It is not unusual in the Pakistani creative arts inspired or backed by the established order to pin anything unfavorable with India or the majority belief-system that the nation-state professes. Any diplomatic opening can fall flat within no time; if the ‘Indian’ aspect is added to that (not to forget Iran-Pakistan rapprochement falling flat with the ‘discovery 6f Husain Mubarak Patel alias Khulbhoshan Yadav” in Balochistan). In the week following Eid, a number of movies were released for public entertainment.
One such movie; ‘Hooey Tum Ajnabi’ (You have turned a stranger); a so-called revisit or soul-searching into the 1971 separation of East Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh proved to be the outcome of the typical Pakistani way of looking at things. Despite the fact that intellectuals and journalists have been in the forefront to advocate soul searching, the movie in fact advocated ‘mob judgement’. Going by the script of the movie and the screenplay, the movie looked more like an assortment of hatred and jokes following the stereotypcal definitions; not offering the viewers any indication to think over where the fault lay in the whole process.
Unfortunately, the state of mind is illustrative of how the Pakistani nation-state had directly refused to have a retrospect of how it managed itself from Day One; what was the composition of its leadership; the quality of leadership and above all the preferences. The next paragraphs seek to look at the way Pakistan has conducted itself and how its erstwhile twin nation-state has, with the same set of people, has achieved a level of stability; if not ideal, but not dismal either.
At the very onset, the constitution-making process in Pakistan was not a preferred action point to complete. Without going into the details, the 1956 and 1962 documents were only reflective of a particular set of political ambitions. It was not before 1973, when the country was already down with the loss of half of its land and people, that a document was promulgated.
Ironic that those who parted ways were the ones who advocated the creation of Pakistan in the first place. The nation never showed any curiosity as to why a group of people; which produced journalists likes Tafazul Hossain Manek Mian and businesspersons Abul Hasan Isphahan,i opted to part ways for good.
Contrary to that, Indians were done with their constitution in 1950. The architect of that document was a person from the scheduled castes. True that the union governments were not above the desire to push the state governments to the wall; there were a few instances of left-wing communist state governments subjected to Governor’s Rule, at no point of time was there a need to abrogate the constitution or keep it in abeyance. The constitution even had the strength to weather the Emergency rule promulgated by Congress, the vanguard party, unscathed.
Moving a step further; at no point during the insurgencies in state territories; did the union governments in India resort to intense firepower in the form of artillery or air support. Contrary to that, the Pakistan state tended to deal with political problems in a military manner. Regretfully, the movie discussed in the first paragraph, very proudly showed the use of firepower; though it avoided depiction of collateral damage. The underlying reason behind the two different approaches have been precisely the lack of supremacy of the Constitution and the consequent civilian rule. It is a fact that points of no-return in Pakistan were created through the indiscriminate use of firepower; while in the case of India; political mishandling was the real culprit in occupied Kashmir and East Punjab. Consequently, a political path was taken for correction.
Taking note of the other major aspect of any nation-state working; the efforts to make the economy grow; the two twins; India’s and Pakistan’s, approaches have been radically different. It would not be out of context or unfair praise for the Indian nation-state that the first generation of leadership in New Delhi, composed of Nehru, Azad and company laid down the foundation of what today can be called the firm foundations of the knowledge-based economy. During the current decade and before, Indian strides became clear in IT and jewellery, the flagship export sectors of the Indian economy, and the strength of its economy towards the IMF and other international financial institutions.
Contrary to that, a walk through the policy documents and actions reveals that Pakistan inflates its wars with neighbours. Despite sharing taste buds with India; its agri-based trade is dismal or has to take place after much hassle. Similarly, the ‘apparel’ sector is another area where the two countries have many opportunities. Pakistan could have benefited from these opportunities and can still make a difference; but for its nation-state’s willingness to make enemies rather than trade links. The western borders with Afghanistan and Iran are designated ‘dangerous geographies’ by the FATF-influenced regulatory discourse. Today the state functionaries pride themselves on the fact that they complied with the international dictates to isolate Pakistan in the domain of trade.
Today, as we tend to analyze our failures as a nation- state; the political discourse, the deep state discourse, all seems to lead towards what can be proverbially called a blind alley. The reasons for that stalemate, rather a stinking one. has not been created in one day. The underlying reasons have been refusal to act in unison as a nation and then as a nation-state. The decay was first visible in 1971, when the prime stakeholders were more interested in keeping their flanks protected. It is a sorry state that the nation is still fed on the tales of hate to consume; instead of a deep-down look; as to what went wrong, in the administrative sense,the constitutional sense and so on.
As Pakistan stands around another blocked thoroughfare, the reluctance to solve the problems; evasive behaviour to take the country out of the stalemate are evident. Such a situation usually calls for adherence to a consensus document, like theCconstitution, to lead the way out.
Regretfully, the Pakistani polity, judiciary and the deep state are behaving like a country like Iraq, where democracy has just dawned. All the stakeholders seem to be bent on taking their own path; instead of taking a middle course. Practically, each political faction has cultivated the institution of its choice for fighting the political battle. That battle has generated an unprecedented episode of ‘stagflation’ where the economic fortunes of the country in the form of dismal ’macroeconomics’ have gone down to dangerous limits. On the microeconomics scale, unemployment coupled with rising cost of living has played havoc with individual lives, causing lost tempers on roads, markets and in the private dwellings.
Despite that, a sort of dialogue seems to have kicked off between the warring factions. However, given the lineup of the political forces during the last one year, the unspoken body language of the key institutions and the hotchpotch generated due to extreme distrust of the factions, it seems unlikely that a compromise formula will be managed that easily as it might have been presumed in the first place.
The identification of heads with institutions in foul language with certain political trends is illustrative of the fact that national dialogue has practically broken down. Conclusively, the country needs a reset, not for a particular political movement; rather t6 allow a revisit to its basics. Pushing bad patches beneath the rug and moving forward with borrowed time and resources will only sink the system further into an unmanageable crisis. So unmanageable that there may be no one to make a film about it even half a century later.
