Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

Re: pavocavalry

Hey dude...you seem to be suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder...put everything in one reply and get done with it...let your brain ejaculate at once

haideri

now the bluff has been called .now the Americans are very clear that they were taken for a ride.the American plan will soon unfold.

The Muslim elites have traditionally used Islam to serve their political ambitions in pursuit of their narrow class and personal agendas and then dumped the masses that put faith in them. In 1857 when the soldiers of the Bengal Army rose against the English East India Company many Muslim feudals used them for their class agenda. In the Punjab and the Frontier the feudals collaborated with the British by helping in army recruitment and raising contingents. The likes of Mirza Sahib of Qadian,Hayats of Wah, Tiwanas from Shahpur (Sargodha did not exist at that time and Shahpur meant present day Sargodha and Khushab),Qizilbashes from Lahore, Khakwanis from Multan; all raised many risalahs (cavalry units) and reaped the reward. If Hayata did well at Delhi as Orderly officer with Brig General Nicholson, Pakistani generals did well against the Al Qaeda. The pattern remained the same.

The Muslim elite re-discovered Islam in 1936 when they were routed by the Congress in most of the provinces of India. Politicians found it politically expedient to wear the Shalwar and Sherwani rather than the suit. The creation of Pakistan removed the threat; the Muslim politicians re-discovered the merit in secularism. Mullahs were shunned and Islam was modernised. For a short while in 1965 Islam was re-discovered and forgotten in the same year. The same happened in 1971. In 1977, Islam was again used to build a makeshift alliance of various political parties to fight against a political rival – Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

The Afghan War of 1979-89 really made Islam big business in Pakistan. A former Inspector General of police who served with the military usurper General Zia states that Zia enacted various Islamic laws to please Saudi Arabia and obtain Saudi financial aid. Similarly, in the Soviet Afghan War Islam was used by the then Pakistani military junta to get money from the US and Saudi Arabia. Many Generals became billionaires thanks to the Soviet Afghan War. After the Soviet withdrawal the USA shunned Pakistan. Lip service to Islam remained in vogue in the Pakistani ruling cliques until 2001 but the US continued to court India and ignore Pakistan. The second best option was to use the ‘Islamic threat’ to solicit US aid as had been done by Ms Benazir Bhutto. That also did not work until 9/11.

9/11 was a godsend for Pakistan's ruling military junta. This time the conditions were different; US aid was not given to fight FOR Islam against the Soviet Union but to fight AGAINST Islam or a kind of Islam. Pakistan's military junta, the good salesman that it was, happily accepted the US condition. A theme was floated in the National Defence College at Islamabad in 2002 that after the fall of the Soviet Union ‘Ideology’ was no longer in vogue. It was asserted that wars would not be fought for an ‘ideology’ any more. It was clear even at that time that America’s ‘war on terror’ was a war on Islam as a ‘political ideology’ not Islam as a faith, but the military brass of Pakistan thought it prudent to declare ‘ideology’ to have been consigned to the dustbin of history because that is how ‘big bucks’ could be got. The adopted the US language for demonisation of resistance. The terms Taliban and Al-Qaida were coined for ease of reference in the US sponsored art of ‘demonology’. Resistance – that had been ennobled as Jihad when it was against the Soviet Union – was reviled as ‘terrorism’ when it was against the so called ‘benign’ but equally deadly occupation by the US.

Pakistan's military junta embarked on a change of posture. Motivated by self interest – to perpetuate himself in power – and helped by a little arm twisting, General Musharraf walked the tight rope with some success until 2007. Until now there was a subtle division between Al Qaeda and Taliban. The military junta was giving the message that it was no longer friends with Al Qaeda or it was never a friend of Al Qaeda but the Taliban were not really bad guys. The truth was different. Musharraf deployed the military against the indomitable tribal people of Waziristan in 2003. By 2005, the military saw the light of the day after it got a bloody nose in 2005. The new approach was a good face saving option, albeit a temporary one.

The Lal Masjid affair ended the tight rope walking and the zig zag course that the military junta had adopted. It was forced to make it clear whose side it was. Naturally it was with the real paymaster, which has been the client of the Pakistani military since 1954. In the end, economic factors were decisive and the Pakistani military opted for a ‘course change’. It was also expedient to assault the Lal Masjid as it diverted attention from the ongoing judicial crisis in Pakistan. It was also a good way to show that Pakistani military junta was just as strong as the Algerian or Egyptian military junta; and that it was a good and dependable, even though a subsidiary tactical player, in the ongoing ‘war on terror’.

The Lal Masjid assault ended the deception practised for a long time; the Islamists had to be confronted. The USA subtly, slowly but forcefully, forced the Pakistani military into a Catch 22 situation. All paths lead to a civil war in Pakistan. That is the dilemma. A country may survive foreign onslaught but a civil war is deadly. Civil war has been seen by many US thinkers as the key option to really neutralise Pakistan. They have taken a leaf from the book of D.P Dhar - the architect of the strategy for the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971 - by pushing Pakistan into a civil war. Now ‘our friends’ are embarked on the 1971 strategy Mark 2.

Military action is always counterproductive in dealing with a disenchanted populace. The present course on which General Musharraf is embarked is suicidal. Bugti was a tribal leader. Nawaz Sharif was cowed down and Benazir can be bought. But Islam is an ideology and cannot be crushed like Bugti or Nawaz Sharif were. The Pakistani elites must ask themselves what they are doing. Algeria and Egypt are not success stories. US Dollars are not the end of life. Consumerism and materialism have a limit. This is the time for re-thinking. A change of posture is needed and this can only be brought by a man of substance at the highest pinnacles of power. Waziristan or Bajaur are not Lal Masjid. Pakistan's military junta must understand that if the Internal Front is cracked, Pakistan will be destroyed. Lal Masid was a hairline fracture; we are now looking at a chasm. Vanity, false pride and arrogance – the hallmark s of Musharraf - will bring grief in the end. The USA is in this region to destroy Islam. If it is only the ‘ignorant’ tribes – the Waziris and Mehsuds – who can see that, it is really disgraceful. This is an insult to the intelligence of Pakistanis. This is time to fear the worst.

the best thing was said about partition by HAFEEZ JULLUNDHRI:--

QAAAFLAY LUT GAYYAY , BARBAD HO GAYE TO KIA HUA !

MUTMAIN HAI QAFLA SAALLAAAR APNAY KAAAM SAY

the muslim feudal and middle classes did hop step and jump from india to new york using religion.when pakistan was created as azad says muslims were divided.

since the muslim feudals and middle class saw no chance in a united post british india they used religion to manipulate the muslim masses.but when the country was created they said , Oh we are secular ! Again they used the poor mans son in afghanistan and kashmir but when bush came with a heavy hand they said oh we are liberal muslims .we are enlightened muslims.the bengalis saw this punjabi-hindustani muslim game and wisely seceeded.now the baloch,the sindhis and even the pashtuns know that this was a grand bluff.I think if this deception was to happen India should have stayed united.

I think this was one of the best articles I have read in chowk which points towards an important policy which has been present in many regimes. I think it does not stop with Bhutto or Zia but has continued to this date. An important fact is that Islam despite usage as policy tool to further agendas or to insulate the government from any kind of public protest had never actually developed as a potent electable force in Pakistan. So while Governments like PPP in the past may have been using it for fending off criticism, the religon alone had never been enough to win elections.
Thus despite a low populist appeal, religon nevertheless has been used effectively to justify actions or make things like socialism acceptable.
However, surpringly Islam started to become a force both in terms of militancy as well as mass appeal when actually steps were taken to reduce its role. Musharraf regime is an ideal example which has actually increased religon's popular appeal by trying to subdue it. Religous fervour has that reactionary element in it. You take it on by force, it will react by becoming stronger.
Personally I am a strong believer that religon should be seperate from state, but that seperation has to be done thoughtfully and with care otherwise results can actually be severly counterproductive.

I think this was one of the best articles I have read in chowk which points towards an important policy which has been present in many regimes. I think it does not stop with Bhutto or Zia but has continued to this date. An important fact is that Islam despite usage as policy tool to further agendas or to insulate the government from any kind of public protest had never actually developed as a potent electable force in Pakistan. So while Governments like PPP in the past may have been using it for fending off criticism, the religon alone had never been enough to win elections.
Thus despite a low populist appeal, religon nevertheless has been used effectively to justify actions or make things like socialism acceptable.
However, surpringly Islam started to become a force both in terms of militancy as well as mass appeal when actually steps were taken to reduce its role. Musharraf regime is an ideal example which has actually increased religon's popular appeal by trying to subdue it. Religous fervour has that reactionary element in it. You take it on by force, it will react by becoming stronger.
Personally I am a strong believer that religon should be seperate from state, but that seperation has to be done thoughtfully and with care otherwise results can actually be severly counterproductive.

all muslim leaders used islam starting from 1921 and when the common man's turn came they told him we are liberals.we are secular.just to gain an unfair advantage and to make sure that the hindus and sikhhs were no longer in the competition.what is happening in pakistan is a natural result of manipulation of islam by muslim league.the bengalis saw this game and wisely seceeded.

Re: # 270 Zeemax has a point whatever his style.

i am very glad that revulsion with the fighters tactics has proved the fact that the muslim middle and higher classes used religion to fool the common man.the kamikazes failed because the japanese had a fixed centre of gravity which the accursed americans could bomb.in this case suicide bombings have succeeded because americans have no fixed targets to bomb out and make them surrender.you have to be in baghdad and kandahar to understand how much the americans fear the suicide guys.i war any tactic is ok.whethether it is afzal khan being killed by deception by sivaji or anything else.i have lived in the west for many years.i am very clear how much they hate us.

#269 zeemax: for a second you had me worried. i wont interfere in your interactions with anil beyond saying that while i often dont agree with him, i have found him quite dignified in his bearing on chowk.

Wish you all the best for 2008.

#268 Posted by tahmed32,

tahmed32 bhai I wasn't addressing you. I was addressinga anil and the other lowly hindoos like arjun cockroaches and the rest.

My question was, why're you so scared of the 'suicide bomber'? Is it because you cannot have any sort of defense against that guy?

#267 zeemax: if you are addressing me, i would request that you mind your langauage.

does #266 read like i am saying suicide bombing is something to be scared of? I am saying the opposite - it is an ineffective tactic that achieves nothing more than kill the individual who is fooled into becoming a suicide bomber and those unfortunate enough to be around him. the al qaeda morons thought that the US was skyscrapers - and to bring it down all they had to do was bring the highest skyscrapers down. What makes US a great nation is ideas and knowledge and institutions. Things the taliban and al qaeda types are as clueless about as a jackass is clueless about algebra.

Why are you all kanjars so scared of the 'suicide bomber'?

pavocavalry #260 you say suicide bombing is a tactic and are not interested in whether it is good or bad.

as a tactic - suicide bombing is ineffective. kamikaze suicide bombings were ineffective in preventing the defeat of japan. it was also the creation of a cowardly regime - the emperor hirohito and his Tokya mafia quickly surrendered when their own necks were on the line after Hirsoshima/Nagasaki.

and your refusal to consider the goals of the taliban that i presented below demonstrates the reckless adventurism (regardless of ends) that too many pakistani military officers engage in.

in the 1990's, i remember having a heated argument with a couple of military relations of mine in Islamabad on the question of "proxy war" in Kashmir - "What are you hoping to achieve with this?", I asked. "We have tied down 700 thousand Indian troops with a bunch of paramilitaries", was the answer. "And what does that buy you?", I asked. I forget his answer because the discussion got too heated, and our respective spouses told us to forget politics and start working on the pizza that had just been delivered. As the lady vice-chancellor of a university once asked my late father (also military officer) half-jokingly: "Please tell me does a man have to be stupid to become a fauji, or does he become stupid after entering the fauj".

(No personal offense intended, btw. I love your writings on the Chawinda battle - but believe you need to realize that life is more complex than what you get trained to do on the parade ground).