Consciousness and the constitution
by Altaf Anjum
courtesy: Daily News, Monday, 22 December, 2003

--an article that deals with the problem of collective identity and co-existence. Although written in the context of search for national consensus in the body politic of Pakistan, yet it so correctly applies to the Muslim Umma at large, which tends to be fragmented in small pieces of meaningless and ineffective groups rather than being integral part of a larger spectrum, with her myriad colors that serve to only accentuate and enrich its beauty rather than tarnish its radiance. Nasir Shamsi (Al-huda Editor)

 If national consciousness is to be the source of the constitution, it has to be a consciousness based on the acceptance of the ‘Other.’ Right now we are moving in the opposite direction. Appeals to reach a national consensus are of limited value

One way to move this debate forward would be to extract a number of central propositions presented by Dr Akmal Hussain (Grundnorm and consciousness, Daily Times, November 13, 2003) and focus on their implications.

The following propositions are stressed by Dr Hussain: first, that national consciousness is the source of the constitution; second, that national consciousness is the experiential dimension of historical bonding amongst a group of people in terms of which they apprehend their identity and pursue shared goals for the future; third, that historical bonding and hence national consciousness emerges out of the dynamics of the social, economic and political life of a nation and its forms of apprehension; and fourth, that the social, political, economic and aesthetic life of a nation and the values it holds dear gives to the constitution its legitimacy.

Consciousness in this perspective is about a sense of identity — how a group of people see themselves and what they stand for. If we are to look at national consciousness as the source of the constitution we must consider two related propositions: first, that a group exists only in the context of other groups so that the way one set of people see themselves and what they stand for is often influenced by how they see the ‘Other;’ and, second, that consciousness is not entirely a passive and emergent phenomenon but can often be actively manipulated and distorted.

An example of such ‘false’ consciousness could be Hitler’s manipulation of German consciousness to exaggerate the feeling of Aryan supremacy. Such manipulation is often aided by a parallel manipulation of the image and intentions of the ‘Other.’

Now let us examine some implications of these propositions as they relate to the constitution and its legitimacy and stability. The most critical issue to be addressed pertains to the unit to which the term consciousness is to be applied. Is it a group of people who share a historical bonding? Is it a nation that shares certain defining characteristics like language or religion? Or is it a country that is in need of a constitution?

An answer is essential to our specific discussion. Consciousness can exist at the level of a group as exemplified by the Black Power salute at the Mexico Olympics in 1968. It took a Civil Rights movement, urban insurrection and inspired leadership to force through constitutional amendments that redressed the grievances of a racial minority in the USA. Similarly, feminist consciousness represents a protest against the socially conditioned oppression of women by men. This group cuts across all the boundaries of class, race, religion and nationality.

The ongoing debate is concerned, however, with national consciousness and the objective of constitutional stability in Pakistan. Does that mean that ‘nation’ is being used synonymously with ‘country?’ But Pakistan is a nation only in a legal definitional sense. We are Pakistani nationals only in the sense that we are citizens of a country called Pakistan. Our historical bonding has deeper roots and makes many see their primary identity not through the prism of citizenship but through that of religion or ethnicity. Simply being a Pakistani will not get one very far in the Pakistani marriage market which is a good mirror of our social reality.

Some people go further. In college, I was inseparable from a friend and used to spend much time at his home. I was once approached by his grandfather, who had seen me innumerable times, and asked if I was a Jat or an Arain (categories for which the term quom is often used!). On learning that I was neither he lost all interest and never bonded with me again. Then there was the intelligence inspector who confided to the person he was assigned to tail that because the latter was a fellow momin, he was letting him know what was going on.

This suggests that constitution making would be especially difficult in countries made up of groups or nations still conscious of themselves as different or separate from others. And the difficulty would be compounded in situations where economic processes had not been sufficiently integrative and where the fracture lines were deliberately played upon to heighten differences to the point where the consciousness of one group became dominated by its antagonism towards other groups.

Constitution making became impossible in undivided India when religious consciousness emerged as the primary axis along which groups began to apprehend their identity to pursue shared goals for the future. This genie is difficult to put back into the bottle. Within Pakistan, constitution making floundered on the antagonisms of different national consciousnesses leading finally to the
break up of the country. Even in less populated countries one can see the dilemma: Sri Lankan consciousness is nowhere as strong as Tamil and Sinhalese consciousnesses — hence the conflict without end.

In multinational countries (better identified as territorial rather than nation states), ‘stability’ has historically been better maintained either by monarchs seen by all as being above most group loyalties or by autocrats who suppressed national consciousnesses as Tito did in Yugoslavia. Today there is no Yugoslav consciousness, only Serb, Croat and Bosnian national consciousnesses which were ruthlessly manipulated by the likes of Milosevic.

It is worth pondering that most stable democracies in Europe retained their monarchies while the experience was quite the opposite in countries where the monarchies were abolished. Mark Mazower (Daily Times, November 13, 2003) reminded readers that “in the ethnically divided societies of central and eastern Europe, democracy quickly turned into a new tyranny — that of the majority over the minority — or led to constitutional stalemates whose solution was found in
new and nastier forms of authoritarianism.”

One can argue that exclusiveness, chauvinism and antagonism have emerged and have been encouraged to emerge as key elements of national consciousness in Pakistan. Each group’s image of itself is coloured by its opposition to some ‘Other’ whether one looks at the meta-national relations of Pakistan and India or the relationship of Pakistan’s constituent nations and sectarian groups.

This narrow and negative consciousness born of the interplay of economic, social and political factors and exacerbated and manipulated by vested interests cannot be the source of the constitution. It can only be the source of the lack of a constitution. Till such time as we accept a leadership that is seen by all as above the fray (perhaps in the way Jinnah was in Pakistan though not in undivided India) constitution making would remain a difficult exercise.

The fracture lines of race, ethnicity and religion have to soften before we can hope to make progress but for the moment the tide seems going the other way. We cannot encourage hatred of Indians and Hindus or of Ahmedis on the one hand and expect harmony to prevail between Sindhis and Muhajirs or Shias and Sunnis on the other. And we have to contend with interest groups intent on creating new fracture lines where none existed before or, if they did, had been
dimmed by time.

If national consciousness is to be the source of the constitution, it has to be a consciousness based on the acceptance of the ‘Other.’ Right now we are moving in the opposite direction. Appeals to reach a national consensus are of limited value. Analysts would do better to expose and take to the people an understanding of how national consciousness is being manipulated to serve narrow ends.

In terms of concrete actions this would entail mobilizing for a civil rights movement to guarantee the rights of minorities and for a movement to eradicate hostile propaganda from the media and from textbooks. Divisive consciousness has to give way to the meta-consciousness espoused by the Sufis which we have progressively discarded. The consciousness that can be the source of a
constitution is contained in the message of the Sufi philosopher Ibn Arabi:

My heart holds within it every form,
it contains a pasture for gazelles,
a monastery for Christian monks.
There is a temple for idol-worshippers,
A holy shrine for pilgrims;
There is the table of the Torah,
and the book of the Koran.
I follow the religion of Love
and go whichever way His camel leads me.
This is the true faith;
This is the true religion.
It is a very long way to go.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is a Visiting Fellow at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad. These views are not necessarily endorsed by the institute.