On redefining citizenshipTwo days from the time this column goes to print, a small segment of Pakistani society will observe the first death anniversary of ex-Governor, and businessman, Salmaan Taseer. The day will be marked with vigils, memorial services, and (mostly) quiet congregations in Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi. These gatherings will be organised by family members of the deceased, by human rights activists, by the liberal intelligentsia, and, perhaps in certain rare cases, by the Pakistan Peoples Party.The English press will grant one editorial, and possibly two opinion spaces to this topic in its 4th January publications, while broadcast media would run a segment or two in the 9 o clock news. And then the fifth of January will be upon us, and most, if not all of this, will be swept away by a new ‘gate’, another Supreme Court ruling, a thinly veiled army chief statement, or the unavailability of natural gas.One news day gives way to another. Such is the order of things.The rupture exposed by Taseer’s assassination is perhaps as revealing and as, if not more, stark as it was a full year ago. The context of his murder, in the backdrop of a blasphemy case, a mobilised right-wing machine, and a seething media was a glimpse of the worst shape our urban socio-cultural realm can potentially take. The subsequent reaction to the tragedy, characterised by passive acceptance, and in some disgusting cases, active approval, was an even more uncomfortable revelation.Safe to say, this event remains the strongest indictment, in recent times, of how public space has grown hostile to alternative ideas of a certain variety.The thing with ideational contestation is that it takes place at the level of society, and is subsequently meant to inform the debate at the level of the state. These exchanges determine limits upon personal freedoms, legal jurisdictions, and in some cases, inter-personal relations, while allowing space for disagreement, and guaranteeing security to minority opinion. Looking back at our history, however, reveals that our cultural realm has rarely been open to dialogue. From the time of independence, a top-heavy state structure has determined two of our principal relationships: 1) The relationship of social identity to national identity, and partially following from this, 2) the role of religion in social identity construction.From the time of independence, structural impediments and authoritarian expediency have bred the construction of a heavily centralised narrative of existence. Pakistan is a single entity, forged by the wishes of a single nation, and guided, at least on paper, by the exigencies of a single divine code. For a large part of our history, and even now, the mainstream challenge to this insular understanding of a country comes from ethno-nationalist movement. Bengali, Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun, and more recently, Muhajir and Seraiki nationalists have challenged the state narrative on social identity and the politics of ‘rights’. The debate on the second relationship, i.e. religion and social identity, has historically remained subsumed in these ethno-nationalist struggles, or remained the primary concern of a liberal fringe, dominated by dissident leftists, human rights activists, and since the last two decades, the non-profit sector.While the back and forth on social identity and national identity continues, the debate on religion as a constituent portion of social identity has largely been forgotten, especially in the urban context. A growth in the number of towns and cities, increasing entrenchment of capitalism, and, consequently, a general disregard for ‘ideological’ debate since the 70s has resulted in the passive acceptance of the state-ordained, right-wing backed formula of what it means to be a citizen.Taseer’s stand on the blasphemy laws gained currency with the same fringe that’s been vocal about these issues for the last three decades. The only thing that has changed since then is the public reaction that the non-fringe has to such positions. Whereas previously, these two social strands would exist in mutually exclusive environments, in their own respective spaces, the gradual removal of spatial barriers and a shared ‘public’ sphere (thanks to broadcast media and the internet) has led to the hardening of fault-lines and recognition of the ‘other’. A state-society nexus that circulates a narrative of being under-siege, and in constant danger not only looks outside of its borders for an apparent enemy, it looks at hostile collaborators within it as well. This is why the case of Aasia Bibi was not so much a question of theology, as it was a question of maintaining the sanctity of a perceived form of Pakistani culture.An endorsement of Taseer’s bravery and of his decision to take a principled stance in an era of public expediency is the bare minimum required to initiate a process of reform in the cultural realm. The more appropriate, and an infinitely more lasting, tribute to his legacy would be if the conception of what it means to be a citizen is revised, and those that hold monopoly over the power to define ‘identity’ and ‘culture’ are held accountable and challenged in society.The writer blogs at http://recycled-thought.blogspot.com. Email him at [email protected], or send a tweet @umairjav