A human genome is to an individual, what an ideology is to a society. As a genome determines an individual’s physical make-up, so does an ideology by dictating what a society must do. Each society at some point in its history consciously adopts an ideology. This, then, is interpreted and reinterpreted, not only by the state but also by anyone who desires to seek a specific response from the people.

The state demands conformity and thus keeps asking people to check their behaviour against what the ideology seeks from them. Every effort is made to sanctify the state ideology so that no one dares to violate it. This ideology forms a centre and it is made clear that any deviation from this centre will only unleash destructive anarchy within the society.

An ideology, if not carefully constructed, can become a Frankenstien’s monster. If it contains seeds of venom, dangerous interest groups can sow them in a society to grow myriad trees of poison. Ideology, thus, can be something inherently dangerous if it carries genes of discord. Unfortunately, the ideology that we adopted as a rationale to secede from India also had these genes of discord. It relied too heavily on religious identity and did not promote pluralistic attitude among the people.

Because of the prime importance given to a peculiar interpretation of Islam in the national ideology, the religion continued to be exploited for political purposes by the Muslim League and other groups for their narrow agendas. The state, whenever it was expedient, brought into play this ideology to demand a favourable response from the people. Be it Ayub Khan’s efforts to win elections against Fatimah Jinnah, or Bhutto’s land reforms, Zia’s referendum to continue his authoritarian rule or Sharif’s nuclear test explosions; at every significant juncture of our political history, the national ideology was manipulated to win society’s sanction.

The narrative that explained the two-nation theory relied solely on the imaginary walls erected between religions by the stalwarts of the Muslim League and the latter-day theorists of this ideology. It was this notion that regimented the masses to make ‘the Hindu’, a non-Muslim, the object of their hatred. The episodes of violence from 1947 cemented their belief of hatred towards the non-Muslims—Hindus and Sikhs. The same rationale that ‘if it is a non-Muslim it is an enemy’ was used to rally the believers against the USSR in the years after 1979. Later, political outfits with extremist tendencies brainwashed marginalised members of society by exploiting the same binary structure of Muslims/non-Muslims.

Simplifying a real problem facing a society is an important task of an ideology. The two-nation theory tried the same in the context of 1947. However, it can no longer disentangle the myriad ends of the intertwining grapevine of extremism in the country. After 9/11 no efforts have been made to present a coherent, convincing narrative which might have presented the country with a much needed ideology, though one was put forth by Musharaf: the notion of Pakistan first and that of enlightened moderation. The ideas were appealing, but his lack of legitimacy resulted in the demise of his prospective ideology for the nation.

Thus, we are going through a phase where we do not have a narrative that coherently explains our present imbroglio. Since, there is no coherent ideology, efforts like playing patriotic songs are not doing the trick they did a few decades ago in the wake of a well-delineated non-Muslim enemy. In one such video being aired it becomes very perplexing to differentiate between terrorists and friendly fighters from the lashkar, when scenes in quick succession show bearded, shalwar-kameez clad, individuals running with AK 47s.

There, then, is a need to come up with a new ideology which addresses, simplifies and answers the present challenges. It should be potent enough to offer a convincing account of what our future can be like if we make it the centre which holds the society together. It should also be able to give us a new identity that helps us move ahead without compromising on our ennobling past. The ideology in the form of a grand narrative should also have the potential to explain our situation to the rest of the world and convince them of our sincerity regarding whatever we pledge to the international community. If we are successful in presenting such an ideology, we shall be able to render irrelevant most of the outfits that bank on an outdated ideology.

A question arises: who is capable of constructing such an ideology, which pulls the nation out of its current decadence and accomplishes everything an ideology can for a society. Let us look at probable contenders: the existing political parties, the army, media, and civil society.

The civil society can never come up with a coherent ideology for a country. By definition, they are not concerned with mega issues. They unite to accomplish certain small-scale community related tasks and can never form networks mapping different communities and cities to present a more nationalistic understanding of collective problems. The army in the Pakistani context cannot present the grand narrative encompassing a fresh ideology because the moment it will step in or take the leading role to present an ideology the support it enjoys today will vanish. It has happened in the recent past. The media is ill-suited to undertake such a grand task on its own. It can only propagate an ideology formed by someone else.

This elimination leaves us with political parties. Their duty it is to present grand ideas addressing the problems of a country. Ideally, if a paradigm shift is required then a revolutionary ideology is required and no revolution has ever come without a political party. We forget that individuals do not bring about a revolution, only parties do. Unfortunately, we do not have a revolutionary party. Unless, we have one we shall continue to frustrate ourselves even more by trying to find isolated answers of connected questions.