Pakistan under its Ethnic Shadows

#53 by bongdongs

++
I see you cleaverly skirted the Dawood issue.
++

This is a tricky issue.

Pakistan can neither appear too soft, nor too hard on this issue.

India is still engaged in a bitter diplomatic campaign to smear Pakistan, portray Kashmir as terrorism, refuse to talk about the core issue, block Pakistan`s re-entry into Commonwealth and ARF, etc. If Pakistan makes any unilateral concessions to India at this point, it will send the wrong message to the Indian leadership.

On the other hand, Pakistan also can`t appear too hard because this will shift international pressure from India to Pakistan. At present, Pakistan has managed to portray itself as eager for peace in South Asia by dropping pre-conditions for talks and being flexible about the format of talks (bilateral, trilateral, multilateral, etc). In continuation of this policy, Pakistan needs to be open-minded about Dawood issue, yet non-committal until India reciprocates on issues that are important for Pakistan.

If 2002 was the year of belligerent posturing, 2003 is a year of diplomatic tap-dancing. 2004 may be the year of socio-cultural tap-dancing (cricket, people-2-people contact, etc). The real issues (political talks, Dawood, Kashmir, Siachen) will perhaps not begin until 2005.

We Pakistanis should only work under worst case scenario, but always hoping for the best.

Worst Case Scenario:

Lot of people in Pakistan believe that ``post 9/11, it was Pakistan that was the target of the USA/Israeli/Indian lobby. However, a classic u-turn saved our butts. The West wants Pakistan to be destabilized through Afghanistan so that its faces ethnic rifts between Talibani supporters i.e Pakhtoons and non-Pakhtoons. ``

Current situation:

Surprisingly, all ethnic groups of Pakistan have shown unity at a philosophical level with respect to the recent international events.

1. All ethnic groups feel sympathy for Afghan Pashtoons and for Talibans as the representatives of the Pashtoons. Although most of us hate Talibani leadership and its extreme version of Islam.

2. All ethnic groups resent how the West is treating Muslims these days. For those who live and travel to the West, this may only be a perception far from reality. But it is the ones living in Pakistan who count and they are united in their resentment.

3. All ethnic groups of Pakistan resented the way USA moved on Iraq and threatens Iran.

4. All ethnic groups in Pakistan hate India`s extremist and destroy Pakistan policies.

Source of information: Audience views on interactive programmes on Indus TV, GEO, ARY Digital and in newspapers.

However, on the other hand, the differences in India are such that if their hostilities with Pakistan end today, huge differences between North and South and Hindus and non-Hindus will surface from tomorrow. Already the religious divide is showing.

I see you cleaverly skirted the Dawood issue.

# 48 His Excellency


Excerpt #1:

---

..... there are some states in this world, that can only be kept intact with force and dictatorship.

---

Such states are not viable nations. Sooner or later they will implode.


Excerpt #2:

---

If there are irreconcilable religious differences between ethnic/religious groups in a country, even democracy will fail to hold them together.

---

The key word is ``even``. His Excellency is tacitly (though reluctantly) acknowledging that democracy is the best bet to create a nation out of a federation of disparate groups.

---

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Nov-2003/19/EDITOR/op2.asp

The Nation, Pakistan
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

Musharraf’s four years
ASLAM MINHAS

..... A military ruler is always a divider instead of a uniter of a nation and Musharraf is no exception. Ayub and Yahya with their fissiparous policies split the country in 1971. Zia divided the country criss-cross along so many lines, linguistic, ethnic, sectarian and political, that we are still picking up the pieces today. .....

---

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Nov-2003/19/EDITOR/op2.asp

The Nation, Pakistan
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

Musharraf’s four years
ASLAM MINHAS

..... A military ruler is always a divider instead of a uniter of a nation and Musharraf is no exception. Ayub and Yahya with their fissiparous policies split the country in 1971. Zia divided the country criss-cross along so many lines, linguistic, ethnic, sectarian and political, that we are still picking up the pieces today. .....

Re; #12

Rozaiba writes:

``More likely, this mumbo jumbo about `authentic nationhood` is usually appealing to expatriates who think Pakistan`s evolutionary process should have achieved in 50 years, what it took America or Britain or any other mature democracy over 200 years to achieve. ``

This is the standard line of indoctrination at the GHQ staff college - Unfortunately it as much fiction as the much touted martial races theory - good for NCO morale only.....

If chronological maturity was the only Standard - Greece and Rome would have been models of democracy for ages _ remember democracy was invented in the city states and The Romans practiced limited democracy for centuries before the Caesarian coup...( both achieved democracy post ww-2 - Greece perhaps in the early 70s) ..... Unfortunately there is a thing called regression - often practiced in Pakistan (and by Pakistanis on the Chowk) and starkly evident in Afghanistan........

Democracy is neither new nor modern - it took over 2000 years before the American founding fathers acquired the requisite quorum for sane and rational behavior of self government. The US constitution is hardly an original document - it borrows heavily from the Greeks, Romans and the French philosophers...- The fact that it is a working solution is a testament to the framers ingenuity.....

Restrictive democracy has been practised in Malaysia since 57 - with astounding results - and I think nobody can claim that the Malay tribes had a democratic tradition older than the last bastion of servitude to the mighty British empire

#48 by HisExcellency on November 18, 2003 3:09pm PT

`` Yugoslavia was a basket case even before it became a nation in 1940s because of intense religious rivalries between Serbs and the rest. The centrifugal forces in Yugoslavia were so strong that even democracy couldn`t hold them together. Tito`s socialism and benign dictatorship backed by a powerful military proved more successful than democracy in keeping the country together. This only proves that there are some states in this world, that can only be kept intact with force and dictatorship. Democracy does not work in such states.``

Yugoslavia failed for an important reason. The European Union was an excellent successful example of individual states in a political and economic union. One reason Pakistan could fail if the non-Punjabi groups see India, Iran or Afghanistan as an success story. A moderate Afghanistan with an empowered Pusthun majority is the biggest threat to Pakistani control over NWFP and Baluchistan. This is the biggest factor behind the Pakistani (Punjabi) elite`s support for the Taliban elements.

#40 by nakhok

++
A viable nation should hold together for more than ``several decades`` instead of imploding at the first available opportunity. Ergo, Yugoslavia was not a viable nation even in the making.
++

Yugoslavia was a basket case even before it became a nation in 1940s because of intense religious rivalries between Serbs and the rest. The centrifugal forces in Yugoslavia were so strong that even democracy couldn`t hold them together. Tito`s socialism and benign dictatorship backed by a powerful military proved more successful than democracy in keeping the country together. This only proves that there are some states in this world, that can only be kept intact with force and dictatorship. Democracy does not work in such states.

Democracy is no doubt a strong centripetal force. But it doesn`t necessarily guarantee national cohesion. If there are irreconcilable religious differences between ethnic/religious groups in a country, even democracy will fail to hold them together. Willingness to compromise is a pre-requisite for democratic process to function properly. In Yugoslavia, you needed a charismatic fauji to run the system.

A parallel (although considerably more sophistiscated) analysis on India can be found in Sulekha.com called ``Why India is a nation`` by Sankrant Sanu.

Why India is a nation

#43 by bongdongs

++
the order to attack the Indian parliament or to protect Dawood in Isloo doesnt come from some ``rogue`` agent but from the 1-star and 2-stars themselves.
++

India accuses ISI of orchestrating the attack on Indian parliament but Pakistan denies this allegation. Why don`t you argue your point on the basis of proven facts instead of dubious allegations and conjectures?

Military dictatorship is making Pakistan less viable as a nation rather than more viable. 80% of the military is recruited from 5 districts: Attock, Rawalpindi, Chakwal, Jhelum and Gujarat in Punjab; and 3 districts of NWFP: Mardan, Peshawar and Kohat. Under the circumstances, military dictatorship has always meant dictatorship of the recruitment area over the rest of Pakistan. Under military dictatrship, the geographical concentration of Pakistan`s military is inevitably a force multiplier for the centrifugal forces.

Pakistan`s military is a tribal organization, rather than an organization representative of Pakistan`s diverse population. When this tribal entity hogs power, it inevitably strengthens the ``centrifugal forces``.

The East pakistanis were the first to rebel against this millstone of military dictatorship. It came not long after ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan celebrated Pakistan`s decade of development. The East Pakistanis instinctively knew why they had failed to see the ``development`` first hand.

The situation hasn`t changed except that the East Pakistanis are no longer there to be kicked around. Military boots now must kick butts in West Pakistan itself. The military remains the most pampered group in Pakistan. Its land grabbing has strengthened the ``centrifugal force``.

Sindhis, for example, are poorly represented in the military - so most of the land allotted in Sindh is owned by a Punjabi or a Pushtun officer. When an absentee landlord from a different area controls a large tract of land in another province, complications are bound to arise.

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-10-2003_pg3_3

Daily Times, Pakistan
Monday, October 20, 2003

Is there any hope for democracy?
By Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

..... the military, especially the army, has expanded its corporate interests to such an extent that it is now present in all major sectors of state and the society. This is manifested through induction of mostly, but not exclusively, retired military personnel in important state and semi-state institutions. The other strategy for enhancing the military`s influence is the phenomenal expansion of the undertakings of four charitable foundations established by the three services. Now, some of the paramilitary forces are also planning to set up charitable foundations for generating material resources for their personnel.

The military`s business, commercial and industrial interests have expanded so much that they have stakes in all major domestic state policies. These developments have practically overwhelmed large civilian sectors. As a matter of fact, there is hardly any exclusively civilian sector left. .....

---

http://www.dawn.com/2003/10/15/op.htm#3

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
15 October 2003 Wednesday 18 Shaban 1424

Khakis` inroad into civilian sector
By Zubeida Mustafa

..... By providing them with employment, the military leadership has managed to create a growing constituency whose allegiance is assured. Awarded not just jobs but also land grants, contracts, industrial permits, etc the servicemen act as anchors of stability in the system.

Large chunks of retired servicemen have been made quiescent by giving the armed forces a large share in the economy through the foundations which have been set up (Fauji, Bahria and Shaheen). They have virtually emerged as big industrial/commercial empires with assets and investments said to be to the tune of at least $5 billion. They provide 18,000 jobs to the retired and serving servicemen and constitute a substantial part of the national economy by operating over 40 enterprises ranging from airlines, banks, industries, security services, leasing companies to bakeries. .....

..... The infiltration of the servicemen into the civilian administration amounts to tightening the military`s grip on the power structure. The army`s presence in politics is already a controversial issue. But when members of the armed forces begin to control key posts in the administration the army`s hold on society as a whole becomes stronger. Furthermore, the division between the haves and the have-nots tends to deepen as a neo-military class enjoying better privileges comes to the fore. This militarization of the country`s administration will eventually destroy the traditions espoused by civil society. .....

---

Excerpts from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23614-2002Nov21.html

Washington Post
Friday, November 22, 2002; Page A01

Pakistanis Question Perks of Power
Many Say Military Confuses National Interest With Its Own
By John Lancaster

.....

``Some critics go a step further, accusing the military of deliberately stoking tensions with India, particularly over Kashmir, to justify its hold on resources and power. ``Peace would be a disaster for the military,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, an anti-nuclear activist and MIT-trained physicist who teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.``

.....

``There is no denying the military`s dominant role in Pakistan. The military owns the best farmland and several of the largest industrial conglomerates. Retired or active-duty military officers run the ports, postal service, electric utilities, sports federations, telecommunications authority, culture ministry, mineral development agency, anti-drug police, railroads, civil aviation authority, national shipping company and Pakistan`s biggest steel mill. They hold top administrative posts at the best universities. Many ambassadors are retired officers.``

.....

``Under an arcane point-based system that dates to the British Raj, the military also rewards its senior officers by allowing them to purchase agricultural and urban land from the army`s vast inventory of real estate at prices far below market value. A number of these properties are grouped into ``defense societies`` in tony suburbs of Karachi and other major cities. The societies are administered by the Defense Housing Authority, which ensures the provision of municipal services. Officers who acquire such land often develop it as rental property or sell it for hefty profits.``

......

``One of Pakistan`s most coveted addresses, for example, is the blandly named Army Housing Scheme II, which is built on the site of an old antiaircraft battery in the upscale Karachi suburb of Clifton. A gated community protected by paramilitary troops, the development consists of spacious, Mediterranean-style villas grouped around a playground and an elaborately landscaped Japanese-style garden. Nearby are clothing boutiques, jewelry stores, restaurants and a yoga studio.``

.....

``Installing men in uniform in civilian businesses and institutions did not begin with Musharraf. In 1980, Zia established a 10 percent quota for military personnel in civilian government jobs. But Musharraf, by all accounts, has taken the process further than his uniformed predecessors, dispatching military ``monitoring teams`` to key civilian agencies and replacing top officials with senior officers.``

---

Pakistan`s destiny has been controlled from inception by the 3 As - Allah, America and the Army and not necessarily in that order!

General Pervez Musharraf has continued with the same tradition. He has inducted some 600 military officials to take over top civilian posts (from chairman of cricket board to chairman of WAPDA) for which they have no training. And he has imposed the LFO on the country to institutionalize the army`s supremacy.

Pakistan`s military is essentially a tribal entity, rather than a national one. 80% of the military is recruited from 5 districts: Attock, Rawalpindi, Chakwal, Jhelum and Gujarat in Punjab; and 3 districts of NWFP: Mardan, Peshawar and Kohat. Under the circumstances, military dictatorship has always meant dictatorship of the recruitment area over the rest of Pakistan. Under military dictatorship, the geographical concentration of Pakistan`s military is inevitably a force multiplier for the centrifugal forces.

The erstwhile East Pakistanis are no longer around to be kicked around by the Pakistan`s army which continues to enjoy a monopoly over power in what remains of Pakistan. So, it is now the ordinary citizens of Pakistan, especially those not belonging to the chosen tribe, that must bear the brunt of the army`s boot.

Continued military dictatorship make Pakistan less viable as a nation rather than more viable.

``Thirdly, the presence of rogue elements within ISI does not necessarily mean that the entire organization is Jehadi.. or that these rogue elements are powerful enough to have a say in policy making/implementation. A major or colonel does not have the same power as a 1-star or 2-star general. Policies are made by the latter. ``

that is precisely the problem, the order to attack the Indian parliament or to protect Dawood in Isloo doesnt come from some ``rogue`` agent but from the 1-star and 2-stars themselves.

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

# 19 by His Excellency

``The Yugoslavia example just scores a critical point: in the absence of democracy, a unifying ideology such as Islam, communism, fascism, etc. can also hold a nation together for several decades. ``

A viable nation should hold together for more than ``several decades`` instead of imploding at the first available opportunity. Ergo, Yugoslavia was not a viable nation even in the making.

On the other hand, a federation governed under democracy, is usually a nation in the making if it is not already one.

#33 by rsridhar

In May 1, 2001, the Rodney Jones of Policy Architects International institute published a study on the Prospects of State Failure in Pakistan. In this paper, Rodney Jones outlined 6 potential centrifugal forces in Pakistan that could lead to state failure. He then proceeds to analyze each threat and concludes that:

1. Separatist potentials in Pakistan have been largely defused by demographic, political and economic change, and by the vaccination effect of the Soviet intervention and defeat in Afghanistan


2. Separatist potentials in Pakistan could only be reawakened in the contexts of: (a) war with India, or (b) sustained geopolitical intervention by a global power


3. Separatism had significance in Pakistan during the Cold War. The demise of USSR removed the most plausible external source of support for successful separatism in Pakistan


4. Ethno-linguistic or regional movements (e.g. in Sindh) could still stir up a lot of local disorder and tie up the security forces within Sindh (e.g. like the 1983 MRD movement against Zia). But this is a very different problem, and a much less serious a threat to the state than potentially successful separatism


5. Baluchi separatism had already been suppressed by the Army before Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghan war practically buried the movement. Later Zia-ul-Haq coopted the Baluch into the power structure by giving them autonomy to control resource inputs, limit the effects of modernization and maintain their traditional authority over tribes and clans


6. Sindhi nationalist movement is the most significant separatist threat to Pakistan especially in the event of war with India. Sindhi political unrest is not totally vanquished today. With a highly developed language and compact culture, its separation could turn northern Pakistan into a land-locked country.


7. However, Sindhi nationalist impulse has been eroded by huge demographic changes, the integrative effects of Bhutto`s PPP having ruled Pakistan thrice, and some degree of success of Sindhi middle classes making their way into public employment.


8. Migration of Hindus from Sindh to India in 1947 deprived the Sindhi nationalist movement of its vanguard. Instead, the residual Sindhi population was swamped by in-flow of urbanized Urdu/Gujratis speaking Muslims from India. Later, Punjabis and Pashtuns migrated to Karachi and Hyderabad for employment. As a result, Sindhi political class was marginalized in its own province.


9. In 1972, the Sindhi Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto declared Sindhi as official language of Sindh and initiated a quota system in government jobs and educational institutions. These measures took the steam out of the Sindhi nationalist movement


10. Separatist tendencies flared up during Zia`s rule in Sindh. But Sindhi nationalists failed to wrest leadership from the hands of Benazir Bhutto`s PPP which was committed to national integration and federalism in Pakistan


11. Sectarian organizations in Pakistan can unleash political violence and terror. However, these forces do not pose a separatist threat. There is no single organization in Pakistan that dominates the Islamic revival. Most Islamic organizations are non-sectarian in nature and are committed to federalism.


12. A greater threat to regional security emanates from the Kashmir issue, not the political unrest within Pakistan. The Kashmir issue is the primary source of nuclear, missile and advanced weapons proliferation in the subcontinent. A successful U.S. policy on Kashmir ``could not be allowed to be partial to either side, and this means not being partial to India by default or pretext. Cooperation in counter-terrorism, for instance, should be with both governments, not with one against the other``