There has been a lot of talk lately about a ‘paradigm shift’ in Pakistan. With the Taliban targeted, terrorist hideouts demolished, murderers hanged, barriers removed, seminaries put in order, the forces in complete command of the situation, military courts in operation, what else do you need as proof that the state of Pakistan has undergone a metamorphosis?

Well, one wishes it were that simple.

Before going into a discussion about whether Pakistan has actually reset its priorities, it makes sense to delve into the concept of a ‘paradigm shift’ in some detail so that we are not lost in terminology without actually understanding it.

Etymologically, paradigm comes from Greek para i.e. beside or beyond, and deigma i.e. to show or to point out. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (2000), paradigms are "general ways of seeing the world which dictate what kind of scientific work should be done and what kinds of theory are acceptable". The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1998) says that "the word paradigm designates a typical example or model to be replicated or followed".

But, probably the best is from The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2000) which gives three definitions; in grammar, a paradigm is defined as a pattern -- in a conventionally fixed arrangement -- the declension or the conjugation of a word; in philosophy, a pattern of thinking, and a set of background assumptions taken for granted; and finally in sociology the word is also used vaguely for a set of assumptions and attitudes present in a culture, in a society, etc.

Thomas Kuhn (1922-96) -- an American physicist, historian, and philosopher of science -- wrote his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962. He is credited to have introduced the term ‘paradigm shift’ to explain the progress of scientific knowledge meaning that scientific fields undergo periodic shifts rather than progressing in a linear and continuous way. He also postulated that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community.

Now, if we apply that to Pakistan, the first question would be, what has been the paradigm that is reported to have shifted? What was that "conventionally fixed arrangement" that is supposed to have a new declension?

The predominant ingredient of the Pakistani paradigm is religion wrapped in the two-nation theory. Irrespective of what Jinnah said or did not say in his August 11, 1947 speech, the ‘background assumption’ was based on the notion that the religion was a dividing force and had irreconcilable elements that required the division of the country.

This paradigm kept adding multiple ingredients such as the Objectives Resolution, the doctrine of necessity, the anti-Qadiani movement, one-unit-good four-units-bad, dictatorship-good democracy-bad, the communist/progressive threat, the Indian animosity, the Bengali/Baloch treachery, the corruption cacophony, the urge to Islamise (or rather Arabise), the jugular vein syndrome, proxy penetrators, perpetual paranoia, strategic depth, nuclear deterrence, unity of faith, one-language one-nation, and the list can go on.

These have been the major ingredients of the paradigm. So let’s see which of these have really shifted.

The Objectives Resolution that put the country on the road to perdition is still there as an integral part of the constitution. If a paradigm is a "pattern of thinking", a paradigm shift should commence from a change in that pattern. When the defining document of the country begins with protestations about religion, and the predominant paradigm of modern times in all developed countries is secularism, we see competing paradigms around us that are incommensurable.

A paradigm shift should ideally change one of them i.e. either we shift our paradigm to fit with the comity of nations or the world changes its paradigm to accommodate us. Obviously, the world is not going to shift its paradigm and if we stick to our paradigm that is obsolete and medieval, the friction continues. There is no shift in sight.

The second ingredient of the paradigm was added with the anti-Qadiani movement of the early 1950s and reached its peak in the early 1970s when the state took it upon itself to pass judgments on other people’s faiths. With more seasonings added to this in the 1980s, the people of this country were deprived of their right to even choose a name for their place of worship.

That paradigm further entrenched itself with almost all minorities being targeted in 2000s. If there has been a paradigm shift, it has been in the wrong direction.

The next ingredient of the paradigm i.e. the doctrine of necessity was invoked in the mid-1950s by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir. This medieval relic from the 13th century English jurist Henry de Bracton was used to justify extra-legal actions taken by the rulers. Briefly speaking, it says "that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity", hence we have seen repeated violations of the constitution resulting in criminal acts of the state and non-state actors.

When the highest courts of the country approve of a violation of the law citing a particular necessity, the society ultimately becomes a graveyard of laws that can be buried making use of one necessity or another. Then at times, even the laws can be changed in the wake of a dire necessity; the latest example of which is the formation of military courts and doling out of death penalties.

So, it has been 60 years with this same paradigm and there is no shift in sight.

Another ingredient of the paradigm is the assertion that ‘provincialism’ is bad for the country and when you talk about provincial rights you are actually endangering national integrity. Under this assumption, West Pakistan was unified into One Unit in 1955 after dissolving provinces. Lahore was declared its capital and the term Takhte Lahore gained currency. It was during One Unit from 1955 to 1970 that a disproportionate number of government employees were hired in Lahore and sent to government departments across West Pakistan. One reason why at police stations in Sindh or at airports in Balochistan you found overwhelming Punjab representation was precisely this One Unit that sowed the seeds of provincial disharmony.

Even after the dissolution of the One Unit the paradigm remained the same. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s onslaught against the provincial governments in Balochistan and the NWFP (now KP) aggravated the problem, and then General Zia took over and his functionaries punished Sindh for siding with Bhutto.

The 18th Amendment to the 1973Constitution has tried to address the grievances of the smaller provinces but, overall, the paradigm remains the same.

The present government has given all major federal ministries to Punjab, the speaker of the National Assembly is from Punjab, the chief of army staff is from Punjab, and all targeted operations are being carried out in Balochistan, Fata, KP, and Sindh.

Then there is the democracy-bad and dictatorship-good ingredient of the paradigm. The chefs who initially spoiled the democratic broth were bureaucrats such as Ghulam Mohammad and Iskandar Mirza and the master chefs who perfected the art of dictatorship were generals from Ayub and Yahya to Zia and Musharraf. Even when civilian governments were in power the paradigm continued -- sometimes with the generals like Hamid Gul facilitating the formation of new political forces e.g. IJI; and at other times certain Shahs and Shaikhs crying hoarse that democracy is a sham.

This tendency to undermine democracy continues unabashedly by calling into question almost every mechanism that has been placed for democracy’s sake: casting doubts on caretaker governments, levelling charges against election officials, accusing even the chief justice of complicity in rigging, and terming every reconciliation mukmuka. Thus, efforts are being made to keep the paradigm as it is.

The communist threat was highly exaggerated and it was used to crush every progressive voice in the country. From the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case in 1951 to attacks on civil society members now, the difference is in the magnitude. When Hassan Nasir was tortured and killed by Ayub Khan goons in Lahore, it was not easy for the state apparatus to hush it down or kill those who were demanding justice in courts. Now, a Rashid Rehman is killed, a Mumtaz Qadri is hailed and the persecutors have permeated from the state to the society at large.

When the civil society members stage a demonstration in front of the Lal Masjid they are threatened of dire consequences and Maulana Abdul Aziz who openly supports terrorists is still allowed to remain in the same mosque with impunity. It is difficult to see a paradigm shift here too, when Chaudhary Nisar mourns the death of terrorists.