About the author: Rusty Walker is an Independent Political Analyst, educator, author, Vietnam veteran-era U.S. Air Force, from a military family, retired college professor, former Provost (Collins College, U.S.A.), artist, musician and family man. Rusty Walker is an ardent supporter of Pakistan.

The following essay examines nine common narratives, over a four part series. Essentially the thesis explores Pakistan’s identity for the future and the need for taking responsibility for the past. Recurring themes are the: civilian government vs. the military identity, and the default to blaming the U.S. for Pakistan issues. There are certainly more flawed narratives these I have offered, but if even these few are ignored it tends to add to the current conspiracy of silence. Such politically correct notions tend to keep Pakistan in an identity crisis, and passively ignoring core truths that contribute to positive change, healing and renewal. And, a brief review of Pakistan’s tumultuous history will sufficiently inform why I use “healing” as an apt term. Most articles in the South Asian press and blogs are inclined towards Pakistan-as-victim. This is often balanced with the United States or India as persecutors. The post-article comments are often inundated with what the U.S. or India has done to make Pakistan the economically fragile and politically dangerous place that it is today. Even in the Left wing U.S. media, or, anti-West biased journalists appearing on Al Jazeera (tacitly pro-Islamist), use jihadist language, “American imperialism” is said to drive everything to ruin in the Middle East and South Asia, with no accountability assigned to the nations themselves. Let’s assume for sake of argument that the U.S. is an imperial war machine, although I would dispute that, are the Pakistanis’ still not responsible for their own self-determination? Are the Pakistanis not to blame for any result? Are Pakistanis really victims?

The relentless complaints about the U.S. from Pakistan press conveniently stifle meaningful debate, and tend to deflect culpability. False narratives are most effective when fact is mixed with fiction. While such rhetoric obfuscates Pakistan issues, it is useful to the pseudo-secular, fake civil society that attempt to manipulate and sabotage progressive thought for political advantage. The colloquy containing half-truths may sound like the following flawed assertions we so often hear:

On the question of Pakistan’s true identity:

1. “Pakistan is not a military or authoritarian state, it is an Islamic democratic-republic, and the Army has only taken over government when the elected government didn’t do its job.”

 

Many people reach a point where they realize that the shape their life has taken does not square with the ambitions they originally had for it. Nations sometimes have to come to terms with this identity crisis as well. In foreign policy and many domestic decisions, isn’t Pakistan more accurately described as being run by the military rather than its elected democratic government? Certainly presidents/prime ministers are aware of the ever present threat of a military takeover if policy does not go its way given the history of Pakistan. Short of a take over, there are many ways an embedded culture of military and security operatives can shape civilian realities. The military and ISI currently share a kinship with Islamist radicals, evident in the unchecked violence from Sindh to FATA. To stand up against Blasphemy Laws puts one in eminent danger; to petition the government or deride the military from Baluchistan, is to risk turning up missing as Rangers roam the area. To question the military from the office of the president risks a coup and martial law. What is the true identity of such a nation?

What is the identity of Pakistan? A democracy? A modern Muslim state, a fundamental  Islamist nation? Or, is it in fact, military authoritarian? Listening to political parties’ divergent views on the role of government in politics is instructive: PML-Q Quaid-e-Azam group are aligned with a past military dictator General Musharraf, recently accused again of corruption. Musharraf originally formed a government after rigged elections; and then there are the Islamist apologists:  the PML-N is now supported by religious extremists. The party has been accused of widespread corruption and extrajudicial killings carried out presumably with Pak Army and ISI approval. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League, Nawaz has been a supporter of General Hameed Gul; MQM, is a party associated with bloody political killings in Karachi in the mid-1990s and again today; there are the other smaller parties, ANP Awami National Party of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, did support the US in anti-Taliban measures. The antagonism between political parties in Pakistan range from unsubstantiated accusations to violence to assassination: Isn’t the PPP the only party that does not attempt to use Islamist rhetoric to get the Muslim vote?

Note that each party accuses the other of corruption- and there is no party leader who has NOT been accused of corruption, including the sitting president and his martyred wife. To face these truths does not mean we fall apart, but it does grant clarity in as to where we have been, and where we need to go to repair our reputation.

Turning our attention to the current elected president and government, the tendency of social chatter all too frequently is to attempt to discredit the PPP.  There is a progressive liberal contingency that favors democratic and liberal agenda and apparently an elite liberal-set who clearly favors the military in Pakistan. The urban- elite will chastise the PPP for dropping the Blasphemy Law repeal after Taseer (PPP) was killed, forgetting that even while Sherry Rehman (PPP) was threatened and had to go into hiding she still supported repealing it; The repeal will obviously be a slow process, but the PPP put it on the table.

It is useful to remember when criticizing, that when you are actually serving in office, you are at risk. Critics often fail to remember that any Pakistan political party must show caution with regards to the Army and ISI. Those are the current realities on the ground in Pakistan today. The PPP is the only electable democratic political party that is for democratic liberties, and pluralism, and there are no other alternatives that do not show sympathy for Islamic laws currently embedded in the Constitution. There appears to be no other parties on the horizon that could or would address the Islamist legacy provisions in the Constitution. The only hope for the future of democracy in Pakistan may be the PPP. Or, could it be the MQM with its incontrollable gangs of bloody violence in the streets of Karachi? Or, the PLM-N chief Nawaz Sharif who spouts political rhetoric and platitudes? Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif future election strategy, stunningly includes aligning with Deobandi terrorist organization Sipah-e-Sahaba;  Doesn’t the recent alliances of Jamaat-i-Islami’s chief Syed Munawwar Hasan with PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif and MQM leader Altaf Hussain startle civil society or is our identity so confused we need to align with radicals? Any party that obstructs repealing the blasphemy law, or the Ahmadis ordinances, are Islamist stakeholders stuck in the dark days of General Zia ul Haq.

The ANP is on terrorist hit lists, as are some on the path of sacred path of Imam Hussain; it is Pakhtun brother against brother in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. And then there is Imran Khan who has been referred to as Pakistan’s version of Sarah Palin; attractive, immensely charming and likeable, but naïve and shallow, unprepared for running a government. The reality is that Sarah Palin actually ran a successful state as governor. Even those credentials are not part of the cult of personality driving Imran Khan’s pretense to moderation. Who does not like Imran Khan? But, likeability is no substitute for a principled politician with an intrepid belief in a democratic Pakistan. A democratic identity may not square with Islamist rhetoric or military allegiance that appears to be an essential element in politics, with the exception of PPP.

Discrediting the PPP through its history is becoming a stale game: corruption allegations of deceased Z. Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, past allegations of Zardari Swiss bank accounts. It is noteworthy that all these attacks were generated by political opposition, or the military, never substantiated, and the record of “extrajudicial killings” under Bibi’s terms in office point more to ISI-operations that persist through every official that has held office in Pakistan. The charge of her “brutal handling” of the Karachi riots, regardless of who gave the order actually brought the violence under control. Again, the army was involved in these measures as they are today. President Zardari’s prior imprisonment appears in hindsight due to political rivals, as does the relentless cynicism attributed to the label “10%” meant to taint any good that Zardari has done. Given the choice of the field, why would democratic-minded pluralistic and liberty-conscious civil society continually demonize the PPP, its only real chance at democracy? Disparaging the only pro-democratic party up for election that separates religion and politics appears to be another example of forgetting the Democratic identity and goals of the majority of Pakistan civil society.

Politics can easily devolve into dysfunction, as it seems to have recently in the U.S. name-calling over economic debates. The establishment press often assaults the PPP as if there were an alternative. The choice is radical Islamic party sympathizers and Sharia law, military-driven politics, or democracy.

During Jinnah’s time, the democratic-minded, secular-elite believed in a westernized civil society as did the Shiite-minority. The Sunni-majority, Sufi-influenced Barelvi sect, strongly disagreed and still do.  Why wouldn’t the identity of Pakistan be confused in some measure? The Urdu poet-philosopher Mohammad Iqbal, called for the amalgamation to Punjab, the Northwest Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan into a ‘single state” as the “final destiny” of “Muslims.”[1] Zulfi Bhutto confirmed Jinnah’s message in 1976, “ ‘My government happens to be attuned to modern humanism…Pakistan brings to everyone of us irrespective of caste, colour or religious creed,’ echoing Jinnah’s first speech to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi  on 11 August 1947.”[2] Jinnah’s vision was of a secular state for Muslims, with freedom of religion, perhaps not unlike Turkey is today.

Jinnah and Iqbal did not live long enough to assure that their combined and rational balance of secular and moderate-Islamic ideals would become the identity of the new Pakistan. Was this to be an Islamist state of Sharia Law, based on its million strong Sunni population or a military authoritarian government based on an existential threat from India? The Constitution as it is now, containing Islamist law, combines feudalism with modern justice is a conflicted document.

The initial precedent of Pakistan turning from civilian-controlled police force to the military in order to control rebellious groups began as early as the 1950s. As early as 1956 military intervention and Islamist-will was imposed on the Dominion of Pakistan as Jamaat-I Islami activists rioted over demands that Ahmadi sect be declared non-Muslims. The president, Major General Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law and announced plans to rewrite what he decided was an overly democratic Constitution.

This resulted in the first of many military interventions over civil government and a perfectly capable civilian police force that would become marginalized, under-funded and insufficiently trained. General Muhammad Ayub Khan subsequently conducted a bloodless coup sending Mirza into exile. General Khan was equally anti-democratic, anti-India and pro-military (60% of the budget even then went to military). Three things were established in Khan’s day- the ISI tasked to monitor political rivals; civilian police were marginalized by regular army, or rangers, blurring the lines of what is criminal behavior, versus what is national interest; “for the good of the people” justified the military coup, martial law, or the threat of both became a valid use of military power.

A Civil government that functions under the intimidation of an unelected authoritarian power, the Umma, or threat of a military dictatorship, is not conducive to a “democratic” state representative of its people.

We should honestly respect the Pakistan military as a formidable force whose job it is to protect Pakistan’s national security. The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government, the elected officials that meet with heads of state, and attempt to guide a nation’s international and national policy. This is sabotaged by military mentality, instead of diplomacy. Such a mind-set, results in a society so habituated to its status quo that it becomes the accepted norm to see military in Karachi suppressing violent political gangs, instead of civilian police, who should have been sufficiently funded and trained to contain lawlessness and manage riot control.

intervention and Islamist-will was imposed on the Dominion of Pakistan as Jamaat-I Islami activists rioted over demands that Ahmadi sect be declared non-Muslims. The president, Major General Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law and announced plans to rewrite what he decided was an overly democratic Constitution.

This resulted in the first of many military interventions over civil government and a perfectly capable civilian police force that would become marginalized, under-funded and insufficiently trained. General Muhammad Ayub Khan subsequently conducted a bloodless coup sending Mirza into exile. General Khan was equally anti-democratic, anti-India and pro-military (60% of the budget even then went to military). Three things were established in Khan’s day- the ISI tasked to monitor political rivals; civilian police were marginalized by regular army, or rangers, blurring the lines of what is criminal behavior, versus what is national interest; “for the good of the people” justified the military coup, martial law, or the threat of both became a valid use of military power.

A Civil government that functions under the intimidation of an unelected authoritarian power, the Umma, or threat of a military dictatorship, is not conducive to a “democratic” state representative of its people.

We should honestly respect the Pakistan military as a formidable force whose job it is to protect Pakistan’s national security. The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government, the elected officials that meet with heads of state, and attempt to guide a nation’s international and national policy. This is sabotaged by military mentality, instead of diplomacy. Such a mind-set, results in a society so habituated to its status quo that it becomes the accepted norm to see military in Karachi suppressing violent political gangs, instead of civilian police, who should have been sufficiently funded and trained to contain lawlessness and manage riot control.

Comments

comments