IKE many other erstwhile colonies, Pakistan is struggling to be a nation state. Historical baggage as well as its absence has been weighing it down. It has not jettisoned politico-economic inheritance from pre-colonial and colonial eras. It has rather built its edifice on it because it helps perpetuate the power structures that ensure the dominance of its elite. In the age of monarchy, people were treated as subjects which meant they had no rights except the ones granted by the monarch. There was hardly any concept of the rule of law. Monarch`s word was the law which could only be flouted at the risk of one`s life and limb. One had to be loyal to the ruler, not to the state in the modern sense as it didn`t exist. Change from monarchy to colonial state was marked by violence and aggression.

Nations, mostly European, invaded and occupiedforeign landsin abrazen show of force. This change did not change the status of the people as they remained subjects.The difference between a subject and a citizen is of crucial importance. A subject has no rights and freedom, and he/she is totally at the whim of the ruler. But the status of the subject was somewhat different under colonial dispensation.

Colonial powers built a new kind of state based on the view of their own evolution and historical experience.

In order to appropriate maximum surplus, they introduced the use of machines to boost production and simultaneously erected new sociopolitical and economic structures to protect their extractive rule.

Colonialism was driven by an insatiable desire to exploit the economic and human resources of occupied lands and it exploited the people and the resources ad infinitum.

But the colonial administration introducedthe conceptoftheruleof law, i.e. formal laws were imposed to regulate the occupied societies within the colonial framework which meant that laws were equally applicable as long as subjects did not challenge the illegitimacy of colonial occupation. This development, in a way, pummelled the oldhierarchies of class and caste. Sir Syed Ahmed of Delhi resented when he had to stand with, what he called, `riff-raff` in the court of law because it, in his highfalutin language, violated the traditional Indian norm that treated the people unequally.

Pakistan has been a breakaway state comprising multiple pre-colonial independent and semi-independent Muslim majority states such as East Bengal (now independent Bangladesh), Punjab, NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), Sindh and Balochistan. India of which they were the parts has historically been a region having multiple states rooted in its geographic, linguistic, racial, religious and cultural diversity. Just a couple of times in history it functioned more or less as a loosely united India. Despite all the diversity, however, Indians have had a sense of what one may call `Indianhood` based on a sense of shared civilisation with a long history. Prior to Muslim intrusion, all the sources of diversity were rooted in the Indian soileven foreign elements, if any, got assimilatedbutwith the conversion to Muslim faith, voluntary and forced, the situation changed. Sources of Muslim faith were located beyond India in the Middle East, Iran and Central Asia.

The change didn`t remain confined to religious practices. It also influencedthelanguagesandculturesof the convert challenging the feel of `Indianhood`. But it has not been as simple as it looks because the two strands of being Indian in the civilizational sense or non-Indian in the religious sphere still pull the people in opposite directions.

The paradox of where Muslim majority regions belong -India or outsidehas not been resolved even after the seven decades of emergence of the Pakistani state. The state premised on the denial of its subcontinental roots has been trying to embrace a new identity erected on an ideological foundation; rejection of the significance of historical realities of the entities that created it. Each entity, despite sharing faith with others, has its distinct language, culture, history and historical memory. No entity is ready to forego its right of owning -brainwashed Punjab is an exceptionwhat it believes belongs to it in favour of unilaterally conceived national objectives advocated by the state.

The core component of the state`s raison d`etre comprises Islamic faith and a national language to the exclusion of every other thing.

People, no doubt, have accepted the Middle Eastern faith but its particular form has been shaped by local cultures and social practices with the result that it is a bit different from how it is practised in its original homeland. The language touted as the national language by the state is a colonial legacy. It`s in fact a foreign language, an Indian language to be precise. It has been imposed at the cost of natural languages of the peoples of Pakistan.

The state suffers from ideological confusion as on the one hand, it rejects everything Indian and on theother,itdeclaresalanguagespoken across the Indian heartland as its sole national language. The reason that it can set itself contradictory goals to guard its elite interests.

The state in reality faces a realdilemma; how to reconcile two opposing pulls. Imperatives of faith push it towards the Middle East and those of its geography, history and culture pull it towards the subcontinent. The notion of `Indianhood` is a historical experience spanning over millennia. `Pakistanihood, like its Indian counterpart, is desirable but it`s difficult for it to strike roots in a situation exacerbated by misplaced confidence reposed in national objectives that aren`t rooted in our historical reality.

What is crucially needed is the first step in the right direction. The state should own all the historical and current assets of its regions, including their cultures and languages. It must be kept in mind that Pakistan is a new country but it`s an ancient society that inherits a civilisation whose interaction with the Middle East (Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia and Egypt) is as old as Harappan cities. So practising a local form of the Middle Eastern faith while owning our histories and cultures shouldn`t be an impossible task. We can learn a lesson or two from Iran and Turkey. soofi01@hotmail.com