State of Corruption in South Asia 2000-01
Aqil Shah October 20, 2001
#42 Posted by Zee on November 5, 2001 1:18:32 pm
Dear Shah Sahib
I hope you are aware that Fisk, one of the very few sane voice in the mainstream Western media, has quoted you. In fact, his analysis is based closely on your views in the TFT piece. I am glad to see that there are others like you who put emphasis on democratisation as the highest priority. Keep it up, do let me know via this forum about your next article/writing
Farewell to democracy in Pakistan
Robert Fisk
The Independent
26 October 2001
Armoured warfare schools, signals headquarters, artillery ranges, military museums, cavalry lines, infantry battalion compounds... every few hundred yards in every city, you come across them. Driving around Pakistan is like touring a barracks.
Cross the Indus river at Attock and the thump of shellfire changes the air pressure as General Pervez Musharraf’s tanks move down the range. Along the roadsides are artillery pieces dating back to the Raj, 45-pounders and French armour and old Sherman tanks on concrete plinths to remind Pakistanis of their heroic martial past.
Their national defence journal carries stirring tales by former chiefs of staff and extracts from the 1962 war diaries of the East Pakistan Rifles. And this is supposed to be a nation threatened with Islamic revolution?
It’s an odd phenomenon, but there are times when the West seems to be more worried about the “Islamisation” of Pakistan than Pakistanis are themselves. For has a military dictatorship ever been more blessed than that of General Musharraf? General Zia-ul-Haq was held in contempt by the West when he hanged prime minister Bhutto – but he was elevated to ally and friend the moment that we needed his help in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. However, by 1993 Pakistan was almost declared a “state sponsor of terrorism” by the United States because of its support for Kashmiri Muslim guerrillas.
When President Clinton arrived in the subcontinent last year, he paid a state visit to India but gave General Musharraf – who had still to declare himself president – only a few hours, favouring Pakistan with a one-day return trip, a lecture on the evils of Osama bin Laden and an appeal to General Musharraf not to hang the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif.
Nor can General Musharraf have been too pleased with Colin Powell’s ode to liberty last January. “There should be no question in any world leader’s mind that the most essential ingredient for success in this 21st century is a free people and a government that derives its right to govern from the consent of such people,” the US Secretary of State announced: “...America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world.”
Then came 11 September and General Powell produced a new song sheet. “President Bush,” he told us on 16 October, “asked me... to demonstrate our enduring commitment to our relationship with Pakistan... we are also looking forward to strengthening our co-operation on a full range of bilateral and regional issues... we’re truly at the beginning of a strengthened relationship, a relationship that will grow and thrive in the months and years ahead.” All of which just goes to show what the loan of a few air bases and the arrest of a few government-sponsored Islamists can do. General Musharraf had taken “bold and courageous action” against “international terrorism”.
And in the blinking of an eye, there was General Powell promising to take up the Kashmir dispute with India – the very nation that almost persuaded America’s State Department to put Pakistan on its “terrorism” list in 1992. Newsweek outlined the US government’s view with alarming, if unconscious, frankness. “It may be a good thing that Pakistan is ruled by a friendly military dictator,” the magazine concluded, “rather than what could well be a hostile democracy.”
This, of course, is the very policy that dictates Washington’s relations with the Arab world. Far better to have a Mubarak or a King Abdullah or a King Fahd running the show than to let the Arabs vote for a real government that might oppose US policies in the region.
Corrupt, lawless, drug-ridden, and inherently unstable Pakistan may be, but General Musharraf allows a kind of freedom of speech to continue. Anyone used to the arid wastes of Arab journalism can only be surprised by the debate in the Pakistani press, the often violent anti-Musharraf views expressed in the letters pages and the columnists who argue forcefully for a return to democracy. If General Musharraf has to allow Islamists their freedom to “let off steam” – as Pakistanis like to say – then he has to give equal space to the democrats.
Aqil Shah put it very well when he wrote in Lahore’s Friday Times last week that, by allying himself with America’s “War on Terror”, General Musharraf had secured de facto international acceptance for his 1999 coup. Suddenly, all he had wished for – the lifting of sanctions, massive funding for Pakistan’s crumbling industry, IMF loans, a $375m (£263m) debt rescheduling and humanitarian aid – has been given him.
While General Powell mutters a few words about political freedom – and none at all about Pakistan’s nuclear tests – we hear no more of General Musharraf’s widely publicised “roadmap” to democracy.
The problem, as Mr Shah points out, is that future peace and stability requires sustained investment in solid secular democracies – not in stable dictatorships. Yet the United States is now laying the foundations of a long-term autocracy in Pakistan, a dictatorship not unlike those that lie like a cancer across the Middle East.
The United States likes to call this a “strategic engagement” and is already, in its embassy’s private press briefings, reminding journalists of the corruption that smeared the democratically elected Sharif government. Far better, surely, to have an honest, down-to-earth, clean military man in charge.
Of course, we must forget that it was Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) outfits – the highest ranks of the country’s security agencies – that set up the Taliban, funnelled weapons into Afghanistan and grew rich on the narcotics trade. Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has worked alongside the CIA, funding the mullahs and maulawis now condemned as the architects of “world terror”.
Most Pakistanis now realise that the ISI – sanctioned by Washington rather than Pakistan’s own rulers – turned into a well-armed and dangerous mafia, and while money was poured into its smuggling activities, Pakistan’s people lacked education, security and a health service. No wonder they turned to Islam and the madrassa schools for food and teaching.
But will anything really change? Pakistan’s military is now more important than ever, an iron hand to maintain order within the state while its superpower ally bombs the ruins of Afghanistan. Driving past all those compounds and cavalry lines and barrack squares in Pakistan, one can only be shocked by the profound social division they represent.
Outside in the street, Afghan refugees and Pakistan’s urban poor root through garbage tips and crowd on to soot-pumping buses to work in sweatshops and brick factories. Inside, behind the ancient, newly painted cannons and battalion flags, rose bushes surround well-tended lawns and officers’ messes decorated with polished brass fittings.
No rubbish litters this perfect world of discipline. Why should anyone living here want a return to corrupt democracy? Especially when America is their friend.
I hope you are aware that Fisk, one of the very few sane voice in the mainstream Western media, has quoted you. In fact, his analysis is based closely on your views in the TFT piece. I am glad to see that there are others like you who put emphasis on democratisation as the highest priority. Keep it up, do let me know via this forum about your next article/writing
Farewell to democracy in Pakistan
Robert Fisk
The Independent
26 October 2001
Armoured warfare schools, signals headquarters, artillery ranges, military museums, cavalry lines, infantry battalion compounds... every few hundred yards in every city, you come across them. Driving around Pakistan is like touring a barracks.
Cross the Indus river at Attock and the thump of shellfire changes the air pressure as General Pervez Musharraf’s tanks move down the range. Along the roadsides are artillery pieces dating back to the Raj, 45-pounders and French armour and old Sherman tanks on concrete plinths to remind Pakistanis of their heroic martial past.
Their national defence journal carries stirring tales by former chiefs of staff and extracts from the 1962 war diaries of the East Pakistan Rifles. And this is supposed to be a nation threatened with Islamic revolution?
It’s an odd phenomenon, but there are times when the West seems to be more worried about the “Islamisation” of Pakistan than Pakistanis are themselves. For has a military dictatorship ever been more blessed than that of General Musharraf? General Zia-ul-Haq was held in contempt by the West when he hanged prime minister Bhutto – but he was elevated to ally and friend the moment that we needed his help in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. However, by 1993 Pakistan was almost declared a “state sponsor of terrorism” by the United States because of its support for Kashmiri Muslim guerrillas.
When President Clinton arrived in the subcontinent last year, he paid a state visit to India but gave General Musharraf – who had still to declare himself president – only a few hours, favouring Pakistan with a one-day return trip, a lecture on the evils of Osama bin Laden and an appeal to General Musharraf not to hang the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif.
Nor can General Musharraf have been too pleased with Colin Powell’s ode to liberty last January. “There should be no question in any world leader’s mind that the most essential ingredient for success in this 21st century is a free people and a government that derives its right to govern from the consent of such people,” the US Secretary of State announced: “...America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world.”
Then came 11 September and General Powell produced a new song sheet. “President Bush,” he told us on 16 October, “asked me... to demonstrate our enduring commitment to our relationship with Pakistan... we are also looking forward to strengthening our co-operation on a full range of bilateral and regional issues... we’re truly at the beginning of a strengthened relationship, a relationship that will grow and thrive in the months and years ahead.” All of which just goes to show what the loan of a few air bases and the arrest of a few government-sponsored Islamists can do. General Musharraf had taken “bold and courageous action” against “international terrorism”.
And in the blinking of an eye, there was General Powell promising to take up the Kashmir dispute with India – the very nation that almost persuaded America’s State Department to put Pakistan on its “terrorism” list in 1992. Newsweek outlined the US government’s view with alarming, if unconscious, frankness. “It may be a good thing that Pakistan is ruled by a friendly military dictator,” the magazine concluded, “rather than what could well be a hostile democracy.”
This, of course, is the very policy that dictates Washington’s relations with the Arab world. Far better to have a Mubarak or a King Abdullah or a King Fahd running the show than to let the Arabs vote for a real government that might oppose US policies in the region.
Corrupt, lawless, drug-ridden, and inherently unstable Pakistan may be, but General Musharraf allows a kind of freedom of speech to continue. Anyone used to the arid wastes of Arab journalism can only be surprised by the debate in the Pakistani press, the often violent anti-Musharraf views expressed in the letters pages and the columnists who argue forcefully for a return to democracy. If General Musharraf has to allow Islamists their freedom to “let off steam” – as Pakistanis like to say – then he has to give equal space to the democrats.
Aqil Shah put it very well when he wrote in Lahore’s Friday Times last week that, by allying himself with America’s “War on Terror”, General Musharraf had secured de facto international acceptance for his 1999 coup. Suddenly, all he had wished for – the lifting of sanctions, massive funding for Pakistan’s crumbling industry, IMF loans, a $375m (£263m) debt rescheduling and humanitarian aid – has been given him.
While General Powell mutters a few words about political freedom – and none at all about Pakistan’s nuclear tests – we hear no more of General Musharraf’s widely publicised “roadmap” to democracy.
The problem, as Mr Shah points out, is that future peace and stability requires sustained investment in solid secular democracies – not in stable dictatorships. Yet the United States is now laying the foundations of a long-term autocracy in Pakistan, a dictatorship not unlike those that lie like a cancer across the Middle East.
The United States likes to call this a “strategic engagement” and is already, in its embassy’s private press briefings, reminding journalists of the corruption that smeared the democratically elected Sharif government. Far better, surely, to have an honest, down-to-earth, clean military man in charge.
Of course, we must forget that it was Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) outfits – the highest ranks of the country’s security agencies – that set up the Taliban, funnelled weapons into Afghanistan and grew rich on the narcotics trade. Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has worked alongside the CIA, funding the mullahs and maulawis now condemned as the architects of “world terror”.
Most Pakistanis now realise that the ISI – sanctioned by Washington rather than Pakistan’s own rulers – turned into a well-armed and dangerous mafia, and while money was poured into its smuggling activities, Pakistan’s people lacked education, security and a health service. No wonder they turned to Islam and the madrassa schools for food and teaching.
But will anything really change? Pakistan’s military is now more important than ever, an iron hand to maintain order within the state while its superpower ally bombs the ruins of Afghanistan. Driving past all those compounds and cavalry lines and barrack squares in Pakistan, one can only be shocked by the profound social division they represent.
Outside in the street, Afghan refugees and Pakistan’s urban poor root through garbage tips and crowd on to soot-pumping buses to work in sweatshops and brick factories. Inside, behind the ancient, newly painted cannons and battalion flags, rose bushes surround well-tended lawns and officers’ messes decorated with polished brass fittings.
No rubbish litters this perfect world of discipline. Why should anyone living here want a return to corrupt democracy? Especially when America is their friend.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#41 Posted by Aq on November 2, 2001 9:21:12 am
Sameer
The article will be published in January in a US-based journal. I`ll send a copy to your account when I complete it.
The piece that just appeared on Chowk echoes some of my post-Sept 11 concerns. This article was supposed to be published in the News, but as insiders told me later, they backed off under the ISPR`s advice that anything anti-govt/US will have to wait till after Powell left Islamabad. Initially, the News had agreed to carry the piece on the day Powell was supposed to arrive. Anyway, TFT came to my rescue though it was delayed.
The article will be published in January in a US-based journal. I`ll send a copy to your account when I complete it.
The piece that just appeared on Chowk echoes some of my post-Sept 11 concerns. This article was supposed to be published in the News, but as insiders told me later, they backed off under the ISPR`s advice that anything anti-govt/US will have to wait till after Powell left Islamabad. Initially, the News had agreed to carry the piece on the day Powell was supposed to arrive. Anyway, TFT came to my rescue though it was delayed.
#40 Posted by SameerJB on November 1, 2001 9:40:06 pm
Thanks Aqil for another very response. I admire your logical understanding of Pakistani state and society at this critical junction of time and history. We can not afford to keep moving away from the norms of decent state and decent society by adamant stand on marginal issues like corruption, Kashmir and religion. All these issues play key role in the hands of institutions with vested interests in keeping their hold on political power and annual budgets. The returns on the hard earned money for a poor nation are destruction of national political institutions, Kargill and Taliban. Even with the critical situation at hand, the military junta allowed demonstrations and processions by largely Afghan refugees in Pakistan while banning Pakistani political parties from holding rallies.
The fact is that they have failed Pakistan on every occasion. They failed Pakistan by creating and imposing Taliban on Afghanistan and now, as I write, they are failing to keep anti-Pakistani Northern Alliance to move onto Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif and claim the major share in the future of post-Taliban Afghanistan. With every passing day, the position of Pakistan in Afghanistan internal affairs is marginilizing, interestingly with the unstinted backing by Mush and his junta. Not that I am disapproving of Pakistani backing of USA but merely suggesting it to be under duress than any intelligent vision of this expert in gorilla warfare. It appears that with each passing day, the chances of Pakistani position of including moderate Taliban in the future of Afghannistan is losing steam. Any attempt to double cross USA at this moment could be even more disastrous with Mush being the first casualty.
Military has been wrong in spending the lion share of national budget. They have been wrong in making Kashmir the main issue between India and Pakistan to the extent of jeopardizing the future of 140 million Pakistanis. They were wrong in supporting radical Islamic fundamentalist in Afghan war against Russia. They were wrong in creating Taliban when Pakistan had free hand to pick and choose in Afghanistan. They were dead wrong in overthrowing the civilian government for using their lawful right to dismiss or appoint COAS whenever they wanted. They were wrong in backing fundamentalists, jehadis and sectarian groups in Pakistan. All this for 30 percent or more of annual national budget? What a bargain?
Would you please, publish your academic article that you mentioned in post #38, here at chowk, or privately at jbsameer@yahoo.com
The fact is that they have failed Pakistan on every occasion. They failed Pakistan by creating and imposing Taliban on Afghanistan and now, as I write, they are failing to keep anti-Pakistani Northern Alliance to move onto Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif and claim the major share in the future of post-Taliban Afghanistan. With every passing day, the position of Pakistan in Afghanistan internal affairs is marginilizing, interestingly with the unstinted backing by Mush and his junta. Not that I am disapproving of Pakistani backing of USA but merely suggesting it to be under duress than any intelligent vision of this expert in gorilla warfare. It appears that with each passing day, the chances of Pakistani position of including moderate Taliban in the future of Afghannistan is losing steam. Any attempt to double cross USA at this moment could be even more disastrous with Mush being the first casualty.
Military has been wrong in spending the lion share of national budget. They have been wrong in making Kashmir the main issue between India and Pakistan to the extent of jeopardizing the future of 140 million Pakistanis. They were wrong in supporting radical Islamic fundamentalist in Afghan war against Russia. They were wrong in creating Taliban when Pakistan had free hand to pick and choose in Afghanistan. They were dead wrong in overthrowing the civilian government for using their lawful right to dismiss or appoint COAS whenever they wanted. They were wrong in backing fundamentalists, jehadis and sectarian groups in Pakistan. All this for 30 percent or more of annual national budget? What a bargain?
Would you please, publish your academic article that you mentioned in post #38, here at chowk, or privately at jbsameer@yahoo.com
#39 Posted by Aq on November 1, 2001 9:31:49 am
Zahra,
Thank you for your kind words on my supposed ‘erudition’.
I never implied that individuals were insignificant to public policy, leadership and political processes. But individuals alone do not create institutions, institutions are born out the of the collective/action will of various forces (legal, political, business). Societies driven by competing interests, values and loyalties require institutions (representative and others) so that collective interests are articulated and conflicts mediated.
Yes, individuals are important, but relying on them for the continiuty of governance systems is where we run into snags. While a “barbarian, silly retard” (highly charged, judgemental terms I would say) may enter the political arena/state institutions, systems/instiutions of governance can rinse the polity through regulatory/accountability mechanisms. The example of the erratic Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar, who capitalised on the caste card, is a prime one. His corruption and political antics notwithstanding, he is still active in politics But he has also lost elections and was indicted several times on corruption charges. Indian instiutions are not perfect years of continuity/democracy, have stablized them, they can haul up a former PM/CM before the law.
Your question: What if you may have a very strong institution and the followers are not willing to comply by those norms set by that institution? What will you do then?
People working in functioning institutions (bureaucracy, judiciary) are bound by its rules. In a sense, coopted by its dictates. If they digress, institional mechanism can come into play. That is the crux of the individual/institution paradox. Your good professor is not replacable, but if the institution is strong, functions, delivers…it will attract more talented professors. If you look at the graveyard that our higher education has become, you will see many beacons of hope. I have when I was a student but there potential, talent does not translate into meaningful societal change because they are institutionalised by the logic of a repressive education system. Role models are necessary but no sufficient to sustain a society’s intellectual, political and moral moorings.
On your concern about civil-military dialogue:
Let me cite a personal example to extrapolate the prospects of what you propose. I was teaching a course on the Political Economy of National Security at a University in Islamabad. Not unexpectedly, the core textbook on the subject was only available in the National Defence College (by the way, the NDC budget is three times bigger than the combined state allocations for research to all public sector universities in Pakistan). The army colonel incharge refused point blank to lend it to me even for photocopying since it was meant for military personnel only. More important was his caustic remark though “how could a civilian teach defence? My response to him: if you can run Wapda and Punjab university, civilians can bloody well teach defense economics. Leaving that verbal exchange based on his sheer ignorance apart, his comments summed up the military’s approach to the “civilian problem. The point I am making: dialogue takes place between equals. The military has usurped all poles of power in our society be it education, science (a contact in the Ministry of Finance narrated to me the sordid tale of how almost 65% of the annual science and technology budget was allocated, under orders from the GHQ, to one institution run by the military, the rest of Pakistan had to do with the remaining 35%) private sector (road building, transport, logistics). You name it, they run it. And run it tax free.
The military holds civilian authority in contempt. To the military mind, the civilian is inept, corrupt, inefficient, lazy and unpatriotic. And who can initiate a dialogue with the military when politics is banned? Parliament stands dissolved. If an academic challenges the state’s “hostility consensus” he is branded a Hindu, Jewish agent. I know a few and the mental torture they are subjected to. When I was teaching, I was personally harassed by minions of the military on several occasions. Dialogue with the military will be a dialogue of the deaf. Dialogue is possible when the other side is willing to hear you out, give you the benefit of the doubt. Not when they think, you are a “bloody civilian”.
Nationalistic jingoism and discipline expressed in such glorified titles “unity, faith, discipline’ provide the fuel for the establishment to crush dissent. Where should I start: Pashtuns, Baluchis, Bengalis were all brutalised, robbed of their basic right to disagree, in the name of unity, faith and discipline.
Ek: I do not hold any illusions of radical changes in Pakistan politics at this point. The military will continue to ruin every state institution it can, emasculate it, dominate it to the extent that it can not ever present any challenge. This has been our history, our present and I am afraid to say, our foreseeable future. I am not advocating a change of government at this critical hour. My concern is that America’s flirtation with Pakistani dictators has only worsened the distortions, contradictions that mar state and society in Pakistan. Pakistan’s liberal pseudo intellectuals are once again beating the drums reminiscent of the 1980s, more arms for the navy, army and airforce. My concern is that more dollars, more arms from the “civilized, democratic west” will strengthen the military at the expense of all other pillars of society. Ek, I still think giving the military the benefit of the doubt is a luxury we can ill-afford. They will not go back to the barracks, not when America is their friend.
I understand your concern about the present. What can we do? We can write, protest, mobilize public opinion, lobby the media/academia in the US elsewhere, be more vocal about our political future, and wrest the initiative, no matter how long it takes, from the religious right and the equally conservative military. It is surely a long process but we can take the first steps in that direction.
Thank you for your kind words on my supposed ‘erudition’.
I never implied that individuals were insignificant to public policy, leadership and political processes. But individuals alone do not create institutions, institutions are born out the of the collective/action will of various forces (legal, political, business). Societies driven by competing interests, values and loyalties require institutions (representative and others) so that collective interests are articulated and conflicts mediated.
Yes, individuals are important, but relying on them for the continiuty of governance systems is where we run into snags. While a “barbarian, silly retard” (highly charged, judgemental terms I would say) may enter the political arena/state institutions, systems/instiutions of governance can rinse the polity through regulatory/accountability mechanisms. The example of the erratic Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar, who capitalised on the caste card, is a prime one. His corruption and political antics notwithstanding, he is still active in politics But he has also lost elections and was indicted several times on corruption charges. Indian instiutions are not perfect years of continuity/democracy, have stablized them, they can haul up a former PM/CM before the law.
Your question: What if you may have a very strong institution and the followers are not willing to comply by those norms set by that institution? What will you do then?
People working in functioning institutions (bureaucracy, judiciary) are bound by its rules. In a sense, coopted by its dictates. If they digress, institional mechanism can come into play. That is the crux of the individual/institution paradox. Your good professor is not replacable, but if the institution is strong, functions, delivers…it will attract more talented professors. If you look at the graveyard that our higher education has become, you will see many beacons of hope. I have when I was a student but there potential, talent does not translate into meaningful societal change because they are institutionalised by the logic of a repressive education system. Role models are necessary but no sufficient to sustain a society’s intellectual, political and moral moorings.
On your concern about civil-military dialogue:
Let me cite a personal example to extrapolate the prospects of what you propose. I was teaching a course on the Political Economy of National Security at a University in Islamabad. Not unexpectedly, the core textbook on the subject was only available in the National Defence College (by the way, the NDC budget is three times bigger than the combined state allocations for research to all public sector universities in Pakistan). The army colonel incharge refused point blank to lend it to me even for photocopying since it was meant for military personnel only. More important was his caustic remark though “how could a civilian teach defence? My response to him: if you can run Wapda and Punjab university, civilians can bloody well teach defense economics. Leaving that verbal exchange based on his sheer ignorance apart, his comments summed up the military’s approach to the “civilian problem. The point I am making: dialogue takes place between equals. The military has usurped all poles of power in our society be it education, science (a contact in the Ministry of Finance narrated to me the sordid tale of how almost 65% of the annual science and technology budget was allocated, under orders from the GHQ, to one institution run by the military, the rest of Pakistan had to do with the remaining 35%) private sector (road building, transport, logistics). You name it, they run it. And run it tax free.
The military holds civilian authority in contempt. To the military mind, the civilian is inept, corrupt, inefficient, lazy and unpatriotic. And who can initiate a dialogue with the military when politics is banned? Parliament stands dissolved. If an academic challenges the state’s “hostility consensus” he is branded a Hindu, Jewish agent. I know a few and the mental torture they are subjected to. When I was teaching, I was personally harassed by minions of the military on several occasions. Dialogue with the military will be a dialogue of the deaf. Dialogue is possible when the other side is willing to hear you out, give you the benefit of the doubt. Not when they think, you are a “bloody civilian”.
Nationalistic jingoism and discipline expressed in such glorified titles “unity, faith, discipline’ provide the fuel for the establishment to crush dissent. Where should I start: Pashtuns, Baluchis, Bengalis were all brutalised, robbed of their basic right to disagree, in the name of unity, faith and discipline.
Ek: I do not hold any illusions of radical changes in Pakistan politics at this point. The military will continue to ruin every state institution it can, emasculate it, dominate it to the extent that it can not ever present any challenge. This has been our history, our present and I am afraid to say, our foreseeable future. I am not advocating a change of government at this critical hour. My concern is that America’s flirtation with Pakistani dictators has only worsened the distortions, contradictions that mar state and society in Pakistan. Pakistan’s liberal pseudo intellectuals are once again beating the drums reminiscent of the 1980s, more arms for the navy, army and airforce. My concern is that more dollars, more arms from the “civilized, democratic west” will strengthen the military at the expense of all other pillars of society. Ek, I still think giving the military the benefit of the doubt is a luxury we can ill-afford. They will not go back to the barracks, not when America is their friend.
I understand your concern about the present. What can we do? We can write, protest, mobilize public opinion, lobby the media/academia in the US elsewhere, be more vocal about our political future, and wrest the initiative, no matter how long it takes, from the religious right and the equally conservative military. It is surely a long process but we can take the first steps in that direction.
#38 Posted by Aq on October 31, 2001 12:17:22 pm
Dear Zahra and Ek:
Will respond to your queries/concerns tomorrow as I am racing against time to meet a deadline on the outline/themes of an academic piece. It`s on the post-September 11 prospects of political stability/return to civilian rule in Pakistan.
EK, I will be discussing the mad mullah ploys of the establishment in it though I am not aware of any systematic work on the subject.
Will respond to your queries/concerns tomorrow as I am racing against time to meet a deadline on the outline/themes of an academic piece. It`s on the post-September 11 prospects of political stability/return to civilian rule in Pakistan.
EK, I will be discussing the mad mullah ploys of the establishment in it though I am not aware of any systematic work on the subject.
#37 Posted by Zahra on October 28, 2001 8:30:44 pm
Dear Mr. Shah:
Your institution vs individuals theme reminded me of something, I used to very strongly believe in, while I was in college and university in Pakistan. I used to always analyze what you talked about from the perspective of academic institutions, mostly observing my professors. My questions were not questions requiring an answer. I was speaking my mind aloud to conduct some brainstorming. Thanks to Sadna, for shedding some light, anyway.
To me, individuals matter! In fact, they matter a lot! In civilized societies, institutions should hold precedance over individuals. OK! Why? Probably, because decades back some individuals created a strong institution. But still the role of individuals should not be taken for granted as they have got to be mentally prepared for, what they are going to be involved in, by entering an institution.
Do you think a barbarian, a characterless lunatic, or a silly retard can enter an institution in Pakistan and realize the standing of that institution? You need abiding individuals to follow the rules and laws set by an institution. Once that person retires or dies, he should be remembered for his stance during his/her days in power. What if you may have a very strong institution and the followers are not willing to comply by those norms set by that institution? What will you do then?
I am reminded of one of my professors who used to teach us various subjects and would assist us in lab-practicals during the undergrad years at UET. A few years back, he passed away. He was an individual in that institution, but he`s not completely replaceable. The person, brought with him many things, aside from his knoweldge: experience, approach and many other attributes. I may sound a little biased as I knew him personally and liked him very much. Still, he`s not 100% replaceable.
Institutions by themselves, are nothing! They need individuals to set examples, in following the norms, set by the institutions. Another example will be of, religion. It is an institution and requires practitioners to disseminate the teachings of that institution and follow themselves. Can this institution stand on its own? On the other hand, if i cross-examine my own example: If all the practitioners die or vanish from mother earth, would the institution still survive? Yes, it will! What was the role of the practitioners/followers? They were conveying the message of this institution by following the instructions for their own good as well as for others. In short, they served as role models.
I am not surprised to read your take on my point on ``strategic direction.`` I knew that`s what you will come up with. I also agree with you regarding the prolonged void. I do not want to indulge in a discussion for the sake of it. But I have to give you the credit for producing excellent arguments that weren`t ``brand new`` in terms of their premise, but they were very well put and well-analyzed. Personally, I cannot stand any Pakistanis` stance on these political matters on Chowk. Majority is driven by emotions and holds certain views based on their distorted assumptions and generalizations. Sorry, but that`s the truth, if you read their mindset carefully. I liked yours for various reasons; aside from educational, your arguments were very well penned. Thank you for nazil-ho-fying on Chowk :) Please do write more! Thanks for jumping into the interacting zone as well!
I would like to ask you something here[My question is only for you. I am not keen on learning any one else`s take.]: Do you think it makes sense to have an open forum of discussion between the armed forces and the civilians? Do you think that would spark something? Our armed forces cannot stay outside. If you want to bring in the examples of the past, then there is a trend there. I think the open discussion would reveal many things and will also bring people on one platform. We can read and write many studies but that`s not it. You cannot keep on telling any institution how good or bad it is. You need to suggest or advise them how to improve or be on the road to eldorado. Could you write something on that? Personally, I like army for discipline. I saw Musharraf the second time on TV since he took over. His oratory skills were not vey impressive, but his stand and his arguments were. In short, he made sense! In the past, we have had many corrupt as well as incompetetnt leaders in lime-light. Yes, you cannot have saints in power, but incompetence is unacceptable! I do not want to hear an argument that many other democratic governments have corrupt people in power, including the US. Just wearing a black suit does not make their actions legitimate. But none of them take pride in ``unity, faith and discipline.`` We do. We have been doing that. We have a lot of emphasis on that. Probably we should wipe these words off the State Bank`s Building and that would set the qibla in the right direction.
How`s that?
Your institution vs individuals theme reminded me of something, I used to very strongly believe in, while I was in college and university in Pakistan. I used to always analyze what you talked about from the perspective of academic institutions, mostly observing my professors. My questions were not questions requiring an answer. I was speaking my mind aloud to conduct some brainstorming. Thanks to Sadna, for shedding some light, anyway.
To me, individuals matter! In fact, they matter a lot! In civilized societies, institutions should hold precedance over individuals. OK! Why? Probably, because decades back some individuals created a strong institution. But still the role of individuals should not be taken for granted as they have got to be mentally prepared for, what they are going to be involved in, by entering an institution.
Do you think a barbarian, a characterless lunatic, or a silly retard can enter an institution in Pakistan and realize the standing of that institution? You need abiding individuals to follow the rules and laws set by an institution. Once that person retires or dies, he should be remembered for his stance during his/her days in power. What if you may have a very strong institution and the followers are not willing to comply by those norms set by that institution? What will you do then?
I am reminded of one of my professors who used to teach us various subjects and would assist us in lab-practicals during the undergrad years at UET. A few years back, he passed away. He was an individual in that institution, but he`s not completely replaceable. The person, brought with him many things, aside from his knoweldge: experience, approach and many other attributes. I may sound a little biased as I knew him personally and liked him very much. Still, he`s not 100% replaceable.
Institutions by themselves, are nothing! They need individuals to set examples, in following the norms, set by the institutions. Another example will be of, religion. It is an institution and requires practitioners to disseminate the teachings of that institution and follow themselves. Can this institution stand on its own? On the other hand, if i cross-examine my own example: If all the practitioners die or vanish from mother earth, would the institution still survive? Yes, it will! What was the role of the practitioners/followers? They were conveying the message of this institution by following the instructions for their own good as well as for others. In short, they served as role models.
I am not surprised to read your take on my point on ``strategic direction.`` I knew that`s what you will come up with. I also agree with you regarding the prolonged void. I do not want to indulge in a discussion for the sake of it. But I have to give you the credit for producing excellent arguments that weren`t ``brand new`` in terms of their premise, but they were very well put and well-analyzed. Personally, I cannot stand any Pakistanis` stance on these political matters on Chowk. Majority is driven by emotions and holds certain views based on their distorted assumptions and generalizations. Sorry, but that`s the truth, if you read their mindset carefully. I liked yours for various reasons; aside from educational, your arguments were very well penned. Thank you for nazil-ho-fying on Chowk :) Please do write more! Thanks for jumping into the interacting zone as well!
I would like to ask you something here[My question is only for you. I am not keen on learning any one else`s take.]: Do you think it makes sense to have an open forum of discussion between the armed forces and the civilians? Do you think that would spark something? Our armed forces cannot stay outside. If you want to bring in the examples of the past, then there is a trend there. I think the open discussion would reveal many things and will also bring people on one platform. We can read and write many studies but that`s not it. You cannot keep on telling any institution how good or bad it is. You need to suggest or advise them how to improve or be on the road to eldorado. Could you write something on that? Personally, I like army for discipline. I saw Musharraf the second time on TV since he took over. His oratory skills were not vey impressive, but his stand and his arguments were. In short, he made sense! In the past, we have had many corrupt as well as incompetetnt leaders in lime-light. Yes, you cannot have saints in power, but incompetence is unacceptable! I do not want to hear an argument that many other democratic governments have corrupt people in power, including the US. Just wearing a black suit does not make their actions legitimate. But none of them take pride in ``unity, faith and discipline.`` We do. We have been doing that. We have a lot of emphasis on that. Probably we should wipe these words off the State Bank`s Building and that would set the qibla in the right direction.
How`s that?
#36 Posted by Nagnatheshwar on October 28, 2001 4:33:40 am
Finally from the slumber of superstition & tradition will arise movements like Naxalbari ,Mao Mao ,CPM,CPM-L
PRETTY MISS X IS PRETTY DANGEROUS
KUMARESH GHOSH
Midnapore, 7:
They call her Miss X. She is young and pretty. And is ready to kill. Miss X is the latest leader of tribals to have sent shivers down the police administration in Bengal’s badlands, virtually running a parallel government in Midnapore’s Kankrajhore region adjoining Bankura and Purulia.
Already on the backfoot following the burst in political violence, police are now grappling with the threat from the Nari Mukti Samiti, the women’s front of the Naxalite Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), commanded by Miss X.
The outfit has issued a fatwa for a poll boycott in the region. Officials are so scared of Miss X that poll personnel of 100 booths in Midnapore, 70 in Bankura and 30 in Purulia will reach their destinations only on the morning of May 10, and not a day earlier as is the rule, for fear of being kidnapped by the women’s brigade.
Raised around six months ago, Miss X and her band of 1,000 women — most of them in their twenties — have struck terror in the violence-ravaged region. The outfit, born of the red soil, has ensured that the red flags of the Left Front have been pulled down.
The women’s wargroup has repeatedly attacked the police and looted arms from them; imposed “taxes” on kendu leaf collectors and slapped “fines” on government and non-government employees. Buses and trucks passing through the area are not spared either.
The 5’7” Miss X is not a tribal herself. Around 28 years old, she is a Hindu who can converse in English, Bengali and the tribal languages. Her dialect is not Midnapori, rather, it is distinctly Calcuttan. But she refuses to say where she’s from.
Sitting under a sal tree deep inside the forests of Kankrajhore, Miss X explains why it was necessary to put together a women’s force.
“Tribal women are more resilient than the men, and have a spirit to fight. Men are more culturally inclined and too laid back: they are satisfied with a bowl of mahua (the local liquor) and singing. Women are the ones who have to bear the burden of the family by working the whole day. Once they return home after toiling in the fields, they have to look after the children and cook. This daily struggle has inspired us to raise a women’s force which we think is more effective. We believe in women’s empowerment.”
Men tribal leaders, she points out, had in the past fallen prey to the lure of big money and had “sold” their struggle for money. Moreover, the likes of Chunibala Hansda, the Jharkhand Party legislator from the region, and Chuni Kotal, the first Lodha graduate from the region, have inspired the women to come forward and join the struggle.
Police, Miss X says with a giggle, are afraid to venture into her territory. “Whenever the police come to arrest our comrades, we throw a cordon around them and attack them with arrows, stones, lathis and even broomsticks. The women sometimes even bite them. The police are embarrassed to be humiliated by a group of women. So they go back.”
Miss X herself carries a gun which she conceals in her sari. Two women, armed with bows and arrows, guard her round-the-clock.
So what are they fighting for? Adjusting the dark glasses that covers her eyes, Miss X asserts that the group has nothing personal against the government officials; it is only protesting against the sorry plight of the tribals and she is willing to launch a war if necessary.
There has been no development in the region, she says: water is not available, there are very few schools and the less said about the roads the better.
“When we came to train the people, we found that the women have to travel around 10 km every day to fetch drinking water from a pahari jharna (waterfall). She has to walk through forests full of wild animals. There is no work for them in summer as there is no water available for irrigation. The family has to survive on roots dug up from beneath the soil. What sort of life is this? If this is what the CPM has given us, then we don’t have any faith in democracy,” says the Naxalite leader.
The area the front controls is barren and arid, sal and shegun trees dot the undulating, unmetalled roads. Rice is not a produce here because of the lack of irrigation water. Jowar, bajra and makai are grown on some patches of land. The tribals’ main cultivation is the savoy grass from which they make ropes.
The men themselves are not too worried about the women in the family taking up arms. Says Sambhu Soren, whose wife and daughter are both members of Miss X’s band: “I’m a carefree man and have no time for politics. Let my wife and daughter decide whether to vote and whom to vote for. I’ll follow their diktat.”
PRETTY MISS X IS PRETTY DANGEROUS
KUMARESH GHOSH
Midnapore, 7:
They call her Miss X. She is young and pretty. And is ready to kill. Miss X is the latest leader of tribals to have sent shivers down the police administration in Bengal’s badlands, virtually running a parallel government in Midnapore’s Kankrajhore region adjoining Bankura and Purulia.
Already on the backfoot following the burst in political violence, police are now grappling with the threat from the Nari Mukti Samiti, the women’s front of the Naxalite Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), commanded by Miss X.
The outfit has issued a fatwa for a poll boycott in the region. Officials are so scared of Miss X that poll personnel of 100 booths in Midnapore, 70 in Bankura and 30 in Purulia will reach their destinations only on the morning of May 10, and not a day earlier as is the rule, for fear of being kidnapped by the women’s brigade.
Raised around six months ago, Miss X and her band of 1,000 women — most of them in their twenties — have struck terror in the violence-ravaged region. The outfit, born of the red soil, has ensured that the red flags of the Left Front have been pulled down.
The women’s wargroup has repeatedly attacked the police and looted arms from them; imposed “taxes” on kendu leaf collectors and slapped “fines” on government and non-government employees. Buses and trucks passing through the area are not spared either.
The 5’7” Miss X is not a tribal herself. Around 28 years old, she is a Hindu who can converse in English, Bengali and the tribal languages. Her dialect is not Midnapori, rather, it is distinctly Calcuttan. But she refuses to say where she’s from.
Sitting under a sal tree deep inside the forests of Kankrajhore, Miss X explains why it was necessary to put together a women’s force.
“Tribal women are more resilient than the men, and have a spirit to fight. Men are more culturally inclined and too laid back: they are satisfied with a bowl of mahua (the local liquor) and singing. Women are the ones who have to bear the burden of the family by working the whole day. Once they return home after toiling in the fields, they have to look after the children and cook. This daily struggle has inspired us to raise a women’s force which we think is more effective. We believe in women’s empowerment.”
Men tribal leaders, she points out, had in the past fallen prey to the lure of big money and had “sold” their struggle for money. Moreover, the likes of Chunibala Hansda, the Jharkhand Party legislator from the region, and Chuni Kotal, the first Lodha graduate from the region, have inspired the women to come forward and join the struggle.
Police, Miss X says with a giggle, are afraid to venture into her territory. “Whenever the police come to arrest our comrades, we throw a cordon around them and attack them with arrows, stones, lathis and even broomsticks. The women sometimes even bite them. The police are embarrassed to be humiliated by a group of women. So they go back.”
Miss X herself carries a gun which she conceals in her sari. Two women, armed with bows and arrows, guard her round-the-clock.
So what are they fighting for? Adjusting the dark glasses that covers her eyes, Miss X asserts that the group has nothing personal against the government officials; it is only protesting against the sorry plight of the tribals and she is willing to launch a war if necessary.
There has been no development in the region, she says: water is not available, there are very few schools and the less said about the roads the better.
“When we came to train the people, we found that the women have to travel around 10 km every day to fetch drinking water from a pahari jharna (waterfall). She has to walk through forests full of wild animals. There is no work for them in summer as there is no water available for irrigation. The family has to survive on roots dug up from beneath the soil. What sort of life is this? If this is what the CPM has given us, then we don’t have any faith in democracy,” says the Naxalite leader.
The area the front controls is barren and arid, sal and shegun trees dot the undulating, unmetalled roads. Rice is not a produce here because of the lack of irrigation water. Jowar, bajra and makai are grown on some patches of land. The tribals’ main cultivation is the savoy grass from which they make ropes.
The men themselves are not too worried about the women in the family taking up arms. Says Sambhu Soren, whose wife and daughter are both members of Miss X’s band: “I’m a carefree man and have no time for politics. Let my wife and daughter decide whether to vote and whom to vote for. I’ll follow their diktat.”
#35 Posted by Eklavya on October 28, 2001 4:33:40 am
Aqil, Sameer
Both of you make the very valid argument that the military simply cannot be trusted to make correct decisions in as complex a place as Pakistan. And given Pakistani military dictators` (including Musharraf`s) track record, such trust is very much like putting one`s head in the mouth of a hungry lion and hoping that the lion won`t bite.
Why then do I nurse that vain hope? Because, I believe, Pakistan`s head was already deep into the lion`s mouth. So one can only hope and pray that things will work out (for the the average Pakistani, not for the elite) in the long run. One can hope that the very institution that, more than any other, put the nation in such lethal a spot, will have a change of heart and will try to take it out of there.
That`s my prayer and hope, not my expectation. My cynical expectation is much grimmer. Seeing some events unfold over the last few days, I get an uncomfortable feeling that the Pakistani military institution hasn`t changed much at all (as Aquil`s institutionalist view will tell him, even expecting such a miracle to happen can be called sheer idiocy), and that very soon Pakistani military will be back to its good old ways. There is a small chance that the U.S. may get more deeply involved in the internal affairs of Pakistan than has been the case hitherto. If that happens, that involvement will act as a (weak) break on the Pakistani military`s return to its glorious past.
But even then, Aquil and Sameer, AT THIS MOMENT what do you suggest should happen? Let`s be practical. New democratic leadership can not be put in place so quickly. Even if a new Prime Minister could be somehow installed in a matter of weeks, will that leader, in the face of rising religious passions, be able to contain voices of religious extremism? Will the ``silent majority`` be able to assert itself, something it has almost NEVER done in Pakistan? My fear is that the answer to both these questions is the same: No. Let me explain why.
Just yesterday, there was a fairly large demonstration in Karachi against the U.S. (by implication, also against Pakistan`s) stance toward Afganistan. The curious (and happy) thing to notice is that no significant violence was reported. Why? Is it because people taking part in these demonstrations have suddenly become scared of the police? Hell, no! The reason, as Aquil rightly notes, is that these demonstrations are aspects of Mussharraf`s religious card in his bargaining with the US. Musharraf can play that game in a controlled fashion because of the close and symbiotic relationship between the Mullah and the military in Pakistan.
A democratic leader in Pakistan will not possess that advantage. Besides, the military itself will not stop breathing down that leader`s neck. The result, I think, will be national incapacitation, inability to either pull out of the coalition or control the street violence. That is what I meant when I said that the military should put out a few fires, grab its good-boy reward, and get out of the way.
I personally detest military dictators. But, I guess, being a manager, I am trying to think in both ``managerial`` terms and long-term ``institutional`` terms. It`s like this. You may feel that the incumbent CEO of an organization is not good for any stakeholder`s health in the long run (except his own); but you may still want to keep him in his job for a little while if that person has some unique, even if circumsantial, advantages in dealing with an ongoing and major crisis.
Regards,
EK
P.S. Aqil, your mad Mullah thesis is right on the money. I myself have been thinking along the same lines. Do you know of any works (articles or books) that focus on it? Thanks.
Both of you make the very valid argument that the military simply cannot be trusted to make correct decisions in as complex a place as Pakistan. And given Pakistani military dictators` (including Musharraf`s) track record, such trust is very much like putting one`s head in the mouth of a hungry lion and hoping that the lion won`t bite.
Why then do I nurse that vain hope? Because, I believe, Pakistan`s head was already deep into the lion`s mouth. So one can only hope and pray that things will work out (for the the average Pakistani, not for the elite) in the long run. One can hope that the very institution that, more than any other, put the nation in such lethal a spot, will have a change of heart and will try to take it out of there.
That`s my prayer and hope, not my expectation. My cynical expectation is much grimmer. Seeing some events unfold over the last few days, I get an uncomfortable feeling that the Pakistani military institution hasn`t changed much at all (as Aquil`s institutionalist view will tell him, even expecting such a miracle to happen can be called sheer idiocy), and that very soon Pakistani military will be back to its good old ways. There is a small chance that the U.S. may get more deeply involved in the internal affairs of Pakistan than has been the case hitherto. If that happens, that involvement will act as a (weak) break on the Pakistani military`s return to its glorious past.
But even then, Aquil and Sameer, AT THIS MOMENT what do you suggest should happen? Let`s be practical. New democratic leadership can not be put in place so quickly. Even if a new Prime Minister could be somehow installed in a matter of weeks, will that leader, in the face of rising religious passions, be able to contain voices of religious extremism? Will the ``silent majority`` be able to assert itself, something it has almost NEVER done in Pakistan? My fear is that the answer to both these questions is the same: No. Let me explain why.
Just yesterday, there was a fairly large demonstration in Karachi against the U.S. (by implication, also against Pakistan`s) stance toward Afganistan. The curious (and happy) thing to notice is that no significant violence was reported. Why? Is it because people taking part in these demonstrations have suddenly become scared of the police? Hell, no! The reason, as Aquil rightly notes, is that these demonstrations are aspects of Mussharraf`s religious card in his bargaining with the US. Musharraf can play that game in a controlled fashion because of the close and symbiotic relationship between the Mullah and the military in Pakistan.
A democratic leader in Pakistan will not possess that advantage. Besides, the military itself will not stop breathing down that leader`s neck. The result, I think, will be national incapacitation, inability to either pull out of the coalition or control the street violence. That is what I meant when I said that the military should put out a few fires, grab its good-boy reward, and get out of the way.
I personally detest military dictators. But, I guess, being a manager, I am trying to think in both ``managerial`` terms and long-term ``institutional`` terms. It`s like this. You may feel that the incumbent CEO of an organization is not good for any stakeholder`s health in the long run (except his own); but you may still want to keep him in his job for a little while if that person has some unique, even if circumsantial, advantages in dealing with an ongoing and major crisis.
Regards,
EK
P.S. Aqil, your mad Mullah thesis is right on the money. I myself have been thinking along the same lines. Do you know of any works (articles or books) that focus on it? Thanks.
#34 Posted by Aq on October 27, 2001 1:06:33 pm
Ek:
The Musharaf regime has taken very few, if any, decisions with the interests of the Pakistani people in mind. It has mostly been about maximising power in the hands of one man, and his coterie of generals. The army is playing the mullah card with the US, why arent political parties allowed to take out processions? Because Musharraf wants to get as much political milage out of the mad mullah theory as he can. It`s between the secular me, or the mullah with nukes is the standard nightmare scenario cooked up to convince the West that Mush alone is the answer to Pakistan` woes.
I find it truly amazing that you accept the military as a corporate, political entity and yet you are willing to concede that they will do more good than harm. It`s ironic that you dont have a problem with the army
getting the billions when this not only robs the rest of Pakistan of its due share but only further strengthens the military`s resolve to hold Pakistan hostage to its vested interests.
The military has created a dangerous political vacuum which has the potential to destablize politics. As the war continues in Afghanistan, and public anger against Mush/Bush rises, the Islamic parties will only get bolstered in their resolve to weild power. Will they ever accept the results of elections administered by a partisan military? IF they are madly agitating now under the very nose of the military, what will stop them then?
The military has always played with fire, (Taliban for instance) and emerged unscathed, it is Pakistani society that gets charred with each strategic shift the khakis make.
The military will once again either postpone elections (feelers are in the air already), or manipulate elections and transfer power to the most pliant group of politicians who will accept the GHQ`s conditions for running the country. Once again, Pakistan will suffer a long spell of autocracy, I am afraid. The effects of dictatorships on our state and society are evident for everyone to see. That Musharaf will ever exit power voluntarily is little more than a feel-good illusion. Can you name one Pakistani dictator who has given up power of his own volition?
The Musharaf regime has taken very few, if any, decisions with the interests of the Pakistani people in mind. It has mostly been about maximising power in the hands of one man, and his coterie of generals. The army is playing the mullah card with the US, why arent political parties allowed to take out processions? Because Musharraf wants to get as much political milage out of the mad mullah theory as he can. It`s between the secular me, or the mullah with nukes is the standard nightmare scenario cooked up to convince the West that Mush alone is the answer to Pakistan` woes.
I find it truly amazing that you accept the military as a corporate, political entity and yet you are willing to concede that they will do more good than harm. It`s ironic that you dont have a problem with the army
getting the billions when this not only robs the rest of Pakistan of its due share but only further strengthens the military`s resolve to hold Pakistan hostage to its vested interests.
The military has created a dangerous political vacuum which has the potential to destablize politics. As the war continues in Afghanistan, and public anger against Mush/Bush rises, the Islamic parties will only get bolstered in their resolve to weild power. Will they ever accept the results of elections administered by a partisan military? IF they are madly agitating now under the very nose of the military, what will stop them then?
The military has always played with fire, (Taliban for instance) and emerged unscathed, it is Pakistani society that gets charred with each strategic shift the khakis make.
The military will once again either postpone elections (feelers are in the air already), or manipulate elections and transfer power to the most pliant group of politicians who will accept the GHQ`s conditions for running the country. Once again, Pakistan will suffer a long spell of autocracy, I am afraid. The effects of dictatorships on our state and society are evident for everyone to see. That Musharaf will ever exit power voluntarily is little more than a feel-good illusion. Can you name one Pakistani dictator who has given up power of his own volition?
#33 Posted by SameerJB on October 27, 2001 1:06:33 pm
Eklavya #31:
[On the other hand, in highly militarized societies such as Pakistan, military dictators do enjoy one MANAGERIAL (as opposed to institutional) advantage. They can make and defend decisions when (1) stakes are high, (2) there is likely to be considerable opposition to any given set of decision outcomes, (3) socio-political consensus is absent, and (4) decisions have to be made quickly.]
Pakistan is actually a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural agrarian society with deep rooted tribal identities and not at all a homogeneous militarized society. The make up of state at the higher echelon does not represent Pakistani society, except in assemblies and senate.
The managerial experience that allows consensus only at the level of core commanders and GHQ and expects total obedience from everybody below in the institution is not enough and often not good for a society. Society and democracy works through compromises at every level. The experience of dissent at every level makes a different kind of manager than the one with absolutely no room for dissent at mass (or soldier and low ranking officers) level. You can actually see the difference in every appearance by Mush in the media. He usually gets angry and gives very short answer to questions critical of him or his fellow (even retired ones) ``managers``.
Most of the major decisions by military dictators in Pakistan actually ended up hurting Pakistan. They branded traitors and loyal politicians in former East Pakistan, they decided to go for military action, they are responsible for atrocities and dismemberment of Pakistan, they raised the importance of Kashmir dispute to a level of most important outstanding issue towards normalization of relations with the benefit of higher military spending for themselves, they are responsible for all the Afghan mess by betting on wrong horses from the outset, they wasted close to 800 million dollar in the arid mountains of Kargill. The list of AH Zia Ulhaq is so long that I do not want to go through that. Just Islamization and creating and backing terrorist sectarian organization will suffice me to make the point.
On the other hand, despite all the alleged or real corruptions, it was civilian government who did whatever little development we have to show for. Most of the Universities, colleges, roads, hospitals, airports, banks and other civilian institutions were actually created by civilian governments during their relatively short span of power with continous heavy handed interference from military especially during BB and NS governments, none of them would be there if not for military dictatorship of Zia.
Even Mush supporters here at chowk go to great lengths to differentiate between Mush and other military dictators of Pakistan. Mush will be lumped with the rest once there is a new military dictator who is different than the rest.
In short, a different kind of managerial experience in the absence of socio-political consensus and considerations lead to irrationat and erratic quick moves, some of them may be good-by sheer luck as current siding with USA.
[On the other hand, in highly militarized societies such as Pakistan, military dictators do enjoy one MANAGERIAL (as opposed to institutional) advantage. They can make and defend decisions when (1) stakes are high, (2) there is likely to be considerable opposition to any given set of decision outcomes, (3) socio-political consensus is absent, and (4) decisions have to be made quickly.]
Pakistan is actually a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural agrarian society with deep rooted tribal identities and not at all a homogeneous militarized society. The make up of state at the higher echelon does not represent Pakistani society, except in assemblies and senate.
The managerial experience that allows consensus only at the level of core commanders and GHQ and expects total obedience from everybody below in the institution is not enough and often not good for a society. Society and democracy works through compromises at every level. The experience of dissent at every level makes a different kind of manager than the one with absolutely no room for dissent at mass (or soldier and low ranking officers) level. You can actually see the difference in every appearance by Mush in the media. He usually gets angry and gives very short answer to questions critical of him or his fellow (even retired ones) ``managers``.
Most of the major decisions by military dictators in Pakistan actually ended up hurting Pakistan. They branded traitors and loyal politicians in former East Pakistan, they decided to go for military action, they are responsible for atrocities and dismemberment of Pakistan, they raised the importance of Kashmir dispute to a level of most important outstanding issue towards normalization of relations with the benefit of higher military spending for themselves, they are responsible for all the Afghan mess by betting on wrong horses from the outset, they wasted close to 800 million dollar in the arid mountains of Kargill. The list of AH Zia Ulhaq is so long that I do not want to go through that. Just Islamization and creating and backing terrorist sectarian organization will suffice me to make the point.
On the other hand, despite all the alleged or real corruptions, it was civilian government who did whatever little development we have to show for. Most of the Universities, colleges, roads, hospitals, airports, banks and other civilian institutions were actually created by civilian governments during their relatively short span of power with continous heavy handed interference from military especially during BB and NS governments, none of them would be there if not for military dictatorship of Zia.
Even Mush supporters here at chowk go to great lengths to differentiate between Mush and other military dictators of Pakistan. Mush will be lumped with the rest once there is a new military dictator who is different than the rest.
In short, a different kind of managerial experience in the absence of socio-political consensus and considerations lead to irrationat and erratic quick moves, some of them may be good-by sheer luck as current siding with USA.
#32 Posted by Banjaara on October 27, 2001 10:25:18 am
Zafar Al Talib # 29
``Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?``
Zafar Jee,
Why can`t you Indians understand one simple fact,
that this ``phenomenon`` has multiple personalities
and sometimes they get confused amongst themselves
as to who is who.BTW, he/she/they are genuine
Indians and you must feel proud of him/her/them:))
Regards.
``Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?``
Zafar Jee,
Why can`t you Indians understand one simple fact,
that this ``phenomenon`` has multiple personalities
and sometimes they get confused amongst themselves
as to who is who.BTW, he/she/they are genuine
Indians and you must feel proud of him/her/them:))
Regards.
#31 Posted by Eklavya on October 27, 2001 10:25:18 am
re: Aqil # 28
Aqil,
Musharraf is already in power. He is there, whether we like him or not. The question is: What is the best course of action for Pakistan and for Musharraf NOW?
I fully agree with your insitutionalist perspective. No matter how swanky their dresses and polished their diction, military dictators are never better than democratic dictators for the long term weal of any large and complex nation. Military men can not escape the one INSTITUTIONAL disadvantage they invariably suffer: for all their patriotic protestations, they protect and promote primarily the interests of one institution - the military (to military sympathizers - it is a matter of mindset, not conspiracy).
On the other hand, in highly militarized societies such as Pakistan, military dictators do enjoy one MANAGERIAL (as opposed to institutional) advantage. They can make and defend decisions when (1) stakes are high, (2) there is likely to be considerable opposition to any given set of decision outcomes, (3) socio-political consensus is absent, and (4) decisions have to be made quickly.
So, let us see where Pakistan stands TODAY. A major decision has already been made. Pakistan has decided to ditch the very Taliban it created and nurtured, and join hands with the US. NOW, in the short run, the challenge is managerial. Call it fire fighting. Call it a kind of restructuring. There are somethings that must be done TODAY: keep the religious fanatics at bay, drive the best possible bargain with the US, protect Pakistan`s ``strategic assets.``
Only an all-powerful man backed by an all-powerful institution in Pakistan - the military - can meet that challenge at this point in time.
So how long should Musharraf`s stay be? In other words, how long is that aforementioned ``short term?`` I would say, as short as possible. Musharraf, if he is really intelligent, should go back to the barracks as soon as he has been able to put out some major fires, and grabbed a few cool billions from the U.S.. Then, Pakistan`s military should the get the hell out of Pakistan`s political affairs. Money will come from the US. A great deal of that money will end up with the Pakistani military. The military should enjoy that money. But for God`s sake, don`t poke your nose into political affairs any more.
Will Musharraf ultimately fail us? I hope not. I say that with much trepidation. Musharraf has been making all the right moves after Sep 11. But these are short-term moves. In terms of long-term strategic thinking his past record has been abysmal.
Regards.
Aqil,
Musharraf is already in power. He is there, whether we like him or not. The question is: What is the best course of action for Pakistan and for Musharraf NOW?
I fully agree with your insitutionalist perspective. No matter how swanky their dresses and polished their diction, military dictators are never better than democratic dictators for the long term weal of any large and complex nation. Military men can not escape the one INSTITUTIONAL disadvantage they invariably suffer: for all their patriotic protestations, they protect and promote primarily the interests of one institution - the military (to military sympathizers - it is a matter of mindset, not conspiracy).
On the other hand, in highly militarized societies such as Pakistan, military dictators do enjoy one MANAGERIAL (as opposed to institutional) advantage. They can make and defend decisions when (1) stakes are high, (2) there is likely to be considerable opposition to any given set of decision outcomes, (3) socio-political consensus is absent, and (4) decisions have to be made quickly.
So, let us see where Pakistan stands TODAY. A major decision has already been made. Pakistan has decided to ditch the very Taliban it created and nurtured, and join hands with the US. NOW, in the short run, the challenge is managerial. Call it fire fighting. Call it a kind of restructuring. There are somethings that must be done TODAY: keep the religious fanatics at bay, drive the best possible bargain with the US, protect Pakistan`s ``strategic assets.``
Only an all-powerful man backed by an all-powerful institution in Pakistan - the military - can meet that challenge at this point in time.
So how long should Musharraf`s stay be? In other words, how long is that aforementioned ``short term?`` I would say, as short as possible. Musharraf, if he is really intelligent, should go back to the barracks as soon as he has been able to put out some major fires, and grabbed a few cool billions from the U.S.. Then, Pakistan`s military should the get the hell out of Pakistan`s political affairs. Money will come from the US. A great deal of that money will end up with the Pakistani military. The military should enjoy that money. But for God`s sake, don`t poke your nose into political affairs any more.
Will Musharraf ultimately fail us? I hope not. I say that with much trepidation. Musharraf has been making all the right moves after Sep 11. But these are short-term moves. In terms of long-term strategic thinking his past record has been abysmal.
Regards.
#30 Posted by Bapu on October 27, 2001 10:25:18 am
27:0 EST Reply #: 29
Zafar Al-TalibReply Bapu # 24
“Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you b
Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?``]]
You are losing it already Kiddo
1/ why do you reply to post that i adres to Samina ,Or Stuka or anyone other than you .Cant Bapu do that for anyone elses adressed.???
2/Dont be echolililiac.Do you know what that means.Go consult any dictionary good enough to explainit to you
3/If with my neourones i could master IIT & other tests of Hyped ndian tough Tests ,which you couldnt .Now what that says????
I am getting bored talking to you like a wall.
Zafar Al-TalibReply Bapu # 24
“Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you b
Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?``]]
You are losing it already Kiddo
1/ why do you reply to post that i adres to Samina ,Or Stuka or anyone other than you .Cant Bapu do that for anyone elses adressed.???
2/Dont be echolililiac.Do you know what that means.Go consult any dictionary good enough to explainit to you
3/If with my neourones i could master IIT & other tests of Hyped ndian tough Tests ,which you couldnt .Now what that says????
I am getting bored talking to you like a wall.
#29 Posted by ZafarA on October 26, 2001 9:27:00 am
Reply Bapu # 24
“Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you beg.”
Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?
“Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you beg.”
Why hasn’t he given you any then? Anyway, I was talking to Arrested Development, aap yahan kyun aa mare?
#28 Posted by Aq on October 26, 2001 9:27:00 am
Let me deconstruct two fallacies par excellence that were floated by two readers:
1) The army has a strategic take on things.
Like what? taking us to war in Kargil when the civilian govt was engaged in a peace process? That was a stregic blunder of immeasurable proportions. Do you even know how much that strategic take cost us? According to some credible estimates, US$800 million.
2) Musharaf should tide over the current situtaion..
Dictators once ensconsed in the comforts of power will do anything to stay there. Ayub wanted to give us a progressive Pakistan, stayed for 11 years, Zia wanted to hold elections/transfer power in 90 days stayed for another 11...No political/social force in Pakistan is strong enough to challenge a Khaki usurper, only accidents/wars do that for us. I just hope this time the cataclysm is bearable.
Zahra, I guess the questions on institutions have been addressed by Sadna. I would just like to add, in line with the noble laureate D North`s political economy approach, that institutions set the rules of the game--both formal, informal as well as their implementation. Together they determine how politics plays out. Organizations are the players of the political matrix, made up of groups of individuals brough together by common political, economic or social objectives. For instance, political organizations are political parties, parliaments, parliamentary committees etc. The immediate objective of political organizations is power maximisation, reelection etc, but the ultimate objective, according to North and others, is survival because all organizations live in a world of scarcity and hence competition. `The institutional framework determines the incentive structure of the society. It is the interplay between these forces that shapes the features of the polity and the economy.`
The argument above is laced in academic trappings of institutional political economy but I think it captures the essence of why institutions matter, and why some societies exhibit better political/economic performance and others don`t.
Sameer, I am not surprised by the political naivette you point to, in fact, most of Pakistan`s pseudo-intellectual liberals as well as state-subsidized academics shared the same view post Oct 99. The military was our last hope as civilian politicians had destroyed the economy, institutions, and as Mush put it NS has ``threatened the integrity of Pakistan`s last credible institution``, read: tried to fire me for
running my own parallel government, with its own India, Afghanistan, and nuclear policies.
I am just posting an article I wrote for the Friday Times last week. Hope all of you will enjoy reading it. I look forward to your feedback.
1) The army has a strategic take on things.
Like what? taking us to war in Kargil when the civilian govt was engaged in a peace process? That was a stregic blunder of immeasurable proportions. Do you even know how much that strategic take cost us? According to some credible estimates, US$800 million.
2) Musharaf should tide over the current situtaion..
Dictators once ensconsed in the comforts of power will do anything to stay there. Ayub wanted to give us a progressive Pakistan, stayed for 11 years, Zia wanted to hold elections/transfer power in 90 days stayed for another 11...No political/social force in Pakistan is strong enough to challenge a Khaki usurper, only accidents/wars do that for us. I just hope this time the cataclysm is bearable.
Zahra, I guess the questions on institutions have been addressed by Sadna. I would just like to add, in line with the noble laureate D North`s political economy approach, that institutions set the rules of the game--both formal, informal as well as their implementation. Together they determine how politics plays out. Organizations are the players of the political matrix, made up of groups of individuals brough together by common political, economic or social objectives. For instance, political organizations are political parties, parliaments, parliamentary committees etc. The immediate objective of political organizations is power maximisation, reelection etc, but the ultimate objective, according to North and others, is survival because all organizations live in a world of scarcity and hence competition. `The institutional framework determines the incentive structure of the society. It is the interplay between these forces that shapes the features of the polity and the economy.`
The argument above is laced in academic trappings of institutional political economy but I think it captures the essence of why institutions matter, and why some societies exhibit better political/economic performance and others don`t.
Sameer, I am not surprised by the political naivette you point to, in fact, most of Pakistan`s pseudo-intellectual liberals as well as state-subsidized academics shared the same view post Oct 99. The military was our last hope as civilian politicians had destroyed the economy, institutions, and as Mush put it NS has ``threatened the integrity of Pakistan`s last credible institution``, read: tried to fire me for
running my own parallel government, with its own India, Afghanistan, and nuclear policies.
I am just posting an article I wrote for the Friday Times last week. Hope all of you will enjoy reading it. I look forward to your feedback.
#27 Posted by semipreciousme on October 26, 2001 9:27:00 am
Aqil
“That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels.”
…..what a paradox…..men who’d kill for their country end up killing the country itself…
“That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels.”
…..what a paradox…..men who’d kill for their country end up killing the country itself…
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- Common Sense Left Behind Prashant Bhatt
- Three Cups of Tea & Pennies for Peace Ras Siddiqui
- Educational Practices in Private Schools in Pakistan Farzana Tahir
- School Days FouzKhalid Khan
- London’s Knife-Crime Epidemic: Asif Naqshbandi
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- HP: Well I guess you... The Correct Turn
- _arjun38: #161 Posted by HP... The Correct Turn
- hamidm2: Re: # 160 hp, ... thanks... The Correct Turn
- hamidm2: kaal mian, .... i fi... The Correct Turn
- HP: If it was a... The Correct Turn
- HP: #114 Posted by shankar... The Correct Turn
- bubba: Feroz, well said. Muslim... Hop Aboard the Interfaith
- KaalChakra: True, tahmedji, we can't... The Correct Turn
