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.
44 · Lupus Solitarius said
Most academics or academics-in-training are autistic, and certainly most people who spend too much time on the internet 🙂 However, you still haven’t answered my question – when you use a concept like “evil”, how do you determine which things are more evil than other things? How do you know why certain forms of “evil” are being brought to your attention while others (e.g. anything structural, anything happening in places that are not important to the global economy, etc.) are not?
“Evil” in the way you describe it happens almost everywhere in the world. I have heard accounts of the ways in which child rape victims in Indian courts are cross-examined in ways that psychologically recreate the circumstances of the rape- I would call it evil. But I would, having done that, try to figure out what is actually going on – why that occurs, what hte problems are with the legal system, with gender, the rights of children, violence, etc., if I were going to try to figure it out. You could watch Borat and come away with the conclusion that the U.S. is “evil” but that doesn’t really help you very much in either understsanding the place or in trying to figure out what might be useful for someone to do (or not do).
In these sense, what purpose does calling out “evil” have other than riling ourseles up in a state of moral fervor with no self-reflexiveness or attempt to grasp at what the circumstances are that are creating that. It stifles conversation, it does not add to it, and it further obscures the question of causes, it oversimplifies, and above all, in this context, in this forum, it does nothing to move forward a conversation about Pakistan and the question of what the Long March means for its politics and society.
As much as I would like to believe that it was the Pakistani people who compelled Zardari to back down, my thirty four and half years of experience as a citizen of Pakistan compel me to admit that it was the most powerful “A” [America], of the trinity of As [America, Army and Allah], running Pakistan who, with help from their hired help – Army, is responsible for Mr.Zardari’s change of heart.
Nothing is going to change in Pakistan as long as they use Islamists as part of their method of attaining geograhphical strategic depth. As long as they deny they are training jihadists from all over the world including converts from American for conflicts all around the world, Pakistan will continue its decades long tradition of terrorism training and be a serious problem for the rest of the world. As long as these Muslims continue to “misunderstand” Islam there will be terrorism sponsored by them. Here is a site called South Asia Terrorism Portal. The following excerpt is from an official US indictment of 11 American LeT in Virginia – yes from the same LeT group responsible for the Mumbai attacks – who went to Pakistan for terrorism training. Go to the link to read the full document if you wish “Indictment of 11 Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division)” http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/papers/LeT_US.htm:
“…3. Markaz Dawa Wa’al Irshad, roughly translated as “Center for Invitation [to Islam] and Instructions,” was founded in or about 1986 to organize Pakistani mujahideen participating in the jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan. As it expanded, education and jihad sections were separated. Consequently, a military wing of the Markaz Dawa Wa’al Irshad was established by Hafiz Mohammed Saeed in the name of Lashkar-e-Taiba, also known as Lashker-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Toyeba, Lashkar -e-Toiba, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, and Lashkar-I-Taiba (abbreviated herein where appropriate as “LET”). Since the Russians left Afghanistan, the primary – – but not exclusive – – focus of Markaz Dawa Wa’al Irshad and Lashkar-e-Taib a has been on conducting jihad against the Government of India.
Lashkar-e-Taiba – – translated as “the Army of the Pure” or “the Army of the Righteous” – – claims to have trained thousands of mujahideen to fight in areas including Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, and the Philippines. Lashkar-e-Taiba claims to have four camps for training mujahideen from around the world, including camps known as Taiba, Aqsa, Um-al-Qur’a, and Abdullah bin Masud.
In November 1999, Lashkar-e-Taiba sponsored an international mujahideen conference. The highlights of the first day of the conference, as cited on Lashkar-e-Taiba’s website, http://www.dawacenter.com, included a 40-foot-long banner portraying Lashkar-e-Taiba’s 3.dagger penetrating the national flags of the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, and Israel. According to the website, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed included the following in his speech to mujahideen from around the world gathered at the conference:
As the Prophet (Pbuh) said that Allah has placed his sustenance under the shadow of his sword. If Jihad is abolished, the infidels would snatch on us the same way a hungry person snatches on food. The mujahideen of Lashker-e-Taiba have continued the Jihad despite of all the negative propaganda against them . . . Today, people, more then ever, are prepared for Jihad. They are not afraid of any constraints. If India can brutally invade Kashmir then why can’t the mujahideen confront her there. The Jihad is not about Kashmir only. It encompasses all of India including Junagarh, Mavadar, and Hyderabad, etc. . . .
About 15 years ago, people might have found it ridiculous if someone had told them about the disintegration of the USSR. Today, I announce the break-up of India, insha-Allah. We will not rest until the whole India is dissolved into Pakistan… May Allah bestow martyrdom on us and enter us into the higher ranks of Paradise by His mercy…”
Clinton threaten to cut aid to Pakistan over this conflict:
“Clinton warned Pakistan of aid cut if no deal Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:01pm EDT
WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Pakistan’s president and opposition leader over the weekend U.S. aid could be at risk unless they defused a crisis over a top judge, U.S. officials said on Monday.
In a surprise move, Pakistan’s government announced on Monday it would reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry as chief justice, aiming to defuse a crisis and end protests by lawyers and activists that threatened to turn violent.
The officials said Clinton telephoned on Saturday both President Asif Ali Zardari and his rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who had backed the anti-government lawyers….” Read the whole article here http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN16310450
wajiha – “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? “
if only you had asked your compatriots why, then, they sympathized with, funded even, pakistani terrorists who have killed thousands [and counting] of innocent civilians in kashmir and other indian states since 1989?
wajiha – “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.”
i guess you are too polite to mention here what rubin-rashid are really suggesting in their controversial essay- that america should pressure india to compromise on kashmir. once kashmir is solved, they would have us believe that, all the taliban and al-qaeda terrorists in afghanistan and pakistan would turn in their weapons for plows; afghanistan and pakistan would be free to become scandinavian-esque democracies, and more importantly, the cubs would win the world series.
Manpree,
Everything is not about Kashmir. And incidently, even if you choose to talk about Kashmir, you cannot deny that it has been disputed territory for the past 60 years, and there is a long-standing conflict about whom it belongs too. Pakistan can have a legitimate position that as a Muslim-majority region Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan, the Kashmiris can have a legitmitate position that they want to be independent, etc. There is not one right view (India’s) with everyone else being wrong or worse an “Islamic terrorist”. This type of reductive thinking is getting entirely ridiculous.
I haven’t read the Rubin-Rashid essay, but what would be so bad about America pushing for a negotiated resolution to Kashmir? Isn’t that what they are trying to do with Isreal-Palestine?
And finally, while the Pakistan haters are quick to talk about Pakistan’s problem with “Islamism”, I notice no one wants to discuss the horrible and totally unacceptable things that Varun Gandhi has been spouting lately. “Muslims have funny names and they’re scary at night, so let’s cut off their heads!” India has its own problems with communal and religious hatred, why not clean up your own house before being so quick to shit on Pakistan?
Manpree, please. This is a blanket bashing of Pakistanis. You are essentially arguing that average residents of Peshawar, Rawalpindi and Lahore are personally responsible for financing militants/terrorists in Kashmir. If you are going to make this argument, you need to back it up. Provide some data, some polls, some evidence, something. Otherwise it is just vulgar hyperbole. Wajiha is providing information from her personal anecdotal experiences in Pakistan. If you are going to refute them, you must provide some information in return.
An addition fact worth considering: the mass exodus from Swat Valley following its takeover by a local Taliban-affiliated militia. If local Pakistanis were so supportive of the Taliban, why would they leave? Additionally, if you follow Pakistani media, you will find a great deal of anger over terrorist tactics and bombings.
More vulgar hyperbole.
Full disclosure: I cowrote an opinion piece with Wajiha Ahmed.
56 · Kabir said
Because it is not the topic of discussion in this thread….go to the other thread ennis posted. And I hope his (Varun’s) career is finished if he really told that. Also, you will notice, the Election Commission has indicted him.
Kabir,
You seem like a reasonable person, so please understand that my discussion tone here is courteous:
Here’s the problem with Kashmir 1. The old 1948 UN resolution calls for all sides to leave the territory in order for a plebiscite to take place. Do you see Pakistan leaving POK or China leaving Shaksgam any time soon? The former UN Secretargy General himself said the old resolution no longer applies. 2. It is not reductive thinking when religious minorities would have no place in a pakistani or independent kashmir. What happens to the almost 500,000 pandits who were ethnically cleansed or the buddhist population in aksai chin? I think one only need look at the dramatic hindu population decreases in pakistan and bangladesh to get a picture of what would happen. And the recent renaming efforts (Shankaracarya hill to takt-i-suleiman and Anantnag to Islamabad) only embody what type of regime would take power in Kashmir. 3. What’s so bad about the Rubin and Rashid solution? It’s that American pressure for a negotiated settlement only proves to terrorists that their actions pay dividends. One only need look at the LeT’s repeated claims that Kashmir is only the beginning; junagadh, hyderabad and indeed all of india are next. The sad truth is, Kashmir is not the cause of Indo-Pakistani problems, it is merely a symptom. Pakistan has chosen a path of extremism and it must confront it before it devours the rest of the country and the region. It’s as simple as that.
Hate speeches of all kinds are abominable, and varun is no exception, but one must also consider the pot vs the kettle…that’s the reason why people are so quick to (and i’m paraphrasing here) defecate on pakistan as you put it…because we’re in its crosshairs.
Again, i mean to be as respectful as possible regarding these issues, so definitely trying to have a polite and productive discussion.
And Sanjeev, same goes as above, except I will add this something from Aatish Taseer, who you probably know is pakistani on his father’s side: extract article
Also, you asked for polls Polls
Gentlemen, adieu.
59 · zee said
it’s probably just getting started. when modi angles to be pm, he needs somebody even more insane to make himself look moderate. a repeat of the advani-vajpayee and modi-advani playbook.
india’s inconsistent lurches towards religious insanity notwithstanding, i hope it never goes down the road of religious-national identity conflation that has torn pakistan asunder in combination with the funding and support of extremists by their venal leaders in cahoots with american grand strategic goals, whatever its implications on our region.
I’m assuming Satyajit Wry and Manpree are the same?
The articles are interesting. The 2007 poll is interesting too. My understanding of Taliban terrorism as it affects Pakistanis is that much of the violence happened after the 2007 poll. It doesn’t surprise me that Musharraf was less popular than Bin Laden among those polled in 2007 in Pakistan. By the time 2007 rolled around, my understanding is that many Pakistanis really resented Musharraf as a U.S.-backed dictator. The 2008 Lawyers Movement and massive protest were just around the corner, recall.
More recent polls:
Voice of America article Pakistan Opinion Poll Says Majority Does Not Support Islamist Militants By Ravi Khanna / Washington / 11 January 2008
“A recent public opinion poll in Pakistan indicates little support for Islamist militants, but also widespread mistrust of the United States. The poll was conducted last September before the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at Maryland University and the Washington-based U.S. Institute of Peace sponsored the survey.
The poll suggests that a large majority of Pakistanis has negative views of Islamist militant groups such as al-Qaida and Taliban and considers them a threat.”
The following poll was the 2008 followup to the poll you quoted in your last comment — commissioned by the same organization: Terror Free Tomorrow: Poll of Pakistan Opinion Finds Public Blames U.S., not al-Qaida, For Country’s Violence By Ravi Khanna / Washington / 24 June 2008
The poll shows an overwhelming number of Pakistanis oppose U.S. military action in their country. A public opinion poll released in Paksitan on June 20th shows that 58 percent of Pakistanis support talks with the tribal militants, and that anti-U.S. sentiments remain negative.
The pollsters found more than half of the respondents blame the U.S. for the violence occurring in Pakistan while few hold al-Qaida responsible, but that the U.S. has an opportunity to turn public opinion in its favor.”
More of my comments: These 2008 polls demonstrate that Pakistanis do not support Taliban terrorists and want a peaceful resolution to the violence. I have heard from secondary sources that the Pakistan “neo”-Taliban are seen as having begun attacking Pakistani targets after Pakistan became involved in the U.S.-initiated war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and on the border. Thus, Pakistanis may well hate the Taliban, blame the U.S. for kicking this whole thing off, and simultaneously not want things escalated through more bombings.
This is an interesting video piece (thanks Wajiha):
The 500 Hindu families of Peshawar http://tinyurl.com/dj3pff
Sanjeev,
Actually manpree and i are not the same person–i’m a little to proud of this handle to switch back and forth…
Anyhow, thanks for the interesting polls. Here’s a set of recent polls that are also telling.
That is ultimately what this all boils down to. If you see the youtube video of zaid hamid (a frequent geotv commentator) above, we get a stronger understanding of the driving ideology in pakistani civil and military society. And the main cause for that is the education system that Zia reconstructed and that is still maintained to this day: see pakistani public school curriculum
whether we want to admit it or not, by the military’s design, a generation of pakistanis funneled through an education system that makes liberal democracy near impossible and peace with india unthinkable. More than anything else, the army simply does not want to relinquish power. It has too many perks as the power behind the throne. The pakistani military is the problem.
Sorry, guys, looks like it’s down to only 496 hindu families in Peshawar 2 weeks after that video
Kabir – “…even if you choose to talk about Kashmir, you cannot deny that it has been disputed territory for the past 60 years,”
That does not give Pakistanis the right to fund terrorism against ordinary Kashmiris. Pretty much every mosque in Pakistan has a collection box for the Jehadis who go to fight against “hindu rule” in Kashmir. No to mention, Pakistani frequented Mosques in North America and Britain. These Islamists terrorists are responsible for killing thousands of Indian citizens, and for ethnically cleansing the minority Hindu population of Kashmir in 1989. And for these actions, every Pakistani who donated even one rupee is responsible, including people like yourself who, by not condemning the violence, legitimize the Jehadis.
When the Gujurat progrom happened, millions of Indians spoke out against Modi, including myself. Where is the similar outrage amongst Pakistanis on what happened in Kashmir?
Sanjeev Bery – “Manpree, please. This is a blanket bashing of Pakistanis. You are essentially arguing that average residents of Peshawar, Rawalpindi and Lahore are personally responsible for financing militants/terrorists in Kashmir. If you are going to make this argument, you need to back it up. Provide some data, some polls, some evidence, something. Otherwise it is just vulgar hyperbole. Wajiha is providing information from her personal anecdotal experiences in Pakistan. If you are going to refute them, you must provide some information in return.”
Every Pakistani I have met in the United States, including the dozen or so I knew in graduate school in New York, supported the jehad in Kashmir. I have been to mosques in Brooklyn’s Pakistani neighbourhood and on Westbury, Long Island, where collection the fighting against Hindu rule in Kashmir was conducted openly. ALL my male friends gave money for the Jehad when the plate was passed around. [this was pre 9/11; the collection method may have changed nowadays, due to fear of big brither watching]
p.s. I am a sikh who grew up in Kashmir.
Kabir – I should mention here that the reason I visited the mosques is because I am married to a Kashmiri Muslim woman who, by the way, would prefer to “pull her nails out with her teeth” than live in a Kashmir which is a part of Pakistan. And there are thousands of Kashmiri Muslims who hold similar views, albeit, they don’t express themselves as colofully.
60 · Satyajit Wry said
Satyajit, I think part of the problem is us using terms like Pakistan-Occupied and Indian-Occupied Kashmir. They are unnecessarily divisive and biased. Even BBC uses “Indian-Administered” and “Pakistan-Administered” Kashmir. These are more neutral and lead to sensible, mutually beneficial discussion. I agree with you that the original conditions for plebiscite no longer hold, however that doesn’t mean that some negotiated solution is impossible or forever invalid. Rather, it is extremely necessary to solve the Indo-Pak problems.
I also don’t feel that Kashmir is merely a symptom of the Indo-Pak problem. It is one of the most major and divisive issues. Just as there will never be peace in the Middle East until a solution is reached on Isreael-Palestine, there will never be peace in the subcontinent until both parties accept a negotiated solution on Kashmir (whatever that ends up being I don’t know).
Manpreet, I am sorry that I responded out of anger to your last comment. I am frankly sick of the Pakistan-bashing that routinely goes on on Sepia and even the New York Times whenever Indians get a chance to air their views (I’m also sick of the constant India-bashing that goes on on Pakistani-dominated sites). I do not at all intend to endorse violence or “jihad” in Kashmir. I simply want to make the point that oversimplyfing the Kashmir conflict as “Pakistan wanting to break up India” is intellectually dishonest. That particular territory has been disputed for 60 years. And if one accepts the whole logic of the partition (that Muslim-majority areas should have been part of a seperate country), then by all accounts it should have gone to Pakistan. There was also the little matter of Gurdaspur going to India so that it could have land access to Kashmir, despite Gurdaspur being a Muslim-majority area. (By the way, I personally don’t accept this whole logic of Muslim-majority areas having to be a seperate country, but I’m just pointing out why there are such strong feelings among many Pakistanis).
I think Pakistanis can have nothing against Indians personally and yet have a certain political position on Kashmir. It’s like people having nothing against jews personally but having a certain political position regarding Palestine. We should be able to seperate the two issues.
I don’t think Kashmir necessarily has to be part of Pakistan. If I were Kashmiri (I am part Kashmiri by ancestry), I would favor independence. As Mercutio says in “Romeo and Juliet”: “A plague on both your houses. You have made mincemeat of me”. Frankly, I don’t see why Kashmiris have to be either part of India or Pakistan. Give them the choice, I say.
Finally, the video about the 500 Hindu families in Peshawar was really interesting. I was struck by how much the community seemed to blend in with the rest of the population. Whenever Ramlal referred to god he always said “Allah tala” instead of “Bhagwan”. I suppose that has to do with the culture in which he grew up, though maybe he was doing it deliberately. Also, the community does not want to leave Peshawar even though they recognize how dangerous it is. These kinds of videos give me hope for a better, more peaceful future for the entire subcontinent
It’s probably a language thing. Despite being Hindu when rolling my eyes at something I exclaim “Jesus Christ!” instead of “Ayo Rama!” like my parents do.
I would flip it around. I don’t think there can be a negotiated settlement until there is peace.
I simply want to make the point that oversimplyfing the Kashmir conflict as “Pakistan wanting to break up India” is intellectually dishonest. That particular territory has been disputed for 60 years. And if one accepts the whole logic of the partition (that Muslim-majority areas should have been part of a seperate country), then by all accounts it should have gone to Pakistan. There was also the little matter of Gurdaspur going to India so that it could have land access to Kashmir, despite Gurdaspur being a Muslim-majority area.
What I find intellectually dishonest is the selective application of facts. The logic of partition or the discussions centred around Transfer of power is that the future of the princely states should be decided by the prince. And it is Jinnah who was against giving the people of the states rights to choose, thinking that he can somehow sabotage the states of Bhopal/Hyderabad etc.. joining India. Ofcourse, you can blame India for not accepting Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan while accepting Kashmir’s.
Also, Qadiyan is in Gurdaspur district and it is true that Ahmediyas have had a substantial presence in Gurdaspur. Radcliffe may have been prescient to know that Ahmediyas are actually non-Muslims and the 51(or 50.6%) majority from the 1941 census is not enough to treat that district as Muslim majority and would have awarded the district to India. 🙂
Kabir – “I don’t think Kashmir necessarily has to be part of Pakistan. If I were Kashmiri (I am part Kashmiri by ancestry), I would favor independence. “
If it were upto me, I would let those Kashmiris who do not want to remain in India go their own way.
However, contrary to perception in Pakistan, not every Kashmiri is a fan of independence [or Pakistan]: Shia, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist Kashmiris want desperately to remain Indians. Amongst the Sunnis, while a majority prefer independence, and some would like to become Pakistanis, there are many like my wife and her family who feel perfectly at home in India. So now, the fair thing to do would be to cede a proportinate [to the pro-independence and pro-pakistan sunni population] slice of kashmir. Maybe Baramulla and sorrounding area.
Would such an outcome result in the disbanding of terror groups that opearate from within Pakistani administered Kashmir, and the end of animosity between our countries?
p.s. if you live in the new york area, i would be happy to invite you to a kashmiri muslim get together [my wife’s extended family], where you can talk to kashmiris and find out their preferences for your self. as i said, her immidiate family is as indian as bollywood, she has uncles, aunties and cousins who swear by pakistan, and then there are those who, like you, share the romeo and juliet sentiment.
Partition two, genocide boogaloo.
What about “Azad” Kashmir though? Can’t they be independent and free there? It says “azad” right in the name!
64 · Satyajit Wry said
70 · Yoga Fire said
Yoga Fire, thanks for that. It was quite amusing:) Yeah, I agree, it’s probably a language thing.
Manpreet, thanks for the kind offer, but unfortunately I’m not in the NY area (I’m in DC actually). I absolutely realize the complexity of Kashmiri’s preferences, which is why I try to underscore how complex the issue really is. My great-grandfather on my mother’s side lived and died in Srinagar, and my nani fondly looks back on her childhood trips to Dal Lake. It’s just really unfortunate that I can’t go to those areas now because of stupid politics.
Yoga Fire, the little jab at Azad Kashmir is duely noted. Again, it is an issue of each state trying to justify the issue in their own terms. So Pakistan has a stake in claiming that that part of Kashmir is “azad” (it is from the Pakistani perspective), some Indians have a stake in calling that area “Pakistan-occupied”. Then there are those, like me, who prefer to be neutral and diplomatic and call it “Pakistan-administered”.
Ponniyen Selvin, Radcliffe had no way of knowing that Ahmedis were going to be declared “non-Muslim” (which I don’t support by the way, I don’t think it is the state’s business to decide who is muslim or not). And you are right about the future of the princely states being decided by the prince. But, if one follows the logic of partition, then it is problematic for a Muslim majority area to be part of a Hindu-majority country just because the Hindu prince chose to accede to India. And wasn’t the Nawab of Hyderabad forced to join India? Unfortunately, the Brits couldn’t exit the subcontinent without creating these problems for us. Partition wasn’t even done according to their own logic, because political considerations got in the way.
Neither of them had much of a choice. The Maharaja of Kashmir and the Nizam of Hyderabad were both trying to vacillate and delay for as long as possible so that they could maintain their independence. In Kashmir Pakistan sponsored a “tribal” invasion that prompted the Maharaja to accede to India knowing that his continued rule would be impossible and while India would let him step down with honor the rebellion would string him up.
In Hyderabad, meanwhile, the Nizam tried to consolidate his power by having his razakars attempt genocide by raping and pillaging their way through the state so Sardar Patel sent in the army.
Well. Congress has always wanted the people of the princely states to decide their future. It is Jinnah and the Brits who allowed the princes to decide and not the people. And Pakistan has got a fair share of Kashmir already. I think it is time to move on. If a Muslim majority area cannot be part of the Hindu majority country, there are probably many districts in India now that have to either join Pakistan or declare their independence. That’s a non-starter in these times.
Is it inevitable that every discussion of Pakistan by Indians devolve into Kashmirism? YogaFire, Manpreet, any thoughts on Zardari, the Rule of Law, or issues more recent that the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Maharaja of Kashmir?
Amardeep wrote: I asked readers to be respectful of Wajiha; perhaps I should have asked people to be respectful of me.
Yes. I’m afraid you’re getting the brunt of a fair number of sepiareaders (from the left-side of the Radcliffe line) who are sick of what passes for Pak-commentary here on SM. That said, you’re approaching Pakistani politics like an Indian (for example, applying Indian concepts of secularism) when Pakistani politics makes more sense when examined on Pakistani terms.
[Zardafri] and Iftikar Chaudhry are not done fighting out the balance of power … 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?
No Pakistani with any sense of history would think that the executive-judiciary conflict is over. It’s like thinking the election of Obama has settled black-white relations in the US. What’s exciting is that, because of popular pressure, the pliable Pak justice system stood up to the executive. The Pakistani judiciary is the one that gave common-law nations the odious “doctrine of necessity”, and has usually (even under Chaudhury) deferred to the executive / military. So the lawyers movement is a nice show of backbone.
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
Not what you think. The JI has participated in many Pakistani governments, and has had influence over many more. It’s a mainstream religious party, like Shas or NRP in Israel. As in Israel, the broad-based non-religious parties (I’m not saying “secular”, becuase Indians don’t use that word the way Pakistanis do) often govern in coalition with mainstream religious parties — it’s not desireable, but it doesn’t herald the coming of the Khilafat. A recent, and much-praised, mayor of Karachi was JI. The JUI and JUP have also participated in government, at the federal and provincial levels.
Anyway, I hope you’re not put off by the criticism you received — really, its not much compared to what other SM bloggers get.
Ikram – Why shoud I care about the other stuff? When was the last time you and other Pakistani intellectuals condemned the state sanctioned terrorism that Kashmir has been suffering since 1989? Where is the long march on behalf of the Kashmiri Hindus who were ethnically cleansed from Kashmir in 1989, by terrorists who came trained from Pakistan?
BTW, I am of the belief that we get the government/rulers we deserve.
Manpreet wrote: Why shoud I care about the other stuff? When was the last time you and other Pakistani intellectuals condemned the state sanctioned terrorism that Kashmir has been suffering since 1989?
I’m neither Pakistani nor an intellectual, but I’m glad to help. I condemn the state sanctioned terrorism that Kashmir has been suffering since 1989. Now, can you care about the other stuff?
BTW, I am of the belief that bloggers get the commentors they deserve, and Amardeep deserves better.
Manpreet, I have to ask what you are really looking for in this commentary/discussion. There is a way in which all of us can easily get fired up and use this back and forth to get our anger flowing. I can certainly be guilty of that as well.
Plenty of discussions regarding South Asia (or Ireland, or …) have run aground on the “my grievances are bigger than your grievances” line of debate. That isn’t to say that all grievances are created equal. And there are certainly times when one must articulate one’s grievances and history of victimization simply to be heard and acknowledged. (If no one knows what homophobia is, for example, it is difficult to understand the importance of public policy that affirms LGBT equality.)
But I don’t think the fervor of your comments, combined with the “my grievances are bigger than yours” line of argument, does a lot to advance a better understanding and appreciation of the human condition across the South Asian subcontinent.
To be more succinct, it is possible to acknowledge the suffering of Hindus in (Indian) Kashmir, of Kashmiri Muslims under Indian military occupation, and the importance of the Long March(es) in Pakistan. One doesn’t have to preclude the other, and an appreciation of all of the above can take us towards a more compassionate place regarding solutions.
77 · Ponniyin Selvan said
hahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahaha. You are talking about the Indian Congress, right? 🙂
Yeah.. That’s right. I’m talking about Gandhi, Nehru and Patel’s congress. What’s there to laugh about it ?. Nehru /Patel played the bad cop / good cop role to perfection with the princes. they have set up an org. “State people’s congress” in the princely states that had relations with the Indian National Congress.
A ray of hope – some self respecting citizens of Karachi are at it again, see Pakistanis are not that bad.
85 · Neena said
Thank you Neena for posting this.
Kabir,
I am not a hater by temperament.And my posts about Pakistan are not written frivolously. The reason I find myself unable to hold a sensible discussion on the Long March and it’s effects on the Pakistani democracy is the long history of violence experienced by Indians such as myself over several decades of terrorism sponsored by elements in Pakistan. You say that apart from the grievances related to J&K, Pakistan never wanted to break up India. As an ‘army child’, I lived in Punjab and Delhi in the ’80s and early ’90s, and in Assam in the mid ’90s. Can you honestly say that Pakistan didn’t actively aid and abet the Khalistan movement? What about the ISI’s mentoring of the ULFA? I would have been sympathetic towards the common Pakistani citizen if it were just these shadowy, unelected organisations that were following a hidden, personal agenda. But do ordinary citizens of Pakistan not send their children to fight in India? Can we ever forget what happened in Mumbai? Was that related to Kashmir? Who were the perpetrators, where were they recruited from, and why were they so eager to kill people who had nothing to do with their grievances? So, democracy is strengthened in Pakistan after the march. Can I ever forget the newstrack reels that I saw as a child, of Ms Bhutto exhorting jihad in J&K? What about the young men we lost in Kargil? All this while we were talking peace with this so called hero of the Long March. What about the flight 814 Hijacking? Masood Azhar lived a free man in Pakistan, didn’t he?
Here is a list of the terrorist incidents in India in the last 15 years. It is a partial, abridged list. We have probably even stopped keeping score. I know that there is a lot to Pakistan apart from “islam” and “terror” (paraphrasing),and I appreciate the cultural aspects of your society, but when we are under constant threat of violence and bloodshed, it becomes difficult to focus. J&K, I hate to say, is but a sign of a much deeper malaise.
87 · Lupus Solitarius said
It seems people who are more exposed to the realities of Pakistani action (mostly Northern and Western states) are vehemently anti-pakistan. The secluded southern and western states seem to have romantic notions about civil discussions with a regime that does not understand civility. Kudos to your dad, it is people like him who are not fully appreciated.
Sanjeev,
Thank you for your response. The polls were in late 2007, which was barely a year ago–so it’s not exactly ancient history. I am afraid I still don’t agree as it is easy to call everything “reductive” without addressing the facts on the ground yourself.
In sum, my making these points and posting these links is not meant to be impolite. It is only to point out that videos like those about the peshawri hindus really don’t represent the true state of hindus in Pakistan. I do not doubt that there are many well meaning Pakistanis like Wajiha from the elite, or even poorer members of that society who want genuine democracy; however, that does not change the fact that ultimately it is General Kayani and his subordinates who rule the country, and whether it is Zardari today or Sharif tomorrow, real power is still in the hands of the army.
Do we all want peace on the subcontinent? Of course we do. We all had our fingers crossed during Gujral’s “Disproportionate Reciprocity” doctrine, and got the Wandhama massacre. We had our fingers crossed again during the Lahore Declaration and got Kargil, Kaluchak, and the Parliament attack. And of course, we all hoped for the best with the ongoing “Dialogue” and Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism and got Mumbai.
I absolutely appreciate your polite discussion, but my concern is that analyses like this seek to create analogies between the Jamaat and the BJP/Republican parties that simply do not exist and talk about how the Long March is a new Olive Revolution. In doing so, it skews the understanding of the average reader about the real control that military exercises and the extent that extremism has taken root in Pakistani society. Having a polite dialogue with you (which I appreciate) does not mean I have to agree that being an Indian muslim is the same as being a Pakistani hindu, when we both know nothing could be further from the truth.
If Pakistan was truly serious about democracy, it would start by having the 200 feudal families who rule the country initiate a land reform that allows the average pakistani a meaningful share in the economy. If Pakistan was serious about peace it would stop funding and coordinating terror and dismantle the ISI. Until that happens, the sad truth is that the average Indian has to spend his nights worrying about this: Pakistani Federal Minister speaks.
In any event, thank you for the links.
Best Regards,
SW
87 · Lupus Solitarius said
Lupus,
I’m afraid I don’t know enough about these particular issues to comment. What I do know however, is that there are people in Pakistan who believe (I don’t know with what evidence and how much truth there is to this) that the Baloch insurgency is helped along by RAW. So this is all a two-way process. India is not the innocent and Pakistan is not the perpetrator. Obviously, there are elements in both countries who gain by destabilizin
I appreciate your personal experiences growing up have made you think a certain way, and I don’t want to belittle them. However, honestly most people in Pakistan have no interest in breaking up India, they are trying to get on with their lives and raise their families, just like most Indians don’t want to break up Pakistan. Unfortunately, the right wing on both sides has hijacked the discourse.
Also, Mumbai unfortunately did have to do with Kashmir. As many analysts pointed out at the time, LeT and such organizations find it much easier to recruit terrorists when they tell them how India treats Kashmiris. Solving the Kashmir issue is a must for lasting peace in the subcontinent.
Finally, I don’t know what this “your society” is. The culture in Pakistan and India are not that different. I don’t think you could tell an East Punjabi from a West Punjabi by looking at them or talking to them, maybe some different vocabulary and mannerisms, but nothing major. Let’s not create artifical differences where there aren’t any to begin with.
Kabir,
Thank you for your response. I’m afraid we’ll just have to politely agree to disagree about Kashmir.
It is a symptom in the Indo-Pakistani equation because all informed observers know that it’s just a part of the “Bleed India by a Thousand Cuts” strategy that the Pakistani Army embraces. Kashmir, as the LeT states, is only the first step, hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh (south india) and junagadh (in Gujarat) are next. Should India then negotiate a settlement to those too if peace is to be possible? What about about Assam? Then Bengal? Accordingly, the Balochistan insurgency is not tantamount to Kashmir, where the hindu population was ethnically cleansed and hindu/sikh civilians are routinely targetted by the ISI-guided terrorists for massacre. To somehow justify Mumbai with Pakistanis clamoring for Kashmir is also not correct because Lashkar would just proceed down its checklist. Moreover, Pakistani deprives Balochistan of funding and development. India heaps it on Kashmir.
I am sorry but Kashmir is only the symptom and a convenient distraction for the average impoverished Pakistani to secure army rule instead. A Pakistani democracy focused on development rather than jihadism would then actually have to be accountable to its people rather than concerned with imperialist adventures in India. India too has a claim on POK (sorry, I know you requested administered, but informed observers know that pakistani kashmiris are a second-class citizenry and Punjabis have essentially colonized it)), but it’s government does not distract the average Indian with grand adventures to reclaim it. It is accountable to its people so it focuses on development. Pakistan must do the same.
The sad truth is that the Indian Subcontinent, which from the Mauryas to the Mughals was the richest and most cultured region in the world, which perfected both the ghazal and the kirthana, must ultimately face up to the truth if peace can ever be possible: Pakistan cannot talk of peace in the open while plotting war behind closed doors.
Anyhow, it was a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you for your perspective.
Best,
SW
Those elections were highly controversial and took place under military leadership, while Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were banned from country. The elections which too place in 2008 are boycotted by all religious parties and considered fair and free by International observers.
Kashmir is an unsolved issue and still considered as disputer territory by UNO.
Kashmir issue is not about territory or sadly people it is about who controls the water so it is quite different from other territorial issues you mentioned. We in Pakistan do not care about Kashmir anymore but we need water for our existence which India routinely deny and violates. Pakistani people suffer more due Army role in politics.
Sadly whatever happening in Afghanistan matters to us more than India otherwise they were eager to raise voice against it before. Religious extremist are bad but it the drug lords who are running our Northern areas.
Satyajit Wry – you are keep quoting haters; former minster and stupid analyst while ignoring Pakistani President open invitation for peace, and just now Nawaz Sharif too extend his hands towards India. It wouldn’t be nice if someone quote BJP or RSS in the context.
Well, as with so much of what goes in the name of ‘policy’, this could be true; however I doubt the magnitude of this factor alone. India will have its own issues vis-a-vis China, not to speak of internal water sharing issues.
The tone of the linked article seems to suggest this is a deliberate move designed to deprive Pakistan of much needed water. Even if this was the case, how can the good people at The News be sure of this?
Neena on March 24, 2009 01:06 AM · Direct link · “Quoteâ€(?) Satyajit Wry – you are keep quoting haters; former minster and stupid analyst while ignoring Pakistani President open invitation for peace, and just now Nawaz Sharif too extend his hands towards India. It wouldn’t be nice if someone quote BJP or RSS in the context.
Neena, unlike the Pakistani analysts and ministers, the BJP does not call for Pakistan’s conversion to hinduism as the only condition for peace. so sorry, there is no moral equivalence here. as I stated above, every time there are overtures for peace, this is followed by and act of war. I am sorry, but whatever it is that the people of Pakistan may desire, the rulers obviously want war. Sharif spoke of peace in 1999 and Vajpayee got Kargil’ed soon after. Zardari got India’s litterati all excited, then Mumbai got attacked. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Zardari and Sharif say, but what Kayani does. Actions speak louder than words.
Also, I’m afraid your commentary on the watersharing between India and Pakistan isn’t emblematic of the realities there. Here’s an actual academic source on the topic.
Unlike China, which routinely denies India even flooding data on the brahmaputra and is on track to completely redirecting it to India and Bangladesh’s detriment, India has been more than neighborly to Pakistan in this regard, in spite of repeated acts of war on Pakistan’s part. Anyhow, thank you for your perspective.
Oi Ikram, how’s about a blog, eh?
First, a quick comment: My post of the Hindus in Peshawar link wasn’t an implicit argument for anything. Just take it as an interesting human interest story. That’s all it was intended to be.
Regarding… 1: As pointed out above, Musharraf did not let mainstream parties participate in 2003. Voters could basically choose between the U.S.-backed dictator or Islamist parties. 2: I don’t ignore this. In fact, I agree with it — the military/ISI are the dominant forces in Pakistani politics. 3: I am not an expert on Pakistani public schooling, so I can’t comment on this.
My main quarrel with your arguements — the reason I refer to them as “reductionist” — is this basic claim that you make:
This is a strong statement that needs to be defending in light of the current events I pointed out above:
Really, my fundamental argument is this. If it were true that Pakistanis were predisposed to anti-liberal thinking as a result of their education, the anti-liberals would already be in power. The Islamists would already be running the country. They aren’t running the country, and not because of the military’s interference. They keep losing because Pakistanis keep voting against them.
92 · Neena on March 24, 2009 12:00 AM · Direct link · “Quoteâ€(?) Those elections were highly controversial and took place under military leadership, while Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were banned from country. The elections which too place in 2008 are boycotted by all religious parties and considered fair and free by International observers.
Actually that election result was a huge embarrassment for Musharraf as he was actively attempting to portray Pakistan as a moderate nation to the world. The election in NWFP actually undercut him and his PML(Q), so I don’t think it was by military design.
Kashmir is an unsolved issue and still considered as disputer territory by UNO.
that does not mean that calls for a plebiscite or the original 1948 resolution are still valid though. Thanks anyway. Adieu.
Mr. Wry,
One other element that is missing from this discussion is the historic role of the U.S. government in supporting each of Pakistan’s past military dictators. Please note, I am not blaming U.S. policy for bringing Pakistani dictators to power. I am, however, criticizing U.S. foreign policy for supporting dictators — especially when Pakistanis were calling for an independent judiciary and functional democracy.
A couple months ago, I co-authored an opinion piece with Manan Ahmed of Chapati Mystery. I repost it here, because I think the power of the Pakistani military as an institution needs to be considered in light of the massive amount of support it has received from the U.S.
This helps demonstrate that prolonged military dictatorships in Pakistan shouldn’t be merely be thought of as “indigenous” developments, but rather, a product of superpower policies as well.
U.S. policies have weakened Pakistani civilian rule
By Sanjeev Bery and Manan Ahmed
San Jose Mercury News / Posted: 02/17/2009 Depending on whether you like watching your news or reading it, there were two very different reports on Pakistan this Sunday.
On CBS’ 60 Minutes, Pakistani President Asif Zardari proclaimed that his nation is in a fight for its survival, with the Taliban trying to take over the state of Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that Zardari’s government reached a 10-day cease fire with a Taliban-affiliated militia in the northern Swat Valley. The militia agreed to stop fighting, and in return, the government agreed to implement Islamic Sharia law in the area.
How does one reconcile the two accounts?
First, let’s dispense with the hyperbole. Pakistan is not on the verge of being taken over by Taliban militias.
Pakistan’s 2008 elections demonstrate the bias of Pakistani voters for moderate leaders and mainstream Islam. Voters rejected fundamentalist Muslim parties and gave most of their votes to the moderates they knew best. In light of this, it is fairly clear that the idea of the Taliban somehow controlling Pakistan’s 172 million people is absurd.
Still, Taliban-affiliated militias have done a great deal of damage. In addition to terrorist attacks, one Taliban-allied militia took over Pakistan’s northern Swat region. Given that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation with a massive military, it begs the question: How can such a large country find itself unable or unwilling to control the actions of a small, extremist faction?
Many Pakistani civilians are perplexed by these realities. It seems evident that there is an underlying power struggle between Pakistan’s civilian leadership and some factions of its military and intelligence institutions. In talking tough, perhaps President Zardari is attempting to reassert his own perceived authority.
This is yet the latest chapter in a long struggle between civilian and military leaders that has undermined Pakistan as a nation. It is a struggle for which the United States must take some of the blame. While the United States may not be responsible for the rise of Pakistan’s past military dictators, it certainly prolonged their time in power. As a result, Pakistan’s civilian institutions have suffered.
During each of Pakistan’s major periods of military dictatorship, U.S. leaders lent support. In the 1960s, the United States backed Gen. Ayub Khan in our own Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union. When Gen. Zia-ul-Haq ran Pakistan in the 1980s, the United States used Pakistan to funnel military aid to the fundamentalist mujahedeen who were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. And finally, there was Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who received massive U.S. military aid in return for fighting the Taliban, an offshoot of the mujahedeen we once supported.
In all of this, Pakistani society has been the loser. Massive amounts of U.S. military aid have expanded the power of Pakistan’s military at the expense of civilian institutions. For example, the Pakistani economy is currently reeling under 12-hour power blackouts. President Zardari may suffer for this, but it was U.S.-backed dictator Musharraf who deserves the blame for not paying attention to Pakistan’s basic infrastructure needs.
From power blackouts to loss of control in the Swat Valley, average Pakistanis are paying a heavy price for decades of on-and-off U.S.-backed military dictatorship. And the U.S. policy of drone missile attacks will not provide answers. Instead, we should help Pakistanis strengthen their civilian institutions, address the humanitarian crisis in Swat and cease our military-first approach.
Sanjeev Bery, former head of San Jose’s office of the ACLU, recently spent six months in New Delhi, India. Manan Ahmed, Ph.D., is a historian of Pakistan based in Chicago who recently returned from Lahore, Pakistan, and is a member of Action for a Progressive Pakistan. They wrote this article for the Mercury News.
Sanjeev,
While I have greatly appreciate our polite discussion, I’m afraid the facts just don’t align with your statements about who runs Pakistan. And as for the islamisation of the only ruling party that matters, the Pakistani Army, any quick google search will quickly bring you upto speed on the topic. The anti-liberals are already in power. PPP and PML(N) are just a sideshow to smokescreen the rest of the world and fellow pakistanis with a fallacy of democracy. But as you can tell from any quick google search, the army calls the shots.
However strong they may be, my statements are basically defended by every candid pakistan observer. If you wish to continue denying it and referring me to the various “democratic movements” in pakistan, that is your prerogative and I respect that; however, I am befuddled as to why you would seek to gainsay something that Pakistanis themselves admit. In any event, thanks for your perspective.