Author: Anees Jillani
Publication: The News International,
Pakistan
Date: June 14, 2005
URL: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2005-daily/14-06-2005/oped/o5.htm
So what do folks like Advani really
want? They desire a Pakistan that survives on its own but remains at the
mercy of India, economically and politically
The terms ideology of Pakistan,
Islamic ideology and national interest are cited ad nauseam in various
fora, speeches and legislation. Article 62(h) of the Constitution disqualifies
a person from becoming a member of Parliament if he or she is opposed to
the Ideology of Pakistan. Article 63(g) disqualifies a person from becoming
a member if he or she propagates any opinion, or acts in any manner, prejudicial
to the Ideology of Pakistan.
All this would be comprehensible
if somebody had also taken the pains of defining these terms. What are
these ideologies? Do they refer to a separate homeland for the Muslims
of India and the world? If so, we should open our borders to all Muslims,
starting with the Biharis stranded in Bangladesh since the 1971 War.
Do they refer to a separate state
for the Muslims who were living at the time of partition in the territories
that now constitute Pakistan, so that they may live their lives according
to Islamic precepts and teachings? If so, then all of us should join the
MMA and vote for it; this is what the MMA stands for at least, even if
it has failed to accomplish this in the province under its rule, the NWFP.
Is it a separate homeland for the
Muslims of this part of the world who need not adhere to Islamic teachings
but can live their lives in a free, liberal and secular atmosphere? If
this were so, then how would our state be any different from India?
These are questions that cannot
be brushed aside lightly. The time appears to have come to finally analyse
these issues once and for all.
L. K. Advani, who just visited Pakistan,
was all honey and sugar. He constantly expressed his personal interest,
and that of his party, in the territorial integrity and prosperity of Pakistan.
His was on an official trip and he was accorded governmental protocol.
Who is going to be next in line: Gujarat chief minister Narendre Modi,
followed by the heads of the RSS and the VHP -- or will Bal Thackeray of
Shiv Sena visit the Minar-e-Pakistan and the Quaid-e-Azam's mausoleum?
Why on earth would India, and a
person like Advani at that, wish to see Pakistan prosper? Would you wish
success to one of your employees who left you in a bitter dispute to become
your competitor? Most Pakistanis would say that India never accepted Pakistan,
and only want this country to merge with it. But many Hindus in India would
dread 150 million Muslims joining the vote bank there, particularly parties
like the BJP, Shiv Sena, the VHP and the RSS.
A recent cover story in an Indian
weekly portrayed various scenarios about the situation prevalent in the
Subcontinent by the year 2015, according to one of which Pakistan was part
of India. Many letters to the editor expressed their opposition to the
Baloch and the Pakhtoons ever becoming part of India, out of dread for
their perceived fundamentalist approach.
So what do folks like Advani really
want? They desire a Pakistan that survives on its own but remains at the
mercy of India, economically and politically.
What we are witnessing is so simple
that it is unbelievable. The United States is pressing Pakistan to resolve
its disputes, including Kashmir, with India. Pakistan is proving to be
a nightmare for the Americans, regardless of what America says diplomatically,
given that every second Al Qaeda terrorist is nabbed here and the visible
anti-American feeling. Once relations with India improve, and we become
bhai-bhai, there will be no excuse for Pakistan to retain its nuclear weaponry.
The next American move will be to dismantle our nuclear arsenal, and remove
the terrorist threat from this Islamic country, while the armed forces
continue to be used to control the extremist menace here.
A weakened Pakistan would indeed
be at India's mercy. We would never retain the initiative; this is already
happening to a large extent. What will we be able to do if India abolishes
the visa requirement for Pakistanis, and Lahore youngsters in their thousands
start going to Amritsar every weekend on the bus to have fun? Who will
then be talking about the Ideology of Pakistan?
If the bonhomie surrounding the
Indians and Pakistanis is analysed in terms of all of us being Bhai-Bhai,
then I really do not see the Two Nation Theory and the Ideology of Pakistan
fitting anywhere in such a scenario. How will we ever justify the Two Nation
Theory if, given a free and fair choice, the Kashmiris too opt for independence,
after the Bangladeshis?
Someone will have to come up with
a better explanation. There are no easy answers to these concerns. Unlike
India, our Parliament has nothing worthwhile to talk about. Our politicians
are lost in the wilderness and those in exile have a one-point agenda:
their return. The armed forces are too busy protecting and justifying their
political position, while the bureaucracy is paralysed by sheer incompetence.
Meanwhile, the masses watch all this with despair, seeing no stake in the
outcome of what is happening, and as confused about the national interest
and ideologies of Pakistan as ever.
The writer is an advocate of the
Supreme Court of Pakistan based in Islamabad
