Talha Aziz's thoughts on Pakistan Politics; The Two Nation Theory and Democracy in Pakistan.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Two Nation Theory

Every kid growing up in Pakistan is aware of the Two Nation Theory as the basis of the creation of Pakistan. In simpler words.. the Theory states that Hindus and Muslims are two diverse nations.. each with distinct religions, culture, history etc and therefore .. even after living together for centuries (under the Mughal and British rule) they remained remarkably distinct.. maintaining their cultural differences etc. Pakistan emerged as the only ideological Islamic state that was created in the name of Islam.. not as a result of some territorial conflict etc.

Taking a closer look at the theory.. it clearly holds the idea that all muslims are ONE nation by every definition. At the time of creation of Pakistan.. Muslims were already divided into several countries. The creation of Pakistan on this basis meant further division of the Muslim Nation (Ummah) .. adding Pakistan among the countries Muslims are divided into.

The only nationalism that Islam supports is the nationalism according to religion.. not some geographical or ethnic division. Allah SWT says in the Quran, 'This nation of yours is one nation, and I am your God, so worship Me'. (Quran 21:92). Unlike the situation today.. where a Muslim is Pakistani first then a Muslim .. v refer to our brothers as Iraqi Muslims or Indian Muslim .. whereas .. the are all muslims .. living in different parts of the world.

This nationalism is most strongly rooted in the Muslim world. And was not there from the beginning,, Muslim unity is one of the fundamentals of Islamic political system. These divisions within the Ummah according tp countries and geographical boundaries were feed into the Muslim masses by their colonial/imperial rulers (British in case of Indo-Sub Continent, iraq etc and French like in Syria etc). During the world wars.. the global super powers became quite weak.. and due to United States' late entry into the World War, when all others were exhausted towards the end of it, only United States stood as the least exhausted and victorious nation in the world. Thus becoming the current super power (only to be challenged during the cold war with Russia, which ended with the dismantling of USSR).

After the World Wars, these colonial powers were getting weak and were left with no choice of granting independence to their colonies. At this time in history.. the world say the division of Muslim lands into different countries.. just like you cut a cake at the end of a celebration and hand pieces of it to other people. All the modern day lines (international boundaries) between the Muslim Lands today are the product of those divisions. All the first heads of states of these newly formed countries (nations) were people groomed in the west (e.g. Jinnah from Lincoln's Inn in London, Faisal of Iraq groomed while studying at Harrow in UK, Abdullah of Jordan etc). The newly born countries were handed to them so that they could save guard the interests of powers that have planted them. All these were proclaimed national heroes, founders of the newly formed 'nations'. In the sub-continent .. millions died. Even if there was no violent political struggle.. the british wud hav left the Sub-Continent anyway. They had already sucked the resources from this land and there was nothing left for them here. They wud hav left as easily as they left the Arabian peninsula and the Transjordan .. vid simple negotiations. There were no bloody revolts .. just dialogues with the 'wud-be' leader (rulers) for the new land. If British didnt want to move, they would hav stayed here like they stayed in Hong Kong following a treaty. I know this might sound controversial.. cos it hurts to read that million died for nothing.. but hey.. thts my point of view.. we should respect each others opinions.. ur comments are welcomed.

The slogan "Pakistan ka matlab kia .. La Illaha Illal-lah" was a fake one .. to get the Muslim under one banner. Pakistan, as claimed to be one, was never meant to be a homeland for Muslims to freely observe Islam. Mohammad Ali Jinnah made his commitment to secularism in Pakistan clear in his inaugural address when he said, "You will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State." I totally agree with the statement that Muslim are one nations and they should be living in a land according the islamic rules (sharia), my point is that this statement was adapted as the reason of creation of Pakistan and the politicians never meant it. No wonder Alcohol was only banned after 25-30 years in the land created on the name of Islam. The people tht died in 1947 were tricked into sacrificing for what they believed was right but in reality .. they were just used. They were victim of the politics of people that wanted power and those who wanted to plant their agents into these lands. to look after their interest here, even after they left.

The statement from Indra Gandhi on the fall of Dhaka is a slap on the ideology of Pakistan .. "We hav sunk the two nation theory in the gulf of Bengal". My answer to that is that "if" Two Nation Theory had been the true ideology behind .. such a disaster wud hav never occurred. We never thought of Bengalis as our Muslim brothers.. equal to us. Even to this day we make a mockery out of them.. of the way they talk or dress. We stripped them of their right to form the government. This is a different debate all together. I would be writing on it soon.

To conclude the post.. i think The two nation theory at its core is the most strong idealogy to unite the Muslim today. As it nullifies all other Nationalities except Islam. All muslims are ONE nation. Its time for us to revive this Two Nation Theory at a global level.. as its the only thing that can unite the Muslim Ummah as one once again.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Democracy in Pakistan

Democracy: Some of the definition of the word 'democracy' from different sources listed at

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy are

  • The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [WordNet]
  • The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
  • Majority rule." [American Heritage Dictionary]

The common perception of democracy that an ordinary man has, is that he votes for the people he chooses to represent him for the legislative council (parliament, senate or any other body that makes the laws for a country). These elected representative 'of the people', make the laws 'for the people'.

It isnt as simple as it sounds. Democracy in South Asian countries .. specially like the one in Pakistan is far from being 'ideal'. Consider this example: A town of 100 people are supposed to choose a representative from 4 candidates to represent their town in the Parliament. 50 people show up to vote. Assume the results are that Candidate A get 20% of the vote, Candidate B gets 15%, Candidate gets 10% and Candidate D gets 5%. According to the rule of "Majority Rules!", Candidate A has all the rights to represent this town in the Parliament. This means the representative of just 20% of the people is chosen as representing the whole town.

Now a number of situation can arise. For example, Candidate B and C form a political alliance. Now they represent 25% of the total population of the town, They hav the right to make it to the Parliament now. Even thought they still represent just 25% of the people.

The same phenomenon is repeated in the parliament. Out of Three or Four Candidates, one is to be chosen as the head of state. If some one doesnt hav the 'over-whelming' majority in the house.. political alliances are made. These result in weaker governments. Cause the alliance now formed is an alliance usually between rivals. They come together with the sole purpose of gaining some position or ministry in return.

In Pakistan, this cycle is repeated each time an election takes place. The 'usually rigged' elections that Pakistan has had in its history.. hav had around 30-35% of the total population turning up for voting. The highest ever has been 37% .. the last time people voted.. to elect the PML-Q led federal government in Pakistan. Even if PML-Q had 100% of the result (which they definitely didnt had) ,, it still means they just represented the 37% of the people. Everyone knows that the current government needed to break certain politicians from opposition to form the government e.g. Faisal Sualeh Hayat from PPP was handed the Information Ministry for his betrayal of the party that gave him ticket for the elections that got him elected. Once the government had its important bills passed, this guys was humiliated and ripped from the ministry and handed the 'Ministry for Kashmir and Issues' (which is of no importance as the real heads cater the Kashmir issues themselves.. this ministry is just in the books) and no wonder we never hear about Mr. Hayat that often now. Anyways.. criticising the current government and that political parties in Pakistan think of people as nothing but their stairway to power, is another topic altogether. I'll post on it some other time soon. For now, I would keep my focus on the topic this post is about: democracy.

Provided you hav understood the "Musical chairs" type of game for power that i hav discussed above.. i think that following are the only ways to eliminate it.

There should be just two political parties (vid some independent candidates may b). This wud eliminate the forming of coalitions which result in 'weaker governments' (as discussed above) which are trying all the tym to keep their coalition partners happy.

This two-party sort of system is what we see in democracies such as United States (the Democrats and Republicans) and in the United Kingdom (the Liberals and the Conservatives).

At its core.. the problem can never be solved unless more and more people (ideally; all of them) turn out at the polls to vote for elections.

A friend of mine has a very interesting argument. And as much as i think into it.. the more i feel convinced about it. The argument is that how can you treat the opinion (vote) of a learned man (a PhD or some scholar) equal to the opinion (vote) of an illiterate man (some one living in a distant village who doesnt knw whts going on in the country .. at the international scenario and has had nothing to learn from history or know abt history etc .. an addict .. a criminal etc)? You can never hold the opinions of the two as equal. What it means in its core is that if the majority of drug addicts (heroinchis, charcis as they are locally called) or the un-aware ppl from the villages vote in for another charci or illiterate man.. this man wud hav all the rights to contribute to the law making that each and everyone has to follow.

I would b pondering over this new thought that i hav.. n vid hav something to write abt it soon.

Although i dont agree with all that is on at the following link .. i strongly recommend that you take some time to read something interesting that the writer has to say on the following link http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html

until the next post ..


Monday, April 24, 2006

About Me

I am The GAME ... and I am tht damn good !