Defend the Country, not its Government

Re: Subcontinental #116

Clearly there is lying and there is lying. Suppose the CIA was mounting an assasination attempt on Saddam Hussein and the somehow the press got wind of it and asked Clinton at a press conference about it. Should he say, ``Yes, the assasin will strike in, oh, about 30 minutes.`` Or should he wag his index finger, which he does quite well, and say, ``We are not going to assasinate anybody. Its against US law for the CIA to do so.``

Or if my (hypothetical) daughter, age 3, asks me, ``Tell me Father, is there a Santa Claus?`` I should tell her that its all a myth perpetuated by the commercial interests in the US?

Eisenhower, at the time of the U2 incident, was reluctantly to go on US television and deny everything because he felt that the President should not lie to the American people (how standards have fallen since then!). His aides told him that not denying it was confirming it, but he still refused. The issue was made moot when the Soviets produced Gary Powers, the pilot of the downed spy plane. However, I cannot think of anyone who would criticize Eisenhower for denying that the US was sending spy planes over the USSR--it was in the US national interest to NOT officially acknowledge that they had the capability and the intent.

Of course the line is blurred when it comes to where the national interest ends and the the ruling party`s interest begins but most of us can tell the difference. Just as we can tell the difference between a little white lie (No dear, you don`t look too fat in that) and a big one (No, I did not take a bribe).


Regards.

Subcontinental #109 I appreciate the constructive manner in which you accepted my earlier criticism of your article and subsequent post. This is the basis of a true dialogue.

You make an important point when you indicate that a forum like the chowk can be an effective means for dialogue between Pakistani and Indian citizens, and particularly important given the closed borders and general air of hostility betwen India and Pakistan.

As you say, the internet (and in case of this group, the chowk) is indeed a powerful force for bringing ideas and people together in ways that was not possible before. Whether we use it to score some kind of points or as a means to build up understanding, is totally up to us as individuals.

Thanks again for a mature and thoughtful response.

Fuzair (#116)

Thanks for sharpening the focus. You are right. Interest groups vie to take over the government because control over the organs of the state confers a great advantage (Re your post #118). It does happen sometimes though that the controlling group operates behind the façade of a puppet government as has happened in Pakistan a number of times.

The question is that if one subscribes to this model, why would one ever assume that the government would act in the national interest. It would act in its own interest which may or may not be congruent with the national interest. This determination would need to be made in every case and therefore government actions should not be supported on blind faith.

Now, how many past actions of the various governments of Pakistan have been in the national interest? And, what do you think is the national interest of Pakistan vis a vis Kashmir?

Your comment that you would want your government to lie if it were in the national interest opens an interesting line of argument. Would you, as the head of household, lie in order to further the interest of your household? Would you instruct your offspring to act in the same manner? Clearly there is a question of morality here. If we concede that orchestrating the 1953 coup in Iran furthered the US national interest should Americans applaud it? And was breaking treaties with native Americans, which presumably furthered the interests of the majority, an act to be lauded? This line of thinking could very easily justify all forms of ethnic cleansing. Is the Indian government right in claiming that crushing Kashmir is in the national interest because otherwise the country would be in danger of fragmentation?

Narain (#114)

Your comment that “if people are not well-informed, it is usually because they do not want to become better informed” overstates the case. Granted that TV and Internet are being blasted into our homes 24/7. Let us ignore the aspects of poverty and literacy in South Asia. It still remains that this influx of information has to be interpreted through the filter of our world views. Consider a child growing up in the subcontinent. His/her worldview is formed largely through what is taught in the schools and madrassas (hence the state monopoly over curricula and textbooks). By the time this child grows up to make sense of the TV and Internet, all the information could well seem nothing more than western/enemy propaganda. Did you read in the NY Times (Oct 16, 2000) the comments of the participants in the RSS camp at Agra?

Follow the logic here. You state that Indians are quite well-informed about Kashmir. But they also want their government to lie to them about Kashmir because that would make them sleep better at night. How can the lie give them comfort if they already know the truth?

Do you want to be lied to? If not, why imply this for the rest of the population?

RE: Friend#120

Sure hypothetically speaking you are right. Point#7 & 0 have a potential to lead the argument in that direction.

But, what if Country B utilizes this period of lull to quadruple its efforts to crush People C at an unprecedented level-whereas Country A is kept engaged in ``talks``. Hypothetically speaking off course.

Urstruly #115

``Your point 0 is same as point 7 in post # 103, whereas in post # 104 I specifically requested not to use this argument-see how we are going in circles. ``

Why buddy? Did point 0 not happen? Was discussion not a better way to handle party C`s case? And you yourself concede that while country A is talking of ``talks`` it may also be doing something behind the scenes due to its ``moral delimma over fate of party C``.

Great logic. Keep working. Noble committee has agreed for a prize for you.

My visit to this forum has been over due ... partly because I was too disgusted by what this character was trying to imply.

I want to caution Pakistani intellectuals and pseudo Intellectuals .... in Ayaaz Amir`s words

``while giving vent to its angst - a pastime at which it excels - the Pakistani political class, and its drawing room followers, do not draw a sharp enough line between the country and the jokers whom a playful Providence places over its destinies. In lambasting Pakistan`s rulers and

calling attention to their follies, which is the correct thing to do, unwitting strength is lent to the sentiment that, somehow,the country itself is a doomed enterprise: fated to suffer a succession of eclipses until, consumed by its own fire, it goesoff into the great void like a collapsing star.`` (Dawn)

Remember there is only a thin line between intellectualism and defeatism!

Yasser Hamdani

Re: The Nazi Party

I thought Hitler had a plurality of the votes in the 1933 elections? He got the Reichstag to pass, if I remember correctly, enabling legislation that allowed him to rule by decree for a time. Once in power, he changed the rules to ensure his stay in power. There was one more election in Germany after 1933 (don`t remember the exact year) that the Nazis `ensured` gave the correct results. And the rest is history.

Re: Baloch1

Seven taxes on agriculture, eh? Would you mind telling me what are the effective marginal and average tax rates on agricultural income in Pakistan? Its pretty much meaningless to keep harping on the fact that there are SEVEN taxes on agricultural income.

I am entering this discussion late in the game and I haven`t had a chance to read all the posts so I may be making a point that has already been made. If so, I apologize for wasting time and space.

It is of no consequence to me, as a Pakistani, if the Pakistani government swore itself blue in the face that the Martians were in Kargil. I expect the government to shade, color, bend, distort, and paint blue, the truth if doing so furthers the national interest. (Note: I distinguish between national interest and the interest of the ruling party.) Indeed, if the government did not do so, I would be very disturbed about what kind of naive idiots I had running my government.

What would really scare me is if the Pakistani PM did not know what the Pakistani Army was doing in Kargil. Now that is another matter entirely. In that case, the Indian ``Rogue Army in Kashmir`` claptrap might have some validity to it and I would be all in favor of a purge of GHQ and Corp Commanders.

I agree with the author`s contention that ``national interest`` is not synonymous with ``government interest`` is not synonymous with ``party interest.`` I agree that a credible case can be made that Kargil was not in the national interest. However, the author has not made that case.

I am not entirely sure that I am comfortable with the idea of the ``government as just another interest group.`` This presumes that the government is not THE most completely dominant actor in the economy. One could argue that this holds true for Pakistan and some other Third World ``soft states`` but not for governments in general. In political theory, control of government is what interest groups fight about. Government is not just another actor a la the labor unions or some political party. I suppose the author could be referring to the party-in-power when he talks about the ``government,`` but then that is being sloppy here.

RE: Friend # 111

Your point 0 is same as point 7 in post # 103, whereas in post # 104 I specifically requested not to use this argument-see how we are going in circles.

This is my basic disagreement with the authoress that the blame game that she wants us to play follows a circular logic and hence it is counter-productive.

Re: Suncontinental #109

Your arguments about unrepresentative governments and controlled information/propoganda are all sound, though I doubt their validity on the following grounds:

First of all in today`s world, where satellite TV and the internet are being blasted into our homes 24/7, it is hard to believe that the government can wholly, or even very substantially control the flow of information to its citizens. I beleive that if people are not well-informed, it is usually because they do not want to become better informed. You cite the examples of Cambodia and Vietnam. But even at those times when people demanded information, despite the government`s best efforts, information was made available to them. In India during Kargil, more people relied on the BBC and other independent news reports than on Doordarshan. The media exposed many of the inadequacies and weaknesses which had got India into this situation relentlessly. The process is still continuing today. ndians feel relatively well-informed about the whole incident.

I feel that in most cases today, a government CAN lie only because its people implicitly allow it to do so, and therefore the blame lies squarely with them. But its worse. Most governments today lie because their people WANT them to. They want them to tell them sweet lies which they can believe in. Why does the Indian media and government often lie about Kashmir?...because it helps Indians sleep better at night. Why did the Pakistani government lie about Kargil? Most Pakistanis already knew the truth (though they may not admit it). It lied because that way the people could both savor a military victory and continue to believe that the people of Kashmir were on their side and could easily take on India.

-narain

Shankar re:105

Er.. didn`t the National Socialists WIN the elections in Germany?

In response to ali1 (Reply #: 108)

Dear Ali1:

Your statement: ``If Pakistan disarms unilaterally, don’t you think it will lead to more Bangladeshes and Siachins?``

Comment: Is this a good reply of what I wrote. Let me repeat. I said: ``The sacred cow of our armed forces has an insatiable desire to eat our meager national resources.`` Where did I identify the strategy to reduce the so-called defence. As far as Bangladesh and Siachin are concerned, they were/are a product of a policy of militarism. A policy of peace will bring much better results for all of us, of course in the long run. This is lesson that the militarist need to add in their reading list. Nonetheless, our reading and interpretation of history is different too.

Your statement: ``PS: Wasn`t this the pet peeve of Pakistani communists during the Afghan war?``

Comment: Don`t you still realize that the Communist were right. They gave a good advise to Pakistan and Pakistanis. Haven`t we learned yet? As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it was already a dying horse before the Afghan/American initiative started. Lest we forget, in our cold/hot war with India, the US has never really supported us.

Your statement: ``Such ``fine`` rhetoric from you is rare and a bit surprising.``

Comment: I am surprised too. So, please disregard my rhetoric and focus upon the gist of my statement.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Aren`t you the one who has invited a teetotaler (i.e. me) to drink. If yes, long time no see.

Urstruly #103

Add point 0, -1, -2 .. to your analysis

0. Country A invites country B to settle the dispute amicably. Both government agree to work together. Meanwhile ...

1. Country A’s armed forces enter a disputed territory.

:

:

7. Country A repeatedly requests Country B to settle the disputed issue amicably through bilateral talks and Country B refuses to talk-...

8. Country B now knows that it is first 1/3rd of ``Urstruly`s theory of war`` and refuses to agree.

You have a real great theory. I will propose your name for next noble prize. (They will create a special category for you)

Have fun.

shankar # 105

{``Please tell me I`m being unnecessarily alarmist!``}

Yes and no. What you/CBS have presented is a highly unlikely scenario in my opinion. What scares me more is the thought that a majority of Pakistani people will choose/elect/support the extremists to power if the current economic problems are not fixed quickly enough.

{``Just like the Nazis couldnt win in an election, but still landed up controlling the country & the army``}

Another interesting example is India where people have willingly elected the extremists. They are probably attracted to the extremists` promise to rectify the perceived historical injustices and get even with christians and muslims.

I hope India/BJP meet the same fate as Germany/Nazis.

sincerely

A chastened author responds:

I have been admonished, rightly so, by tahmed321 (# 65) for not identifying and responding to key issues in the messages received in response to my article. By way of apology, here is an attempt to make amends.

Three threads stand out related, respectively, to content, presentation and intent. Let me address each of these, in turn.

PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENTS

A number of posts (# 1 and # 5, for example) take the normative position that a government should represent the people and when it lies the blame rests on the people (who become party to the lie) for not holding the government accountable. If the people are not well-informed, the fault is not of the government (“the government’s view is ours too”). And our silence suggests that we are willing to be exploited.

This is fine as a normative position but does not reflect the reality on the ground. Leaving aside the existence of unrepresentative governments, an important element is that governments also control the information required for citizens to become well informed. To take two examples in the news these days, the HRC Report is yet to be released in Pakistan and the Indian Government has restricted the entry of foreign news media in Kashmir. Even worse, many governments control the writing of history through a monopoly over curricula and textbooks. This issue has been discussed a number of times on Chowk. Thus entire generations can be raised on a false understanding of history.

Even representative governments try and hide facts from their citizens. The US Government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and bombed Cambodia in secret. The point is that it is a conscious and continuous struggle to seek the truth as the fight over extending the Freedom of Information Act shows. And courageous individuals play their part like Dr. Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers.

THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS

A number of posts (in particular tahmed321 # 6 and # 65) have taken the author to task for being biased in that the examples of governmental lying referred only to Pakistan. Others have asked for an equal exposure of political governments as of the army.

This did catch me by surprise. The article was triggered by an item (Kin of Kargil martyrs get land) that caught my attention in scrolling the days newspapers and one I thought to be particularly inconsistent with the government’s stated position. I used the example to raise the general issue in which I was interested, i.e., “What are the responsibilities of citizen’s when governments lie to them?” I also immediately qualified this by stating that “Of course, this does not apply to Pakistan alone.” And referring to Vietnam, I mentioned that such things happen in the West too. I also mentioned in the article that the present military government in Pakistan had itself confirmed that the previous elected government had lied to the IMF about the country’s finances.

Clearly, this was not enough and readers sensed an implied support of the Indian government (I did point in post # 52 to Pankaj Mishra’s article on Kashmir in the New York Review of Books – I would again urge readers to take a look at it). My own feeling is that examples are useful in that they lend concreteness to a general argument but an attempt to try and match every example with a similar one from other countries or religions or ethnic groups is not necessary. However, I am willing to think more about this issue in the context of the sensitivities involved.

THE ISSUE OF INTENT

Many posts were more interested in exposing the intent and hidden agenda of the author than in the argument of the article itself. Some unmasked the author, some hurled abuse from the sidelines, and some prepared a counter-strategy to frustrate the nefarious designs. I don’t mind the abuse but would be happier if readers were to tell me why and where I am wrong in my argument.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion that I walked away with is that we are under-utilizing the potential of the forum provided by Chowk. Let us not turn it into a debating forum where the primary intent is to score points and appear clever. There are no prizes being awarded here and we can score points till kingdom come without going anywhere. In an environment where our governments do not allow us to meet and talk freely, Chowk provides a wonderful opportunity to discuss, diasgree and discuss some more till we begin to understand our disagreements. Vehemently reiterating strongly held opinions is not going to do any one much good.

I believe in choices. In an earlier post (# 52), I mentioned that we can choose to look at particular situations through “us versus them” or “right versus wrong” glasses. We have another choice: we can try and make a point or we can try and make a difference. The choice is ours to make.