If a Pakistani national sees a person who looks like a
Pakistani in an alien country, the usual conversation starts with a query that “Are
you a Pakistani?” This sense of identity is what separates a random person in
the crowd from someone you are happy to see in an alien country.
Every person with a green passport has one thing in common,
that is, each one of them is a Pakistani. No matter what political scientists argue
about the illusion of nationalism and how it dodges people into a fake sense of
unity, fact remains that this is the only identity that every person born in
this country has and it remains with them for their entire life. This tag
is the umbrella under which every single person belonging to this country unites
regardless of every geographical boundary that separates them. No matter where
you are, you are a Pakistani and this tag is what identifies you and will
continue to do so for every second you breathe in this world.
5 comments:
I believe you painted an excessively bright picture of a situation that is not so bright in real life. The fact of the matter is that even though every person that is born in this country has a green passport, countless of them come nowhere near to considering themselves Pakistani. Being a Pakistani has to do with the sense of identifying your self with the country and its people and holding Pakistan's interest above all others. In actuality, however, there are several factions that hold their ethnic and provincial interests over national ones, and therefore cannot be labelled Pakistani. There are laws in Baluchistan against singing our national anthem and I think the idea of a united Pakistan died the day such laws were passed. The "umbrella under which every single person belonging to this country unites regardless of every geographical boundary that separates them", therefore, does not exist here.
I want to say two things.
1. What if this 'only identity that every person born in' Pakistan has is not an identity they want? The baloch certainly don't.
2. You're suggesting that being a Pakistani which is somewhat bigger than being a Punjabi/Sindhi/Pakhtun/Balochi (the implication being: if I see a Sindhi in let's suppose England, I won't be able to identify with them if I consider myself a Punjabi only but I will be able to do so if both of us call ourselves Pakistani) is better. One could argue, identifying with the whole of Asia is better than just identifying with Pakistan because that way we would be able to connect to a much larger community. My point is, your argument is flawed as there are countless ways of dividing the human race. Being divided into nations does not mean it is the best way simply because we choose to be divided so.
Excellent retort. I agree.
Yes! Awesome :)
Rauf, there are multiple problems with your argument. Your classmates have already highlighted a few of them.
But I will just ask you this question: How much traveling outside of Pakistan have you actually done? Having personally lived and traveled in multiple countries around the world, my primary identification is not Pakistani. Rather, it is a Muslim first and foremost, followed by being a citizen of earth. National loyalty, while important to some extent, is not what everyone identifies with, myself included. It is facile and reductionist to argue that this is how people all over the world think. Perhaps you should rethink your uber nationalism.
Post a Comment