The French philosopher Renan satirically described nationalism as both an erroneous view of the past as well as a shared feeling of hatred towards neighboring nations. Ironically, in the case of Pakistan this description stands true. In order to understand the gravity of this irony, it would be pertinent to discuss the idea of nationalism first.
Nationalism is both a political theory explaining the rise of the nation state as well as a feeling of belonging to a nation. Firstly, in order to define a nation, we can identify two types of indicators: objective and subjective. The former includes ethnicity, language and religion. The latter deals with the sense of belonging and loyalty of the individual. Now there are two main perspectives to understanding nations: perennialism considers nations to be organic, cultural communities with specific traits, while modernism sees nations as mechanically created political communities resulting from modern socio-political transformations. Both perspectives concede that nationalism is the vital formative force behind today’s world.
Nationalism’s varied dimensions can be broadly categorized as progressive or regressive. The progressive aspect takes off with the very birth of nationalism, which was preceded by the Reformation as well as the Industrial and French Revolutions. These events dissolved the individual’s allegiance to the institutions of monarchy, feudalism and the church. Instead, nations emerged as the basis for the future political entity called the nation-state.
The nation-state is not only a political manifestation of a nation’s collective aspirations but it is also the assertive force behind nation building. Due to its role in nation building, the nation-state often has to take action against reactionary and parochial forces. While this power has been used authoritatively by states, it is only when the nation becomes more inclusive that we see positive outcomes. This is particularly true about less perennial nations like Pakistan. Therefore, one of the positive outcomes of nationalism is the formation of an inclusive national identity against regressive tribal, ethnic and religious identities.
However the inclusive nature of nationalism has limitations, which brings us to the regressive side of nationalism. The spirit of nationalism has often led to aggression against other nations, while in turn nationalist sentiments are produced in the invaded nations, in response to such aggressions. Colonization by European powers was also a practical illustration of the rise of nationalism. Such aggressive and expansionist policies were the primary causes of the two World Wars. Nationalist sentiment can easily foster legitimization of invasions and aggression. As Aldus Huxley described, “In the person of a nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat while feeling we are profoundly virtuous”.
On a domestic level, nationalism, with its focus on a singular national identity and culture, tends to repress diversity and pluralism. This is particularly dangerous in the case of states with a plurality of cultures. Whenever the notion of national culture is professed without inclusion of all major cultural traits, it is actually the culture of the dominant group. The promotion of the singular national culture is declared to be patriotic while any attempt to incorporate other cultural practices is immediately labeled as unpatriotic or anti-state. Often, the dominant group also defines a foreign enemy and fighting that enemy becomes the greatest national virtue.
In light of the above discussion, we can better understand the case of Pakistani nationalism. Pakistan is an example of a regressive nationalism. Furthermore, Pakistani nationalism has no perennial basis, as it was the result of a particular socio-political context in the first half of the twentieth century. Since Pakistani nationalism did not evolve organically from historic experiences across generations, it could only be contractual. Contractual nationalism means there could have been an agreement among many ethnic nations and religious groups residing in Pakistan to give in to certain national objectives (which could be defined as Pakistani nationalism) while maintaining their cultural and religious practices.
Historical evidence suggests that there was in fact this kind of expressed or implied consensus between the mainstream Muslim League and parties from other ethnic and religious backgrounds, which later became part of Pakistan. The Pakistani state could have gone on to frame inclusive policies to persuade other groups to align themselves with the national identity over their primordial ethnic and religious affiliations.
What has actually happened in Pakistan is quite the opposite as the Pakistani state has consistently maintained a policy of exclusion. It excluded various groups on the basis of religion, ethnicity and difference of political visions. It mistakenly tried to define its nationalism solely in terms of religion and a permanent neighboring enemy. Politically it has been stuck in authoritative and centralized governance, while culturally it has denied pluralistic expressions of what is considered to be Pakistani.
Such policies were not a result of ignorance. This has been a premeditated act by certain unrepresentative groups and institutions, namely the army, bureaucracy and political elites. The dominant discourse of nationalism in Pakistan speaks for absolute acceptance of state ideology, hatred towards India, denial of provincial autonomy, discomfort towards religious and cultural plurality and a soft corner for the Taliban because of the so-called theory of strategic depth. For a Punjabi youth, it might be attractive but for an ordinary Baloch, it is seen as an expression of a flawed and exploitative Pakistan, which he is not ready to own. There is a stark absence of the subjective indicator-the feeling of belonging- in Pakistani nationalism.
This flawed Pakistani nationalism has faced challenges time and again. The separation of East Pakistan, futile wars with India, and the rise of religious militancy are concrete examples of the shortcomings of Pakistani nationalism, focused as it is on central power over provincial autonomy, an eternal enmity with India and a reliance on religion as a defining/unifying factor. While identity-based politics are generally seen as being prone to deadlock and violence, the over-powering Pakistani state has been emphasizing identities, when it should have been doing otherwise. From textbooks to TV, this toxic brand of nationalism continues to be propagated. There are few options now left for Pakistan, unless we can radically review what we define as ‘Pakistani’.