A Nuclear Identity

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/28/features/features7.html

May 28,2001

A rogue with his finger on the nuclear trigger

The influence of Islamic extremists in Musharaf`s Pakistan creates little cause for optimism about peace talks with India, writes Amin Saikal.

The Indian Government has been bold in inviting Pakistan`s military ruler, General Pervez Musharaf, for peace talks. While the move is welcome, it should not raise expectations too high: Musharaf has so far proved no more inspiring than any other military dictator.

While Pakistan continues to suffer from serious domestic and foreign policy problems, he has focused much of his energy on how to engineer the country`s return to a civilian rule in such a way that he can take over the presidency and the military can preserve its central role in the country`s politics.

Musharaf toppled the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999, promising to restore economic and social stability, and to return Pakistan to a workable democracy. He also hoped to end its international isolation over its nuclear weapons dispute with India and its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Initially he refused to put a time limit on military rule, but subsequently accepted a Supreme Court decision to terminate his rule by the end of next year. But halfway through his ``term``, the general has little to boast about.

The economy continues in the doldrums, and all the major indicators show that the threat of national bankruptcy still looms large. If not for IMF bailouts, Pakistan would have already been declared bankrupt. Social divisions and communal and sectarian conflicts, which have cost hundreds of lives over the past 18 months, have persisted with no relief in sight. The port city of Karachi, Pakistan`s industrial base, has born the brunt of the disorder, making it a no-go zone for most foreign investors.

On average, a bomb has exploded every two weeks in some part of the country. Ethnic relations between Pakistan`s main national groups - the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Baluchis and Mahajirs - have remained as tense as ever. While Musharaf is a Mahajir, Punjabi generals have remained dominant in the military and the bureaucracy.

There has been no noticeable reduction in the corruption which has permeated every layer of the society. The problem is not confined to lower levels but is also rampant at the very top, involving the leaders of the military and military intelligence (ISI).

In addition, drug trafficking and addiction have reached crisis proportions.

Musharaf has likened himself to the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: a reformist nationalist. But he has done little to curb the growing influence of Islamic extremists, with links to the Taliban. Islamic radicals have penetrated the armed forces, particularly at lower and middle levels.

As public discontent has grown over Musharaf`s economic, social and law and order failures, he has become increasingly dependent on the support of the military and Islamic groups. He has found it expedient to leave the growing Talibanisation of Pakistan virtually unchecked.

He has been ruthless against his political opponents, clearly trying to destroy the parties of exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

However, he has let the Islamic extremists campaign freely. He and many of his close associates have publicly confirmed Pakistan`s support in the name of ``national security`` for the Taliban and Kashmiri militants fighting for independence from India. He allowed the Islamic extremists to hold their biggest public gathering ever in April in Peshawar on the border with Afghanistan where Taliban leader Mullah Omer and his protected ``guest``, Saudi dissident and America`s most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden, urged the world`s Muslims to unite behind the Taliban for a wider Jihad (holy war).

Meanwhile, he has done little to reduce tension with India. He has allowed to go on unabated the ISI tutelage of Kashmiri Islamic militants and the Taliban in reinforcing one another. He has responded positively to the invitation for peace talks, but only on the proviso that India meet the independence demand of the Pakistan-backed Kashmiri combatants.

As many Pakistanis begin to question Musharaf`s policies, the US, Britain and the European Union have also stepped up their public criticism. The US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, recently hinted that Pakistan is a potentially ``rogue state``.

In response, Musharaf has declared that while he may hold a partyless general election before the end of next year, he would want to assume the post of president. Musharaf is poised to prove once again that military dictators generally can`t deliver democracy.

Pakistan constitutes a serious danger to regional stability: it is not only a nuclear power under military rule, but also a failed state.

The world has reason to be deeply concerned.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

re: Godot
Understood. Wasn`t this article about an identity crisis to begin with ?
Read the original article again (Pakistan - Nuclear identity) and remove the things which have a Hindu past, and Islamic theology. You are left with a Nuclear bomb. Which arguably was also `Muslim` reaction to `Hindus` across the border ?
regards
RanaRansher

a nuclear identity ..whatta concept ..a primitively disturbing one ..how does one define oneself by genocidal weapon ?..it begs the question ..at a time when India is also struggling with what it means to be an Indian ..in an increasingly saffronised society ..a question which Pakistani`s just cannot seem to answer ...

Pakistan ka matlab kya hai ?...

Re: RanaRansher, Reply 35

There is a dis-connenct between us. I care neither about Pakistani Hindu past, nor about theology, something you keep harking back at.

re: Godot
Forget Naipaul. How about analyzing some of what I am saying instead ?(in my previous replies, of course) It may help you define this Pakistani identity (which the original article is about anyway)
In terms of going back in history. You could go as far back as you want. Chronological history of the Indian sub-continent from 2700 BC is easily availabe, from all sources and perspectives. You just can`t selectively pick out history to justify theology.
Also Rishi does not speak for just himself. he speaks on behalf of the Indian constitution, which makes no attempt to un-Islamize our history. THere was a group of Indians who wanted a Hindu state (not necessarily separate) at the time of partition, but they never got one. For the last 50 years `secularists` have been in power. Babri-Masjid demolition has happened in the last 5 - 10 years. Admittedly it is a failure of the secular constitution. Can you name anything else ?

regards
RanaRansher

Re: Rishi, Reply 28

I do not approve that Pakistan should distance itself from its Hindu, or any, past. But Pakistan is a Muslim country, Islam its raison d`etre. How far in the past one should go to relate how he has evolved? Hindu? Indic? Chimpanzees? Amphibians? First Cause?

I want Pakistan to be a Muslim, not Islamic, country, just as Britain is Christian or Israel, the only country most similar to Pakistan, Jewish.

You speak for yourself, not for the Indian Hindus, when you say that ``we`` ``accept`` and ``appreciate`` Indian Muslims. Accept, willy-nilly. Appreciate, I think not, or Babri Musjid would not have happened.

No, Rishi, you do not despise religion, at least I hope not. You despise, rightly so, the evil followers of a religion do to others who are unlike them. I believe religion is good for people. It is religion`s unfortunate by-product, evil, that`s disturbing. It is perhaps next to impossible to educate the ignorant populace that religion should be taken only as spiritual food on individual basis, not to shove it down everybody`s throat.

Pakistani Muslims have evolved, and evolving, differently from the Indian Muslims. That is my point.

I hope someone would write an essay on Kashmir in Chowk, if it has not already been done and I missed it (I`m new to Chowk), so we can discuss this thorniest of thorns of Indo-Pak relations.

Re: RanaRansher, Reply 29

I formed my opinion of V S Naipaul based on his essay I read long time ago. I admittedly did not read his books because I have better books to read than crap. I may have changed my opinion of him, and certainly would`ve read his books, if the reviewer of his books, all more knowledgeable than me who have read his books and write in very credible publications, would have contradicted my opinion of Naipaul. Instead, they cemented my opinion of him. We are agreeable and look kindly to those whose views are similar to ours. I am a seeker of the truth and like those who try to understand the truth without bias. I am contemptuous of those who pretend to seek the truth the way they want to see it. Naipaul conceals his venom in his sugar-coated eloquence. Many people see his truth. Thank goodness.

Re: Both, Rishi and RanaRansher

You guys are splitting hair. I do not mean to discuss how custom of Pakistani and Indian wedding has evolved from a common root. It is my general observation of weddings that I was stating. No, Rishi, Indian Muslim and Pakistani Muslim weddings are not similar. That was my point. And as far as songs and all, well, it is understanding the language, if nothing else, that derives it.

Re: Rishi

Actually, for the example that you have given, I would find myself to be in agreement with you. I do not wish to say that people have no choice but to go down a path of confrontation. I guess I tried to clarify my point of view in the reply to Maliani.

We have a responsibility today, to shape our future tomorrow. To do that, we must, if we can, learn from yesterday. I believe that all of us have moral obligations, consistent with our world views. I agree, all of us must have our black and whites unfortunately, but one must also consider that one`s views are not sacrosanct or even correct. Still, if one did not have convictions, one would not be able to function in this world.

I guess that is a part of the dilemma, to do one must know, and to know one must do. And just by the process of defining ourselves, we give birth to conflict. A world without conflict would sadly also be a world without identity, a gaia perhaps, but no individuals. Therefore the purity of an ideal world is quickly lost in this jungle.

regards

Re: maliani

Actually I did not condone any excessive activity in my response. If it appeared to be so then it was entirely due to my inability to convey what I intended to say. Let me try again.

There are ethical issues, which pertain to the treatment of people (slavery, torture, murder), and I think my stand on all of those is the same as that of any person who believes in ``do unto others as you would have done to yourself``. I believe all of those are wrong.

Now let me take a step back and consider the phenomenon of war. Obviously war is a complicated state of affairs that involves all human faculties, including the vicious ones. In a perfect world there would be no causes for war (conflict of interest, historical animosities, man`s proclivity for aggression) and hence no war. We do not live in such a world, and sometimes I wonder, we cannot. Therefore, when one has to talk about historical processes, one has to use the language and methods of history and the evolution of human civilizations. That discourse necessarily includes a discussion and a reservation for the possibility of war (and its ensuing effects). Murder, torture, pillage and plunder is a sad part of our history (and our nature) and must therefore be included in it.

Now why would I restrain myself from passing an absolute moral judgement on something in my past? Simply because I am not living in that time, and therefore am not in a position to fully realize the forces at work. I can surmise what they were, or use my imagination as a guide, and come to a conclusion that X was absolutely wrong and Y was absolutely right. If I do so, then I have put myself in precisely the same position of X and Y, since they had a conflict only because they believed that both of them were absolutely right. Paradoxically I end up repeating the cycle.

However, what I can do is to prevent myself today from following a course of action whose antecedent is found in history. This would be simply logical, to learn from the experience of others. Following this, I would, for example not raise an army and lead a mission into Central Asia. I would use the historical knowledge available to me that suggests that such adventures are never sustainable.

That is the point of view that I am taking. Let us not dwell on the past, and instead use all that we have gathered to shape the present and the future. Most discussions about past lead nowhere due to the lack of information and the subjective nature of the issues in question.

Now a little bit of my rambling on the ethical issues that you have raised.

Now let me take another example: Murder. This takes many forms - pre-meditated murder, accidental murder, murder in self-defense, state-ordered execution and the killing of an enemy in a battle. Jurists have known from early on that these are not equivalent. Whereas a human being dies in each and every case, the killer is killed in the first case, imprisoned/fined in the second, not questioned in the third case, court-martialed if he/she refuses to follow orders in the fourth case and honored with medals in the fifth case. Same murder, different reactions. The way I see this is to say that a great deal of care and thought is required to be able to navigate oneself through this maze, it is not an exact science where you add one and one to get two.

So my questions to you:

So how would you treat war in the presence of all the agents that cause war in this imperfect world of ours?

In the presence of imperfect knowledge and imperfect human beings, if all avenues of conflict resolution are closed, is there an option but war especially if the survival of people depends on it?

I think even if there was no aggression in human beings to start with (which we know is patently false, just look at our cousins throughout the animal kingdom), agression would arise naturally. And even if it arises in one community, it will eventually spread in all communities because of the need for survival.

regards

p.s I did not know that Mohenjodaro did not have even a single weapon in it. Not that it necessarily means that their civilization was completely pacifistic (i.e weapons could have been removed by invaders, or carried away by the inhabitants in time of duress...). If one does assume that they did not have a single weapon (which I think is highly unlikely, since they must have hunted animals), then they were at a significant disadvantage compared to others around them, and were in a ripe position to be exploited.

p.p.s What other civilizations did not have any weaponry?

Re: RanaRansher (about Sufism)

I think there are many views about Sufism and its relation to Islam, many of them, by definition, pure folklore, due to the lack of a doctrinal nature of Sufi thought. However, in all cases, its intimate link to Islam is not deniable. The earliest Sufi or mystical interpretation of the Quran is tracable to Imam Jaffer Sadeq, who was the great-great grandson of Prophet Mohammed. He refers to Imam Ali (prophet`s son-in-law) and to the Prophet as being the first in this chain. (c.f. ``The Mystical Dimension of Islam`` by Anne-Marie Schimmel and the references contained therein). All of this was obviously prior to the crystallization of the present sufi orders.

The questions ``Are there practising Sufis in Pakistan? Are they considered Muslim?`` are invalid in my view. Sufism and Islam are not complementary to each other. Sufism grows within Islamic traditions, in very much the same way as the orthodox schools grow within the same Islamic tradition. I think this confusion is easily removed if you consider that the orthodoxy one sadly associates with Islam is merely one (albeit loudest) interpretation of it. You will find that the greatest Sufis practised Islam and were fully conversant in the legalistic and orthodox interpretations of Islam. Only by knowing a religion intimately could they make the claim that all religions stem from one root and are therefore isomorphic at a fundamental level.

Mysticism itself it not a domain of Islam only, and has never been claimed to be by anyone. Even the most orthodox Muslims would concede that all religions were ``created`` as one, since that is a part of the Islamic doctrine. What is called Islam today, shares connections with other great religions that passed before it.

Re: RanaRansher (about historical perspectives)

Your point about historical perspectives is a very valid one. But I think that any person with a reasonable amount of intelligence possesses the ability to grasp the broad perimeters of a situation, put oneself in the shoes of another and try to decide what decision he/she would make. This simple exercise allows one to read between the lines of all history books, and quickly brings to one`s attention the incongruities in the narration of a particular historical episode.

So, yes, if I try to apply this simple process, then I quickly find myself moving away from one-sided perspectives. And I would agree with you totally that religious affiliation should not be a factor in assigning a priori validity to the motivations of any. I personally think that in the case of Mssrs. Ghaznavi and Ghauri, religion was not even a motivation in the first place. It was a justification of their campaigns after the fact. During these early campaigns, for example. Rana Sanga rises as a heroic figure.

But what I was trying to say was that there is an even deeper level from which these issues can be seen. And that is the level of a historical process. Before Toynbee, Hegel or even Khaldun, people realized the presence of a larger force at work that moulds and gives birth to civilizations. This historical process involves the use of all human faculties, mental and physical. Looked from that point of view, one does not merely see the Frankish invasion of England, the Mongol Invasion of Abbasids, the Timurid excursions into Asia Minor or the Turkish Invasion of India individually as discrete historical incidents that exist on their own but rather them to be specific examples of a deeper historical process at work that makes our civilizations what they are. At that level, if one tries to evaluate in a simplistic manner (i.e as one would for an individual human being living at a given place at a given time) the actions of many that are spread out over a period encompassing decades and possibly centuries, one is, in my opinion, not going to get very far.

Re: Saad

Thanks for your generosity and kindness in reply to what I wrote. I will agree with you that justice is seldom done by us, we tend to get distracted by the flow of our emotions or opinions, or worse, those of others. As they say: ``Aib ha jumla begofti hunarash neez bego!``

Maybe it`s in us to define everything one dimensionally in black and white.

Re: WASIQ

Sorry Wasiq, could not get the gist of your arguments. If you are trying to valdate your earlier reply with a recourse to this `` historical perspective and the fallout of events on a global phenomenon `` , well i would agree more with maliani than with you.

If tomorrow an all out nuclear war results in the sub-continent, would not future historians and citizens find fault with us, atleast as much as we do with the hiroshima and nagasaki episode or would they wash their hands by saying that they are no ones to judge actions committed in the past.

While i do believe in greys , i also concede that humanity cannot do without black and whites....

Regards

Rishi

Re: Godot
THe only pre-conceived notion seems to be yours about Naipaul and his credentials as a writer. Whatever, thats your opinion. How you come to your conclusion without even reading his stuff is also your business.
Either one of those books is not about Islam - the religion. But more about Islam in action. It is about how non-Arab Muslims view their history and their identity. It is a travel account where he poses questions to people. It is particularly relevant to the current discussion on Pakistani identity and that is the only reason I brought it up. I see you doing the same thing.
THe first mistake you keep making is that if Pakistan is `Muslim`, India is `Hindu`.

Your point about marriages is completely wrong. You are in fact doing exactly what Nailpaul comments about. A lot of Pakistani Muslim weddings have customs like `sehra-bandi`, `ghori`. Rishi already made the point about music and dance being a big part of weddings. I have noticed astounding similarities in certain food items cooked during Muslim (Indian Shias, inparticular) festivals and Hindu/Sikh festivals. Even religious rituals and customs. All these customs are viewed as pagan by the orthodox. THe idea is to cleanse yourslef of them. The Pakistani weddings you may be talking about have already achieved that and are probably more Arab like or un-Indian (depending on your perspective) by not having any of the above things I mention.
I have friends who celebrated certain festivals like `basant` as kids but over the years grew up to viewing those as un-Islamic. This is what theologians are trying to achieve and succeeding. Theologians are trying to work towards an ideal `pure` society which existed (at least in their belief) way back in Arab history. Naipaul calls this phenomenon Arabization. THe idea here is all customs, rituals associated with Islam (hence Arabia) will become sacred, whereas as native identity will need to be shed. This is not something that can be achieved overnight, but theocracies institutionally go about achieving this.

re:Rishi
I agree with what you are saying. would just like to point out its not only about Jinnah being from Bombay and Advani from Karachi (as in one generation above us). Indians have lived together for at least a thousand years. A lot of present day Indian culture, literature, langauge, art, music has developed together for at least that long. It is impossible to pick out Islamic parts and non-Islamic parts.

regards
RanaRansher

Re: Godot.

Pakistan might distance itself from its hindu-buddhist-muslim past by making itself a pure muslim society, but then India cannot afford to do so. We have more muslims in India than in Pakistan and it is a reality we accept and appreciate. As for cultural similarities between india and Pakistan - particularly with regards to marriages - I have been to many muslim weddings in india itself which i am very sure are similar to Pakistan`s. And the very fact that singing and dancing during weddings are a part of pakistani culture suggests that they are as far removed from islam as possible since in my understanding islam does not appreciate both these forms of entertainment. correct me if i am wrong.

And could you explain the popularity of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun in Pakistan and the use of the movie songs in pakistani weddings and indian weddings.

if cultural similarity in marriages between india and pakistan does not exist, then do you mean to say that pakistan`s wedding form evolved only in the last 50 yrs. Afterall, Jinnah was from Bombay and Advani is from Lahore.

Pakistan could be only Muslim, but India is also muslim...

on a side note, if and when Kashmir (and not Jammu) secedes from india, then i can be pretty sure that India would become a Hindu theologist country and i shudder to think of the fate of the Indian muslims and their Hindu neighbours. And it also annoys me deeply to imagine the day, the country would become hindu. For i hate the concept of a religion controlling my life (whether i belong to it or not). I despise the idea of a temple or a mosque emergine in the middle of a road and obstructing traffic. I despise both the maha arthis or the friday prayers. I despise both the asaanis and loudspeaker pujas for all these affect another man`s freedom. Did`nt someone say that one man`s freedom ends where another man`s begins....?

but then these are discussions for another time..

regards

Rishi

Re: RISHI, Reply 21

Precisely. Glad you understood what I said. I`m in complete agreement with your last paragraph. But the cultural bit... I`m not so sure about that. A case in point. The cultural differences between the two countries manifest themselves in Pakistani and Indian weddings, with the way they are celebrated. Or may be I have not been to that many weddings to pass a judgment...

Re: RanRansher, Reply 24

I don`t get your point in reference to what I said. I don`t think you got mine.

Funny you mention V S Naipaul, though. Many years back I read, in the New York Times, an op-ed essay on Islam that mentioned Pakistan in passing. The writer tried little, if at all, to conceal his contempt for both. That writer was V S Naipaul. I did not, therefore, rush to a bookstore or a local library to read his Among the Believers and Beyond Belief. I did not expect those books to contain accounts written with objectivity, and expected them to be less-than thought-provoking. Even the titles of the books aroused my suspicion. When viewed from the glasses Naipaul is wearing, both titles appear condescending. Naipaul, to me, has preconceived notions about Islam and Muslims. He seeks the `truth` about them in the lands of the ``believers`` and finds only those `truths` that satisfy his preconception. A few months back I read a review of his book Beyond Belief in the Wall Street Journal. I liked the review not because it was well written; it was also because the reviewer, a western expert on Islam, called Naipaul`s truth: ``tendentiousness``. The Economist aptly titled its review of Beyond Belief: At The Second Attempt. There are brilliant writers who are also brilliant thinkers. V S Naipaul is not one of them.

BTW the question about Sufis in pakistan is a sincere one. I feel Sufis were the original secularists. They seem to separate the spiritual from the ritual (customs, politics, symbols) very clinically.

regards
RanaRansher

Re Wasiq:

You say ``However to try to judge people of yesterday with standards of today would be naive in my view.``

And in my view it is naive to say that evils such as slavery, oppression, murder, conquests and invasions in the name of religion (or for economic reasons), rape and other human rights violation were acceptable (and part of society) in previous centuries but not any more ! These evils were not acceptable before and not acceptable now. If what you say is true than why do we weep and cry for what Ghengiz Khan did. Should we accept Ghengiz Khan`s invasions and the massacres he did.

And not all civilizations were like you have described. There were civilizations that did not invade other civilzations. Historians and Anthropologists did not find any weapons in remains of Mohenjodaro from which they conclude that Darvadians were not aggresive people and had not invaded any other society.
There are other examples as well.

re: Wasiq
I agree with everything you say. However, when it comes to reading history, I feel, one should be able to read histories from all sides and only then make conclusions. And you can conclude that certain invaders were plunderers and tyrants while some were not. At the same time certain local (indegenous till that point) rulers were tyrants while some were not. In the case of India you cannot break these up according to religions. Letting theology distort history is what I have a problem with.

re: Godot
What was the two nation theory in your opinion ? THe way it is taught in India is that there were some Muslims who wanted a separate homeland for Muslims, implying they could not live together with others. It was never a separate country for Hindus and a separate country for Muslims. At least the people who may have wanted a separate country for hindus never got it. Either way if some Muslims want a separate country, for whatever reason, I can understand it. But this does not change their history as a people.
India, contrary to what most Pakistanis like to believe, is not just a Hindu country. It still has more Musims than Pakistan. Secular forces gained power after `47 and institutionally went about `secularizing`. The Hindu/Muslim partisan forces were subdued. Indians have had to view their history as is. Even chauvinistic Hindus have had to live with secularism and there is plenty of Islam in an average Indians identity. You can see it in Indias institutions, Indian history books, contemporary literature, cinema, art. (tons written about this, too. Most recent article by Amartya Sen comes to mind http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/sep/26sen.htm. Yes communal forces seem to have gained some ground in the last 5-10 yrs, but it is too early to conclude anything. The real impact will have to be assessed in times ahead.
In Pakistan, I have found that Pakistan has institutionally tried to erase its pre-Islamic past. And I think this comes from having a State religion. Theoligians completely distort history. This phenomenon seems very natural, though. If you don`t practice secularism, then increasingly theologians will institutinally make you shed your pre-islamic identity. Theoligians will see every local, native custom, culture as pagan and hence Hindu. VS Naipaul sheds a lot of light on this in his 2 books (Among Believers and Beyond Belief). References from his book have mention of some Pakistani history books where the history of Pakistan starts with Prophet Mohammad in Arabia. Some seem to start with MBQ`s sacking of Sind. Even the motives for these seem to be distorted in history books. SOme books claim that Raja Dahar seized an Arab ship and made Muslims captive. Women from the ship called our saying ``Hajjaj save us``. This is distortion of history. In fact, even to selectively pick out Muslim rulers and claim that as your history is incorrect. Institutionally being fed this kind of BS will only lead to an identity crisis and personal fantasies about ones origin.
Every Pakistani seems to know the history of how Islam spread in Arabia, but may not be able to tell you a whole lot of how Islam spread in India or Pakistan.

Question to all: Something I am curious about. Are there any practising Sufis in pakistan. Are they considered Muslims ? Isn`t their method of worship too Hindu ?

regards
RanaRansher