This post is a response of sorts to Abhi’s thought-provoking comments on Musharraf’s State of Emergency, and what he sees as the possible benefits of dictatorship in certain limited conditions. Abhi’s post, as I read it, was a thought experiment, not necessarily a political program — and this is a somewhat speculative thought experiment as well (these ideas are not set in stone). There is some value in the general idea that democracy before stability is not always the best thing for a country, and in the particular claim that Pakistan’s democratic institutions have been severely weakened by years and years of misrule (going back to the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif days; Musharraf did not start this with his 1999 coup).
That said, I’m not ready to give up faith in liberal democracy, and I think it could still happen in Pakistan. As for how to get there, there are probably only two or three paths at this point, none of them easy. One is a popular uprising that would probably turn pretty ugly in the short run — think of the bloody riots in Karachi this past summer, only magnified. If successful (big “if”), mass protests/riots could be followed by a military coup and a provisional dictatorship, and then by open elections — again, if the coup was carried out by the right person. (There could also be more violence during the elections, and possibly more trouble/instability even after they occur.) The other is something accidental, which could be anything. Perhaps a new leadership emerges (Imran Khan, by the way, has managed to escape from house arrest — I wish him luck), or perhaps something unforeseen happens to/with Musharraf that leaves a power vacuum? Perhaps both? Who knows. Either way, in my view there is no question that if democracy is to have a chance in Pakistan, Musharraf has to go.
Another possibility to speculate on is what might happen if either the Bush administration or (more likely) its successor were to withold military and economic aid to pressure Musharraf to cancel this State of Emergency. Here I’m really not sure what the ramifications would be for Musharraf. It might be symbolically bad on the international stage, but would it really hurt him all that much domestically? Here I’m really not sure.
I should also say that I disagree with the calculus, which is widely prevalent amongst American TV pundits right now (and also implied in Abhi’s post), that Musharraf needs to stay because America needs him for its “War on Terror.” There may or may not be any truth in this (as has been pointed out, Musharraf’s net contribution to fighting terrorism is highly debatable), but what I keep thinking is that at this moment it’s not America’s interests that I’m concerned about, it’s the Pakistani people, who deserve good, transparent governance. It’s the Pakistani people who deserve a free press (not blackouts of private news channels), the right to peacefully dissent, and the right to organize politically — who deserve, in short, substantive democracy.Substantive democracy, as I understand it, is not just democratic elections; it requires a whole range of institutions that provide meaningful checks and balances on power. Executive authority (a president or a dictator) needs to be subject to legislative and judicial challenges. The prospect of a newly revitalized Pakistan Supreme Court was a really hopeful sign this past spring and summer, and I’m deeply disappointed that Musharraf decided he wouldn’t let Iftikar Chaudhry and co. determine his fate. (At least he hasn’t succeeded in stopping Chaudhry from talking to the Press, though that will probably happen soon.)
In the U.S. case, the best current example of checks and balances on executive authority are the Congressional investigations of numerous questionable actions by the Bush Administration. Another is the tradition of the “Special Prosecutor,” which was instrumental in bringing down Nixon (though it was abused, in my view, with Bill Clinton). What Nawaz Sharif’s corrupt regime needed was the equivalent of a special prosecutor; what it got instead was a takeover by General Musharraf.
India, the “world’s largest democracy” isn’t perfect on this score either, by the way. I was reminded of this most recently watching the Tehelka videos relating to Gujarat. As I said in my earlier (quickie) post, I don’t think the videos give enough evidence by themselves to take down Modi, but they quite definitely show that the entire system of state government in Gujarat — ministers, police, judges, lawyers — extensively colluded in allowing those bloody “three days of whatever you want” (as Modi allegedly said) to happen. The checks and balances were not there, and it took intervention from the Center to bring the violence to a halt. (Incidentally, I thought Raghu Karnad’s comments on Gujarat and the Tehelka exposé were pretty compelling: here and here.)
My point is this: elections are necessary for democracy to occur, but they aren’t sufficient for democracy to sustain itself. What Musharraf should have done, if he really cared about transitioning to democracy, was, first of all, let the Supreme Court rule on whether the recent Presidential election was valid. Secondly, he needed to give up his uniform (though admittedly, that should probably have happened first). Thirdly, Parliamentary elections.
But other things are necessary too: the opposition political parties have been weakened by years of dictatorship and a history of corrupt leadership. It will take time for new leaders to emerge, and for the party organizations to become strong and self-sustaining.
Sepoy at Chapati Mystery has a poem in Urdu by Habib Jalib that summarizes my feelings on a more emotional level:
Jackbooted State
If the Watchman had not helped the Dacoit
Today our feet wouldn’t be in chains, our victory not defeat
Wrap your turbans around your neck, crawl on your bellies
Once on top, it is hard to bring down, the jackbooted state. (link)
fust. cant believe my luck. now everything will go well in my life
),
It is also highly debatable as to whether America has been effective in fighting terrorism in the troubled regions for the past six years. If you look at history no country has been extremely succesful in that region – whether it is Britain or Soviet Union in the past or America now. So given the premise that we need Pakistan army to be the “Blackwater” on the Afghan-Pak border then Musharaff has to stay. He is the only guy right now who has some control and leverage on the Pak army. No other leader, democratic or otherwise can satisfy America’s priorities right now. Priorities takes a backset over higher ideals. And that is why US is going to likey continue with the aid to Pakistan. It is the same logic with the Indian, Chinese govt. vis-a-vis Burmese junta.
Amardeep,
For the most part I see your logic but the following sentence troubled me…
First, it’s a too much of a hypothetical stretch to separate American interests from the situation in Pakistan. Any strong argument favoring or disfavoring a U.S. policy must, I believe, address how such action or inaction affects U.S. interests. For example, I think the strongest argument against the war in Iraq was that it would destabilize the government and be contrary to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Thus far, that seems to be how things are playing out. Similarly, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why a U.S. condemnation of Musharraf would help the United States. On the other hand, there are many articulate voices saying that the U.S. should take a more hands off approach to the situation.
Also, I don’t deny that everyone should have access to transparent governance, and I hate to rely on the oft-sophistry of Tom Friedman, but to paraphrase, him, where are the Thomas Jeffersons of Iraq and Pakistan? It’s one thing to say that people deserve democratic institutions, but someone has to design and build those institutions. Chalabi wasn’t going to do it in Iraq and likewise I don’t know of any other figures who are capable of doing so in Pakistan (if there are people like this, please educate me). Absent strong leadership, any democratic government will either be theocratic, weak, or both. This would be very bad in a region where you have three nuclear powers, India, Pakistan, and China, whose governments don’t like each other very much.
Thus far, that seems to be how things are playing out. Similarly, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why a U.S. condemnation of Musharraf would help the United States.
Well, you could flip it around and say that Musharraf hasn’t really been very effective at helping the United States himself, and it’s possible that another leader (democratic … or autocratic) might do a better job.
But I think my basic point there stands all the same — it’s a mistake (and ethically problematic) for commentators to only focus on U.S. interests. As things get more and more unstable in Pakistan, my number one hope is that a resolution can be found without further loss of life.
It’s true that what is needed is strong government (our blog-friend from Karachi, Venial Sin, has himself said that he thinks Pakistan needs a good dictator at present more than it needs democracy). But it’s possible to have a strong, charismatic leader who plays by most of the democratic rules. Such people aren’t born every day, but they do exist. Admittedly, Pakistan is not Sweden, and even a democratic leader will have to ‘break a few eggs’ in order to clean up NWFP and put a lid on terrorist activity all around the country.
Musharraf himself might have gone this route if he had decided to take off his military uniform before the presidential election last month. It was seen as a foregone conclusion that he would have won — and if he’d done that path he wouldn’t be dealing with this Supreme Court problem today. It was sheer unwarranted insecurity on his part.
I’m not seriously worried about theocracy in Pakistan. As I understand it, those folks do not have wide support amongst the Pakistani middle classes or the military. They have wanted to take down Musharraf for years, and have not succeeded. I do not think their popularity will have gone up in recent months, what with all these bombings.b
sorry about the meta-commentary, but it’s to Amardeep’s credit that there’s just one sentence you disagree with on this post. As regard to Abhi’s post earlier – one just didnt know where to start.
the soundest point in favor of ousting the Mush is that he overrode the authority of the judiciary. i posted in the other post that it is within the president’s authority to impose the emergency if the situation demands. I stand by that. However all reports coming out of Pakistan suggest that the situation was not that dire. Ergo, this move was intended for one purpose alone – to preserve the guy’s behind.
Pakistan is not a basketcase. There is a vibrant intelligentsia, a solid news system, good infrastructure and an economy that’s been growing despite all odds. So I’m just pissed there’s all the posters who’ve abdicated fundamental principles of liberty because it’s the “best of a lot of bad options.for.america.”
Besides the particularities of this time in pakistan’s (and world) history, isnt the key issue about the role of the pakistan army in governance? This episode has tangential relevance to Iraq etc. at best.
Like prior dictators, Musharraf isnt prepared to let go of the army’s primary role in affairs. If he didnt, he would lose support and be overthrown by his underlings. This isnt about ideology. Its about the naked power grab by the institution supposedly responsible for external security. Any army dictator cannot have supreme court justices diluting the power of the army. So Musharraf’s actions remain completely understandable.. Any other dictator in Pakistan would probably have done the same (if not worse). Unless the army leadership itself charts out a program for diluting its political power, one cannot see how things can move towards democracy of any sort. How exactly do the army officers benefit from this? Unless hundreds of civilians lose their lives, I cant see Musharraf losing his power (unless via assassination).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06musharraf.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Musharraf has just reached a peace agreement with Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal terrorist commander who has been attacking US and Pak forces.
So he’s arresting and beating up lawyers, civil rights activists, judges, moderates and pro-democracy politicians. And he’s negotiating with terrorists?
This is just a naked bid for power. He’s not interested in fighting terrorism. He has been and will do just enough to placate the US, produce the ‘No. 3 Al qaida’ guy every time Bush or Cheney yells at him and that’s about it. He’ll wait until the next administration comes along and withdraws forces from Afghanistan and then go back to the way things were, openly supporting jihadis.
Who said that you are not going to condemn Pakistan ? Everybody will, including the State Dept. whose main goal is promote democracy and US foreign policy will condemn martial law and try to urge for bolstering democracy movements. But it is Pentagon which is in charge now in Afghn-Pak border and they need to get the job done i.e. get rid of Al.Q and catch Laden. Waiting for a new guy to take shape who may be more effective than Musharaff is not a gamble worth taking.
amardeep, which “people of pakistan”?
there are people who would rather have sharia, there are people who are terrified of sharia. there are people who rather want military rule. there are people who couldn’t care less as long as they can go about their lives, there are also people who couldn’t care less as long as they can “kill infidels” in kashmir and mumbai. there will be people who want democracy to achieve stability in the long term, and there will be people who want it for the sole reason it gives them power—which of these people are you concerned about?
the battle in pakistan is not between military rule and democracy, the question is whether pakistan will continue along zia’s path or not. institutionally pakistan has been primed for sharia-zation from the days of zia. musharraf, so long as he needs america to survive, will take pakistan away from complete islamization. a democratic govt now will have less reason to do so, and therefore in effect keep pakistan in zia’s shadow—thereby writing its own demise in the future.
Btw,
According to this article –
“The latest news from Pakistan is that Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Attorney General Malik Abdul Qayyum have both said that the scheduled parliamentary elections originally set for mid-January will be held on schedule. This is not an official government announcement, but seemingly close to one “
So i guess it satisfies all democracy enthusiasts and also helps Mushraff stay in power as a President. Musharaff plays a nice game. He brings martial law just to make sure that the supreme court verdict doesn’t go against him. Now that he is under control he can continue as President for some more time and even if he has to shed his military clothes after the elections ( whenever it is held ) he can stay on as a civilian president. This way everybody is happy. He is happy, Army is happy and US is happy. I think this situation is best for US.
The true evil in all these cases and instances referenced in this post and its comments, is the hunger for power. ‘Power’ to rule. And the greed to outdo every other person in achievements. All these traits of human behaviour comes from the basic instinct of the human mind to dominate others.
And not suprisingly, we the civilized population on this planet have chosen ‘CAPITALISM’ as the right way for well-beingness of the whole society.
The same ‘CAPITALISM’ whose principles stand on the most ungodly traits of ‘greed’ and ‘endless hunger’ for growth and assimilation of wealth.
It is absolutely funny to watch the intellectual class of the world to find out ways to end all miseries.
Decades after decades have gone by with miserable failure to find out ways to this goal. Wars, coups, religious clashes, attempts for communal brotherhood, economic studies, politics and so many. So many modes have been tried. With only failures and failures and only that.
With all these things, in the name of development, the only thing visible is the destruction that man has caused – that adversely affected not only the humankind but every life-form on our planet.
The basic principles of well-being however still remains the same: greed.
Every other person is greedy and want a position of domination. That is the only truth. Otherwise you wouldn’t see a husband spend hundreds of crores for a gift to his wife, in the same land where crores of other people go unfed.
there are people who would rather have sharia, there are people who are terrified of sharia. there are people who rather want military rule. there are people who couldn’t care less as long as they can go about their lives, there are also people who couldn’t care less as long as they can “kill infidels” in kashmir and mumbai. there will be people who want democracy to achieve stability in the long term, and there will be people who want it for the sole reason it gives them power—which of these people are you concerned about?
Bytewords, there are nutjobs in every country, but they don’t necessarily end up in power. If we ever see a Tom Tancredo as President in the U.S., or a Uma Bharti in India, God help us.
De-Islamification would be a good thing; I think other leaders might do it better than Musharraf has. The only thing of note he has accomplished is the reform of the Hudood Ordinance. Then again, consider what he said about Mukhtar Mai (“if you want to get a visa to the U.S., get yourself raped…”), so I’m not really sure exactly where he stands.
Why is the Indian state of democracy relevant in this post ? Is this mandatory so that you appear to be fair and balanced. I don’t see any connection.
I am very ignorant when it comes to this matter, but if your country is not stable enough to have elections, why have them? For all we know all of the sharia nut jobs would say “Allah is our voter and his vote equals one trillion people! We win, now riot until we get those nukes!!”
If your a nuclear power then I think you owe it to the world to make sure the citizens of your country are not going to get your country attacked by the whole world, when the rest of the world finds out “Mullah Osama Bin Laden” is the new leader of the country and he’s currently asking Allah what to do with that shiney red button that says “nuke launch” on it.
Why is the Indian state of democracy relevant in this post ? Is this mandatory so that you appear to be fair and balanced. I don’t see any connection.
No, it’s not about being fair and balanced, it’s about trying to explain what I mean by “substantive democracy.” I brought in the U.S. (interesting that you didn’t also say that the U.S. was irrelevant) and then India because they provide helpful examples. I was trying to show that even if you have elections regularly, you don’t necessarily have the checks and balances needed to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.
Thanks Amardeep. I am not convinced but I appreciate your quick reply.
Thanks for writing this, I am SO SICK of the self-absorbed garbage being churned out by US policy makers and the media over the last few days, its 99% percent about advancing short-term US economic, political and strategic interests and 0.00001% about long-term future of pakistan.
No wonder an indian newspaper once published an editorial titled: God Bless America (Only). Maybe that could be added to our currency and flag?
WWJD? = What Would Jinnah Do?
V true, sn. Pakistan’s problems didn’t start three days ago. Musharraf’s power grab is a symptom, not the cause. The real question is, why has the army been running Pakistan for so long, and where does it derive its legitimacy in a Pakistani’s mind from?
I’m not sure about India’s state of democracy, but I think that India’s own experience with Emergency Rule (1975-77) is incredibly relevant because it took place under similar circumstances: the executive (in this case Indira Gandhi) faced a crisis of legitimacy and opted, instead of stepping down, to use the Emergency Clause in the constitution for political ends.
And in the end, after two years, the suspension of civil liberties, suppression of the opposition, scores of disappearances, torture, and deaths of student activists – not to mention the razing of slums, forced sterilization programs, etc., Indira Gandhi gained nothing. Anticipating an election victory, she restored the constitution and was trounced in the 1977 election.
I hope for the sake of the people of Pakistan that their brush with internal emergency doesn’t last as long or cost as many lives.
In my opinion – Stability and competence. Military folks are known for getting things ‘done’, whatever that may be.
Plus, unlike traditional strong men dictators like Saddam, Musharraf is largely a product of the Pakistan Military that has a vast powerstructure. If Musharraf starts to look weak and embarrass the Pakistani Army, his junior officers, as suggested in the other thread have the ability/numbers to replace him. The road block to democracy isn’t one man, rather the whole Military-Civilian relationship. Civil authorities disappoint, military takes over and provides stability and competant government, civil rights erode, democracy is back, civil authorities disappoint…rinse and repeat.
They are just known to be competent. How competent they actually are is a good question. The Pakistani military is largely responsible for the 1971 division of Pakistan. It also deserves most of the blame for the rise of fundamentalism, through Zia’s Islamization program.
Given how long they have been in charge since 1947, they should get the blame for the mess Pakistan is in today. If Pakistan is not ready for democracy, IMO it is because of them.
The Army has been running Pakistan for so long that it is inseparable from what Pakistan is and has become in the last 60 years. It doesn’t go back just to the Iskandar Mirza-Ayub Khan coup of 1957 – it goes back even further to 1946-47 – to the British military officers (who remained in Pakistan for significantly longer than they did in India), to the tradition of having a ‘Military Secretary’ to Jinnah, to Jinnah’s own approach to the West/US (both as a hedge against India and out of genuine fear of the Russian/Soviets just across the Pamir), to Liaquat Ali Khan’s trip to the US in 1947-48 – all culminating in Pakistan being seen as a military garrison client state. The assigned role was to guard the passes from the Hindu Kush to the plains of the Indus and then to the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf – first in the neo-Great Game, then in the Cold War’s various versions from 1948-91, then in post-Cold War machinations, and finally in post-9/11 conflicts and in the War against Terrorism.
I think the Pakistani Army as an institution realizes this very well, and Musharraf himself articulates it extremely well. The role of the Army within the Pakistani state and Government, and the extent to which external powers condone it, is determined by this overall role it plays in the world system. Every coup in Pakistan, including Musharraf’s second coup – can be understood in light of exigencies arising from this assigned role. This role was complicated (and strengthened) by the view that India was either an independent power seeking to project its own power, or acting as a Soviet/Russian surrogate. But if India begins to play a qualitatively different role within the world system than it has played in the last 60 years – then new possibilities arise – both for the role of the Army in Pakistan, and the role of Pakistan (and India) in South Asia. Thankfully, some people in India are beginning to see this, though the internet/blogosphere so far is a different story. 🙂
No argument there.
Chachaji – as always, a well thought out comment. The coup in 1999 was a backlash partially from the Kargil conflict that resulted in a disagreement between Nawaz and Musharraf.
Great post, Amardeep. Can’t agree more.
I just heard from a journalist friend in Pakistan that sources are telling him that Musharaff is under house arrest, but it hasn’t been officially confirmed. I’ll hopefully chat with him tonight and hear more. Stay tuned..
no no. it cant be true. it would be so illogical. keypad warriors of the male persuasion must be logical or their heads will explode. 🙂
[cbc] Here’s a perspective on why democracy? and are dictators ever good?
one thing, we need to go beyond the democracy/dictatorship dichotomy. the founders of our republic would not have thought of this as a democracy because of the immense checks on popular will which our system has built in. if it was democratic will brown vs. board of education wouldn’t have happened. the abolition of segregation in this country was due to judicial fiat, judicial dictate if you will.
this tendency to use terms like ‘dictatorship’ or ‘totalitarian’ in a catchall manner are also problematic. consider iran and north korea. the latter is totalitarian and dictatorial to a far greater extent than the former, which does not democratic elections governed by universal suffrage, even if the teeth are taken out via the veto power of the clerical elite.
Amardeep,
Hello from a lurker. Bangladesh has been in an army-backed state-of-emergency for months now, with no recent mention in the U.S. press of whether plans for elections in 2008 are moving forward. So, 300+ million citizens on the South Asian sub-continent are living without constitutional protections, most of them Muslim. It’s easy for us to agree that the long-term interests of all are best served by substantive democracy. But, as your post suggests, the way forward in the short-term is murky, not easy at all.
Abhi’s post doesn’t boil down into a slogan very well (“What do we want? DEMOCRACY! When do we want it? WHEN PROSPECTS ARE GOOD FOR A STRONG AND DURABLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND THIS REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF POPULAR AND POLITICAL WILL AND LOCAL INSTITUTIONS!”). Forgive him that, and perhaps agree that his point is well-taken: As Americans, our supposedly pro-democracy policies can backfire horribly. We do well to pause in our democratic responses to events and to consider. Is a dictator the worst possible scenario? Maybe we can think of worse scenarios still?
“… [I]f Democracy is to have a chance … Musharraf has to go” you say, but that statement is conditioned on a belief that stability, security and human rights protections would accompany the elected government that follows him, right? I am only a casual reader of the news; does your understanding of Pakistani politics suggest this condition will be met?
If I’ve misunderstood your post, please do clarify. (Same goes for Abhi.) Back to my closet now.
BTW – in the video link I posted in #27 you will see the typical “upper-class” support of musharraf. The twit-nawabs of today who live in their little padded bubbles and believe the dictatorship is necessary to sustain their lifestyles.
To justify this role to the Pakistani people, the military has constantly had to sell an idea of Pakistan as a bastion of Islam under threat, and also to push a more ideological and fundamentalist interpretation of Pakistani nationhood than required.
I don’t think it would be in the military’s interest to ever let Pakistan move away from this highly ideological view of Pakistan. The only way Pakistan can move away from fundamentalism is if the Pakistani army weakens their grip on their country. In the short term, Musharraf may be able to kill a terrorist or two, but terrorism will continue to simmer in Pakistan till it is able to move towards a different definition of its nationhood, which it is not in the interest of the army to allow.
Good point. There has been a realization that the military became too strong within Pakistan for its own (or anybody else’s) good – which is why there has been significant and strong external pressure – to hold elections, to bring in previously tried-out political actors, to have a ‘national reconciliation’, etc etc. But this can’t be at the expense of general anarchy or introducing illiberal forces via democracy – and at any rate, not by jeopardizing the War against Terrorism – that is how I see the thinking.
The other issue is the extent to which Pakistan’s (both army and people) fear of India was real – after all, India had any number of war plans to ‘dismember Pakistan’. As India begins to moderate its own perceptions of Pakistan, and its military, and its views on Kashmir, and indeed begins to see Indo-Pak as non-zero-sum – completely new dynamics can arise, both within Pakistan, and in South Asia as a whole.
And I thought both Musharraf and the military were weakened when the CJ was reinstated back in July, and when Benazir was allowed to return, even when Sharif stepped off the plane (even if only to be sent back). And certainly they have been weakened again now, with the external pressure for democratic process, following the second coup. So this will slowly play out – and with greater scrutiny on the Pakistan Army’s internal business activities, plus the portfolio distribution of its arms purchases etc – it is quite possible that in a few years the Pakistan Army, with demonstrably nothing to fear from India, begins to refashion itself primarily for mountain warfare on the western frontier, and vacates the role it has traditionally played in politics.
–> American TV pundits have american viewers to worry about, hence the focus on american interests. Pakistani viewers are currently busy trying to enjoy the normality and stability, I dont think they will worry too much about the loss of some basic freedoms and the TV feed(especially if they show some good movies/songs). If they are not willing to fight for good, transparent governance for themselves, they dont deserve it.
–> I keep reading about Mushy giving up his uniform at some point of time and how allowing him to remain as a dictator will allow him to take pakistan to a stage where democracy can take its first tentative steps(even if its people dont mind losing some freedoms). Why would he give up the uniform if the current emergency continues ? He would have shown how ineffectual fighters for a democratic pakistan are and strengthened his position at the same time. I am not sure events in his history show him as someone who is willing to walk away from power when it is there to be taken.
15 Amardeep
–> I had a similar thought when I read that paragraph. My understanding of Indian democracy(especially after Indira’s power grab in 1975) is that it has way too many checks and balances than the other way around. Doesnt your mention about centre intervening in gujarat qualify as a check ?
The comments about Modi should have stayed in an article about gujarat, bjp, modi, in my opinion.
Chachaji, I though military have always had a greater hand in Pakistani politics. I am not sure I follow your fear of India assertion, can you elaborate on that as outside the role of RAW I am not very aware of direct and blatant threat to Pakistan by Indian establishment. The dispute in Kashmir I think is only a part of the problem, the perception of Pakistan with the middle class is largely positive in my experience, the congress government has always been moderate considering the strong ties that the Nehru Gandhi family had with the Bhuttos, even under BJP’s rule major progress was made so I am not sure I follow how else “India†should begin to moderate its perception of Pakistan.
Additionally I though Benazir’s return was sophisticated deal making between the US (she and her husband keep a residence in New York) and Musharraf.
just an observation on cnn’s coverage. they keep saying “the situation in pakistan is being covered by tv stations around the world, including the arab world” and then proceed to show four stations, all of them pakistani or indian. then again, yesterday, after zain verjee’s report on pakistan the anchor said “zain verjee, reporting on the scene in pakistan, from dubai”. maybe they meant “reporting on the scene (scenario) in pakistan” and not reporting on the physical spot per se, but those in the audience who already have a poor grasp of geography aren’t going to be enlightened by such vague reporting.
Oh no, here comes the f-word again. 😉 🙂
It is also important to note that Pakistan has had Millitary rulers for 32 out of its 60 years in independence, from 1958-1971, from 1977-1988 and from 1999 onwards so I don’t think the military influence is a new phenomenon.
It is not just laws I am concerned about, it is that radical Islam has too much military strength in Pakistan. In the current setup, no mater where Musharraf stands—he has to dismantle the military strength of islam in pakistan to survive. And military strength of islam must go before de-islamification.
For example, I don’t think anyone could withdraw Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, or its teatment of Ahmadiyas anytime in the near future, even if their intentions are good. The opposition—and I don’t mean protests, I mean violence—falling out of those would be too much. In that sense, repealing the Hudood ordinance, or the Red mosque standoff is a pretty big thing—neither Bhutto nor Sharif would have cared to place their head in the line like that.
Note that I do not trust Musharraf as a person, I trust the predicament he is in.
And to add to my comment #40, it is not wishful thinking that Musharraf has reined in Islamic terrorists operating from Pakistan. Statistics on cross border infiltration to India and terrorism related violence in India have been on a decline since America cracked its whip and got Musharraf to do its bidding.
vy?
More than five years after the fact, and despite the fact that everyone knows there was complicity at the state level, no officials have been charged, let alone prosecuted for their roles in the pogrom. This represents a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law at both the state and central level.
This goes for the 1984 pogrom against Sikhs as well as the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
Just because these were regionally isolated incidents doesn’t mean that the Central government doesn’t bear responsibility for them.
Why mention all of this on a thread about Pakistan? Because regardless of the author’s intentions, the comment threads here on posts relating to other South Asian countries are often overrun by Indian nationalists who get off on talking about how screwed the rest of South Asia is.
chachaji,
Actually the Indian establishment is worried exactly about that right now. As in the past ( war against soviet union ) and now ( war against terrorism ) all the money that pak receives from US goes to equipping itself for waging a war against India or training Kasmir militants. This fact is acknowledged by US too ( see this document from NSA archive )
comment #11 by ddaS:
Hey, I know the perfect solution for what ails you. Read books by Ayn Rand and immerse yourself in “objectivism,” and you will see the light. Did you know that the anthem was delivered by Rand while she stood upside down, balancing herself on the middle finger of her
leftoops, right hand, as she spun around? (By John Galt, gives me an intellectual hard-0n every time I think about it!!) The world’s a utopia, even based on some kind of exclusive rational thinking and epistemo-thing-a-jig – there’s no hunger for power (every individual is now a corporation), no coercion (cults are not coercive), all men are free (don’t know about women though), plenty of choices (coke or pepsi?), that pesky thing called nature has been shown its true place, and everyone is at peace!! Now just give me a hand with this forest so that it can actualize itself into some nice chairs and tables, which will free me (and you, and everyone) even more. 🙂 🙂Priya, Yes, this is an issue that goes way back – not just the 1990s – while Pakistan had been assigned a certain role in the world system and armed for that reason, it also had its own fight with India – which it could dovetail into that ‘assigned role’ by claiming (not without some foundation) that India was a hegemonic state with a socialistic bent, a Soviet-style union that held together various sub-nations by force, and moreover, opressed its Muslim minority. And India’s actions did lend themselves to such an interpretation, including among some Western strategists, which is why nobody came down too hard on Pakistan for doing this.
But all that is history, or can be, if India begins to take a more enlightened view, and play a non-zero-sum game vis-a-vis Pakistan and the world system. And the link you provide shows that everyone is now aware of this, and that is why I said, ‘in a few years’ things could be different. But unless Pakistan clearly sees that India means it no harm, why should they not plan to hedge against the future, and to defend themselves however they can? They will do so by diverting Western arms when they can, or buying Chinese arms, or trading for North Korean arms. This is why it is up to India, as a state that is about ten times as large, to take the first steps to reassure the Pakistanis that if they go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the other militants, there will be a net gain to all parties – that first, India will not take short-term advantage on Pakistan’s eastern front; and that Pakistan need not keep the Taliban and mujahideen as a long-term option, because even in the long term India means Pakistan no harm. But first India itself needs to see the future in a new way where Pakistan is not its enemy. India and Pakistan can be on the same side, helping themselves and each other progress economically, culturally, and in every other way. India needs to see this first, and show Pakistan that it is true, with some help from the rest of the world. Then we have hope.
Chachaji,
The argument can be made in reverse as well, why is the onus on India to do everything you suggest they should do? There is enough American aid to Pakistan to be sure of the net gain you talk about, I don’t think there is anything which suggests that India is waiting to take advantage of Pakistan’s eastern front, if there is, it will be great if you can link to it. You are suggesting that because Pakistan fears India, it has decided to keep Taliban and mujahideen, which according to me is unfounded. There have been gestures from both sides over the past few years during congress as well as BJP’s time. Kargil was Musharaff’s doing which didn’t help matters. No one came down hard on Pakistan because of the history of Western aid to Pakistan and its strategic geographic location. It places US interests bang in the middle of Afghanistan and closer to China and India, I think you will be hard pressed to find evidence suggesting India’s non enlightened view with regards to Pakistan where as instances like Dawood Ibrahim are plenty.
Good post. Particularly: “But I think my basic point there stands all the same — it’s a mistake (and ethically problematic) for commentators to only focus on U.S. interests.” The main question I have is largely about process–how do you get from the current position to the kind of substantive democracy that Pakistan has never enjoyed?
chachaji, are you seriously saying that unless India starts being really sweet to Pakistan, it will continue to be a military dictatorship and a haven for terrorists and fundamentalists? Can’t the Pakistani generals see that this way they can only end up as a basket case and global pariah, that this will solve none of the problems of the Pakistani people? Like some suicidal teenager Pakistan will just hurl itself over the cliff because it are not getting any big brother love? I don’t buy that.
Also, this emergency is not because the neighbor to the east caused it, it is because the judiciary would have overthrown his appointment.
brown, I already explained that India should take the first steps because it is the much larger country – even Indistan, which I constructed on whim right here on SM – is larger than Pakistan. Just put yourself in Pakistan’s shoes for a second – you sit next to a country almost ten times your size. Unless you are absolutely convinced that the other country means you no harm, you will always plan for the worst.
And that is why India should take the first few steps, so that Pakistan does in fact become convinced of India’s bona fides. But India can’t demonstrate these bona fides if they do not exist in the first place. I suggest that even if they have always existed, Pakistan has never bought them, because of fundamental structural issues – both in Pakistan itself and in India. For example, if India was socialistic in mindset, while Pakistan was feudal – then no matter how much India extends its hand, there are fundamental conflicts between the systems which leads to distrust.
But if both engage the world system on similar terms – and each develops a similar economic system whose fundamental logic demands a free trade area, a common monetary policy, etc etc – then at least one fundamental source of distrust goes away. Pakistan, like India, is taking steps to join the knowledge economy. Perhaps Infosys, or better yet, Wipro, could open a branch in Karachi – if it hasn’t yet. This is what I mean by Pakistan and India being on the same side. In the meantime, Kashmir could have joint sovereignty – with both national anthems playing, or both national flags flying on state buildings – both in Srinagar and in Muzzaffarabad. Etc. But this is the sort of bold thinking that is necessary.