Anyone growing up in 90s would have recollections of Independence Day celebrations. It used to be a festival. That gradually changed at the turn of century. This year incidentally, with rise of army’s stalks; people celebrated the Independence Day that was reminiscent of 90s fervour. Today it is not any political party but Pak-Army that represents the middle classes in the country. It is not just the biggest employer, but people also have emotional attachment with their armed forces due to the complex history of this country. History, that has seen army’s fortunes sinking low and phases – such as the present – when its chief has been hailed as messiah (once again), gravitating all aspirations and hopes of the country. Our Army also contributes more to our nationalism than any other factor. With our army popular again this year the country celebrated August 14 exuberantly.
Why this trend in the celebrations? It certainly isn’t due to its factors – or one factor alone. It can be best explained if we appreciate the artificial nature of nationalism. Our nationalism, like any other in a nation-state, had to be manufactured after independence. Pakistanyat had to be fed to folks who before 1947 had different cultural and ethnic identities. Our people too needed a flag, an anthem, language, poetry, nomenclature and songs. And it was fed – at times carelessly.
We have spent the best part of 69 years in self-deception. We crafted an ideology couched in providence believing that we can alter history and view the development of sub-continent’s history linearly; with starting point as Qasim’s conquest of Sindh (usurper for some Sindhis) to demand for separate electorate as one consistent chain of events.
In our reading, we shoved material facts under the carpet, contextualised events to fit them with our perspective and did not mention events contrary to it or simply denied their existence. Our reading of history has suffered glorious setbacks. But as devoted followers eulogised our nationalism lending it their art, voice and skill; our flag bearers were excused. As pointed out by Orwell “Political or military commentators … can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties”.
So the spinning wheel has spun one full circle. And our flag bearers have now been completely forgiven – their misdeeds forgotten. The country with a memory of goldfish celebrates again. It is best to dance, they used to say in Rome, while Rome burns, since it must burn. For how long would the ever so fleeting zeal last? We don’t care.
“Is not nationalism” asked Howard Zin “…that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder- These ways of thinking--cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on--have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.”
Perhaps we would not acknowledge - not now, the mass-murder borne out of nationalism. And at present, we do have greater evil of our times to deal with. But at the very least, as a starting point, we can start revisiting the factors of our nationalism such as Anti-Indianism, Anti-Semitism, its isolationist and victim psyche encompassing fictitious fears – to name a few and other such absolutist manifestations. Even though we should have learnt our lessons by now – we need to tell our children we are not superior morally, culturally or historically to any other nation – for the lack of better word. Everyone in this world is different but all our interests are the same.
It is natural to have association with one’s native land or hometown. But that association, fondness or romance does not have to be premised in competitive prestige. One of the great lessons we learn from Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver's Travels is “– nothing is great or little otherwise than by comparison”. Here our public intellectuals have a role to play. What is true for war is also true for nationalism. It is too serious a business to be left to the generals. And while we make concerted efforts to revisit our nationalism – we cannot let our media houses go bonkers riding on popular tides; as those tides ebb; the slants of e-media starts to shift. We all have seen that before.
In years ahead, by all means, we would have to reject nationalism and its symbols as people. A nationalist with a limited worldview would never truly appreciate Lenin’s masterpiece: “Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for.”