THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE PAKISTANI NATION-STATE

“PAKISTAN: THE FIRST 11 YEARS 1947-1958” PART 1 >>

Globalization of Media MCM404

Lesson 1

THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE PAKISTANI NATION-STATE

Some scientific estimates state that human beings in their present form have lived together for about the past

200,000 years.

However, records of history i.e. in symbolic scripts such as hieroglyphics, symbols, figures, inscriptions on

tablets, writings on papyrus, text on paper, when taken together begin to cover only the past 5000 to 6000

years. We have no documented records for about 97% of human history!

Different forms of social and political organisation have evolved in the 6000 years for which records are

available.

These organisational forms begin at the most basic level with tribes and clans, with small-scale principalities,

with large-scale monarchies, with communities clustering together to become regional entities or alliances,

and then, more recently, emerging on a major scale as distinct peoples, countries and nations.

The phenomenon of colonialism at different times in history and particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries

also had a decisive influence on shaping these new identities.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, the form and structure in which the peoples of the world have organised

themselves and the basis on which they relate to each other, is the form and structure of the "nation-state".

This lecture is not meant to provide a detailed history of how the nation-state structure has evolved. That

aspect is better covered in detail in a separate course.

The aim of this lecture in this course is to establish the unique nature of the Pakistani nation-state: in the

context of the world that exists in the 21st century, in which there are 191 member-states of the United

Nations, each with one identical vote in the UN General Assembly but which are, at the same time, quite

different from each other. They also reflect the existence of 5 distinct categories of nation-states.

It is relevant to note at the outset that a state need not comprise a single nation. One state may comprise

several nations within itself because these nations have agreed to live together within a singular political

structure called a "state".

However, by the act of different nations living together, they inevitably surrender some of their individual

features that make them separate nations and therefore become part of a broad, general, singular, new

"nation-state" identity.

In the opinion of some significant leaders and substantive numbers of people in Pakistan as well, Pakistan

itself is an example of a "multi-national state". There is a political movement which describes itself as:

"Poonam": "The Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement". This movement does not have notable

representation as a result of the October 2002 elections in the Federal Parliament or in the Provincial

Assemblies. But the fact is that some of its leaders have been elected by popular vote to the legislatures.

In the opinion of many, Switzerland is also an example of a "multi-national" state. There is a distinct French-

speaking part of Switzerland, the German-Swiss part of Switzerland and an Italian-Swiss part of Switzerland.

And there is also a fourth part which claims to be the original, genuine Swiss-part of Switzerland! Yet,

Switzerland has existed as a singular and stable country for several hundreds of years, and as a declared

"neutral" state.

Be that as it may, the focus of this lecture is on the unique nature of the Pakistani nation-state. The reasons

for making this strong and extreme claim about the uniqueness of Pakistan will become apparent when we

examine the categorisation of the 191 members of the UN into 5 categories.

These categories have been created purely at the discretion of the lecturer and there is therefore a subjective

and arbitrary aspect to this categorisation.

Globalization of Media MCM404

This categorisation into 5 types of nation-states is open to challenge and to amendment. But, for the purposes

of this lecture, and for the purpose of explaining why Pakistan is truly unique, the categorisation is a necessary

and unavoidable starting point.

The first category of nation-states may be described as those countries that have had a virtually uninterrupted

and sustained existence with approximately the same features for a very long time i.e. in some cases starting

from the very beginning of recorded human history. Located continuously in a particular part of the planet,

despite being subject to war and invasion and despite the fact that there may have been more than one

kingdom or power in that same single "country", these countries have, more or less, always been recognised

as: China, as Egypt, as Persia, as England. The people who have lived in these locations have also shared for a

very long time: ethnic, linguistic and cultural features.

Their present borders may not exactly be the borders that have existed at different times in history but, in a

general sense, the China we think of which existed about 2000 years ago is still in the same place and with the

same people that China is to be found today in 2005/2006.

So China and certain other countries comprise the first category of: "historical nation-states". There is then

the second category which may be described as: "migratory nation-states". There have been instances in

history where people in fairly large numbers living in one part of the world sailed across oceans e.g. Vikings

from Scandinavia going to parts of North Eastern America (long before Columbus at the end of the 15th

century) but they did not represent the kind of sustained mass migration of tens of thousands of people as

was witnessed in the 400 years between the 15th and the 19th centuries when people left different countries of

Europe ("Europe", in the broadest sense, including England, Scotland, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands,

Russia, Ireland) to go to areas as far away as New Zealand, Australia, North, Central and South America and

to Southern Africa. Some of this mass migration was "forced" migration e.g. convicted prisoners from

England sent to Australia to serve out their sentences, some of this migration was due to religious persecution

(e.g. Protestants in Europe), some of it due to severe economic needs e.g. scarcity of food in Ireland. A large

part of this migration was driven by the search for new resources and wealth.

Unlike those who migrated with a colonial objective, and who returned to their home countries after the

occupied countries became free and independent, the second category of nation-states described as

"migratory nation-states" represent examples where people migrated on a permanent basis.

The original, indigenous people who had historically lived in those territories to which the migrants came

were displaced from their homes and their lands by force and violence, and a vast majority of the original

population perished due to infectious diseases brought by the new migrants from Europe and due to

slaughter and killing ensuing from the competition for control of land and resources.

The original populations were eventually banished to their own confined reservations and cut off from the

new incoming people who proceeded to build new political, social and economic systems.

Most of these migratory nation-states went on to become some of the most advanced and successful

examples of well-governed nation-states in terms of democracy, rule of law and economic progress (e.g.

Canada, New Zealand, Australia, U.S.A.).

In many of these countries but not all the injustices done to the original people have been sought to be

compensated on a belated basis. Though in the opinion of some, such "compensation" is still extremely

inadequate and unable to undo the grave historical injustices.

Nevertheless, the fact is that migratory nation-states have become prime examples of a distinct category of

successful nation-states.

After the end of racial segregation in South Africa and the related end of the system known as "apartheid" in

1990, South Africa also becomes an example of a "successful" migratory nation-state because, in the context

of physical infrastructural development, and in several key economic indicators, South Africa is the most

developed country on the African continent. This owed largely to the "progress" made before 1990 but also

sustained thereafter by the government that now truly represents the vast majority of the (black) people of

Globalization of Media MCM404

South Africa as distinct from the pre-1990 government which represented only a small percentage (white

skins only) of the total population.

The third category of nation-states can be described as "permutated states". This term seeks to describe those

countries in which, in prior history, two, or more political forces and powers were in frequent conflict with

each other, sometimes living peacefully with each other as easy, or uneasy neighbours, but not functioning as

a singular entity, despite sharing some of the basic features required for recognition as a single nation.

When such situations produced leaders of exceptional strength and determination with the vision to create

new collective identities, the result was that Germany emerged as a nation-state under the leadership of

Chancellor Bismarck in the second half of the 19th century while in the same century, personalities like,

Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi helped create the start of the contemporary version of the Italian nation-state.

Thus, ostensibly diverse and discordant parts were brought together to create a new pattern and potency in

the form of a shared identity. The fourth category of nation-states can be described: "post-colonial nation-

states". By this term, it is meant to refer to those states in which there may exist some long, medium or short-

term historical origin of national identity or there may well exist some degree of distinct identity as a kingdom

or as a country prior to the contact between an invading colonizing force from outside, from close by or from

far away.

It is notable that colonialism did not occur only between, say, Christian countries that occupied non-Christian

countries (e.g. as with British-occupied South Asia). Colonialism also occurred within the same religion (e.g.

by the Muslim Ottoman Turks who occupied fellow Muslim, Arab lands in Egypt and other parts of the

Middle East). With new directions developing soon after the First World War (1914 1918) but gathering

momentum after the Second World War (1939 1945), most of the territories occupied by colonial powers

achieved independence and freedom from the occupying forces.

However, due to several factors, in many such cases, the boundaries of the newly independent nation-states

that emerged with the departure of the colonial forces were different from the boundaries that existed of the

same country or area before the encounter with colonialism.

For example, while historically, there has always been a place called Baghdad or Mesopotamia or, in Africa,

the Kingdom of Buganda, the nation-states that became independent and which exist today in the 21st century

known as Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Uganda and others did not exist in similar name, form and territory before

colonialism came to their respective parts of the world.

Often, for their own ulterior purposes, or as a result of weak, confused policies, the departing colonial powers

deliberately changed, distorted or mutilated the boundaries and territories which they had encountered when

they first came to different parts of the world.

Facing the prospect of leaving these territories as colonial powers, in some cases they wanted to protect new

vital interests over a long-term period, as in the case of oil reserves discovered in large quantities in the

Middle East at a time when the economies of Europe and North America were becoming crucially dependent

on oil as the primary source of energy.

By one credible interpretation, the vital interests of colonial powers such as Britain and France were to

"divide" the Middle East after the First World War in such a way that, even after they left the area as colonial

powers, there would be new entities in the form of local, national personalities and systems that would align

with the (former) colonial powers and ensure continued access to oil.

Another factor, particularly relevant to the Middle East, was the fact that the old, historical Ottoman empire

inherited by what turned to be the last Caliphate of Islam was formally abolished by the new government of

Turkey in 1922 led by Mustafa Kamal Attaturk who had led the overthrow of the weak and decaying

Ottoman empire which had been an ally of the loosing side in the First World War i.e. Germany. Thus, war

created the post-colonial nation-states with an undeniable linkage with their own history, but now existing in

new forms, with arbitrarily drawn frontiers.

We then come to the 5th category of states. This could be described as religion-based states. Formally

speaking, there are only two which belong to this category. These are: Israel and Pakistan. Though there are

Globalization of Media MCM404

fundamental differences between the two. After the 1978 revolution, Iran could also be placed in this

category but Iran as Persia is already placed in the first category. In passing, it is relevant to note that there is

a country that proudly calls itself as: "the only Hindu kingdom of the world" i.e. Nepal. But Nepal belongs,

strictly speaking, more to the first category of historical states than to any other. It could not even be

included in the 4th category i.e. the post-colonial nation-states because it was not formally occupied by the

British during their tenure in South Asia but certainly remained subject to their influence from Calcutta and

New Delhi.

Referring to the 5th category of nation-states: the creation of Israel can be credited to the political movement

known as Zionism which developed force in the late 19th century and culminated successfully with the formal

establishment of Israel in 1948. While Zionism pre-dominantly aimed for the possession or rather,

repossession of a homeland for the Jews, it should also be remembered that in some respects, Israel is a

"secular" country rather than a theocratic or purely religion-based state. For example, unlike Iran in which

the unelected religious theologists have the power to veto what the elected assembly may decide, in the case

of Israel it is only through a democratic and elective process that decisions concerning the state and

government can be taken. Theologists or religious extremists may be elected into parliament but they do not

have a separate or specific status in the constitution, unlike Iran which grants a special status to the

guardianship council. The judiciary in Israel is also strongly independent of the executive, unlike Iran and

Pakistan.

It is also relevant to note that in Judaism there are several sects. One sect is totally e.g. the opposed to the

very creation and existence of Israel because it believes that the formation of a state structure restricts and

distorts the spirituality of Judaism and of the limitlessness of its creed. This aspect is ironically similar in some

ways to the views of certain prominent Muslim religious leaders in British-occupied India, who opposed

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the demand for Pakistan on the grounds, amongst several, that the

formation of a specific and restricted homeland for the Muslims of undivided India would go against the

basic concept of a dynamic, worldwide Muslim Ummah, which transcends mere national frontiers. They also

opposed Pakistan on the basis that it would not serve the interests of Muslims living in Hindu-majority parts

of undivided India and who would not be able to migrate whole-sale to the new state of Pakistan.

Yet we do need to reflect on the intrinsic differences between Israel and Pakistan, despite both states being

motivated by religious faith. Israel can make a reasonably valid claim that the people of the Jewish faith, as the

world's oldest monotheistic religion, have a direct relationship with the area in and around Jerusalem and

some other parts of the Middle East by virtue of the locations and landmarks (shared by Christians and

Muslims) where Prophets Abraham, Moses and other venerated Prophets also lived and preached in the same

locations. Monuments related to the history of Judaism are also located in these parts of the world. Even as

we oppose the illegal, forced occupation of the Palestinian lands in 1948 by Israel with the support of Britain,

France and others after the Second World War and in particular the annexation by Israel of the West bank in

the 1967 War, we cannot deny that Israel does have a deep and long association with at least a part of its own

territory. Indeed, in 2005, the Government of Pakistan has stated that if Israel accepts and facilitates the

creation of an independent Palestinian state, Pakistan, along with other Muslim countries will be prepared to

consider full-fledged relations with it. Certain Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar and

Turkey already have formal relations with Israel.

In the case of Pakistan, in contrast to the long and deep association between the religion of Judaism and the

territory of Israel, there is no similar and direct connection between the emergence of Islam as a religion, and

the territories that constitute even the present-day form of Pakistan in 2005 2006. This applies even more

to the original form of Pakistan that existed from 1947 to 1971 when East Pakistan was also part of Pakistan.

Neither that version of Pakistan, nor the present territory of Pakistan has a direct territorial linkage with the

origin of Islam at the time of the Holy Prophet (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM). By way of some kind of

"compensation" for this lack of a direct link between the territory of Pakistan and the origins of Islam, and

the demand for Pakistan, it is stated that the sheer number of Muslims who lived in undivided India up to

1947 made the creation of Pakistan inevitable.

Similarly, there is also the view that Pakistan is simply the unavoidable, inevitable culmination of the process

that began when the first Muslims reportedly arrived in South Asia in the 7th century A.D. some years after

the passing away of the Holy Prophet of Islam (may peace be upon him) but the more well-known turning

Globalization of Media MCM404

point being the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim in Sindh in 712 A.D. Even though it then took almost 300

years (precisely: 285 years) before the next major Muslim "wave" came to this part of the world when

Subuktgin from Central Asia came through the Khyber Pass into South Asia, followed soon after by his son

Mahmood of Ghazni, who invaded India 17 times.

Partly as an expression of this view, it is relevant to note the step-by-step evolution of the idea of a separate

Muslim identity in South Asia eventually becoming the idea of Pakistan. Reference should be made to the

excerpt from the book titled: "Rahmat Ali: a biography" by K.K. Aziz published by Vanguard Books (Pvt)

Ltd., Lahore, 1987. From page 51 to page 73, this eminent historian of Pakistan who has developed this

particular element into a full-scale book published separately titled: "A history of the idea of Pakistan"

published by Vanguard Books (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore, 1987. In his biography on Rahmat Ali, in the chapter titled:

"Birth of an idea", the scholar identifies how, and by whom and when over a period of almost 100 years, the

concept of what eventually became Pakistan moved from one form to another.

There is also the view by another scholar, Allan McGrath in his book: "The destruction of democracy in

Pakistan" where, on page 1, he states: "..... (Pakistan) was almost an eleventh hour creation" (i.e. a last-

minute creation!). See attached excerpt from the book. The principal conversion of people to Islam in South

Asia was inspired by the great non-violent, peace-loving Sufi saints. Another way to "compensate" for the

lack of an old religious link between territory and identity is the fact that parts of post-1971 Pakistan inherited

two of the oldest pioneering landmarks of human civilization, and not only Islamic civilization, in the form of

the Mehergarh ruins which reveal a 7000 year-old settlement in Balochistan, and the remnants of the 5000

year-old Indus Valley Civilization in Mohenjodaro in Sindh.

It can be said that even though Pakistan did not exist in history as a country like China did as a nation-state, it

is truly a unique "new" nation whose future, particularly in the 21st century, will eventually become its history!

Yet another feature that sets Pakistan apart from Israel to make Pakistan even more unique is in the nature of

its name. The word "Pakistan" is of extremely recent origin because it was innovated by Chaudhry Rehmat

Ali in 1932 33 and gained currency as a word only several years later because initially it was not even used

by the leaders of the Muslim League. So much so that even the famous document which we call the

"Pakistan Resolution" that was adopted by the Muslim League on 23/24 March, 1940 in Lahore does not

contain the word "Pakistan" in any part of its text. It was only between 1940 and 1946 that the word

"Pakistan" became a popular slogan.

This is an important factor of uniqueness because words and names like "Israel" are over 1400 years old: it

even appears in the Holy Quran itself (e.g. Surah 3, Verse 93). The names of other nation-states are also old

words with names such as China, Egypt and Persia. The older the name, the more resonance and depth it

gives to an identity because the alphabets and vowels and the meaning associated with an old word are well-

known and widely accepted and have become part of people's identities and history and collective memory.

In contrast, it takes several generations, if not hundreds of years for a new word, particularly the name for a

whole new national identity, to take similar root and acquire strength and depth.

Compared to the names of nations that have been around for hundreds and thousands of years, what makes

"Pakistan" unique is its extremely young, tender age (only about 70 years) even as a word! In this sense, the

word "Pakistan" is: a "baby" name!

A further point of difference between Israel and Pakistan is that unlike the rigid, inflexible approach of

Zionism for an Israel controlled pre-dominantly by Jews, the Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League were

willing to live within a singular confederated type of undivided India even up to about March 1947 i.e. up to

just 6 months before its independence in order to avoid the terrible displacement of human lives and

affinities.

The British Government had formulated what is known as the Cabinet Mission Plan in which a new,

independent undivided India would be comprised of 3 tiers and different kinds of regions to enable adequate

participation for, and representation of, the Muslims in an of undivided independent India. By way of an

experiment in this direction, an interim government was also formed in 1946 in which both the Congress

Party and the Muslim League were represented.

Globalization of Media MCM404

As the Finance Minister of this interim government, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan presented a bold and innovative

budget for such an undivided India in February 1947. The budget was so bold that it created fears amongst

the Congress leadership and in elements of the Hindu business community that their historical control of

wealth and influence would be diluted if such budgets continued to be presented.

The leadership of the Congress Party also made inconsistent and unacceptable twists and turns under the

Cabinet Mission Plan resulting in its complete failure by March 1947. The British Government (had already

secretly) decided to replace its own Viceroy, Lord Wavell, who was otherwise a very fair-minded and balanced

representative compared to the Viceroy who replaced him as the last Viceroy of India and as the first

Governor General of India: Lord Mountbatten.

The British Government had already announced that it would withdraw from undivided India by July 1948.

However, it was Lord Mountbatten's own desire to accelerate the whole time-frame and impose an arbitrary

deadline on the movement towards independence for Pakistan and India. With the ill-considered approval of

the British Government, he announced the Partition Plan on 2nd June, 1947 by which India and Pakistan

would come into being in mid-August 1947 i.e. at only 10 weeks' notice.

Thus, it can be said that Pakistan is also the only nation-state to be created at 10 weeks' notice because, in

contrast, the independent India that came into being on 15th August 1947 inherited a vast, already-functioning

infrastructure headquartered in New Delhi whereas there was no similar large infrastructure for a new state

functioning from Karachi.

Legally and diplomatically speaking as well, the new Indian state was designated as the "successor state" of

British India, acquiring all the related advantages.

From being a small town of a few hundred thousand people in 1947, Karachi was forced to become, almost

overnight, the capital not only, for the vast new territory of West Pakistan, but also the capital for a whole

new state with the majority of the population residing far away in East Pakistan.

The very structure of the new nation-state comprising of two wings separated by 1000 miles of hostile

territory gave it yet another unique feature: of being a nation-state whose territorial structure was entirely

different from all other countries. The next facet that makes Pakistan so different from other nation-states is

easily the most tragic facet. Some other nation-states have been created after several years of violent struggle.

But virtually none have witnessed the bloodshed of as many as 1 to 2 million non-combatant civilians

immediately before, and substantially after the announcement of independence as happened in the case of

Pakistan. Millions of Muslims from undivided India had to suffer abominable brutalities and atrocities in

1947 as they attempted to move from their villages and hometowns across the new frontiers into Pakistan on

foot, by bullock cart, or by train. Bloodshed also tragically happened in the other direction as well, when

several million Hindus migrated from East Pakistan into West Bengal and to other parts of India, and Sikhs

and Hindus from West Pakistan moved into India. Green is one of the two great colours in the flag of

Pakistan. But the birth of Pakistan was drenched in blood red.

The absurd, short time-frame given to prepare for Pakistan's independence meant that the Central

Government in Karachi had to begin functioning, in many cases and in most offices, without furniture,

without basic utilities and without those resources which are recognized as being minimally essential to

manage any organization. To make matters worse, India deliberately withheld release of funds and supplies

owed to Pakistan under the Partition Plan in order to make the desire of some of its leaders come true to the

effect that: "this new country will not last more than 6 months." It took a "fast unto death" by the highest

level of the Indian leadership i.e. by Mahatma Gandhi himself, in January 1948 to compel the Indian

Government to release the funds, military supplies and other resources that rightly belonged to Pakistan.

No other country suffered this kind of discrimination within months of being created with virtually no

infrastructure. In these conditions of acute need, of shortages of food and resources Pakistan faced the

enormous challenge of receiving, settling, feeding, providing clothing and shelter, to millions of the refugees

who had managed to migrate safely from India during and after the phase of independence. Some

commentators have described the scale of this transfer of population as: "the largest-ever migration of this

kind in so shorts a time".

Globalization of Media MCM404

This influx of about 8 to 10 million people placed a severe strain on a system and an infrastructure that was

already stretched to the limit and it was only the extraordinary courage and hospitality shown by the people of

Pakistan, both those who received the new refugees, and those who came seeking to build a new country,

which enabled the new nation-state to survive the extremely difficult first two to three years i.e. 1947, 1948,

1949.

As if the overwhelming numbers of refugees and the complex problems of their settlement and rehabilitation

were not enough, Pakistan had to face yet another unique challenge in having to enter into an armed conflict

with Indian forces in the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir within months of being established as a

nation-state. The logistical and military problems were compounded by the fact that, at this first stage of the

nation's history, most of the senior officials of the Pakistan Army including its first two commanders-in-chief

i.e. General Messervey (August 1947 January 1949) and General Gracey (January 1949 January 1951) were

both British officers rather than being of Indian or Pakistani origin. While ostensibly, even British officers

were subject to the discipline of the independent Government of Pakistan and to the directives of the

Governor-General of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in actual operation, the British

commanders-in-chief of the Pakistan Army remained subject to their loyalty to the British Government

which had posted these officers "on loan" to the Pakistan Army.

Thus, when a situation arose within months of the creation of Pakistan, when the Governor-General directed

the British commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Army to dispatch troops to Kashmir to counter the illegal

presence of Indian Army troops, the British General regretted his inability to do so on the grounds that, if

acted upon, there was a danger that the British officers commanding Pakistani troops would come into direct

conflict with British officers commanding Indian troops.

So under-resourced was the Pakistan Defence sector at that time, both in terms of officers and equipment

that even as strong-willed a man such as the Quaid-e-Azam had to accept this defiance of his directive

without being able to dismiss or punish the officer.

Few, if any, nation-states in the world have had to go through conditions such as these at the very time of

their formation. There were gross imbalances in important aspects of infrastructure that placed the newly-

born nation-state of Pakistan at a tremendous disadvantage compared to India. For example, even though

the primary commodity and foreign-exchange earning source of jute was largely grown in East Pakistan, its

processing factories were almost exclusively located in Indian West Bengal. There were only a few bank

branches in the entire territory of West Pakistan compared to hundreds all across India. There was also a

"flight of capital" from these few bank branches in Pakistan when Hindus migrated in large numbers to India.

Water being the single most vital need for human survival also became critically scarce when, within months

of Independence, India arbitrarily cut-off required flows from headworks (of canals) located in India. It took

several months of negotiations for resumption of minimal flows.

As if the hostility of a vastly better-resourced India was not enough to pre-occupy a fledgling new state, a

second neighbour initiated its own separate hostility to Pakistan. When Pakistan submitted its application for

membership of the United Nations soon after independence, the only country to formally oppose this

application was Afghanistan on the grounds that it did not accept the Durand Line as a valid frontier between

Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was only after intense diplomatic activity by Pakistan and some other

sympathetic States that Afghanistan eventually withdrew its objection and Pakistan became a member of the

UN.

Finally, the very individual who had virtually single-handedly steered Pakistan into existence was able to work

effectively for less than 10 months after its creation. The health of the Quaid-e-Azam began to decline

sharply after about February 1948 until, onwards of July 1948, he had to withdraw completely from any

public activity, being obliged to move to Ziarat in Balochistan before his demise in Karachi on 11th

September 1948.

In specific contrast in India, despite the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in January 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru

lived on to remain Prime Minister of India for the crucial first 17 years of its independence and was able to

ensure that an independent India proceeded in the directions in which its founding fathers wanted it to go.

Globalization of Media MCM404

In Pakistan, its founding father was able to exercise an influence for less than 10 months in comparison to the

17 years that Mr. Nehru was able to provide to India. Once again, it is difficult to find an example similar to

how Pakistan was deprived of the leadership of its founding father so soon after its birth. Mr. Jinnah's

importance to Pakistan, the magnitude of his loss and his place in history are well-reflected in the opening

sentences written by the reputed American scholar, Stanley Wolpert, in his biography titled: `Jinnah of

Pakistan'.

"Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly

anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three". For all the reasons

noted earlier, Pakistan can justifiably be described as a unique nation-state compared to all the other members

of the UN.

In each of the reasons given for making the claim that Pakistan is truly unique, there is an inspiring and

positive dimension because it is demonstrated that, despite exceptional adversities, Pakistan was able to

overcome the problems and survive for the crucial first three or four years after it secured independence.

Regrettably, even though Pakistan overcame monumental problems at its birth, and soon after its birth,

Pakistan was unable to sustain this capacity to survive in critical times when the situation deteriorated 24 years

after 1947. In March 1971, President General Yahya Khan postponed the pre-scheduled first meeting of the

newly-elected National Assembly and unleashed violent, large-scale action against the Awami League and

others in East Pakistan. This colossal blunder allowed India to eventually become an open and aggressive

force in encircling East Pakistan and ensuring the disintegration of the original Pakistani nation-state with the

signing of the surrender document on 16th December 1971 in Dhaka.

With that act on that date, Pakistan added the single most unwelcome factor that makes it truly unique

because Pakistan became the first state after World War II to actually disintegrate. The birth and survival of

Pakistan between 1947 and 1950 were marked by extraordinary difficulties and unprecedented hardships,

representing a great saga of rare courage and determination overcoming enormous odds. Along with the

exclusive background features referred to previously in this text, Pakistanis can take genuine pride in

belonging to a nation that is truly unique, that has an almost unrivalled capacity for resilience and renewal

particularly for a nation so young and new.

Fortunately, after 1971, by rediscovering and re-asserting inner resources of will, by the informal yet

unmistakable evolution of the identity of "Pakistaniat", by being able to overcome many new odds, Pakistan

has survived to become, in the words uttered in 2005 of India's extremist, as well as moderate leadership

"Pakistan is now an unalterable reality".

In conclusion, Pakistan is unique by virtue of its name, the nature of its origins, the form, circumstances and

structure of its creation, its initial conditions, in its disintegration and in its re-generation and renewal, all of

which will be the subjects of lectures to follow.

Excerpts from books for this hand-out:

From "Pakistan: the formative phase 1857-1948" by Khalid bin Sayeed, published by Oxford

University Press, Pakistan, 1968/1998, pages 3 to 12 of chapter titled: "Conflicting views about the

origin of Pakistan"

From: "Rahmat Ali: a biography" by K.K. Aziz, published by Vanguard Books (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore,

1987, pages 51 to 73 from the chapter titled: "The birth of an idea: 1933"

Table of Contents: