Another Visit to Pakistan

Stuka #11: You have made some interesting points, as usual.

However, I have to disagree.

I am no fan of MMA. The only time I would support them is if they were competing with feudals. Due to this, the party I support, PTI, now votes for MMA candidates, as opposed to PPP or PML candidates. I would support PTI type parties. I would also support (originally) leftists parties, like PPP, if they weren`t dominated by feudals. In my opinion, a non-feudal PPP = PTI, and that is what most Pakistanis want in their politics.

However, when supporting or opposing parties, one has to understand where they stand, and what they are doing. MMA parties are not similar to BJP. SSP (Sipah-e-Sahaba) is equivalent to BJP. MMA does not, as far as I know, support or order the killings, or organize the killings of people of other majorities. Can you point me to something on their website, or statements by their leaders, where they have done so?

``The only reason MMA is not killing is coz there is no sizeable minority left to kill.``

Actually there are around 3 to 4 million religious minorities in Pakistan, so there are, ``enough to kill,`` to put it in your terms. Infact, it is easier to kill them in Pakistan, than in India, since in India they can put up a resistance both politically and physically due to much larger numbers. However, I have never seen mob killings of religious minorities in Pakistan, in my whole life. Which would mean the MMA types have never encouraged it. Nor has anyone else.

``MMA is the political arm of the radical right, including Sipah e Sahaba.``

MMA is not the political wing of SSP. Infact, MMA has Shia party as its member. And parties like Jamaat are multi-sect parties, to begin with. The killings of Shias in Pakistan was being done by the militant wing of SSP. And the counter killings of Sunnis was being done by similar wing of TNF Jafferia. These parties are banned in Pakistan and their members of their militant outfits are considered terrorists. The political head of SSP was put in jail by the current govt. He won an election in jail and had to be released by the Courts, since there was no proof against him. He is the only equivalent of BJP leader in the Pakistan assembly, and his party could be considered the political wing of a terrorist organization that targets Shias (not Hindus, but people of the same faith as Sunnis).

Interestingly, as the US has been helping Pakistan in anti-terrorism efforts, a greate number of the sectarian terrorists have been caught. If you notice all the killings of Shias have stopped now (specially those of the Shia doctors). Its because the people killing them (it turns out there were only a handful) are in jail. SSP or TNFJ are not members of MMA.

The only killings going on now are those of Christians. Christians, traditionally, have never been killed in Pakistan. They had discriminatory laws against them, like Blasphemy law, but they were not killed in terrorism. The current killings are related to Al-Qaeda (which originated outside Pakistan and is dominated by Arabs, not Pakistanis), and its sister branches, not to the MMA. And Al-Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by the Pakistan govt. Infact, the MMA has opposed both Al-Qaeda and USA policies (which is what many, if not most, Pakistani liberals are also starting to do now - read Hoodbhoy`s article).

This is the deciding difference between BJP and other religious parties, like MMA. BJP, as a policy, on their website www.bjp.org sidelines Muslims and through direct actions of their leaders has killed Muslims. MMA does not.

Also, BJP is running the govt., while SSP only has one representative MNA, and even he had to be taken out of jail. BJP is non-secular to the extreme, but says it is secular. MMA openly says it is not secular and it isn`t.

The main problem with Pakistani religious parties, actually isn`t violence. Feudal violence is far worse than MMA violence. For example, I have never heard of MMA ordering a gang-rape of women, but feudals have done so. I have never heard MMA ordering honor killings, while feudals do so. I have never heard MMA supporting child marraiges, while feudal leaders do so. MMA leaders do not have haris and slaves, while feudal leaders have many of them. MMA parties, barring one or two, aren`t heridatory. Feudal parties like PPP are. MMA leaders have no financial corruption cases against them (except a few), while PPP and PML leaders are swimming in them. etc. etc.

This would sound like the MMA parties being the answer to all problems in Pakistan. However, they are not. They are a problem (smaller problem than feudals, but a big problem still the same). Why? Because they are extraordinarily conservative (interestingly BJP is not conservative, though violent), and they have very strict defintions of how Islam should be praticed, i.e they are too self-righteous and are living in the 10th century.

While they won`t gang-rape women and will educate them (unlike the feudals who rape women and have the lowest women literacy rates in their own constituences while their own daughters are supermodels and Harvard trained lawyers), they will greatly reduce the women`s ability to function in a society as equals to men, etc. They will not kill minorities like BJP, but they will ask for separate elecotrates and out-of-date concepts like Jazia etc. And they will force everyone to follow their interpretation of Islam.

This, in essence is the tragedy of Pakistani politics. The liberal and leftist and secular agenda has been hijacked by internally non-democratic corrupt feudals, who practice liberal (though financially corrupt) policies in cities, but inhumane policies in their own lands. And the conservative agenda has been taken over by the relatively financially honest and internally democratic religious parties, who are less inhumane than the feudals in rural areas, but whose urban policies are too self-righteous and centuries out of date.

People need to stop supporting the PPP/PML as a counter to the MMA, and the MMA as the counter to PPP/PML. Both are bad for Pakistan. I think both these groups need to be sidelined - the feudals being the bigger problem. People need to start supporting third alternatives.

I hope someday the liberal agenda of Pakistan is dominated by pure non-feudal leftist parties of the type the author is mentioning with a secular and socialist agenda, and the conservative agenda is dominated by parties like the PTI, which has a very moderately relgious and progressive agenda for Pakistan.

I hope the above explains the differences between BJP and MMA. A BJP that did not kill Muslims, as a part of its agenda or hidden policy would be equivalent to MMA. You can go to www.bjp.org and mma.org.pk for more info.

Now here is something interesting:

``LAHORE–Describing declining public trust as the foremost leadership problem a survey by World Economic Forum just before world leaders meet in Davos reveals that army is the most trusted institution in Pakistan, India and the US while democracy is the least trusted institution in many regions.
The World Economic Forum’s 33rd Annual Meeting will be held in Davos on January 23 -28 under the theme “Building Trust”. The Meeting, which has convened in Davos, Switzerland, since 1971 will be attended by 2000 delegates from 99 countries.
The most troubling finding according to the survey is that the principal democratic institution in each country (i.e., parliament, congress, etc.) is the least trusted of the 17 institutions tested. `` (http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/170103/main/top5.htm)

I was aware of the military being the most respected institution in the USA. Surveys have proven that year after year. I wasn`t sure where it stood vis-a-vis civilian institutions in India.

Pakistani surveys by magazines like Herald, etc. generally show that the military is the most respected institution in Pakistan. This would probably shockmany of the Chowk readers, whose expertise of the military doesn`t go beyond Zia-ul-Haq. They should still take the trouble to read surveys.

I personally felt this as well, when I was in the military. The Pakistan sepoy and junior officers are highly respected amongst common Pakistani folks (apparently not amongst ex-patriates). Even journalists and politicians always speak highly of the sepoy, while criticising the Generals. While expatriate green card holders are highly respected amongst rich Pakistanis, normal Pakistanis don`t care one way or the other about the wealthy expatriate Green card holders.

It would be interesting to get the details of this survey. It was done by an international agency. Hopefully, this will lay to rest the arguments a lot of people unfamiliar with the military keep making, i.e. everyone in Pakistan hates the military. A lot of people hate the Generals, but as seen, and as I have been saying, it is a different story when it comes to the jawans and the Captaans.

# #17 by Romair on January 16, 2003 11:50am PT

I think that you have rightly identified that the feudal structure of pakistan is the largest impedement towards progress.

Dismantling of this was done in all countries and even by India where it survives in some states. These states compare with pakistan in the sociteal decay that exists in them.

If pakistanis could wake up to this reality then pakistan will be able to really change its destiny.

However Islam has no positon on fedualism. Ie how to treat the wealth/land cornered by a few into their hands.

However I read yesterday news in which a pakistani court has banned the Heriditory Lumbardari system. Perhaps this is the first step.

#18 by Romair on January 16, 2003 3:42pm PT

While what you are saying is right what you are leading upto is wrong.

Army is the right instituion in which the public trusts to guard the countries borders.

As a institution to run the country its results are seen in pakistan and many places of the world.

I think that as a ex military person you should be able to make the difference.

The poliitcal instituions by the nature are mulitfacated and involve dealing with varied issues which are of intrest of manyconflicting sections of socitey thus are prone to failure or at least appear as capable of being courroupted at least by the party spurned.

The army has a uni-functional role ie the integirty of the nation. It is usually provided the funds as well as the assets and independence on priority basis to fulfil its function.

If it not surprising that it is largely able to fulfil its limited role and thus worthy of trust (ie to fulfill its assigned task).

Dont confuse this as a trust to take charge of the countrys other instituions and run the complex task of selfgovernence of people.

ali87 #19/20: You have made good points.

I am not suggesting the Army should be allowed into politics. That should only be the very very last resort. And even then, it should be quick and it should get out. For example, when the Gujrat riots were going on, if an Indian Army General had disobyed orders from politicians, and protected the public, he would be subject to court martial. But I would support such actions. Similarly I think Musharraf should have been in and out in three years. I supported him for three years. I think he should have left after three years.

What I am highlighting is that many on Chowk seem to falsely propogate the idea that the average Pakistani (none of whom has Internet connections, so is not seen on Chowk) hates the Army. This is far from true, as shown in survey after survey, where Army comes out on top.

I always received far more respect amongst the taxi drivers, paan wallas, juice wallas etc. as a poor Captain, then I do now as a relatively well-off expatriate. A Pushto speaking Captain in NWFP, a Baluchi speaking local Major in Baluchistan could be the highest respected people in the province. I remember having financial tabs and credit lines just on my words in small restaurants twenty miles away from where I was stationed. Everyone trusted a Captain. I cannot do that anymore when I go to Pakistan now.

Secondly, the Captain and sepoy are very middle class while Chowk brigade is all upper-middle to upper class. The taxi driver`s son has far more chance of becoming a Captain than of joining the Chowk expatriate crowd. So it seems odd when the Chowk rich crowd holds the middle class and lower-middle class soldier as the cause of Pakistan`s financial problems. Usually, in most countries, it is the upper class (Chowk crowd) that causes financial problem, since they are the only ones living well, and thus have an interest in the status quo continuing. The only Army folk in the upper class are the 170 Generals, who are generally correctly disliked for the right reasons. And most of them want to keep the status quo going also.

ali87 # 20, romair # 17

Nice try blaming the feudals !!!

The only sector feudals control in Pakistan is agriculture. Pakistani agricultural sector has done okay. It has not been a disater like Somalia, Ethiopia etc.

feudals do not control banking, education, industry. The poor performance in the these sectors cannot be blamed on feudalism.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref Field Marshal #22

[For example, when the Gujrat riots were going on, if an Indian Army General had disobyed orders from politicians, and protected the public, he would be subject to court martial. But I would support such actions.]

Were there any riots or threat to public order in October 1999 when Gen. Musharraf did not accept his lawful dismissal from the post of COAS?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: romair
``...the military is the most respected institution in Pakistan...``
Respected or FEARED? Beat constables in India also obtain free service from paanwallahs and cigarette vendors. That does not mean that they are respected, but they are feared. In the subcontinent, fear is often disguised as feigned respect.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The author Responds

To Amjad, # 1: I am not sure if Pakistanis in general are ``more united in their dislike of India`` (Some middle and upper classes are), but you are quite right that religion as such has failed to unite Pakistanis. In fact religion has been a dangerously divisive force.
No, I am afraid, hostility towards India, on official level at least, has not been difused or displaced by developments in Afghanistan. If anything, the Afghan jehad has been shifted to Kashmir, keeping the hostility alive. Tariq is doing fine.

To freethinker, #4: Yes, it is de ja vu all over again, with somewhat different nuances and ballances of political forces.
Bourgeois electoral politics is no where clean, but it is particularly dirty in Pakistan.
Yes, there are some redeemable elements among Pakistan`s people and cultures that still pulsate under the rubble of broken hopes and dreams, on the margins of the big rush to go nowhere.

To Romair, #6: Yes, the paliamentary democracy should work better if the party leaders come from lower and middle classes. But the ``elitist feudal`` classes will not allow that to happen easily. Z.A. Bhutto relied on some known lower/middle class leaders but quickly got rid of them. When Benazir took over the PPP, she was asked by a journalist, why the Party`s woking class cadres were not given tickets to run in the elections. Her reply: ``un ko vote nahiN miltay,`` they will not be voted for.
The MQM did have the composition of lower/middle class leaders, but its mohajir chauvinism, has restricted its appeal to Urban Sindh.
The problem with PTI is that it cannot outdo the mullahs at their game. People are simply not fooled by the feinged pieties and pathan (male) ghairat of its leader Imran Khan.

To urstruly, #9: I would not mind celebrating the LEFTOUT with you, if the RIGHTIN phenomenon had not brought so much shame to Pakistan.