HE idea of what is meant by Pakistan as a modern nation state and how it is represented in the national narrative were discussed at the LLF in two different sessions.

The first one, aptly titled `Pakistan, a Modern Country?` had journalist Owen Bennett-Jones as the moderator and the panel consisted of historians Ayesha Jalal and Francis Robinson and journalist and writer Tariq Ali. Though it is difficult to share a stage with an orator as intimidating as Ali, Jalal`s impressive knowledge and historical approach were great additions to Ali`s sociopolitical analyses.

Bennett-Jones opened the discussion by highlighting the topic`s varied interpretations. Robinson talked in detail about what the modern state as an idea means in political theory.

According to him, to be called modern, a state must exercise three powers: coercive power within its boundaries, which means it should be able to reach each individual and remove any intervening party between the state and individual, in addition to defending its boundaries; the power to protect its minorities; and the power to collect taxes. He said that despite Pakistan`s difficulties with these functions, he has been very impressed with the rise of the middle class over the last 30 years.

Population, according to him, is one of the most pressing challenges for Pakistan.

Ali opined that some people consider the possession of nuclear weapons an aspect of modernity, which he does not agree with. The provision of some rudimentary education, welfare and health are the important aspects of a modern state, he said, adding that `the bulk of those who created Pakistan did not want an Islamist republic`. He gave the example of the Khilafat movement deemed important in the anti-imperialist struggle which many Muslim leaders were not happy with. `Religion should not be part of the functioning of the state,` he stressed.

Jalal, however, emphasised that religion in some cases has a necessary place in government as democracy comes in many forms. For her, it is neutrality, rather than the absence of religion, that is the defining feature of a modern state. She further explained that many problems are strategic in nature, not religious. Over the years `state has lost that narrative it itself created.` She also dwelled upon Pakistan`s postcolonial legacy which has `modern problems`. It inherited many structural problems, like that of sovereignty, from its colonial rulers. Ali discussed middle-class religious movements which are very modern in nature. However, `such movements are not political movements in a direct sense but largely cultural and attract a lot of people, he said, adding that `the problem isonce these genies are out of the bottle they can never be put back.

In response to a question concerning how a modern society can survive in a country which isn`t modern, Ali responded that the hope is that Pakistan does survive as being a nuclear power it is hard to imagine otherwise.

When the panellists were asked which politician they would vote for in the next election, Ali was the only one who responded seriously: `I will vote for Imran Khan. If he gets elected and that`s a huge if and implements even half of what is being promised.

The session `National Narrative` also had Bennett-Jones, but this time along with journalists Basharat Peer and Sarah Singh and historian Urvashi Butalia. Khaled Ahmed, who was the moderator, couldn`t arrive on time and 15 minutes after the session was supposed to start Bennett-Jones took matters into his own hands and asked the speakers about their thoughts on the topic.

Singh started the discussion by saying that `the topic can be interpreted in two ways: in one sense a nation has many narratives but a narrative can have many nations.` Peer highlighted the exclusive nature of a monolithic idea, such as that of anational narrative, which ignores those parts of a nation that are inconvenient to talk about.Butalia pertinently mused: `It`s strange that there`s a panel on national narratives in Lahore and you have three Indians sitting on it.

Ahmed then joined the discussion and explained what a national narrative means in theory: a discourse created by the state to create uniformity.

Pakistan, according to him, is living under three narratives: the first is external, based on facts; the second is pan-Islamic and opposes the first narrative; and the third sees the world through an Indian prism.

However, there could be alternative narratives too, he said. When Bennett-Jones expressed his doubts about Ahmed`s idea of alternative narratives, he said such narratives are possible to create under democracy with freedom of speech.

Butalia interjected with the comment that `both India and Pakistan want to present a linear national narrative and history.

Peer also highlighted the pertinent issue of the plight of minorities, saying that `we need to extend our solidarities beyond borders.` E Ammara Khan