The habit of blaming Pakistan
In Pakistan, some pseudo-intellectuals and writers do not see anything worthwhile. They have never loved their country; they have never fought for their country; they have not undergone the experience of being a prisoner of war like Sartre; therefore they cannot understand the value of freedom. While criticising Pakistan, these pygmies try to imitate the towering personality of Jean-Paul Sartre to criticise their own country, conveniently forgetting that France was a colonial power; and Sartre abhorred colonisation. These elements question the rationale behind creation of Pakistan and make a mockery of the two nation theory, the basis on which Pakistan was created. In his treatise under the title ‘Why Pakistan is not a nation state’ published in 2010, a pseudo-intellectual mentioned the ingredients of a nation state, and quoted Max Weber, yet he was not willing to accept Pakistan as a nation state.
Jean-Paul Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. One may not agree with his philosophy entirely, but he made his mark different on facets of literature. He is known for his refusal to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature in October 1964. Antoine Jacob, author of ‘History of Nobel Prizes’ had said: “The Swedes were clear from the beginning. If Sartre refused the prize, it was no concern of the academy. He had been selected and his name was going to be carved in stone”. So officially he remains the 1964 Nobel laureate. During the years from 1939 to 1941 Sartre served in the army and spent nine months as a prisoner of war in Germany. When released, he returned to Paris and joined the resistance movement. In 1944, he was caught and imprisoned by the Nazis.
Jean-Paul Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. One may not agree with his philosophy entirely, but he made his mark different on facets of literature
His credentials as a patriot were established and acknowledged worldwide without even an iota of doubt. But Sartre took an uncompromising stand against the attempt of France to keep any of its old colonies. He was called a traitor and his apartment was bombed. The philosopher of commitment stood by Algeria, then a French colony; he neither flinched nor winced. When De Gaulle was advised to arrest Sartre for his traitorous role he replied: “How can I arrest Sartre. He is France”. In the case of Vietnam, he did not hesitate to stand up and be counted. Sartre had sent out a clarion call to the intellectuals of the world that they must not hesitate to take side against aggression by imperialism, tyranny and injustice. According to Sartre, no one can be neutral in the struggle between evil and good. Spectators are either cowards or traitors. To Sartre an act of creation is an act of commitment, a position and a stand.
It is true that Pakistan is facing multi-faceted crises due to lack of visionary leadership but at the same time so-called intellectuals and liberal-democrats’ flawed perceptions have also contributed towards bringing the country to the present pass. In one of his treatises, a renowned scientist was critical of Punjabis, Baloch and Sindhis and remarked that schools in Balochistan refuse to hoist Pakistan’s flag or sing its national anthem. He subscribed to India’s stance that the two nation theory had been thrown into the Bay of Bengal. He wrote: “Jinnah’s ‘two nation’ theory was left in tatters after the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, and the defeat of the Pakistani military. The enthusiasm of Muslim Bengalis for Bangladesh – and their failure to ‘repent’ even decades after 1971 – was a deadly blow against the very basis of Pakistan”.
One has to admit that people of former East Pakistan were not happy over formation of One Unit to give effect to the principle of parity despite the fact that they were in majority. But such contradictions exist in many countries of the world
One has to admit that people of former East Pakistan were not happy over formation of One Unit to give effect to the principle of parity despite the fact that they were in majority. But such contradictions exist in many countries of the world, and efforts are made to resolve them through dialogue. In his polemics, he did not make a mention of the international intrigue and the role of India in break-up of Pakistan. Anyhow, instead of highlighting the contradictions and opposites, our free-thinking and conscious leaders should highlight the commonalities among the people of federating units to make them converge on common goals.
The poor, hapless and impoverished people often pray for Pakistan’s solidarity with the hope that one day visionary leadership will emerge and will rid the country of poverty, hunger and disease. People of Pakistan have a dream that one day this nation-state will assume the actual meanings of the configuration as envisioned by the founding fathers and be identified with one of the civilised nations of the world. On the other hand, opulent classes, well-settled, well-fed and erudite writers, analysts and anchorpersons have the audacity to challenge the two-nation theory. They criticise and denigrate Quaid-e-Azam by writing that he was westernised with passion of good food and liquor.
Some intellectuals have a habit of badmouthing Pakistan. If they hate Pakistan, why don’t they go to settle in the country of their choice? Such pseudo-intellectuals and their outbursts on TV channels striking on the very basis of Pakistan hurt patriotic people of Pakistan. Most of them justify their bitterness on the basis of three Martial Laws in the past, and that Pakistan has remained under praetorian rule for more than 34 years out of 67 years. But there were other countries like South Korea, Turkey, Thailand, to name a few, where the military ruled or dominated the political scene, yet they did not strike at the very foundation of the country.
