Pakistan and Civil Society

Adam Smith
I have attempted this essay without biases. Being a Pakistani, my only comment is that the civil society must evolve in a manner that it strenghtens the state. As you have talked of a CONSTRUCT, I see nation as a construct. It is unlike the State, something intangible and incalculable. As Morghentaeu said, `` national power rises out of a relatively stable form of geography. to the fleeting opportunities of national character and morale`` I feel that this national character and morale cannot be sponsored by a state. It is the domain of the citizen participation. The end state of the Pakistani society that I suggest is one that internalises the aspiarations and interests of the state. This is something cognitive and a hyperactive state leaving no space for citizen participation is detrimental to it because there is no inclusivity.

Exordial forces in Pakistan exist in the form of extremism, the issue of sub nationalities, ethnicity, sectarianism and the most dangerous; failure of federalism to function. Socio economic forces can lock most of these divisive forces into a shared economic objective anf thus looking beyond from narrow interests to more nationalistic objectives. Hence every citezen`s gain also becomes the gain of the country. This is what I call intrumentalism, pluralism and inclusivity.

Though this is an abridged form, I have explained in the main paper that the Pakistani Nation was very strong after the partition and the construct was formed much earlier than the partition. Slowly, as the State has over indulged, the role of society has also decreased, which has created fissures in the nationalism

I dont think, you or Noor disagree with me on any point.
Cheerios

Ijaz

This is a very well written thesis but with an optimism of a teenager. I don`t think a civil society in Pakistan is going to emerge very soon as long as gun totting criminals are ruling this country. I think in this respect India is light years ahead of us. We on the other hand will have to go thru a civil war first in order to sow even the seeds of civility. Now when I talk about the possibility of a civil war, I be an optimist as a teenager as well. On normal days I think Pakistan will implode into non-existence instead. Possibility is not far fetched - you yourself have quoted the exmples of USSR and one that directly relate to us - the East Pakistan.

#34 by Urstruly
Teenager? HA Ha Ha!!

As people who can write a few words and analyse a bit, an element of romanticism permeating into a vision is not a bad preposition. Like a fish into and out of water, I have seen and experienced the fortes nad foibles of the state and the society at close hand.

As someone keeps saying on ARYOneWorld,

Mein aiseu saksh ko zindon mein kiya shamar karoon
Jo sochta bhe nahi, khwab dekhta bhi nahin.

I said it is a very modest wish list, very practical and can be implemented. Specially the part on Socio Economic development is simple and straight. The only thing needed is deregulation. Just see the boom in private TV channels, Cell phones and Universities. Have not the citizens of this country performed? Have not Geo, ARY and Indus disscussed issues facing Pakistan threadbare? This is a very important aspect of nation buliding. Look at our very own informal sector.

Indian civil society faces similar challenges as us. In fact during my research, some of the best sources came from Indian writers. With common backgrounds, we share similar problems. Many a times I was left wondering whether I was reading a book on Pakistan or India. I do not want to go into specific examples as it may result in a Indo-Pak mud slinging affair.

Anyhow, thanks for your comments.

Cheerios

ijaz,

perhaps we are on the same page, but then again. . .

when you say `civil society must evolve in a manner that it strengthens the state` i find that interesting. the nation is a construct, but you appear to be separating that from the state, and in the world that we live in today, that seems rather implausible. . .the `nation` and the `state` are inextricably linked to one another and have been so since the creation of nation-states.

the `national character` of a country should not be sponsored by a state. agreed. but the reality is that the state will impose on its people what the character of a nation-state is. quite few of us as part of a state have already been internalizing the aspirations of the coercive `state` which has lead to our continuing disintegration.

so when you say that `civil society must evolve in a manner that it strengthens the state.` we cannot exclude the nation from the state. for it is true that civil society, when it flourishes does strengthen the nation-state, while remaining distinct from it. THAT is a given. elements of civil society have strengthened us, as a nation, as a people in the past. judging from well for quite a while now, the same cannot be said about the state. the aspirations of many pakistanis, as well as well as some elements of civil society have been and continue to be crushed by the state. the onus cannot be on civil society. . .alone. as long as the current nature of `the state` continues which is also inextricably linked to nationalism, your desired goal of `undiluted` nationalism in pakistan, is, forgive me, a pipedream. once the state stops interfering coercively with civil society in pakistan. . .it will flourish even more. the question is when is that going to happen, if at all?

regards,
n~

Just like a country has two components viz a viz nation and state, society is the most discernable part of the nation.

In the perspective of liberalism, the most rational actor is an individual and therefor civil society in USA is supra national. OneWorld movement and CIVICUS are a manifestation of this. This model does not suit Pakistan as the modernity levels therein do not suit Pakistan. Its most advanced form is the Corporate America that wishes to rule the world.

In the nation state perspective, the nation state is considered the most rational actor. In case of Pakistan cultural values and religion play an important part. Was national character of Pakistan in 1947 to 1956 sponsored by the government. Was creation of UCH Lahore in 1947, to cater for refugees, sponsored by the government.

Society is a evolving process. Your pipedream comment emanates from a distant tunnel vision. I live in the tunnel described by you. As for your question, it is already happening.
Surprisingly even today the most active group involved in development in Pakistan remains the Christian Community. Look at FC College, the first Christian University, Sargoda Technical Institute, the best technical institution of the country, CARITAS, one of the best and least corrupt NGO in the country. See the 7th Day Adventist centre and their hospital in Karachi. The list goes on and on. This is just to mention a minority. Otherwise, see Rehmatullah Trust, NED, Shaukat Khanum, Shalimar Hospital, Anjuman e Himayat ul Islam, SOS Villages et al.

Forever, I am an optimist

Ijaz:

Political parties - NATIONAL parties have played a huge role in development of a people and society and bringing a sense of national identity.

Often we discount their significance or fail to mention it- perhaps because there is really only one national party in Pakistan.

Seeing how the non-party elections at the local level have created factions based on `biradari` one realizes the significance of national parties and their ability to promote inclusiveness and national character.

This point should have also been mentioned and addressed in your essay.

And yes, there is no choice but to be an optimist!

D`accord.

Hi Ijaz, I agree with your optimist scenario. However, based on a short visit to Pakistan as well as interaction with Pakistanis everywhere in the world over the past decades, I want to put a hypothesis to you for your views:- ````the optimism scenario for Pakistan lies in the hands and minds of the generation of Pakistani middle class who are currently in their teens and twenties.````

I have some inputs and reasons to believe this, but I am keen to hear what the board here says/thinks.

Well I would partially agree. Those in teens and twenties have read tailored history and are still into too many generalisations. I feel this optimism is more with those who have studied the correct history and can carry out comparative analysis of the case histories of the past with the present and future.

I feel that many observers tend to look at Pakistan through a very coloured lens. Life is not that difficult. Consumerism is one indication that people are not fed up. Maybe we are still, despite much pessimism, better off than all other countries of South Asia.

Shahid Burki`s take on the root cause of troubles in Pakistan, esp. Karachi.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/text/op.htm

Excertpt:
``The stage for the mohajir politics of the last quarter century in Karachi with all the attendant conflict and violence was set by the 1947-1950 transfer of population.

While the impact on the politics of Karachi of the influx of refugees has received considerable academic attention, what has totally escaped notice is another effect: the ``Muslimization`` of the population of Pakistan as a consequence of the demographic trauma of the 1940s.

In 1941, the areas that were to become first West Pakistan and later, in 1971, today`s Pakistan had a population of 32.6 million people. Of these 6.3 million or nearly one-fifth of the total were non-Muslims.

In 1951, with an addition of two million people to the population as a result of migration in and out of the country, the country`s population reached 39 million. Of these, the non-Muslims constituted only a tiny proportion, 3.2 per cent. Partition and its aftermath had thoroughly cleansed Pakistan of almost all non-Muslim population.

For instance, at the time of partition, ``the Hindu-Muslim ratio of population [in Sindh] was roughly 30:70.`` According to one estimate, based on the 1951 census, only 140,000 Hindus were left, mostly in Sindh. In other words, Sindh`s Hindu population was reduced to only 1.9 per cent of the total. The same was the case in Punjab.

The Muslimization of our population resulted in Pakistan`s departure from Jinnah`s original dream - to create a country in which Muslims would have a large majority but in which people of all other religions would have complete political, social and economic rights.

Instead, the post-partition transfer of population set the stage for the pressure to Islamize Pakistani society. It also created the environment in which Islamic extremism could throw deep roots - one of the four problems General Musharraf says engage him the most these days.``