‘Understanding sovereignty
’THIS is apropos of Huma Yusuf’s article ‘Understanding sovereignty’ (Nov 21). She has perhaps unintentionally put before our statesmen an incredibly difficult question of deciding whether Pakistan is a ‘sovereign’ state as per the word’s true definition
The crux of this scholarly text, as I have perceived, is to draw a clear line between the concepts of a sovereign state and a country.
After going through the article one can positively affirm that there are still hundreds of years for Pakistan to cover up the distance of transforming from a ‘country’ to a ‘sovereign state’.
The ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots has fetched both the social classes at extremes. Those lying at the lowest economic stratum will not ever try to understand the concept of sovereignty, owing to the fact that most of this lot is unschooled and uneducated.
Those few, counted in the upper social class and enjoying the boon of being monetarily strong, might not welcome ‘sovereignty’. Since what they earn must have a larger portion of deceitfully and fraudulently whitened money, they would never like to lose it in a sovereign state. (Remember that a sovereign state, for sure, makes every citizen accountable for deceitfully accumulating wealth). The major portion of our society, the white-collared middle class, commonly known as the backbone of an economy, seems busy striving hard to avoid slipping into the lower social class in the face of ever-deteriorating economic conditions. The last are the statesmen, politicians and ruling elite.
We live in a country where every passing minute, crime, population and the unemployment rate increase and, on the contrary, the value of rupee against the dollar decreases. Taxes, commodity prices and inflation increase whereas health, environment and governance deteriorate with each passing day.
How come such a state calls itself a sovereign welfare state where basic human rights are blatantly violated each and every day?
Sovereign states, on the contrary, stand for something different; for instance, their governments are to be followed so long as they work for public welfare. Sovereign states work out plans to perpetuate public welfare, and not just for the governing few.
A public servant is genuinely a ‘public servant’ and not a master unlike the ones we have here.
The problem that we are a backward nation does not peril our identity in the world community as much as the absence of sovereign powers we treacherously claim to have.
SAHITO ZAHEER
Sukkur
