Sovereignty: More Than Words in Today’s World

Each year we have the same pageantry, March 23, fireworks, speeches and the old appeal to the national mission. However, in addition to ritual, there is another meaning to the day. It is the time when the Lahore Resolution was passed, and it defined the political ambition as a clear requirement of self-determination. The demand has changed decades afterward, becoming one of the principles: sovereignty is not a symbol, it is absolute. That principle is again being put to test in the current changing regional environment.

The definition of sovereignty is usually watered down in speeches, and turned into a term used on national holidays and lost in times of crisis. But history proclaims the contrary. The vision of 1940 was not only territorial but an agency, the right to make independent decisions, to provide boundaries, and to take a unique political course. It is what makes the March 23 so relevant. Not only a memory of the thing that is accomplished, but a reminder of the thing that has to be safeguarded.

This question has been brought into the limelight in the modern regional stress and changing security politics. The problem of cross-border issues, changing alliances and the larger geopolitical unpredictability has resulted in a situation whereby sovereignty is no longer an idealistic theory. It is direct, concrete and even straining. When in such a climate, the notion that the sovereignty is absolute is more than a political position, is more than a necessity.

The fact that sovereignty is non-negotiable does not mean that diplomacy should not be used. Quite on the contrary, it establishes the conditions within which diplomacy is forced to exist. Interest in the neighbors is critical to stability in the region. Such tools as trade, dialogue, and cooperation are essential. They lose their claim, however, when they are used at the expense of territorial integrity or the security of the citizenry. Sovereignty defines the field within which a collaboration is possible; it is the boundary that should not be crossed.

This is especially so in a region where the borders have always been controversial and the security issues are usually not limited by the geography. The contemporary state cannot risk the vagueness in such issues. A consistent stance on an issue makes it more credible, both locally and globally. It is an indication that the state does not have an open door policy, but on the other hand is not susceptible to pressure. In this regard, sovereignty is not merely a defensive principle, but a stabilizing one.

It also has a domestic aspect to this discourse. The success of a state to exercise its sovereignty is closely related to national unity and popular trust. When the citizens observe their country demonstrate their independence clearly and consistently, it builds trust in the institutions. It supports the notion that the sacrifices that were made when the country was formed, and the generations that followed after, did not go to waste. Men such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah did not preach discipline, unity and faith as abstract values; rather, he made it a part of a strong state which was envisioned. The capacity to protect sovereignty when in pressure is one of the measures of that resilience today.

It can be criticized that a rigid position can easily lead to worsening of tensions. This is not a point in vain. But there exists a difference between rigidity and clarity. Fixed stance blocks out negotiation; definite one circumscribes it. The policy challenge lies in the need to balance this on the part of policymakers and be tough on the basics but pliable in method. This cannot be done by mere rhetorical commitment of thought.

The day of March 23 is not a historical celebration only; it can be viewed as a prism through which the contemporary realities can be interpreted. It poses hard questions: What is the sovereignty of a global world? And what must a state do when it is put to the test? These are not questions having simple answers but they are fundamental questions of principle.

Ultimately, sovereignty is not supported by rhetoric. It is supported by a coherent policy, believable institutions, and a sense of national interests. With the ever-changing dynamics of the regions, the principle does not change. Sovereignty is not an exhortation to be repeated, but a standard to be upheld.