Pakistan’s Performance: An Independent Analysis

Abid Qaiyum Suleri

suleri@sdpi.org
An assessment of Pakistan's performance in social, economic and political terms
leads to a much repeated question: How independent are we really?

August 14, 1947 is important because an independent and sovereign country called
Pakistan was added to world atlas on that day. The creation of Pakistan was one of
the best things that could have happened for a majority of the people living in this
part of the sub-continent. One can weigh the pros and cons of whether independence
was more desirable on religious, economic or socio-political grounds, or on none of
these grounds. But following the theory of the 'benefits of decentralization', it can be
safely said that decentralized, autonomous, and independent states have turned out
to be more beneficial for people than living in united India could have been.

People who opted to become Pakistanis had very high hopes and expectations from
the new country. They were keen to spend their lives in a system that was expected
to be based on religious tolerance, equity and justice. They thought that becoming
free from colonial rule would change their lives dramatically as they would be ruled
by their own representatives. What happened to their expectations is for historians to
judge but here it may suffice to say that the changes in their lives were far less
spectacular their hopes.

Now that Pakistan has turned 59, an impact assessment process has begun to
evaluate its post-independence performance. In this process, however, most analysts
tend to ignore the multifaceted significance of two ideas: 'freedom' and 'Pakistan'.

Geographic freedom does not always denote other types of freedoms, especially
economic and geo-political ones. How free we are in economic terms is evident from
the statements of various rulers who keep accusing their predecessors of accepting
tough 'conditionalities' imposed by the Bretton Woods financial institutions, most
significantly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Once these
accusers themselves become part of history, there is very little to substantiate their
claims to have won back the economic sovereignty of the country. Their successors
blame them for all the wrongdoings and the cycle goes on. Speaking of our geo-
political freedom, it was totally compromised from the very beginning when Pakistan
aligned itself with the United States during the Cold War.

An important methodological flaw in carrying out 'Pakistan's post-independence

performance assessment' is that we are not conceptually clear about the prime
variables; that is, 'Pakistan' and 'independence'. We have already faced the
consequences of this conceptual ambiguity when, immediately after Independence,
criticism of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), then the ruling party, was considered
to be criticism of Pakistan. Those who differed with the League leadership were
considered at worst traitors and at least as unreliable. Loyalty to the ruling party and
the rulers became one of the unwritten prerequisites to being a good Pakistani.

Geographic freedom does not always denote other types of freedoms, especially
economic and geo-political ones.

This approach influenced the phenomenon of nation building from the earliest days of
independence. Since a prerequisite of being a good Pakistani was to be a good
Leaguer, old Muslim Leaguers like G. M. Syed and Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi were
declared traitors when they dissented from the League high command and left the
party. In the meantime, what had been the All India Muslim League until
Independence began to split into various factions. The faction that happened to be in
the government, by virtue of power, always declared itself as the 'true and genuine
Muslim League'. Thus Fatima Jinnah's Council Muslim League was not genuine when
it had to compete with Ayub Khan's Convention Muslim League, which was 'genuine'
simply because it enjoyed official blessing.

The nation-building process was amended so frequently that, after a certain period of
time, there was no consensus on what constituted a binding force for Pakistanis. As
Aziz Zafar Azad, says, "we got a country but could never build a nation".

Following the rules of the game set by the Pakistan Muslim League of 1948, all
successive governments (civil, military, semi-civil and semi-military) were - and are -
of the opinion that allegiance to the government is the binding force for Pakistanis. A
vast majority of Pakistanis think that religion is the binding force for them, while
many others continue to believe that culture and ethnicity are their common bonds.
Some people, like the late General Zia ul Haq, cleverly blended religious, cultural and
ethnic forces to create a hybrid nation: one in which everyone suspected the other of
not being a 'true' Pakistanis.

The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 is attributed mainly to socio-economic and socio-

political disparities between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. The separation
revealed, however, that there were some flaws in the earlier methodologies adopted
to define and form a nation. It was also a major setback for those who advocated
religion as the only force binding Pakistanis together as a nation.

In addition to the partition of Pakistan, the early 1970s also witnessed the
phenomenon of mass emigration by unskilled Pakistanis, mainly on economic
grounds. This was followed by a wave of economic emigration by skilled Pakistanis in
the early 1990s, mainly through self-assessment schemes. Most of these emigrants
opted for naturalization in the countries of their employment whenever this option
was available. Many now enjoy dual or even triple nationality.

This phenomenon is also true of citizens of other developing countries, including

Bangladesh, who are more than willing both to emigrate and to adopt their host
country as their homeland. This puts paid to the theory of independence as a
geographical phenomenon alone. As soon as Bangladesh became independent, its
citizens started leaving in large numbers, almost all of them willing to trade their
national identity for a better life in another country. The same applies to Pakistan and
Pakistanis. People want to live in a sovereign, independent country, provided it offers
them independence from want and deprivation, and from inequality and
discrimination. In order to pass on the fruits of independence to the common people,
independent states need to tackle the beast called poverty.

What does this trend mean in the context of globalization and economic
liberalization? It seems that the socio-economic condition of a country is the weakest
link of the chain that is called 'nation'. This weakest link is likely to snap in the
presence of socio-political disparities which force people to look outside their own
countries to improve their socio-economic situation. In light of the above, I would
argue that the best way to measure the impact of independence is to gauge whether
it reduces socio-economic and socio-political disparities within a newly independent
state.
Since its independence, Pakistan's economic performance has reflected the
profoundly inconsistent phenomenon of 'boom and bust'. On the whole, however,
Pakistan's macro-economic indicators have improved over time. Unfortunately, the
improvement has not resulted in progress at the micro level, and has created a
skewed and highly-unequal income distribution across in Pakistani society.

In terms of socio-economic disparities, a considerable segment of the population is

deprived of the basic necessities of life. Throughout the 59-year history of the
country, successive governments have not been able to provide equal (if not ample)
opportunities to their citizens, nor have there been effective social safety nets to
meet people's basic needs.

The gulf between the rich and poor is widening, which is leading to further socio-
political disparities in which the marginalized and the poor are excluded from the
political process. The result is a frustrated, angry and tense society where 'VVIPs'
enjoy powers that even the Viceroy of United India could not have imagined. Colonial
rule has turned into 'Colonel' rule.

Higher authorities, no less than General Pervez Musharraf, seem to be aware that
socio-economic and socio-political disparities are widening in Pakistan. While
discussing the impact of poverty at an event organized by the Pakistan Center for
Philanthropy in July 2006, the General termed poverty to be the root cause of
terrorism and religious fanaticism. To him, the poor cannot afford to go to school and
have to go to religious schools that create religious extremism. He further said that,
due to the lack of medical facilities in the public sector, and extremely expensive
treatment in private hospitals, people have to seek treatment from quacks and
pseudo-spiritual healers who further trap them in the vicious cycle of extremism
which encourages many to become suicide bombers. I would congratulate Pervez
Musharraf for articulating a valid analysis of the situation and arriving at the right
diagnosis for the ills Pakistani society suffers from. But I would like to remind him that
the phenomenon of suicide bombers never existed in pre-independence society.

Our successive governments, including the current one, should not ignore the
weakest link in the chain of nation building: that is, across-the-board socio-economic
development, if they are sincere in securing sovereignty and independence for this
country and this nation in its true sense