Independence Day is an occasion for introspection. However, this Independence Day, has been converted into an occasion for action because two marginal political forces have challenged the government, formed by one of the two mainstream political parties, by their march on the capital of the country. They prove that the dream which inspired Pakistan, and the aspiration which fuelled the Pakistan Movement, has not yet been fulfilled, despite the passage of 67 years. That founding vision remains relevant not from any spirit of reverence, but because it still encapsulates the aspirations of the people. Pakistan was supposed to be an Islamic democratic welfare state, and it is worth noting that while Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik Insaaf and Tahirul Qadri’s Pakistan Awami Tehrik are both carrying out marches on Islamabad for the democratic ideal, both also contain elements of the other aspects of the founding vision.
Whatever elements that the PTI and the PAT have absorbed from the founding vision, their present movement is focused on the transfer of power. They are both avowedly dissatisfied with the conduct of the general election last year, with Imran Khan claiming that there was outright rigging. He calls for the Election Commission of Pakistan to be formed afresh. Why exactly should the PML(N) suffer for the sins committed by the caretaker government, or the outgoing one, or the then Chief Justice, if any sin that was committed has yet to be explained.
The debate has shown that the dispute over democracy has not yet ended. And how could it, with military rule occurring regularly during the country’s existence? There is also the situation now, where the military is a political player even if it does not take over. All of the fear that the Army might take over, all of the scrutiny of both party chiefs for their links with the last military regime, is based on previous experience, and does not take into account the possibility that the military might prefer to remain above the fray. However, the possibility of the Army intervening has been raised by the trial of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf for high treason. That trial may not prevent any future intervention, but it will mean that one of the unspoken assumptions of the imposition of Martial Law, that the imposer would not be held accountable for his actions, was undermined. That it could even be debated, whether or not a military ruler should escape accountability, or that any action by political parties could invite Martial Law, shows that Pakistan might be a fledgling democracy, but it is worth considering why it is not a developed democracy after 67 years. There is also the question of what democracy has delivered. Both PTI and PAT are making the critique that democracy has not delivered, and the solution is more democracy, better democracy. The delivery is more an issue with the PAT, which has raised the roti, kapra aur makaan slogan made so confidently by the PPP in the 1971 election. Actually, that is to hark back to the Pakistan Movement slogan of a welfare state. It should be understood that the Muslim League had to produce an economic programme with as much appeal as the Congress Party, where Jawaharlal Nahru was infusing the Fabian Socialism he had learnt while in England into the Congress Party. Fabian socialists had gone into the British Labour Party, and won the 1945 election on a promise of introducing a welfare state.
As it stands, Pakistan is hardly a welfare state. Though socialism, both Fabian and Soviet, has fallen by the wayside, and though the welfare state introduced by the Labour Party has been dismantled in the UK itself, while Manmohan Singh has dismantled the socialist controls Congress brought to economic policy making, the ideal of a state looking after the common man remains.
The ‘welfare state’ idea is what provides a link to Islam. Without going into the debate of whether the Founding Fathers wanted an Islamic state or not, it is generally agreed that the new state was for the Muslim-majority areas. The welfare state ideal is also Islamic, and it is not without significance that both Tahirul Qadri and Imran Khan base their appeal on religious grounds. True, they represent different ends of the spectrum. Dr Qadri represents a more traditional interpretation, but his use of the language and imagery of martyrdom are very powerful. At the same time, the strong religious appeal indicates that it is relatively easier to stir the masses using religious imagery than by using any other device.
It should not be forgotten that the objection to the present Constitution is on religious grounds. Neither Dr. Qadri nor Imran represent this opinion. The opposite, rather. They both insist on their love for the Constitution, their intention to preserve it. Imran Khan and Dr. Qadri have both expressed their opposition to military rule. However, military rulers have so far justified their takeovers with the same argument about the corruption of the politicians, and the need for better democracy.
However, this Independence Day is being marked as an occasion for introspection. While Operation Zarb-i-Azb continues, so does the Israeli Operation Cast Lead II, which seems to involve nothing but the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. Zarb-i-Azb continues, but Cast Lead II has seen a ceasefire, which has occurred because of Israeli exhaustion, than because anyone is trying to dissuade it. Pakistan was seen as a bulwark of the Muslim world, and even now is the sole nuclear power amongst its members. However, as an independent nation, it will not look outside its own boundaries beyond the present desultory attempts to arrange the ceasefire. However, Zarb-i-Azb has been needed, according to some, because Pakistan has not been a welfare state to the tribal areas. Indeed, it has not been one to any of its citizens.
It is perhaps appropriate enough that the questions and ambitions for the new state have been given new currency this Independence Day, though the answers may not be the ones given by either of the parties converging on Islamabad or the one trying to defend itself against all comers. Maybe it is time to think out of the box.

 The writer is a veteran journalist and founding member as well as executive editor of The Nation.

maniazi@nation.com.pk