PATRIOTISM and nationalism may be seen as two sides of the same coin. Patriotism is born when a man’s attachment transcends his own family and home and gets focused on larger entities such as his village, town, district, region, and country. At each stage he entertains a moral obligation to the well-being of others in the same locale and is willing to place the interest of the collectivity above his own personal interest.

When his attachment, and the accompanying sense of obligation, are directed to the country as a whole, and he regards all of its people, its historical experience, art and culture, as his own, patriotism has become nationalism. His loyalties to the afore-mentioned entities (village to country) need not be mutually exclusive. They can all flourish within their respective bounds.

In our case, a sense of Pakistani nationhood did not have a chance to develop mainly because few, if any, talked about it. One influential group of opinion-makers preached that the concepts of territorial nationhood and nationalism were repugnant to Islam, while another school of thought chose to speak of Muslim nationalism and the two-nation theory to the exclusion of Pakistani nationhood.

The sponsors of these approaches have not retired and gone home. But our people have made it abundantly clear that, regardless of what these gentlemen may say, a sense of Pakistani nationhood is alive in their hearts and it has been waiting to burst forth.

Within hours of the news that a frightful earthquake had devastated parts of NWFP and Azad Kashmir, that tens of thousands had been killed, many more wounded, millions rendered homeless, and that whole towns and villages had been obliterated and reduced to rubble, folks all over the country started coming out to offer help for the victims.

Pakistani expatriates living in America, Europe, and the Middle East have, reportedly, sent in several hundred million dollars, and those within the country have provided much more in the form of money, food, clothes, blankets, medicines, and all kind of other necessities of life. Many have volunteered to go to the affected areas and do whatever needs to be done. The disaster in its magnitude has been unprecedented, but the outpouring of support has also been truly phenomenal.

What do we make of this outpouring of concern and affection among the millions in Karachi, Lahore, and a whole lot of other places for the Kashmiris and Pukhtuns? Was it because the sufferers were fellow human beings? Thousands of persons in Uruguay or Nicaragua, or any number of other countries, periodically suffer calamities, and nobody in Karachi or Lahore moves a muscle. Was it because they were fellow Muslims? Earthquakes often hit Indonesia and Iran, among others, killing many and leaving thousands homeless. In some of these instances, our government offers condolences and perhaps even some material assistance. But I don’t recall the people at large gearing up to send help to the stricken Indonesians or Iranians.

What is then unique in the present situation in Pakistan? It is, I think, the very distinct feeling among the generality of the people that those hurting in Kashmir and NWFP are fellow-Pakistanis, that “they are our own people.” That is why we are all engaged, that is why we must do all we can to help them out. This is the voice of patriotism, the sense of nationhood at work.

This voice comes out loud and clear when the country’s survival is at stake as was the case during the 1965 war with India. In peacetime patriotism may be expressed through rituals such as saluting the flag, honouring national heroes, building monuments, and celebrating certain holidays. Apart from these symbolic gestures, patriotism under normal conditions tends to be “outer-directed,” rising when there is an external challenge to the nation’s identity or worthiness. In our case, the challenge has come mostly from India, and in India’s case it has often been perceived as coming from Pakistan.

Thus, it has been a dictate of patriotism for us to match India’s nuclear weapons programme with one of our own. Any Pakistani who advocates reduction in our military establishment, while India does not make corresponding reductions, runs the risk of being branded unpatriotic. Beyond military calculations, rivalry between Pakistan and India in sports is fairly intense. Pakistani cricketers receive a hero’s welcome upon their return home after they have won matches against India. The same goes for Indian players if they have defeated their Pakistani counterparts. Pakistanis were immensely proud of their team when it won the world cup in 1992.

Until recently it was unwise for an Indian to see anything praiseworthy in Pakistan or for a Pakistani to say anything decent about India. In 1999 Mr Yusuf Khan (Dilip Kumar), the celebrated Indian movie star, was roundly condemned, and his patriotism questioned, in India because he had accepted the award of “Nishan-i-Pakistan” from our government.

Just a few months ago, while the “peace process” was being applauded on both sides, Mr L.K. Advani got into serious trouble with many of the notables in his own party (BJP), because during a visit to Karachi he had praised Mr M.A. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. Likewise, the time has not yet come for a Pakistani to salute Gandhi and Nehru as illustrious men of Indian history.

These are expressions of patriotism when it is outer-directed. The sense of national solidarity manifested in the fantastic expression of affection for the earthquake victims shows inner-directed patriotism at work. In a few weeks the current crisis will have abated; the survivors will have been placed in camps and tent villages. The task of rebuilding their lost towns will take years to complete. The processes of rehabilitation and reconstruction will fall into routines. Will the spirit of national solidarity now moving so many Pakistanis to acts of heroic proportions then fade away?

Isn’t there a way to keep it alive? This is a concern that others are also voicing. In his column of October 21, for instance, Mr Ayaz Amir asked how the “fires of national enthusiasm” could be kept burning. “The people,” he argued, “ have shown their mettle,” and “it is now for the leadership to ensure that this moment is not lost.” In his article in the same issue, Mr Murtaza Razvi wondered how “this enormous sense of social responsibility” could be made to last. He looked to “that one leader” (presumably still to appear) who might give it continuity.

I agree that it is for the leaders to keep this spirit of national solidarity alive. I should like to add a qualification or two. We are stuck with our current “leaders” for the foreseeable future. They have had no experience of awakening warm, humane, and generous impulses among the people. Now that an “act of God” has aroused these feelings, the “leaders,” left to themselves, will not know what to do with them. This means that we, the commentators on public affairs, and organs of civil society, have to keep pointing the way to them. How will we know which way to send them?

How do we know that, normally, the spirit of national solidarity is missing from our political scene, and what the trouble spots are? There is widespread and profound dissatisfaction with the way our systems of governance and politics work. This is evident from the fact that a great many people in a substantial part of the country are in a state of virtual revolt against the government. Bombs explode and rocket fire hits railway tracks, power stations, gas pipelines, and government installations almost every day. In much of the rest of the country we see a breakdown of law and order.

Scandalous corruption and incompetence in government and politics would be enough to alienate the people. In addition, they have been denied participation in their governance. Much of the time democracy has been openly suppressed by the imposition of military rule. Other times certain forms and procedures associated with democracy are instituted, but determining authority in vital matters remains with the generals, as is the case at present.

The Constitution, even in its mutilated form, is not allowed to be operative. The president exercises powers that do not belong to him, the prime minister and his cabinet do not perform the functions that the Constitution requires of them, parliament is not called upon to legislate, for the executive prefers to rule by presidential ordinances and proclamations.

Politicians in power agree with those in the opposition that national cohesion and political stability require a larger measure of provincial autonomy, declarations are made that this is about to be done, but it never happens. Instead of decentralizing authority and power, moves are made to further “strengthen” the already over-extended centre.

Political participation is denied most blatantly by rigging elections at all levels with the result that those who sit in the assemblies and councils, posing as our representatives, are not the persons for whom we had voted. Those who, by some quirk of fate, have once come to power insist on perpetuating themselves in that position whichever way they can. They will bribe, seduce, intimidate, cheat, break all rules of law and morality to retain their positions, which they fully intend to use to plunder the people and the exchequer.

How can anyone expect these men to enthuse and inspire the people to civic virtue, keep the “fire” of patriotism burning and the spirit of national solidarity alive?

The vices referred to above cannot all be removed at once by the wave of a magic wand, as it were. But we do have the right to ask that, to begin with, the politicians and the powers that be agree to hold fair and honest elections. That, in my view, will go a long way toward rehabilitating our self-confidence and sense of efficacy, keep our spirits high, enliven our patriotism and sense of nationhood, and open doors to the resolution of the vexing problems that confront us.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, US.

Email: anwarsyed@cox.net

IN wars and natural calamities nations rally by sinking their differences. It is both sad and bizarre that the opposite has happened in Pakistan in the wake of an earthquake which is being described as an epic tragedy.

Faced with a disaster which the international humanitarian organizations consider the most difficult they have had to cope with in recent times, political recrimination in the country is getting nastier. Sectarian killers remain on the loose and human traffickers prowl the ruins to prey on orphaned children and distressed young women.

Power and responsibility, under the present regime’s devolution plan, now vest in the people’s elected representatives from the national to the village level. Yet it is there for all to see that relief and every other activity connected with the earthquake is being managed by the army supported only by some NGOs and international donor agencies. The people’s representatives, whether members of the parliament or of the union councils are neither involved in making policies nor in field work.

It is left to the political parties, or politicians in their individual capacities, to eulogize the army or criticize it, depending on their inclination. The ministers and nazims, to mark their presence, make public gestures for personal reasons and not to help the victims. It is meaningless for the chief ministers and nazims to present cheques to the prime minister when most funds for their governments come from the federal government. It is equally meaningless for the president of the National Bank to present a huge cheque to the prime minister when the National Bank itself is owned by the government and is also a public treasury.

Similar ritualistic activities or visits to the sites of destruction by the friends of the government may lead a waste of time, but do little other harm. The allegations made by its opponents to make their presence felt, on the other hand, can demoralize the people and tarnish the national image.

The Jamaat-i-Islami has been quick in accusing the authorities of misusing the fund donated for relief. Its charges may not be wholly unfounded but before going public the accusers should have helped the custodians and users of the fund to investigate and stop the embezzlement. Relaying the charge to a world already cynical of the standards of integrity in Pakistan would have the effect of further depressing an already poor response of the world community to the UN’s appeal for donations.

Until recently, less than one-third of the amount that international agencies had asked for was subscribed to by donors, compelling the UN chief coordinator to predict another wave of death — this time because of exposure to the elements and untreated injuries if more money and goods were not immediately forthcoming. More pledges were made on Wednesday at Geneva but little cash given for immediate relief. The Unicef chief sees a million children at risk. Our own relief commissioner, an army general, must be either ignorant or was just being indulgent when, at the same time, he spoke of an overwhelming world response.

Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan’s protest in parliament on the arrival of a hundred or so Nato troops with helicopters, a camp hospital and rescue equipment not available in the country is an expression of utter ingratitude towards an organization which has undertaken a humanitarian mission for the first time in its history and that too for a country which is not its member. Nato’s airlift in the siege of Berlin was more of a military nature and undertaken in the very heart of its own territory.

Chaudhry Nisar may be justified in his expectation that the parliament should have been taken into confidence. But the parliament has not been taken into confidence even in normal times. And surely a hundred soldiers who risk their own lives to save our lives would not spy or sabotage nor linger on to make Pakistan a military base. Even if Mr Chaudhry was persuaded to criticize the government he should have, nevertheless, praised Nato for going out of its way to help us.

If there was a good reason for the opposition to castigate the government it was not for suspected embezzlement nor for calling upon Nato to help but for the deliberate delay in reaching an understanding with India on relief operations along the Line of Control. Both governments have conceded the necessity of it but have left it to the officials “to work out the modalities”. Many lives that could be saved may be lost by this cold-blooded bureaucratic approach to a human tragedy. A glimmer of hope that arose for a solution of the Kashmir dispute in this dark hour of shared grief now seems to be fading away.

Nevertheless, it appears that the bond of Kashmiriyat is asserting itself and solution of the problem now rests with the Kashmiris themselves. The governments of India and Pakistan may keep working out the “modalities”, as they have been for the last 58 years, but Kashmiris on both sides of the divide can be seen joining forces to determine their own future.

The earthquake, in addition to the enormous pain and loss it has inflicted, has underlined a situation which may appear harsh and self-contradictory but which is there and cannot be wished away. The army is going to remain a part of public life for a long time to come and yet the affairs of the state must be handled by a government that is truly representative of the people.

The present caboodle in which the government is of the army, and the technocrats, the parliament and other civil and legal institutions are its mere appendages, is unworkable and intolerable too. It would be, nevertheless, fanciful to expect the army to go back to the barracks that it came out of decades ago any time soon. Even if the army were to be persuaded, or compelled by circumstances, to give up power the surviving political leadership is too obsequious or dithering to run the country in these challenging times, unaided by permanent civil services which stand decimated.

A way out of this dilemma lies in exploring national reconciliation. The burden of this lies on President General Musharraf who straddles both the political and military worlds. Without a broad national agreement on the Constitution, the elections scheduled to be held in 2007 would not end but exacerbate the tensions generated by 2001 and 2005 elections.