity for a better life in another country. The same applies to Pakistan and Pakistanis. People want to live in a sovereign, independent country, provided it offers them independence from want and deprivation, and from inequality and discrimination. In order to pass on the fruits of independence to the common people, independent states need to tackle the beast called poverty.

What does this trend mean in the context of globalization and economic liberalization? It seems that the socio-economic condition of a country is the weakest link of the chain that is called ‘nation’. This weakest link is likely to snap in the presence of socio-political disparities which force people to look outside their own countries to improve their socio-economic situation. In light of the above, I would argue that the best way to measure the impact of independence is to gauge whether it reduces socio-economic and socio-political disparities within a newly independent state.

Since its independence, Pakistan’s economic performance has reflected the profoundly inconsistent phenomenon of ‘boom and bust’. On the whole, however, Pakistan’s macro-economic indicators have improved over time. Unfortunately, the improvement has not resulted in progress at the micro level, and has created a skewed and highly-unequal income distribution across in Pakistani society.

In terms of socio-economic disparities, a considerable segment of the population is deprived of the basic necessities of life. Throughout the 59-year history of the country, successive governments have not been able to provide equal (if not ample) opportunities to their citizens, nor have there been effective social safety nets to meet people’s basic needs.

The gulf between the rich and poor is widening, which is leading to further socio-political disparities in which the marginalized and the poor are excluded from the political process. The result is a frustrated, angry and tense society where ‘VVIPs’ enjoy powers that even the Viceroy of United India could not have imagined. Colonial rule has turned into ‘Colonel’ rule.

Our successive governments, including the current one, should not ignore the weakest link in the chain of nation building: that is, across-the-board socio-economic development, if they are sincere in securing sovereignty and independence for this country and this nation in its true sense.

Source: Wikipedia, Dawn News, and guardian.co.uk.