Ideas that have harmed Pakistan

(And are still doing so)

I originally intended to write about ideas that have helped Pakistan, but was unable to make any progress despite a sustained effort. I have decided to leave that task to better writers than me. Here, in no particular order, are ideas that I believe have harmed Pakistan:

‘Islamic’ Republic: Jinnah may have had quite different views on the issue, but it was not very late after independence that Pakistan ka matlab kya, laa ilaaha illallah and the idea of the ‘religious’ state were pressed into service. Call me old-fashioned but as far as I am concerned it’s people who adopt religions, not countries. There are serious problems with having an ‘official’ religion. For starters, which sub-sect of which sect it is going to be even if, like Pakistan, there is one religion enjoying a clear majority? And then there is the not so small matter of the exclusion, from the mainstream, of religious minorities when a country converts, so to speak. Another drawback of bringing religion into state affairs is the fact that many purely administrative decisions taken by the state will inevitably be seen as religiously motivated.

Several decades and the likes of the Hudood and the Ehtaram Ramzan Ordinances later, it’s obvious to all that the state and religion don’t go too well together. Or is it?

Obsession with ‘geostrategic importance’: The history of Pakistan is one long story of its rulers’ obsession with playing a pivotal role in global disputes. Throw in the obsession with the geostrategic importance of the country, and you will find Pakistan at the vanguard of all wars in the region. Bases provided to US during the Cold War, the Afghan Jihad, propping up Taliban, the War against Terror, you name it…

The rulers, from Ayyub Khan onwards, have invariably profited by these adventures. On the other hand, the public, a large segment of which invariably cheered the latest adventure, has lost every single time.

Waiting for the Messiah: In the literal sense, there is of course the impatient looking forward to the arrival of the real Messiah, Hazrat Isa (AS). But there is a broad consensus that the nation, reasonable as it is, will also settle for the Mahdi. The job the messiah is expected to perform for us is a simple one: rid us of all the impiety and injustice going around and preferably spill a lot of blood in the process. The revolution has to be an overnight one – we are not very big fans of slow, long processes. People like Zaid Hamid have prepared the people for all the delicious details of the whole thing: how many will be slaughtered in which battle, etc.

This superhero syndrome sometimes takes other forms as well. In our more desperate moments it’s the COAS who is expected to play the saviour. Sometimes it’s even Tayyip Erdogan. The narrative is occasionally applied to the past as well, where all foreign invaders in India, provided they were Muslims, are posthumously cast in the mould of the deliverer. Now I have absolutely nothing against the world of fantasy – I love The Game of Thrones as much as the next guy – but the line is crossed when reality and fantasy become indistinguishable. That line was crossed a long time ago.

Conspiracy theories: Thanks to conspiracy theories, the root cause of all our ills can ultimately be traced to the doors of world powers, mostly the US and the Zionist lobby. Although delusional, this has some real positives as well: The immense boost in the national ego, the widespread feeling of well-being on account of ‘getting it’, and unity against an enemy (real or imaginary), to name a few. My only gripe is that for the most part the theories presented are pretty unimaginative ones. It is not every day that one hears inspired stuff like, ‘The US is planning to destroy the moon so that we are forced to exclusively use the solar calendar.’

The Muslim ummah: When it comes to foreign policy, the Muslim ‘bloc’ continues to be a mental block long after it is clear that the Muslim ummah was always an imaginary beast. While most nations fashion their policies on the basis of their long term interests, we do foreign affairs on brotherly love. After all, what can a gracious nation do when a brotherly country names it as part of a military alliance without bothering to get its consent? A network of rival madrassah networks and a proxy religious war being waged on our land for decades is apparently a small price to pay for goodwill among the ummah.

Strategic depth: According to this doctrine, we can use Afghanistan in a continued war against India even after the Indians occupy Punjab. (The doctrine never deigns to explain how will it be possible for India to take Punjab when we have the A bomb. The nation was told that once we got the bomb, there will no more be any need for competing with India in traditional weaponry, but that goalpost seems to be constantly on the move.) Our reluctance to completely let go of the good-Taliban narrative means that some version of the strategic depth doctrine is still alive and kicking.

Talking of depths, it pays to stop digging when in a hole. I am willing to bet my shirt, however, on our leadership doubling the rate of excavation.