Pakistan under its Ethnic Shadows

#89 by godot

+++++
HisExcellency and Rozaiba

This is an “opinion” piece that is based on observations and thoughts, not a research paper with a long list of bibliography. If you are familiar with “Op-Ed” articles you would know what I mean, but apparently you are not.
+++++

I have no problems with your ``opinion`` piece and please don`t get offended if my counterargument comes across as too aggressive. In a milder vein, I believe that your
reality map needs updating and a broader perspective. You have yourself admitted that you migrated to the US in the 60s/70s. Is this right? If it is, then perhaps your analysis of present-day Pakistan needs a fresh re-think.

Until the 1970s and mid-1980s, Punjab was still an economically prosperous province but backward in education and infrastructure. Even middle class Punjabis had racial bias against Urdu-speaking people. Terms like ``Hindustoora``, ``Bhaiyya`` and ``Muhajir`` were used for people belonging to the Urdu-speaking community. Similarly, Punjabis had this notion that Sindhis are cowards and lazy, and Pashtuns are stupid and greedy.

But that was 20 years ago. Now it is considered unfashionable and boorish in Pakistan to use racial slurs against other communities. Literacy rates have risen. Old concepts like martial-race theory, etc are now scoffed at. Attitudes have changed. We are not living in the Pakistan of 20 years ago in which literacy rates were 18% and urbanization was just 15%. Now literacy rates are approximately 35-40% and urbanization is 30% as well. This means greater exposure and awareness.

The 1990s ushered in a new era of corporate Pakistan in which an MBA or BBA degree was more important than your ethnic background. In Pakistan`s corporate world today, there are no ethnic groupings. Similarly in the political arena, there is no classification of people as Sindhis, Balochis, Punjabis, Muhajirs or Pashtuns. A common Pakistani identity has already evolved in these circles. In Pakistan`s cities, a common culture and concept of nationhood has become a reality.

You might argue that urban population is just 30% of total population. What about the remainining 70%?

IMHO, the common Sindhi and Balochi`s immediate problem is water, job, health, illiteracy and fear of his Sardar. He is too engrossed in these problems to worry about national identity, authentic nationhood, meaning of Pakistan, and Islam.

The Sindhi/Balochi`s problem is poverty and feudalism. Not Pakistan. Not India. Not Allah. Not Punjab. Not the Army. And not lack of democracy... because even if we restore democracy, the common Sindhi and Baluchi will still have to vote for his Sardar.

Pakistan, Allah, Democracy... these terms will only make sense to the common Sindhi/Baluchi once he is free of feudalism... and able to think for himself.

In Punjab and NWFP, feudal power was smashed by land reforms. Now we only have dozens of small landlords.. who sometimes lose their own seats in an election. But there are no feudal lords such as Nawab Gurmani, Nawab of Kalabagh, Nawab of Bahawalpur, etc who were a law unto themselves. As a result, Punjabis and Pashtuns are better integrated with each other today.

People of Sindh/Baloch. need economic empowerment which can only be achieved by smashing feudalism first. If we can do that, we will never again have to ask futile questions about ``Pakistan ka matlab kiya`` and ``what is Pakistan`s identity``? The answer will present itself even before we ask for it.

Zakkk, 96

You know, about a year ago, I was in Lahore buying something from a thela. The owner of the thela, a Punjabi, had a fifteen year old boy, a Pathan, as his helper. The boy made a mistake in doing something. The Punjabi owner turned to him and said (quite loudly) in anger, “You idot. You are a goddamn Pathan and will remain one.” Fresh from the US, I found that attitude abhorring and absolutely mind blowing. I couldn’t believe my ears. What I found most disturbing is that both individuals, the Punjabi and the Pathan, took that as a matter of fact. I did wonder, though, if that Pathan boy harbored any resentment against that Punjabi (or, in fact, because of that one person, for all Punjabis).

Now, I’m not recounting this tale to tell you that I think all Punjabis are racist. What bothered me is that how open racism is in Pakistan. There is an absolute lack of sensitivity when it comes to dealing with another ethnic group. I agree with you that this kind of behavior and racist slurs should be absolutely banned in Pakistan. Pakistanis need to be taught from an early age that all people are created equal and that “you do not want to treat someone the way you do not want to be treated as.”

rozaiba:

frankly my dear:)

pakistan is...
you are...
i am
others are

so what`s the fuss about?

...t

#91 by m_souza

+++
Pakistanis(most of them) are ex-hindus who were once forced to convert but now love shariat and everything abt it
+++

This is a myth. Conversions occurred in these areas due to the efforts of religious scholars and sufis. There are no recorded incidents of people being force to convert under threat of death, torture or confiscation of property.

+++
Most of all....paki identity and unity lies in hate-india/indians(their previous self), hate-hindus(their previous self too) policy. Maybe they feel it is necessary to do so because only by rejecting and disowning any remains of their previous hindu/indian selves can they seriously move on and start to belong...
+++

You can`t really examine Pakistani attitudes towards India in isolation from the Kashmir dispute. As soon as Pakistan won a new state, the Kashmir issue fell into our laps from the sky.

Since Indian movies, music and festivals such as Basant are popular in Pakistan.. I don`t think Pakistanis hate Indians or Hindus as such. BTW, Nepal is a Hindu state which has excellent relations with Pakistan.

I don`t think Pakistanis hate India just to feel culturally different. These cultural differences existed even before 1947. A Gujarati Indian has little in common with a Punjabi, Pashtun or Baluchi from Pakistan. There may be some cultural similarities between Sindhis in Pakistan and Rajhasthanis in India... or the Punjabis living in Haryana and Pakistani Punjab.

Cultural similarities between Indians and Punjabis exist only in the states that were partitioned in 1947 (i.e. Bengal, Punjab). Rest of India has nothing in common with Pakistan. The foods are different, languages are different, customs are different. Muslims living in Kerala or Tamil Nadu will perhaps feel like a fish out of water in Karachi, Quetta, Lahore or Peshawer. And vice versa.

1947 simply drew boundaries around cultures that were distinct anyway. Punjab and Bengal were exceptions, rather than the rule.

Temporal:

I don`t know why you are tapping my back in agreement. However, yes, we agree. All this fuss is much ado about nothing.

#97 by His Excellency

++++
Old concepts like martial-race theory, etc are now scoffed at.
++++

The news of the death of martial-race theory is a gross exaggeration.

Belief in martial-race theory and the dream to unfurl the Pakistani flag atop the Red Fort have carried over into the 21st century, alive and kicking. But the Kargil misadventure and the US ultimatum to Pakistan after 9/11 offer a glimmer of hope. It might finally nudge Pakistan`s ruling elite to be weaned away from their chauvinistic and irredentist staple.

Altaf Gauhar (who had been editor of DAWN and information secretary under ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan) wrote a very candid article right after General Pervez Musharraf`s Kargil misadventure (1999). It was titled ``Four Wars, one Assumption``.The article clearly indicate that ``martial-race theory`` was alive and kicking even in 1999 under General Pervez Musharraf. Here`s an excerpt:

---

The Nation
(Reprinted in Pakistan Link of 9/10/99)

Four Wars, one Assumption
Altaf Gauhar

..... In our fifty-two year history we have fought two fully fledged wars with India and engaged in two military episodes: the 1948 tribal adventure and the current Kargil misadventure.

The latter military episodes, were both launched under civilian governments, but the 1965 and 1971 wars were fought by military rulers, Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan, without any consultation with the people or their representatives.

The point is that all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan. Ayub Khan genuinely believed that,”as a general rule Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place.” (Ayub Khan: Pakistan’s First Military Ruler, page 328). .....

---

The martial-race theory has moulded the psyche of Pakistan`s military for so long that it can`t really transcend it in a short time. But the Kargil misadventure seems to have knocked some sense into General Pervez Musharraf. His decision to succumb to USA ultimatum on the morrow of 9/11 wouldn`t have been possible without the sobering 1999 experience in Kargil.

So sobering were the Kargil misadventure and the post 9/11 American ultimatum, that within months of 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf was publicly rebuking the hotheads for sustaining the dream of unfurling the Pakistan flag atop the Red Fort:

---

The News International, Karachi, pakistan
Thursday, June 07, 2001-- Rabi-Ul-Awall 14,1422 A.H

CE asks Ulema to avoid irresponsible statements
By our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday described statements like hoisting of flag on Red Fort, made by some Pakistani leaders, as ``irresponsible`` and called upon Ulema to look deep into the damage caused by such statements.

``These irresponsible statements are causing sufferings among the Indian Muslims and as a result, Pakistan is being dubbed as a terrorist state,`` he said .....

---

The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
June 29 - July 5, 2001

A n a l y s i s

The general speaks his mind
by Khaled Ahmed

..... [General Pervez Musharraf] pointedly asked the bearded audience why they felt the need of challenging India constantly and promising to the Pakistani people that they would `soon` fly the green flag on the Red Fort in Delhi? .....

---

The News International, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday, June 13, 2001-- Rabi-Ul-Awall 20,1422 A.H

The summit`s prerequisites
by MB Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

..... Deprecating the dangerous loose talk of some Jehadis that they will not only carry Jehad into India but would fly Pakistan flag on Delhi`s Red Fort, [General Pervez Musharraf] berated their lack of concern for its impact on Indian Muslims. It is unnecessary to emphasise how foolish this militaristic notion of conquering India by force of arms is, quite apart from the fact that there is no earthly reason why any Pakistani should want to conquer India-despite its perceived faults. .....

---

```...........1947 simply drew boundaries around cultures that were distinct anyway. Punjab and Bengal were exceptions, rather than the rule. .............``

Propagandist!! Pakistan was built on the blood of Indian muslims of Northern Indian (OUnjab, UP, Bengal ect.) by the TNT minded elites like His Excellency . This cultural theory is just a bloody lie!!!

Dear Ballu Khan,

Moderation is required in your understanding of partition... I am surprised how a n intelligent person like yourself can go making such statements.

-YLH

Godot 98 - ``The boy made a mistake in doing something. The Punjabi owner turned to him and said (quite loudly) in anger, “You idot. You are a goddamn Pathan and will remain one.” Fresh from the US, I found that attitude abhorring and absolutely mind blowing. I couldn’t believe my ears. What I found most disturbing is that both individuals, the Punjabi and the Pathan, took that as a matter of fact``
Quite frankly the Pathan probably found nothing abhorring about it. The panchod Punjabi will panchod speak his panchod mind quite freely as and when its panchod required. Its as normal as breathing and all of us who have lived in this panchod land know it. And I for one hope that the panchod politically correctness will never influence the panchod Punjabi.
-
Scott

I always thought why some TNTs cannot grow up:

---

I found the solution in the Pakistani text books which clears the riddle

---

The Pakistan Social Studies textbooks prescribed for Standards IX and X under the title `Pakistan Ideology``

``Pakistan ideology is based on the ideas of Islamic system and it was also a reaction to the Hindu and British exploitation of the Muslims of the sub-continent. It was a revolt against the prevailing system of India where the Hindu nationalism was imposed on the Muslims and their culture.`` The textbook further goes on to say ``The Hindus and Muslims, in spite of living for centuries could not forget their own individual cultures and civilisation and kept away from each other. They could not amalgamate in each other`s way of life to become one nation. The main reason for this difference of cultures, civilisation and outlook was the religion of Islam which cannot be assimilated in any other system as it is based on the principle of …oneness of God….On the other hand, Hinduism is based on the concept of multiple Gods. How a nation who believes in the multiplicity of Gods could bestow its belief in oneness of God and there lies the difference between Hindu and Muslim way of thinking.``

Tauheed at # 87:

``ahmedzai/rozaiba: bhutto was worse than ethnocentric. he was bhuttocentric.``

LOL.

Indeed, most people believe that he was Bhttocentric and that this is a reality.

I was talking about the perception though. It is well documented that in his election campaign, he addressed and won over the poor, majorly from Punjab and Sindh. Also, he had the support of many Urdu-speaking stalwarts. This he was able to do in addressing each of these ethnic groups in their language.

His major economic blunder was nationalization of institutions that led to lack of quality of products and lack of management skills that confront Pakistan today.

Scott, 106

I believe that a civil--and hence a developed--society requires political correctness and for one to be sensitive to others’ feelings in terms of race and ethnicity.

``Quite frankly the Pathan probably found nothing abhorring about it.``

I’m not so sure about that. He may not have shown it, but I’m certain that deep inside he resented that a great deal and, if continued, the build-up of that resentment will manifest itself one day in bloodshed.

Your post did make me laugh, though. :)

#102 by nakhok

You have misread Altaf Gauhar`s ``Four Wars, one Assumption`` article. While he does impute martial-race theory to Ayub Khan`s 1965 and Yahya`s 1971 wars... he never states that the Pakistan Army started Kargil in 1999 to unfurl Pakistani flag at Red Fort in Delhi or to demonstrate a superior martial race at work. In 1999, the Army based its intrusion on the element of surprise, secrecy and tactical advantage. Not on the basis of martial race theory. The goals of Kargil were also not to conquer Delhi or hoist Pakistani flag at Red Fort. Kargil`s goals were specific: control the Srinagar-Leh highway, alter the LOC, put pressure on Srinagar and internationalize the Kashmir conflict.

It may be that the Jehadis believed they were fighting for conquest of Delhi. But there is a difference between Jehadi assumptions and Army`s assumptions. Jehadis are not the brain behind any operation. They are just the brawn. You may be right about Jehadis believing in martial-race theory. To build Jehadi morale against a larger Indian Army, the Pakistani generals may even have encouraged such notions. But the Army cadres themselves don`t believe in such theories. Such theories died in 1971 when sheer numbers dictated the outcome. (General Niazi`s troops were outnumbered in East Pak, not outfought)

This is evident in the brilliant planning of Kargil itself. Instead of relying on the ``superior martial prowess`` of Pashtun NLI troops, the Pak Army relied on element of surprise, secrecy, early snow meltdown and tactical advantage (of heights) in Kargil. If the Army believed in martial-race theory, it wouldn`t have bothered to think about such tactical aspects.

ahmedzai #107 you are quite right in that there was a perception of bhutto being a champion of the poor. and indeed that was the only time i have seen our poor, suffering people actually get excited in huge numbers with any politician.

unfortunately, as you note, the whole thing was a cruel joke he played on the suffering poor of pakistan. His was driven not by any concern for their suffering but by his own ego. The nationalizations you mention were driven by his ego rather than common sense, since he wanted to become the Wadera of Pakistan, even though people had elected him on a different understanding.

The man deserved to be hanged.

More important, is there any hope that there are better days ahead for our people? You seem optimistic with musharaff, and so far he does seem to be focussing on many of the right things. He has made mistakes (most notably in suppressing the secular parties). But there is some hope here. He is certainly not a complete disaster like those before him.

tahmed

One should not be so blinded by prejudice as to totally denounce a person...
Bhutto had good qualities and bad... to deny either is an injustice to History... In the end his fall was because of his ego... but as the facts of the case have since then revealed... he didn`t deserve to be hanged.

The fact that Bhutto was unable to overcome his character flaws was only to our detriment because the man had tremendous potential.

-YLH

#109 His Excellency

++++
You have misread Altaf Gauhar`s ``Four Wars, one Assumption`` article.
++++

No, I have not. The title itself, ``Four Wars, One Assumption`` tells it all. Altaf Gauhar was very very explicit in this article written in the aftermath of the Kargil misadventure when he wrote, ``..... all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan.``

++++
General Niazi`s troops were outnumbered in East Pak, not outfought
++++

This was just another way of hanging on to the martial-race theory in the aftermath of 1971. ``An army of martial-races cannot possibly be out-fought ..... It was all a grand conspiracy ..... Furthermore, it was outnumbered.``

++++
To build Jehadi morale against a larger Indian Army, the Pakistani generals may even have encouraged such notions. But the Army cadres themselves don`t believe in such theories.
++++

Altaf Gauhar`s article, ``Four Wars, One Assumption`` very clearly indicates that the Army rank and file had continued to believe in the martial-races theory atleast thru the fourth war, namely, the Kargil misadventure of 1999.

In the aftermath of Kargil and the American ultimatum after 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf may have belatedly realized the folly. Hence his admonition to those that dream of unfurling the Pakistani flag atop the Red Fort. Unfortunately, the martial-races theory had been nurtured among Pakistani soldiers (rank and file) for so long, that General Pervez Musharraf cannot force a change overnight. But he must keep on trying because such foolhardiness can accidentally trigger a nuclear war where no tactical finesse will prevail to prevent a catastrophe for Pakistan and India alike.

++++
If the Army believed in martial-race theory, it wouldn`t have bothered to think about such tactical aspects.
++++

Even an army of martial-races thinks about ``such tactical aspects``! And, needless to say, it automatically assumes that the ``cowardly and ill-organised`` enemy is incapable of coping with its superior tactical finesse.

The bottom line is that General Pervez Musharraf and his army continued to believe even after 1971 (perhaps, especially after 1971) that Pakistan`s military can be ``outnumbered`` but cannot be ``outfought``. So a dose of ``such tactical aspects`` is all that was deemed necessary to send the numerically superior Indian army packing!