Pakastani Nationalism Reconsidered

Abstract

T HE NATIONALISM that led to the establishment of Pakistan in i947 was accepted as theoretically sound or practically feasible only by the large number of Indian Muslims themselves and their very few foreign supporters.1 Just as strange as its theoretical foundation was the actual state it created-truncated and bifurcated into two parts separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory. The uniqueness of this nationalism lay in its fundamental conception, for its bases were not territorial; they were in fact community separatism and religion-derived nationality. It was also unique in the manner in which it was developed towards its objective and achieved it, for its proponents neither occupied the land they demanded nor had they even lived together in the past. Yet, within less than a quarter-century, Pakistan, the unique monument to this unique nationalism, has not only suffered the normal agonies of nation-building but has now been torn asunder, with the majority province seceding from the minority province. Pakistan is thus unique even in her dismemberment. The unique basis of this nationalism alone would be sufficient reason to re-examine it today, but in addition the emergence of a new Bengali nationalism-rejecting both Muslim separatism and religion-derived nationality-and the establishment of Bangladesh in I97I make a reconsideration even more pertinent. This article endeavours to analyze the basic premises of Pakistani nationalism and the implications of the split on the nationalism of those who still cling to the original concept. Nationalism is an illusory concept and difficult to define. To an academic it is an object of inquiry, to a politician a tool to be used for political purposes, and as the purpose varies so does the interpretation. Most academics, however, tend to agree that nationalism expresses preference for the competitive interests of the in-group and its members over those of all outsiders in a world of social mobility and economic competition, dominated by the values of wealth, power and prestige, so that the goals of personal security and group identification appear bound up with the group's attainment of these values.2 As such, nationalism in general, but more so the