How Pakistan and Israel supplement each other's legitimacy
The settler states of the New World order post 1945, observed nation-hood of the unconventional sense through which Pakistan and Israel, just a year apart, were born. Many scholars render these nation states as having twinned ideologies with slightly varying geopolitics. With the Israeli cabinet approving its €Jewish nation-state' law earlier this week, only consolidates the original ambiguity of these states' ideologies. The ambiguity lies in the phenomena of whether these two states upholding the banner of religious nationalism actually sought democratic values to begin with. Democracy enshrines inclusive principles and takes into consideration the rights of minorities present within the state. A €Jewish Nation State€ as well as an €Islamic Republic€ under the pretense of democracy looks towards discriminating against the non-jewish and non-muslim citizens present.
The €Jewish-nation State' as summed up by Netanyahu will be granting rights for all citizens but the national rights will only be for the Jewish people. It also aims to-in what one may say a discriminatory manner- reduce the large Arab indigenous minority into second class citizens and delisting Arabic as an official language. This move is not alien t o the regional conflict as many members of this group have been subjected to this sort of discrimination before the drafting of the new law. Israeli's argue that a step like this was necessary as the legitimacy of Israel being the €rightful' homeland for the Jews was put into question.
Pakistan has worked on a similar structure and Benjamin Progrund even argues that the Pakistani law inspired Israel to seize a minority's land. He says that the Prime Minister's special advisor on land border demarcation €focused on Pakistan, the Muslim state which had come into violent existence in 1947 in the partition of colonial India. There too, as in Palestine, Britain had ended its rule. There too, as in Palestine, the coming of independence set off inter-communal strife which led to the flight of large numbers of refugees hostile to the new state, and the entry of large numbers of supporters. The difference was in figures: the India-Pakistan conflict gave rise to 13 million refugees compared with Israel's 750,000.€ [1] The question then arises whether, the two states, of which Pakistan is profoundly vocal against Israel, sought legitimacy purely on the basis of religious nationalism or whether this form of nationalism is just a mask for political motives.
Rabinovitch in his rebuttal to Faisal Devji's book, Muslim Zion, writes €It may surprise readers as it did me, that in 1981, the president of Pakistan, General Zia ul Haq, made the following observation in an interview with The Economist: Pakistan is, like Israel an ideological state. Take out Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.' [2] What the General forgot to focus on was the fact that when Pakistan's agenda was put out onto the table, the idea of Pakistan suggested that it would be a democratic, federal and an Islamic entity. Democracy underlines its secular nature, so Zia not only went against the founding principles of Pakistan by turning the state into an autocratic rule; but manipulated the state's founding nature and revisited religious nationalism through his own self-prescribed curriculum.
Scrutinizing Zionism; a movement solely based on founding a homeland for the Jews, goes against the basic laws of Judaism itself. Not only did Zia have little knowledge on Zionism and Judaism being separate entities, but equated the €Islamic/ist€ nature of his Pakistan to that of Israel's Zionist nature. On the contrary, these two ideologies have striking similarities as well. Both came into being and sought legitimacy due to the paranoia of their surroundings. Zionism; due to the fact that the jews- an exodus nation faced with continuous persecution in Europe; placed themselves in a land that was holy to the three main religions of the world. Pakistan; a byproduct of British colonialism sought separation along parallel lines as Muslims, were a people who lived as second class citizens in India. One can again, easily question the historic narrative; why then did the two ethno-religious factions seek for separate homelands rather than advocating and pushing for their rights in the surroundings that they were a part of? And once the homelands were attained, how was it that they ironically became persecutors of a) the indigenous population that lived in the British mandate of Palestine and b) the indigenous religio-ethnic minorities in Pakistan.
Israel and Pakistan, both went onto cement themselves through powerful political-religio movements, breaching the norms and declaring themselves as self-defined democratic states; an Islamic one in Pakistan's case and a Jewish one in Israel's. Nothing but ample ambiguity-as mentioned earlier- stems from this. Religious nationalism and democracy are two tools that cannot go hand in hand as ideologies such as political Islam or political Judaism i.e. Zionism, advocate anti-democratic values. They discriminate against minorities present as Netanyahu has made clear earlier this week and how Pakistan continues to make it apparent with regards to persecution against non-Muslims in the country.
Religious nationalism takes varying roles in front of different actors. The population is given the satisfaction that the scripture dictates the moves political actors take and religion then becomes legislation. In the eyes of the international world, these states seek legitimacy through the laws of different countries. For e.g. Egypt defines that the principles of Islamic law are principles of her legislation. Pakistan and Israel then follow the same league. State prescribed-or manipulation- of the scripture then makes it easier for the law to discriminate against anyone who is not a) jewish in the case of Israel and b) Muslim in the case of Pakistan. Palestinians today still face persecution because of the political power of Zionism and religious minorities in Pakistan, face the same ordeal due to what the state has laid out in its politically motivated religious legislation.
[1] Pogrun, Benjamin. €How Pakistani law inspired Israel to seize Arabs' lands€
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-opinions/.premium-1.627473
[2] Simon J. Rabinovitch €Pakistan's €Jewish' roots€
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.549739?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.218%2C
The settler states of the New World order post 1945, observed nation-hood of the unconventional sense through which Pakistan and Israel, just a year apart, were born. Many scholars render these nation states as having twinned ideologies with slightly varying geopolitics. With the Israeli cabinet approving its €Jewish nation-state' law earlier this week, only consolidates the original ambiguity of these states' ideologies. The ambiguity lies in the phenomena of whether these two states upholding the banner of religious nationalism actually sought democratic values to begin with. Democracy enshrines inclusive principles and takes into consideration the rights of minorities present within the state. A €Jewish Nation State€ as well as an €Islamic Republic€ under the pretense of democracy looks towards discriminating against the non-jewish and non-muslim citizens present.
The €Jewish-nation State' as summed up by Netanyahu will be granting rights for all citizens but the national rights will only be for the Jewish people. It also aims to-in what one may say a discriminatory manner- reduce the large Arab indigenous minority into second class citizens and delisting Arabic as an official language. This move is not alien t o the regional conflict as many members of this group have been subjected to this sort of discrimination before the drafting of the new law. Israeli's argue that a step like this was necessary as the legitimacy of Israel being the €rightful' homeland for the Jews was put into question.
Pakistan has worked on a similar structure and Benjamin Progrund even argues that the Pakistani law inspired Israel to seize a minority's land. He says that the Prime Minister's special advisor on land border demarcation €focused on Pakistan, the Muslim state which had come into violent existence in 1947 in the partition of colonial India. There too, as in Palestine, Britain had ended its rule. There too, as in Palestine, the coming of independence set off inter-communal strife which led to the flight of large numbers of refugees hostile to the new state, and the entry of large numbers of supporters. The difference was in figures: the India-Pakistan conflict gave rise to 13 million refugees compared with Israel's 750,000.€ [1] The question then arises whether, the two states, of which Pakistan is profoundly vocal against Israel, sought legitimacy purely on the basis of religious nationalism or whether this form of nationalism is just a mask for political motives.
Rabinovitch in his rebuttal to Faisal Devji's book, Muslim Zion, writes €It may surprise readers as it did me, that in 1981, the president of Pakistan, General Zia ul Haq, made the following observation in an interview with The Economist: Pakistan is, like Israel an ideological state. Take out Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.' [2] What the General forgot to focus on was the fact that when Pakistan's agenda was put out onto the table, the idea of Pakistan suggested that it would be a democratic, federal and an Islamic entity. Democracy underlines its secular nature, so Zia not only went against the founding principles of Pakistan by turning the state into an autocratic rule; but manipulated the state's founding nature and revisited religious nationalism through his own self-prescribed curriculum.
Scrutinizing Zionism; a movement solely based on founding a homeland for the Jews, goes against the basic laws of Judaism itself. Not only did Zia have little knowledge on Zionism and Judaism being separate entities, but equated the €Islamic/ist€ nature of his Pakistan to that of Israel's Zionist nature. On the contrary, these two ideologies have striking similarities as well. Both came into being and sought legitimacy due to the paranoia of their surroundings. Zionism; due to the fact that the jews- an exodus nation faced with continuous persecution in Europe; placed themselves in a land that was holy to the three main religions of the world. Pakistan; a byproduct of British colonialism sought separation along parallel lines as Muslims, were a people who lived as second class citizens in India. One can again, easily question the historic narrative; why then did the two ethno-religious factions seek for separate homelands rather than advocating and pushing for their rights in the surroundings that they were a part of? And once the homelands were attained, how was it that they ironically became persecutors of a) the indigenous population that lived in the British mandate of Palestine and b) the indigenous religio-ethnic minorities in Pakistan.
Israel and Pakistan, both went onto cement themselves through powerful political-religio movements, breaching the norms and declaring themselves as self-defined democratic states; an Islamic one in Pakistan's case and a Jewish one in Israel's. Nothing but ample ambiguity-as mentioned earlier- stems from this. Religious nationalism and democracy are two tools that cannot go hand in hand as ideologies such as political Islam or political Judaism i.e. Zionism, advocate anti-democratic values. They discriminate against minorities present as Netanyahu has made clear earlier this week and how Pakistan continues to make it apparent with regards to persecution against non-Muslims in the country.
Religious nationalism takes varying roles in front of different actors. The population is given the satisfaction that the scripture dictates the moves political actors take and religion then becomes legislation. In the eyes of the international world, these states seek legitimacy through the laws of different countries. For e.g. Egypt defines that the principles of Islamic law are principles of her legislation. Pakistan and Israel then follow the same league. State prescribed-or manipulation- of the scripture then makes it easier for the law to discriminate against anyone who is not a) jewish in the case of Israel and b) Muslim in the case of Pakistan. Palestinians today still face persecution because of the political power of Zionism and religious minorities in Pakistan, face the same ordeal due to what the state has laid out in its politically motivated religious legislation.
[1] Pogrun, Benjamin. €How Pakistani law inspired Israel to seize Arabs' lands€
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-opinions/.premium-1.627473
[2] Simon J. Rabinovitch €Pakistan's €Jewish' roots€
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.549739?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.218%2C