Laaltain

Pakistan in the lab of Existentialism

17 اپریل، 2015

Pak­istan is pur­port­ed­ly an ide­o­log­i­cal state; unique in her kind. Pak­istani nation­al­ism and exis­tence of state of Pak­istan is oft-jus­ti­fied on reli­gious lin­ea­ments with­in doc­tri­nal domain of Islam­ic nation­al­ism. Nat­u­ral­ly, those who do not fall with­in this very domain ques­tion rai­son d’etre of Pakistan’s exis­tence. No effort has been done, unfor­tu­nate­ly, to test verac­i­ty of Pak­istan on basis of doc­trines oth­er than Islam. Let us step out of our native domain and take with us our case in the lab of some west­ern philo­soph­i­cal doc­trine. If jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for Pakistan’s exis­tence are to be sought and exis­ten­tial issues are to be appraised, no phi­los­o­phy can be more per­ti­nent than Exis­ten­tial­ism.

If jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for Pakistan’s exis­tence are to be sought and exis­ten­tial issues are to be appraised, no phi­los­o­phy can be more per­ti­nent than Exis­ten­tial­ism.

Exis­ten­tial­ism is a pop­u­lar phi­los­o­phy con­cern­ing exis­tence of an indi­vid­ual. Now can Pak­istan be con­sid­ered as an indi­vid­ual? Yes, state is an indi­vid­ual enti­ty almost anal­o­gous to an indi­vid­ual per­son. Inter­na­tion­al law is based on this very notion which binds states as munic­i­pal law binds per­sons. One more thing has to be estab­lished that tests would be con­duct­ed on the pri­ma facie and accept­ed fun­da­men­tals of Exis­ten­tial­ism rather than any intri­ca­cies or hair split­ting. Fur­ther­more, these tests would not be adver­tent­ly orches­trat­ed in order to achieve some desir­able results.

Exis­ten­tial­ism is divid­ed into two dis­tinct branch­es, one is the­is­tic and oth­er is athe­is­tic. The­is­tic Exis­ten­tial­ism was pro­pound­ed and expound­ed by Soren Kirkegaard, a Dan­ish philoso­pher. His ver­sion of Exis­ten­tial­ism was based on state­ment ‘Sub­jec­tiv­i­ty is truth’. If this is the lit­mus paper, there is no need of any lit­mus paper to con­duct any test on nation­al­ism of Pak­istan in the first place, as sub­jec­tive approach of Pak­istani nation­al­ist lead­ers would always be true. This leaves us with Kirkegaard’s anoth­er con­cept per­tain­ing to three phas­es of devel­op­ment of sub­jec­tive approach which ulti­mate­ly trans­lates into exis­tence.

1st. Aes­thet­ic stage
2nd. Eth­i­cal and Moral Stage
3rd. Reli­gious stage

Did Pak­istani nation­al­ism pass through these stages? Yes, it did. Aes­thet­ic stage was set in by Sir Syed who famous­ly argued in his Khut­bat e Ahmadiyyah that there can be no con­tra­dic­tion between word of God and work of God. He pushed Mus­lims to test authen­tic­i­ty of reli­gious dog­mas in jux­ta­po­si­tion with nature. ‘Father of two nations’ the­o­ry’ or ‘spir­i­tu­al founder of Pak­istan’ was the one who led ‘Pak­istan’ through Kirkegaard’s first stage.

Sec­ond stage spanned decades of devel­op­ment of Pakistan’s nationalism’s moral aspect albeit it was too start­ed by Sir Syed’s anoth­er work, Tehzeeb ul Akhlaq. Eth­i­cal and moral aspect has vast sphere of con­no­ta­tions which includes devel­op­ment of both char­i­ta­ble and opti­mistic facet of nation­al­ism itself and its adher­ents’ improved social life.

Third stage does not beg for much elab­o­ra­tion as it is much doc­u­ment­ed por­tion of Pak­istan strug­gle in which nation­al­ism was grad­u­al­ly wrapped under reli­gious rai­ment. Kirkegaard’s call this stage cli­max of one’s epis­te­mo­log­i­cal fac­ul­ties, cul­mi­nat­ing into a per­fect being.

So, Kirkegaard’s Exis­ten­tial­ism seem­ing­ly ver­i­fy claim of Pak­istani nation­al­ists that Pak­istani nation­al­ism had evolved over time into Pure Land. But wait, athe­is­tic branch of Exis­ten­tial­ism remains to be fig­ured in and who knows which will turn tables?

Pak­istan, which tried to find out her true mean­ings (or ide­ol­o­gy) since 1947 – and every time updat­ed it in her three or four con­sti­tu­tion­al doc­u­ments- is fac­ing same ‘absur­di­ty’ which results into her ‘angst’ often pop­u­lar­ly phrased as ‘iden­ti­ty cri­sis’.

French philoso­pher, Jean Paul Sartre was main pro­po­nent of athe­is­tic Exis­ten­tial­ism while Friedrich Niet­zsche and Albert Camus are also con­sid­ered as oth­er instru­men­tal pro­po­nents of said doc­trine. Its dic­tum goes as: ‘Exis­tence pre­cedes essence’. Now this lit­mus papers has pre­clud­ed any pos­si­bil­i­ty of apprais­ing essence of Pak­istan as exis­tence nev­er suc­ceeds an essence. Pak­istan has an exis­tence and there isn’t iota of doubt about that. Pak­istan came into exis­tence in 1947 and Exis­ten­tial­ism lim­its our domain for fur­ther tests to be applied only on post-1947 Pak­istan. We can safe­ly bypass or even repu­di­ate claims like ‘Pak­istan came into exis­tence that very day, when first Mus­lim stepped onto sub­con­ti­nent’ as this exis­tence, ‑if it was any- was mere in the form of an abstract notion. Sartre, unlike Kirkegaard, nei­ther accept­ed pseu­do-exis­tence nor chalks out dis­tinct sequen­tial stages. Sartre, how­ev­er con­trived two ter­mi­nolo­gies which relate to respec­tive facets of an individual’s exis­tence.

First is ‘Absur­di­ty and Angst’ which relates to inter­nal facet of exis­tence. Sartre argues that an indi­vid­ual tries to find out innate and inher­ent mean­ings of his exis­tence ‑which are nonex­is­tent in real­i­ty- in order to paci­fy his inner-self but at one point of life or anoth­er, real­i­ty is bound to be revealed. This futile activ­i­ty turns out to be ‘absurd’ and indi­vid­ual gets entan­gled in feel­ing of ‘angst’ which is a sum prod­uct of anger, despair and per­plex­i­ty. Pak­istan, which tried to find out her true mean­ings (or ide­ol­o­gy) since 1947 – and every time updat­ed it in her three or four con­sti­tu­tion­al doc­u­ments- is fac­ing same ‘absur­di­ty’ which results into her ‘angst’ often pop­u­lar­ly phrased as ‘iden­ti­ty cri­sis’.

Sec­ond, which is exter­nal facet of exis­tence is phrased by Sartre as ‘Hell is oth­er’. He explained three phas­es which vin­di­cate this claim. In first phase indi­vid­ual tries to be loy­al to some­one in order to be plea­sure­ful, suc­cess­ful and peace­ful but lat­er finds out that it was mere­ly humil­i­at­ing sub­ju­ga­tion so in sec­ond phase he him­self sub­ju­gates oth­ers for sim­i­lar pur­pos­es but again with­out any sub­stan­tial sat­is­fac­tion. In third phase, out of utter dis­may, he aban­dons every­one, does not take any side or posi­tion, tries to be neu­tral and dor­mant but this too proves to be coun­ter­pro­duc­tive as he him­self could not bear iso­la­tion and oth­ers too, do not let him aban­don them. So, he ulti­mate­ly suc­cumbs to Sartre’s idea that ‘Hell is oth­er’.

When we analo­gize Pak­istan with this facet, we find stag­ger­ing simil­i­tude. Pak­istan, soon after par­ti­tion joined US and KSA club and offered her alle­giance in order to ensure con­ti­nu­ity of its exis­tence, lat­er she tried to force­ful­ly earn alle­giances by intrud­ing and med­dling into cross bor­der affairs ie Afghanistan and Kash­mir and when noth­ing result­ed in plea­sure, suc­cess and peace for her, she for the first time in his­to­ry decid­ed to keep her hands out of oth­ers’ mess but again with admon­ish­ments and warn­ings from GCC.

Tests have been suc­cess­ful­ly con­duct­ed, results are con­spic­u­ous­ly evi­dent and prob­lems have been duly diag­nosed. Now what’s cure for Pakistan’s angst or iden­ti­ty cri­sis or even exis­ten­tial cri­sis? Sartre’s phi­los­o­phy, for­tu­nate­ly, takes its cure into account. It says that both of these prob­lems can be resolved if indi­vid­ual is ‘Authen­tic’ and ‘Authen­tic’ is he, who has ‘authen­tic­i­ty’ in his exis­tence and ‘Authen­tic­i­ty’ can be assured only if he real­izes that he does not need to ‘find’ any essence or rea­son for exis­tence before his actu­al exis­tence but has to ‘con­struct’ a rea­son him­self to authen­ti­cate his exis­tence. Pak­istan, like Attaturk’s Turkey has to be ‘authen­tic’ first ‑aban­don­ing all pre­pos­ter­ous pur­suits- far before aspir­ing for ever becom­ing ill and evil free.

One Response

  1. it’s thought pro­vok­ing, i won­der what might be the result of sim­i­lar com­par­isons with oth­er west­ern philoso­phies?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One Response

  1. it’s thought pro­vok­ing, i won­der what might be the result of sim­i­lar com­par­isons with oth­er west­ern philoso­phies?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *