Existential qualms

One of the most remarkable features of General Musharraf''s iron rule is its tolerance of dissent. The press functions with greater freedom today than it ever did under democratically-elected governments.
Newspapers and magazines, as well as private TV channels, routinely castigate the regime in the most unequivocal terms. According to a widespread belief in Pakistan, the Indian media, compared to their own, tends to be timid, conformist and often even obsequious.
This is obviously not the case.Our media are not called upon to challenge the system. Nor do we suffer from any angst about the definition of our identity as a people or as a nation. If anything, our successes on many fronts in recent years have heightened our sense of national pride and, in the process, obviated the need to indulge in chestbeating of the sort one witnesses in Pakistan. None of this must of course detract attention from the vibrant nature of the Pakistani media. It was on full view on March 23 when the country commemorated the 65th anniversary of the adoption of the Lahore Resolution. The document, drawn up by the All-India Muslim League under the inspiration of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was a clarion call for a separate homeland for the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent.
Pakistan came into being seven years later. At its very inception Jinnah spelt out his vision of the new nation. It would be democratic, economically strong and socially progressive, a nation respectful of the rights of minorities and of the provinces, one which would banish ignorance, corruption and intolerance of every hue. How that vision turned sour is the leitmotif of the editorials and comments one got to read on the day officialdom sang a predictably smug tune. Many commentators indeed presented a picture of an impending apocalypse. Writing in Dawn, Shamshad Ahmad, a former foreign secretary reputed for his hawkish line on India, spoke about the "traumatic experiences" that Pakistan has endured since its independence.
Frequent military take-overs, deplorable governance by elected bodies, pervasive corruption, the mushroom growth of sectarianism and religious extremism and the pursuit of ill-advised domestic and foreign policies, the author argues, have left the country "politically unstable, economically weak, socially fragmented and physically disintegrated."
Ahmad''s comments on foreign policy are especially pertinent. Alliances with the West did not strengthen Pakistan against India. If anything, when it came to fighting wars with India, "we were all alone and in fact every time suffered heavily while also incurring the West''s wrath." Islamabad also mishandled relations with Iran and Afghanistan with grave consequences to itself while many Arab countries "viewed our role in Jihadi movements with fear and anxiety." Even for China, a "time-tested" friend, Pakistan became a "liability and a nuisance."
Perhaps the most revealing portions of Ahmad''s article pertain to India-Pakistan relations: "With India''s image embedded in our psyche as an enemy and a rival, we have been living since independence in the shadow of a perceived Indian hostility and a fear of its threat to our security and survival." Except in the right-wing Jihadi press, which continues to rant against ‘Hindu'' India, views similar to this one were widely echoed in the media.
The "agonising reappraisal" of what Pakistan''s successive rulers have done to the country has led historian Ayesha Jalal to go one step further. She takes a hard look at the Lahore Resolution itself. Her article, also appearing in Dawn, will be discussed on another occasion. Suffice it to say that it gives a lucid insight into the existential qualms agitating the finest minds in Pakistan today. India needs to pay heed to them but without a trace of triumphalism.