In addition to regular comments to blog posts, I often get emails from readers expressing all manner of opinions. This week, following my recent post on the protests in Pakistan, I received a note from a graduate student in Boston named Wajiha Ahmed that was intelligent enough to provoke me to spend a little time replying. Wajiha had also, a few days earlier, published an Op-Ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (it was written while the protests were just beginning). Wajiha’s response to my response was essentially a full-fledged essay. I asked her if she would slightly revise her comments in defense of the Long March protests into something for Sepia Mutiny, as a sort of one-off guest post. She agreed, and the following is a one-time guest post by Wajiha Ahmed.
The comment Wajiha most objected to was actually made by me in the comments of the original post. I said, “I think there are some people looking at this that are thinking that what is happening is not simply the expression of free speech, but a rather naked attempt at a power-grab by Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif. Given the security crisis in the country, a protest movement like this could be seen as irresponsible.” In my first email to Wajiha, I also wrote:
What prompted me to suggest that Sharif was acting irresponsibly was a personal conversation with a friend here in Pennsylvania named [KC], who comes originally from Lahore. [KC] said to me last week that the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in particular left him feeling extremely depressed, since it’s beginning to seem that the militants are increasingly coming down out of the hills, and their kind of Islam is increasingly driving the agenda of the country. Given what has happened in Swat and NWFP in the past few months, it may be that the real cultural-political undercurrent that needs to be addressed is the growth of that militancy. Not because of *America’s* war on terror, but actually for Pakistan’s own internal security and stability.
Below is Wajiha’s response to those points.
Guest Post by Wajiha Ahmed
I’m writing this post in response to Sepia Mutiny’s reporting on the second Pakistani Long March to restore a deposed independent judiciary and Chief Justice. The sentiment has been that a) it was irresponsible and could have possibly destabilized Pakistan, and b) energy should have instead focused on the ‘real’ problem Pakistan faces: growing ‘sympathy’ for militants. As I see it, however, we just witnessed one of the largest broad-based, secular, non-violent movements for the rule of law and democracy in Pakistan’s history. Of course, one event is not going to change everything. But democracy is not an event, it is a process. Therefore, rather than being reported with cynicism, this important civil disobedience movement should instead have been encouraged and celebrated. In the past year, Pakistanis have successfully forced out a military dictator (Musharraf) AND compelled an authoritarian leader (Zardari) to listen to their voices – a rare, uplifting story in these trying days.
[Wajiha continued] I’ll try to address the above-stated points, starting with the latter.
1) As far as the security situation, Pakistanis will agree that it’s a major problem. Almost half of the worldwide victims of terrorist attacks last year were Pakistani! And of course, the recent attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team and the subsequent death of eight Pakistani police officers triggered deep anger, shame, and sadness. While this threat is very real, I think we may have missed a few fundamental points.
First, some media outlets reported that terrorist groups took part in the march – this is false. Militant al-Qaeda and neo-Taliban elements who crossed the border after US-led strikes in Afghanistan are not ‘religious extremists.’ Rather, they are terrorists with an Islamic veneer. Why is this important? Because there is a common misperception that Pakistanis are sympathetic to these so-called militants—but those leaving in militant-occupied areas, whether FATA or SWAT, have left if they have been able to afford to do so. Those who lack the means are living under constant fear. During my time in Peshawar, Rawalpindi and Lahore this past summer, I met not a single Pakistani sympathetic to these terrorists –- and rightly so, since they are the ones suffering the most from these attacks. So why is the perception of popular Pakistani support for terrorism so prevalent? This belief may be due, in part, to an overall emphasis by policy-makers and media outlets alike, on linking the notion of “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic violence” with religious and cultural explanations about Islam and Muslim culture, and thereby sidelining political ones. Implicit in this view is that every Muslim has the potential to become an ‘extremist’ or a terrorist—”moderate” Muslims have chosen to ignore this call to warfare, while ‘extremist’ Muslims have simply succumbed. A more accurate and responsible explanation of the recently conceived notion of “Islamic violence,” however, lies in an analysis of recent historical and political conflicts (see Mahmood Mamdani’s Good Muslim, Bad Muslim). There are dangers in being unaware of our possible biases – in this case, misinterpreting the Long March, and perhaps even Pakistanis themselves.
The ‘solution’ to the militancy problem most probably involves a regional effort to resolve the war in Afghanistan (see Rashid and Rubin’s article in Foreign Affairs) and a concerted effort inside Pakistan to reclaim militant-ridden areas. I won’t even try to pretend to have an answer to this dilemma– counterinsurgency is extremely difficult.
Second, many have pointed out that the involvement (probably opportunistic) of the JI and other right-of-center elements like the PML-N ‘prove’ that the Long March really wasn’t a liberal movement but one that incorporates ‘militant’ elements. But Pakistani religious parties (JI, JUI) are more similar to some factions of the BJP or Shiv Sena in India than they are to any militant terrorists in FATA and Swat. And just to emphasis, they have never received more than 14% of the vote and lost the 2008 elections.
Also, the PML-N is not a religious party. Yes, it is right-of-center and sometimes panders to religious conservatives, but so does the BJP in India. So does the Republican Party in the US. While Sharif has steadfastly supported the Lawyer’s Movement, personally, I think he needs to prove that he isn’t merely being opportunistic — but that’s up to the Pakistani people to decide. Since they quickly saw through Zardari, I’ll opt to trust their judgment.
Finally, and most importantly, we can’t forget that this movement is really about the vast majority who took part in the Long March — lawyers, human rights activists, students, and concerned citizens who risked personal injury and incarceration to stand up for justice. My friend, Ammar, who took part in the now famous GPO chowk protest recalls:
As the police started shelling tear-gas indiscriminately, many activists started falling unconscious. A man who must have been in his 70s started yelling to the fleeing crowd (which included me as I could no longer breathe) that this was not a time to run but to fight… We resisted the police for over two hours, pushing them back many times…
The most memorable part of the evening for me was when Aitzaz Ahsan [prominent leader of the Lawyer’s Movement] defiantly entered the High Court building despite orders for his house arrest and the police officers stood in line to salute him. This meant a complete victory for the movement …
On one side, [what we witnessed] represented despair, state brutality and police repression. On the other, it reflected hope, resistance, and the passions and dreams of many Pakistanis. We had won not because of the generosity of the country’s leadership, but because of the countless sacrifices of lawyers and activists for the past 2 years with 15th March 2009 becoming the grand finale in Lahore. [Ammar Ali Jan’s complete account of his experience has been posted here]
Ammar’s words speak for themselves.
2) Now we move-on to the point that the Long March was somehow irresponsible.
If similar terrorist attacks occurred in another country, we would not ask its citizens to halt all activity for fear of ‘instability.’ The Lawyers Movement initiated the second march because Zardari broke the promises he made after the first one. If we agree that Zardari’s actions are undemocratic, then why are protests to demand accountability irresponsible? To be sure, Pakistani politicians rely on ‘micro rationality’ – a short-term view of political behavior – instead of ‘macro rationality.’ This tendency is partly an outgrowth of a structural reality: prolonged military rule (for more, read Ayesha Siddiqa’s Military Inc or Ayesha Jalal’s Democracy and Authoritarianism). The political system is authoritarian, and the Long March fought to change to this very tendency of the system.
The Lawyers/Civil Society movement has another responsible and important goal — reasserting and ensuring civilian control. For decades, Pakistan’s army and its powerful ISI intelligence agency defined domestic priorities. They prioritized the defense budget over badly needed infrastructure and education reform. They leveraged militant groups for their rivalries with India. They supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. Many of these same groups are the ones wreaking havoc in Pakistan today. Mitigating the power of the military is directly related to making sure that Pakistan’s establishment never supports militants again. I was thrilled that during this Long March, the military did not intervene or attempt to take control.
Pakistanis now know that the next time they are dissatisfied with anything, they can use civil disobedience to demand justice. Pakistan’s burgeoning news media revolution — dozens of independent 24-hour news channels have opened up recently — has further ensured sustained awareness.
Now that the judges have been restored, many have valid concerns about Zardari, Sharif’s intentions, and the future of Pakistan. I am sure most Pakistanis do as well. While the Movement is no magic bullet, it is an important step towards increasing the likelihood that Pakistan’s government will start to address problems of poverty, education reform, and democracy. I wish the Movement and its supporters best of luck -– they have an important struggle ahead of them. The movement is for democracy not a movement of violence.
I’ve put in bold some of the points I thought might be particularly key in Wajiha’s statement. Please respond respectfully to what she’s saying, even if you disagree.
Please respond respectfully to what she’s saying, even if you disagree
I wholeheartedly agree with what’s she’s saying and I’m glad you put this up. I really only have one issue wioth this post:
following is a one-time guest post by Wajiha Ahmed
Why “one-time”? Let’s hear more.
Ikram, I certainly wouldn’t mind more like this, if she’s interested. (Note that I would also have to run a guest blogger proposal by my co-bloggers; they have to approve.)
I suspect you’ll have to ask her about this if and when comments from readers start coming in, in response to this post.
I read Wajiha Ahmed’s article and reply later about it.Here are few points to ponder.
According to G. Parthasarathy (former High Commissioner to Pakistan).
and according to Justice(R)Sajjad Ali Shah of Pakistan
Last but not least a link to the video of Supreme Court attack.
And so called free Urdu media never mentioned it on their “(un)biased” TV stations or newspapers.
From what I’ve read, yes, there doesn’t seem to be much support for the external terrorist organizations that have entered Pakistan. But the homegrown outfits (which have also been labeled Taliban) which have a more nationalistic (as opposed to religious) agenda certainly do have at least regional support.
None of that has anything to do with this protest though. It does seem to have been a civil movement, and the fact that it was both peaceful and successful is pretty tite.
Some really good commentary here.
And a feelgood article.
Neena — As wajiha wrote, sharif’s buffonery, and his attmept to control every lever of power in Pakistan, are well known. The Urdu press covered this, back when it was happening, pre-Musharraf.
The lawyers movement is a movement for the rule of law, not the rule of the Sharif clan. What’s not to celebrate?
Very intelligent and thought provoking Wajiha. I really liked the way you approached this issue. I wouldn’t mind more of your insight into Pakistan. Thanks!
I don’t have on the ground knowledge of what is happening in Pakistan; but I would broadly agree with Wajiha’s post. A close friend of mine and I had an arguement about the Long March, where he took a more critical view of events and made the point that in South Asia, we tend to launch political agitations if we don’t like the outcomes of elections. I would label this kind of description of events like this as ‘political theatre’ and I think it is deeply unfair to many of those who take part. It may not be manned entirely by secular liberal progressives, be completely spontaneous or free from any conscious political backing by a party; but if we set these kind of conditions before supporting or favourably regarding and social movement/protest then we would end up pretty much dismissing all such movements across South Asian. I would say even the mass movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement and Quit India had these elements present.
The issue is to what degree different elements pre-dominate, what their relationships are and where the movement goes from here. I think there are grounds for optismism personally.
This was a great article! Thanks Wajiha!
Hi Wajiha, thank you for your thoughts. I particularly appreciated the distinction you make between religious extremists and terrorists with a “religious veneer.” People tend to forget the entrenched history and roots of violence which has led Pakistan and Afghanistan in its current trajectory. The conclusion that the cause of the current challenges in the region are attributed to “Islamization,” grossly reduces the complex context in which these problems have risen.
Whole heartedly agree with the article. One of my very good friend comes from a very high ranking “judicial” family in Lahore and his views are the same but if you look at the bigger picture, it would be a very bad time to “unrest” the government. Its a catch 22 sort of and things that are apparent to people that live in pakistan/punjab(prior engagements of pakistani government) needs to come to light in order for change to take place.
Totally unrelated to the post, why does posting take so much time. DB Fragmentation? Indexing? or is the plain architecture fussy?
Thought provoking in deed….lets get rid of the one time comment
5 · Ikram said
What about now, since most of our Pakistani people didn’t have access to free media then and most of the people I know don’t even remember it. I think Judiciary movement was Aitzaz Ahsan’s and then PPP’s idea being hijacked by Jamat etal., Nawaz Sharif (still love Zia ideology) and misused by Zia factor in the Army. And I still remind my people it is the right of the President of Pakistan to have men of his liking on top posts just like other democracies. But we all know this PPP (the only secular national party) isn’t running the show otherwise how can you explain giving up strategic chunk of land to stupid goons?
And I disagree with Wajeeha about Nawaz Sharif ideology he is extremist and Zia’s remnant the guy who championed Whabbi cause in Pakistan who introduced public lashing and hood ordinance and Sharif attested it and introduced Sharia Law.
The thing is whenever PPP poor men party come to power all the opponents come together and make panga for them, democracy just doesn’t suit them and miraculously they live peacefully during Marshall law. I’m a big fan of democracy and difference of opinion but please don’t confuse Nawaz with democracy he is still trying to fix scores with Gen. Musharaff because due to him he had to run away to his God Father’s land Saudi Arabia. He only able to come back after Benazir’s and he is the same men who is talking about judiciary when he put Zardari in jail for the same crimes he himself did, we all know Sharif brothers fortunes.
Wajiha, thank you for the GREAT post. I, as an Indian, am looking with more hope after the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. It was really wonderful to see common people come out wanting more rule of law and proper governance, instead of petty politics that so mires the sub-continent. I have faith that once Pakistan has a good government (which is not puppet of the military) and starts developing, India and Pakistan can get along much better, because hey, the citizens get along so well face to face (except the silliness in the wagah border).
Very thoughtful analysis as always Wajiha!
As I watched a very shaken Sri Lankan cricket team arrive home, my first thought was probably similar to theirs: the situation in Colombo is relatively not so bad after all! But seeing this movement I feel Pakistan has something very positive here that the rest of South Asia is sadly lacking: a public that gives a damn!
Whatever their political motivations, the fact that so many members of civil society chose to peacefully vocalize their concerns (and successfuly too) is reason for celebration. I wish them all success, and hope they can continue to achieve their goals without being seen as a threat to social ‘stability’. Hopefully they will also serve as a clarion call to other apathetic South Asian societies that do nothing to challenge manifest injustice…
I agree with Wajiha’s response, and must say that in general Sepia’s bloggers show a very limited understanding of the complexity of Pakistani politics. They are too quick to stereotype Pakistan, which just goes to show how easy it is for intelligent people to objectify and misunderstand another side.
Thanks, Amardeep for posting Wajiha’s detailed response to your post. I loved the sentiment here:
I admit, I like most Indians and like even more unconcerned Indians living in other countries dropped to my usual cynicism following the attacks on the Sri Lankan team, the FATA and SWAT situations, all of which NPR faithfully reported. Just recently, after the march, NPR again reported about it and featured Adil Najam, a professor of international relations at BU, quoted saying this,
Original article here on NPR.
That really gave me pause, and Wajiha’s thoughtful response extends the argument very comprehensively. Since politicians warping mass movements to suit their own needs isn’t new to Indian politics, I suppose I could extend the same courtesy to our neighbors. Good job!
I am Indian, and no fan of Pakistan and its politics, but I support the general sentiment here that Sepia should invite Wajiha as a guest blogger. At least commenters can then talk to someone who is sensible and knows the Pakistani reality and sentiments.
Thanks for the post, Wajiha. I am glad the usual bunch of rediff commenters has not shown up on this post so far.
19 · thanks said
you are the first one .
Here is another perspective on the long march:
http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/after-the-long-march-%E2%80%93-what-now-comrades/
i’m a regular (pakistani) reader at SM, and i was really annoyed by amardeep’s post on the long march. the analysis was superficial at best and ignorant and ill-informed at worst. writing a post on a political event when your only qualification is having an opinionated pakistani friend is kind of ridiculous. anyway, i’m heartened by the fact that you actually tried to make amends by having wajiha post here. wonderful post, wajiha! agree with most of what you had to say. if anyone would like a more thorough and informed perspective on pakistani than SM usually manages, these are some good places to go to: http://www.mosharrafzaidi.com http://www.progpak.com http://www.pakistaniat.com http://www.fiverupees.com
chapatimystery.com is also a good place for analysis on pakistan
I was trying to keep quiet and let people have their say, but given how many comments have been along the lines of “thank you, and by the way, Amardeep is clueless about Pakistan,” it seems important to defend my own position. I asked readers to be respectful of Wajiha; perhaps I should have asked people to be respectful of me.
Instead of addressing specific complaints from readers, here is a bit more of what I was thinking:
Wajiha herself is conceding that Zardari’s investment in democracy is reluctant at best. What that means is, he and Iftikar Chaudhry are not done fighting out the balance of power, not by a long shot. It’s risky to make predictions about anything in politics, but isn’t it a fair presumption to make that this conflict isn’t actually over after the Long March, but only deferred for a few weeks or months down the road? It will be wonderful if it is in the end resolved through democratic process, but given Pakistan’s history, and given the current civil war within the country, I remain pessimistic about that.
Yes, it is important to note that this event seems to mark a crest of popular democratic agitation in Pakistan, and I certainly was not expecting, when I wrote, that Zardari was about to concede the point on the Supreme Justice, leading to the cancellation of the planned protests in Islamabad. I was expecting to see violence, possibly a military Coup, this week. I was also thinking of Benazir Bhutto’s own public protests against Musharraf in December 2007, which some did call “irresponsible” at the time. I am thrilled that at least this event turned out much better than I had been expecting.
On Wajiha’s points on ordinary Pakistanis vs. the extremists. First, I concede I do not know very much about party politics in Pakistan, other than the basics. But my concern was never whether Jamaat-e-Islami has a large popular base or not (thought 14% of the electorate is actually not at all small), but rather that they would ally themselves with Nawaz Sharif, and be accepted in that coalition. My concern is what that says about Nawaz Sharif’s coalition.
Ammar Ali Jan and the people who were fighting the police in Lahore last week obviously were engaged in a struggle they thought was about democracy, but so were the leftists in the struggle against the Shah in Iran in the late 1970s. After the Iranian revolution, the leftists and feminists who sacrificed everything to institute a democratic revolution against the Shah were rounded up by the Islamists they had formerly considered their friends, and summarily imprisoned, killed, or forced into exile. They did not see it coming; the energy driving the revolution in the cosmopolitan city of Tehran was very different from what was driving it in the Iranian countryside, and the progressives were blindsided by the reality that they were outnumbered and outgunned.
Wajiha says that in her time in Pakistan she didn’t meet anyone sympathetic with the terrorists. But Pervez Hoodbhoy’s article gives a different perspective, and he raises some real concerns about where things are going. The latest terrorist attacks are occurring in a wider and wider arc within Pakistan (and outside of the country, as we saw last November). Cities like Lahore, which earlier remained relatively untouched by violence, are now seeing these really extreme events. I do not think it is enough to simply say that these actions are being committed by people radicalized during the 1980s Afghan war with the USSR, and funded by the CIA. There is a whole new generation of ultra-violent terrorists and even a new modus operandi in evidence — as seen in 11/26 and in the attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team.
I am sure that most ordinary Pakistanis don’t sympathize with them. But if even a small sliver of the population does (say 1%), it will make it very difficult to confront them and shut them down. It’s too easy for them to find places to hide, too easy to find weapons and ammunition…
24 · Amardeep said
To be fair though, out of the 23 preceding comments only 2 have done this, so it does seem to be an overwhelming minority and only one has mentioned you by name.
I beleive Wajiha said that this was the maximum threshold they have ever acheived; I was under the impression that they got a lot less in the last elections less than 5% – but I could be wrong here.
Really in all fairness, the critical threshold of support will need to be a lot higher than 1%!!! It will also depend on the level of pollarisation – how will the rest of the population reacet, will they be indifferent, mildly hostile or actively antagonistic.
Otherwise I think your points and analogies with the Iranian Revolution are quite relevant. Without more knowledge of things on the ground though it is difficult to say exactly how the movement can be characterised; also like with so many movements, they can be largely indeterminate – in that very frequently it is those elements that act decisively and coherently that prevail, over the sometimes more numerous but disparate elements.
Really in all fairness, the critical threshold of support will need to be a lot higher than 1%!!! It will also depend on the level of pollarisation – how will the rest of the population reacet, will they be indifferent, mildly hostile or actively antagonistic.
Why does the threshold of active support have to be higher? 1% represents potentially a lot of people.
But your second point seems right to me — a lot depends on the rest of the population.
Amardeep, you are being too modest in defense of your position. Your position was completely fair based on the history and recent events in Pakistan.
Some comments accused you of being “biased” or “un-informed” etc. and in this supposedly informed rebuttal Wajiha makes the following supposedly “informed” claim:
This is a common ridiculous misconception. BJP’s manifesto has NEVER claimed for India to be a Hindu nation. BJP has Muslim spokesman like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi as amongst their leaders. A similar thing is Unthinkable for JI or JUI. Not to mention George Fernandes a Christian who had gone to the seminary for a little while, was the foreign minister under NDA government started with Jan Sangh (which became BJP). JI and JUI are fundamentally opposed to western secular democracy in their platform and they are forming a major part of this so called “democratic uprising” !!! How ridiculous.
As Amardeep noted above, 14% is absolutely NOT small, where political loyalties are divided based on ethnicity, language, province and other factors.
This is the author’s claim and then we have the real anecdote of terror attack against Sri lankan cricket team. The hero of the incident, the bus driver is hailed as “the hero”. When the media reaches his home they find out that this hero’s brother went to Kashmir for Jihad and died. This just shows the broad based support terrorism has in general society. The support for terrorism in Pakistani society is the kind of terror that is directed against India and West and not Pakistan itself. I grant that to the Author. (which is kind of obvious, but anyway)
“But as the incident on the Afghan border suggests, little in Pakistan is what it appears. For years, the survival of Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders has depended on a double game: assuring the United States that they were vigorously repressing Islamic militants — and in some cases actually doing so — while simultaneously tolerating and assisting the same militants. From the anti-Soviet fighters of the 1980s and the Taliban of the 1990s to the homegrown militants of today, Pakistan’s leaders have been both public enemies and private friends.
When the game works, it reaps great rewards: billions in aid to boost the Pakistani economy and military and Islamist proxies to extend the government’s reach into Afghanistan and India.Pakistan’s double game has rested on two premises: that the country’s leaders could keep the militants under control and that they could keep the United States sufficiently placated to keep the money and weapons flowing. But what happens when the game spins out of control? What happens when the militants you have been encouraging grow too strong and set their sights on Pakistan itself? What happens when the bluff no longer works?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
While I agree with Wajiha that the long march represents a triumph of democratic spirit amongst the general public, and is a journey that is as important (if not more) as it’s destination,I remain extremely sceptical about the leaders of the movement. Nawaz Sharif is a wily, corrupt politician, who has used the issue cynically to enhance his political capital.
Why do you think that happened? I find it quite intriguing- I think it is related to the Politics between Kayani/Army and Zardari.
It is a part of the solution, along with powerful social, economic and educational reforms.
While I am sure that your first hand experience is valid in some ways, we do get evidence to the contrary which shapes popular perception (I do understand that the statistical validity of these opinion polls may be dodgy, but they trump anecdotal evidence in my book)
It is those Muslim misunderstanders of Islam who themselves use Islam for terrorism. Pakistanis have no sympathy for terrorist only when the terrorism they spent decades nurturing is turned on them.
“The ISI has a major interest to continue the crisis. Back in the 1970s, Pakistan started to train Sikhs and other Indian separatist movements as part of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s strategy for forward strategic depth. Pakistan adopted the sponsorship of terrorism and subversion as an instrument to substitute for the lack of strategic depth and early warning capabilities. The Pakistani sponsored terrorists and the Pakistani intelligence operatives in their ranks would be able to warn Pakistan of any impending Indian invasion, and then launch a guerrilla warfare against the Indian Army even before it reached the border with Pakistan. Therefore, sponsoring separatist subversion has become a crucial component of Islamabad’s national military strategy.
During the 1980s, the ISI completed a vast training and support infrastructure for the Afghan resistance that was also used for the training and support of other regional groups. There was a corresponding ideological development in Indian Kashmir. Since 1984, virtually suddenly, the prevailing popular sentiments in Indian Kashmir was that “Islam is in Danger,” and that sentiment, rather than nationalism, began mobilizing the youth.” http://www.kashmir-information.com/bodansky/article1.html
On reading thee post again, I had more to say: Wajiha: Almost half of the worldwide victims of terrorist attacks last year were Pakistani!
How come people of Pakistan NEVER acknowledge that these terrorist are created by Pakistanis ? How come people from Pakistan make up all sorts of excuses (including here by Wajiha) about how people became “extremists”. Wajiha says that she didn’t meet a single person with extremist view point. And what was the sample size of the people she ‘met’ ?
Pakistanis, especially the elites living in US, are still in denial about the terrorists in Mumbai were from Pakistan. And Indians are still not supposed to me outraged about that continuous denial in spite of all the evidences (including from FBI). Pakistani educated people in fact forward each other the conspiracy theory booklet created by ISI, about how Mumbai terrorism was a case created by Hindus, Zionists, and Americans. It is the educated of Pakistani (including those in US) who buys into all these kind of excuses instead of the poor uneducated.
There are articles in Pakistani newspapers about Hindu extremism (as if that is affecting them!) while completely glossing over Pakistani extremism, and making excuses for them, if anything. Talk about denial. And India was the country that has suffered most death from terrorism in the last 2 decade or so. I have yet to come across any Pakistani, who criticize the anti-India pogrom led by Pakistani military, which has led to so many civilian deaths in India.
Those Pakistanis bashing Sepia: Is there any online platform you can name where Pakistani readership is predominant, where they give a ‘balanced’ and ‘nuanced’ picture of the complex case of India ?
Please keep posting! It’s great to see some lucid commentary on Pakistan here, even if it’s far more optimistic than I am.
Amardeep, I think you are conflating the issues of state stability and eliminating political violence. Most relatively stable states in the world, including states like the UK, the US, and others, have political violence, both by the state and by individuals. India doesn’t control about 20% of its own land – it just happens to be internal for the most part due to geography and other factors and the ideology is not Islam so it doesn’t get lambasted by the foreign press most of the time.
Secondly, although I agree with your assessment of democratic revolutions gone awry, the ideal of democracy that I thin you are invoking and which you are using as your benchmark is not in accord with the social, economic, or political realities of a place like Pakistan or India in the short run. For example, even granting what you’ve said about the Iranian revolution, I would note that Iran is probably still among the most substantively and structurally democratic states in the region it is in (compared to say, Saudi, for example, which doesn’t produce Khatamis), despite that the revolution was coopted by theocrats.
I wish I could share Wajiha’s optimism – but even a cursory glance of Dawn or daily times would provide some substantial counter-point. Claims like “no muslim could have done such a thing” or long-winded explanations about the “hindu-zionist lobby” having an interest in disrupting test ticket are quite widespread.
I can understand a Hamid Gul (islamist analog of Bal Thakre) having such an attitude but when the educated classes believe this kind of rubbish, then its going to be a long journey to sanity. And, of course, they dont support terrorism !!!
So the congratulations on getting the CJ reinstated, but I think its too early for broader optimism…
Dr A, the sheer evil of what the extremists are doing in Pakistan would and should be lambasted even if they were (not Muslims but) Rastafarian, Animists or Buddhists. The scale, character and scope of the political violence in the other “relatively stable” states is, at worst, a fraction of a fraction of what we are witnessing with Pakistan. From BBC’s channel 4 dispatches: part2 and part5.. (Watch the other parts too – very powerful reporting)
And I thought Af-Pak was the latest hyphenation 😉
Could you operationalise “evil” and “extremists” for me so that someone could actually engage with what you say? Categories like “good” and “evil” are notoriously difficult to qualitatively or quantitatively compare, particularly for those of us outside the place being discussed. I have a hard time believing that what is done in Pakistan could be more “evil” than really hardcore Buddhist fundamentalism in Sri Lanka, if such a thing as “evil” is even measurable in any way.
Amardeep you said
And if that 1% belongs to powerful faction of society such as Army and ISI then it is quite impossible to control them, otherwise how can one justify the large number of never ending supply of costly ammuniation. You can see how one party (namely, Jamat e Islami) who never get elected in fair and free elections which they always boycott – but some how have very large processions gives open support to radical elements. I’m against dictatorship but Musharaff was the only one who had the power which present government lacks to teach lesson to Lal Masque goons.
Regular people don’t support terroists and majority always give vote to secular national party especially lower middle and lower class. But it is widely known that Pakistani Army has two groups one supports Zia radical version of Islam and another group more liberal belongs to Musharaff side. USA and CIA have full knowledge of it duing Afghan Soviet conflict that’s wny they supported that Sharia deal to calm radical faction in the Army. One more thing which we tend to forget is – Afghaistan is still the top most provider of Herione in the world and Afghan’s President’s brother even found linked to it. So you can guess when drug dealers are involved then anything is possible and being no fix border between Pakistan and Afghaistan due to Pustoon brotherhood.
For example, even granting what you’ve said about the Iranian revolution, I would note that Iran is probably still among the most substantively and structurally democratic states in the region it is in (compared to say, Saudi, for example, which doesn’t produce Khatamis), despite that the revolution was coopted by theocrats.
Iran may be structurally democratic, but it’s not in the least substantively democratic.
All democratic authority remains subject to the Supreme Leader, the council of guardians, the council of experts, etc. They determine who is allowed to run for office and determine the parameters of political discourse. Ask Shirin Ebadi about whether Iran is substantively democratic.
36 · dr amonymous said
When did the buddhists of Sri Lanka try to blow away people in other countries ?
Lupus, thank you for those videos. Kudos to Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy for making those videos. Info about her videos can be found in her website (which includes ‘reinventing the taliban’ and ‘Pakistan’s Taliban Generation’). She is really brave to actually interview some of these Talibans, who are actually Pakistanis, and elites of Pakistan deny they exist.
And here is Sharmeen’s website.
36 · dr amonymous said
Dr. Amnonsense: What cause does the foreign press have to lambast Naxalites? Are they exporting Maoist violence in the region?
Wajiha certainly has a thoughtful article here. But in trying to understand the potential for Islamist infiltration and hijacking of the lawyers’ movement, some meta-issues arise: One is the problem of vocabulary itself. For example, in the vernacular the phrase wooklah ki jidd-o-jehd is often used. Where wooklah is the plural form of wakil, lawyer. While jidd-o-jehd permits a ‘secular’ interpretation of ‘righteous struggle’, it is also directly related to the word jehaad.
Because so much of Urdu vocabulary evolved in an Islamic milieu, often the separation of the religious and secular senses of words is impossible, the two freely and frequently commingle, and often the secular sense, even when intended, is lost. Many lawyers in the movement saw what they were doing as jehaad. This elision of vocabulary -together with other emblems such as the Faiz couplet (a movement anthem) which invoked a redemptionistic iconoclasm as a metaphor for the toppling of ‘secular’ tyrants – creates fertile ground for future emblematic and actual co-optations and hijackings – since by then the secular and religious dialogues have completely merged. Even the metaphors for secular events have religious connotations. To take another example, the word munafiq is used by commentators to describe hypocrisy when exhibited in its everyday sense, but is immediately interpreted by anyone listening or reading also in its Quranic sense, rather like many fundamentalist Christians interpret everything in Biblical terms. It is possible to become so steeped in the religio-cultural assumptions underlying the vocabulary, that even a distinction between the religious and secular becomes impossible to posit. I need hardly emphasize how dangerous this is.
This kind of thing gets overlooked, ignored or simply not grasped by many otherwise astute elite Pakistanis. Often it is actively denied, out of a sense of not being seen as sufficiently liberal or secular by the Western media and intellectuals. It is this kind of thing that Hoodbhoy correctly sees, which younger and less sophisticated analysts miss.
Then, consider the ‘civil disobedience’ descriptor for the movement – actually, the lawyers were quite often rather violent – there are any number of pictures and video of lawyers actively destroying property, attacking policemen with their own batons (and sometimes with batons and sticks that the lawyers brought with them), and in the latest ‘Long March’ (now canceled) even more preparations for violent confrontation appeared to have been made. Some lawyers were fully prepared to physically carry the sacked CJ into the actual CJ chambers, displacing or destroying whatever or whoever stood in their way. And let it also be pointed out, that, as Neena did above, this is exactly what Nawaz Sharif’s goons had done in the 1990s with another CJ, which was why his explicit association with this movement should have given everyone pause.
Consider the ‘Long March’ metaphor itself. Never mind that Mao’s original ‘Long March’ was actually a retreat, it’s symbolism was often explicitly invoked by the lawyers leaders, including Aitzaz Ahsan, to emphasize tenacity and persistence, even militancy. The adoption of this vocabulary, with its guerrilla-like tactical connotations, by a lawyers’ movement (lawyers are, after all, supposed to be status quo-ists) is quite worrisome in itself. Among other things, the original Long March decimated its actual participants, presaged a temporary tactical alliance of the Communists with the Nationalists, and set the stage for the Chinese Revolution. The adoption of this symbolism by the lawyers’ movement therefore does not strengthen the feeling that it merely desires peaceful change. It rather makes you wonder what else is in store for the future.
The lawyers in Pakistan have tasted blood. Perhaps, in a few instances, literally so. They will co-opt others in pursuit of their future agenda, and others will co-opt them. And that is why one cannot be altogether blase about how things might turn out.
One more point I would like to mention PPP voters are mostly illiterate and belongs to lower to lower middle class. So called enlightened educated class who controls media don’t vote for it and always have negative view about it. Even when I was in Pakistan along with my folks I thought it is some kind of evil party who is responsible for breaking up Pakistan (we never hear ill deeds of Pakistani Army, go figure) and never give credit to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutoo for saving Army from shame in India. It was only when I came to US I able to find out real agenda of the PPP and other parties who always have aligned against it. And we in Pakistan believe that it was only Zardari who is corrupt and went to jail for it even present PPP Prime Minister spend some time in jail for corruption charges. On the other hand we never got to hear fortunes made by our Army and Sharif brothers and they never get any sentences, they always termed innocent by courts. While we are discussing courts I’m still waiting for my courts to reopen Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s case.
Wajiha compared Republican and BJP with Pakistani religious parties but she forgot US and Indian unlike Pakistan isn’t as biased.
Dr A, Excuse me for saying this, but your statements are almost autistic. When you are crossing the road, and see two trucks heading your way, do you actually quantify and compare the distance, velocity and trajectory of the two to see which is more likely to hit you? No, any normal person with intact central nervous pathways can make very valid, instinctive calculations, which are most often correct.
Watch the two videos that I have posted. Watch the face of Kayanat, the 10 year old girl, and how she innocently describes the public beheadings. Notice how the best friends who walk hand in hand in the camp very coolly and nonchalantly talk about killing each other in the line of their belief. Watch the cricket playing boy from Karachi talk about becoming a suicide bomber, while his madarassa teacher laughs (off camera) about there being no dearth of sacrificial bakras. I personally need no further operationalisation. If you do, before “someone” can engage with me, than I do not wish to engage.
Dr A, Excuse me for saying this, but your statements are almost autistic. When you are crossing the road, and see two trucks heading your way, do you actually quantify and compare the distance, velocity and trajectory of the two to see which is more likely to hit you? No, any normal person with intact central nervous pathways can make very valid, instinctive calculations, which are most often correct.
Watch the two videos that I have posted. Watch the face of Kayanat, the 10 year old girl, and how she innocently describes the public beheadings. Notice how the best friends who walk hand in hand in the camp very coolly and nonchalantly talk about killing each other in the line of their belief. Watch the cricket playing boy from Karachi talk about becoming a suicide bomber, while his madarassa teacher laughs (off camera) about there being no dearth of sacrificial bakras. I personally need no further operationalisation. If you do, before “someone” can engage with me, then I do not wish to engage.
I agree with the commenters above (#16 and 22) that Sepia generally shows a lack of understanding about Pakistan. Again, this has nothing to do with the intentions of the bloggers. It’s just that when writing about something that one is not an expert on, one opens onself up to a lot of criticism. Also, I find the problem is not so much with the posts themselves but with the comments, which often tend to reflect very prejudiced notions of Pakistan, framing everything through “Islam” and “terror”. There is a lot more to Pakistan, than just Islam, and it would be nice to see that focused on more.
I’m linking to a blog called CHUP (Changing Up Pakistan) written by a young Pakistani American with a Masters degree in Conflict Resolution. It might interest Sepia’s readers and lead to a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of Pakistan today. http://changinguppakistan.wordpress.com/
46 · Kabir said
Wow what a great blog…where commentators are wondering why Pakistan admitted link to Mumbai attack and it’s commentators are discussing what else, but that it was an IndoIsraeli plot ! How enlightening and what a great discussion! But thank you, I will stick to Sepia Mutiny, than waste my time (as a commentators) denying everything.
I don’t think sepia shows any sort of lack of understanding of Pakistan, its just that the comprehension it shows is too realistic and depressing to digest for some.
Zee,
OK so some of the comments are out-there, but the posts themselves are sensible. I just think Sepia’s readers should try reading sources written by Pakistanis themselves, rather than deciding to believe the worst about the country. You can believe whatever floats your boat, but it doesn’t lead to nuanced, sensible discussion.
Anthroguy, I completely disagree with you.
38 · Amardeep said
The key words were “in the region” and there was an explicit comparision made to Saudi, which I don’t think you should ignore. Democracy is an ideal that’s used to measure, argue for, and shape real world political and economic systems. I am not defending the government of Iran by comparison for its own sake, nor am I saying that the ideal of democracy needs to be banished from political conversations. What I am saying is that if you are going to use it, you need to use context heavily, you need to understand local specificities, and you need to look at how to move from the existing state of affairs to a better one.
Otherwise, the conversastion is largely irrelevant because the basic underlying idea of democracy that you’re using is so ideal that it doesn’t serve any purpose other than to lambaste places that don’t fit it (which includes, to varying degrees – and i emphasise varying – every state in the world and the nation-state framework as a whole). If the United States denies the vote or public services to people who pay taxes (e.g. noncitizens), is that democratic? If people are affected by policies that the United States government makes but have no say in the formation of those policies (e.g. people who are not U.S. citizens, whether in India or in Pakistan or Afghanistan or the UK or anywhere else) is that democratic?
To take an unrealistic understanding of what democratisation means and what purpose “democracy” serves in political conversations is to tread down the path of the sincere among the neocons and imagine that without even understanding the practice of democracy, you can hope to institute it in a place you don’t understand.
Anyway, I don’t want to go further down this path of what “democracy” means – I think the relevant quetsion is what would a more democratic Pakistan look like, and I think that Wajiha’s post is useful in that it helps us think about that question.