Pakistani politics (catch all)

[Ray]

I find this one dubious. I think Musharraf and the ISI viewed the militants with a discriminating eye - some had to be killed, but others could still be useful. Certainly many in Baluchistan and the NWFP believed that the ISI still maintained relationships with several violent Islamist groups in those areas.

All govt keep their options open and Musharraf would be no exception.

Intelligence agencies too have to keep their options open. After all, information is paramount for policy makers!

What I meant was the public face and we must give him his due - he did make pronouncements that did not endear him to the Moslem people of Pakistan, The election is the indicator.

Any other in Pakistan would have played to the gallery!

Of course, at the same time, one has to admit that he had compulsions - rid Pakistan of the label of being a rogue state, bring the economy to a level worth reckoning, get Pakistan acceptable in the comity of nations, bring the heat in the neighbourhood a notch lower!

The elections in Pakistan has indicated that Islam is stronger than the good brought about in Pakistan by Musharraf.

[davidbfpo]

Posted on http://www.pakistanpolicy.com and citing http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...304029_pf.html

“Collaboration is growing between Taliban commanders in Afghanistan such as Haqqani, who has tribal roots in Paktika province, and Pakistanis such as Baitullah Mehsud, a commander in South Waziristan who is reorganizing the Taliban with help from agents in Pakistan’s intelligence service, according to U.S. military officials. Mehsud, the CIA has said, is responsible for the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December.”

This suggests we are back again to the policy of Musharraf - stop and go (as I've termed the policy before). I accept there could be other explanations, for example a new government's inability to control ISI actions.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Nawaz Sharif is known to be with the Islamists and more so, having lived in exile in Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahaabism!! And Nawaz Sharif is no friend of the WoT. Therefore, one has to wait and watch.

Ray,

I know one London based analyst, who stated before the changes in Pakistan since late 2007, that Sharif would pursue a 'more nuanced policy on the GWOT and better serve Pakistani interests'.

Secondly, there are few, if any comments on the Saudi gopvernments policy on Pakistan (a major gap in all the analysis I've seen).

Third, Sharif is often described as a secular politician in the West. Is that a mistake?

davidbfpo

[Ray]

AFAIK, Sharif is a neutral person in so far as jingoism as a policy is concerned.

However, one does not know how far has Saudi Arabia influenced him.

Further, the environment has changed drastically from the time he was the PM. There are too many contradictory issues in Pakistan that have to be resolved and which defies resolution given the anti US and pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there.

[bourbon]

Ray,please help me to better understand the points you are making:

What I meant was the public face and we must give him his due - he did make pronouncements that did not endear him to the Moslem people of Pakistan, The election is the indicator.

What pronouncements are you speaking of? How did it not endear him to the "Moslem people of Pakistan"? (Btw, isn't "Moslem people of Pakistan" a redundant term?) How is the election the indicator?

The elections in Pakistan has indicated that Islam is stronger than the good brought about in Pakistan by Musharraf.

How so? What is the Islamic voting block that defeated Musharraf?

Further, the environment has changed drastically from the time he was the PM. There are too many contradictory issues in Pakistan that have to be resolved and which defies resolution given the anti US and pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there.

Please elaborate on this. What is the pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there?

Don’t get me wrong, I have a cynical realist affinity for strongmen, warlords, and dictators. But that’s all predicated upon said strongman/warlord/dictators ability to advance the national interest of the United States, instead of goat-rope it.

[Ray]

[QUOTE]

Ray,please help me to better understand the points you are making:

What pronouncements are you speaking of? How did it not endear him to the "Moslem people of Pakistan"? (Btw, isn't "Moslem people of Pakistan" a redundant term?) How is the election the indicator?

Pakistan has minorities and so I emphasised the Moslem aspect.

He has over the years tried to rationalise Islam in the internationally accepted context. That has not gone down well. Pakistan has benefited immensely under Musharraf. It surfaced from nearly being declared a rogue state and got accepted in the comity of nations, it survived from being a failed state and what is important is that it got military hardware for its strategic requirements beyond being anti terrorist oriented and most importantly, with IMF, WB and US economic assistance it revived its economy. All thanks to Musharraf pragmatism. And yet his Kings Party was humiliated!! All because he was seen as assisting forces which were anti Islam as his effort in the WOT that allowed, as the Pakistanis perceived, as a free run for the US!!

How so? What is the Islamic voting block that defeated Musharraf?

It does not mean the fundamentalists. It means that Islam is the core of Pakistani society. They perceived the assistance to the US as anti Islam, wherein not only Islamic forces were battled by the govt, but also Islam ideals were relegated to kowtow to non Islamic pressures in the WoT.

Please elaborate on this. What is the pro Islam sentiment that is manifesting itself there?

Superficially it is not apparent. However, the a study of the Pakistani media, especially the vernacular media would indicate the anger of the average Pakistani who feel that they are sold out.

One may like to visit
http://www.defence.pk/forums/index.php
where apparently educated Pakistanis post.

[bourbon]

Ray, thank you for elaborating, I can better understand the points you are advancing.

That said, while I agree with the arguments you make about some of the advances and benefits brought to Pakistan under Musharraf, we differ in our perspective on it.

Pakistan’s newest ambassador at-large (and some say soon to be ambassador to Washington) told me anecdote that has greatly influenced my perspective on the matter, and I think illustrates Musharraf's thinking on the matter. I am paraphrasing the story here, so the details will probably differ but the moral of the story remains.

It’s a story about a man who is hired to guard the village mill by killing the rats that are raiding the grain. He had been out of a job for some time but is now making good money and can provide for his family and clan. One day his buddy visits him on the job, and asks him how the new gig is going. They chit-chat for awhile, and soon the visitor asks the guard why he didn’t just kill the three rats who are raiding the grain. The guard calmly turns to him and retorts: “Why would I want to put myself out of a job, by killing off all the rats?”

This is perspective was completely counterintuitive to everything I had been taught in life. But I think it offers a conceptualization whereby we can see where Musharraf’s incentives lay. As Tequila notes, Musharraf and the ISI, as have most Pakistani administrations, have found militants to be useful at times. So the historical precedent lay, and good evidence remain that they have not abandoned this paradigm.

Post 9/11 the United States undertook a campaign of promoting democracy throughout the world. This policy was an affront to Musharraf and the military’s control of the country. The incentive lay for them to promote Musharraf as sole bulwark standing against militant control of the country and its nukes. At the same time U.S. cash flowed into Pakistan creating the economic expansion you noted. Memory remains of similar aide and its economic benefits in the 1980’s, as does the memory of how quickly it stopped flowing once the Soviet threat disappeared and the economic doldrums of the 1990’s that ensued.

Why kill all the rats?

[Ray]

Very precise is the analogy. No quibbles on that.

That is exactly what he was doing - running with the hares and hunting with the hounds and it was not giving the desired results as far as the WoT was concerned.

However, from the Pakistani point of view, he did raise a failed state to a worthwhile status.

The point that one should bear in mind is as to why Musharraf is more useful than the elected leaders. Musharraf's existence was totally at the munificience of the US. Thus, he had to operate within the paradigm allowed!

The elected leaders are not beholden to the US and instead will have to play to the gallery and the gallery is not with the West.

To bring these elected leaders to heel will require a far greater an effort than what was necessary to rein in Musharraf.

But then, I could be wrong!

[Ron Humphrey]

Very precise is the analogy. No quibbles on that.

That is exactly what he was doing - running with the hares and hunting with the hounds and it was not giving the desired results as far as the WoT was concerned.

However, from the Pakistani point of view, he did raise a failed state to a worthwhile status.

The point that one should bear in mind is as to why Musharraf is more useful than the elected leaders. Musharraf's existence was totally at the munificience of the US. Thus, he had to operate within the paradigm allowed!

The elected leaders are not beholden to the US and instead will have to play to the gallery and the gallery is not with the West.

To bring these elected leaders to heel will require a far greater an effort than what was necessary to rein in Musharraf.

But then, I could be wrong!

I do think however that there is also the paradigm shift on our side, which is to say now that you have been elected deal with the problem. If not it can be dealt with for you.

For every change there is a balance shift and if a new Pakistani government chooses not to address considerations which a lot more countries than the US are concerned about then they may find that the pressures they face will be much different than those Musharraf did.

What those might be or how they happen really are dependant on the soveriegn governments decisions and actions. I'd say the balls literally in their court and all the other players are already warmed up.

It could be interesting.

[Ray]

[QUOTE]

I do think however that there is also the paradigm shift on our side, which is to say now that you have been elected deal with the problem. If not it can be dealt with for you.

Do forgive me, but that is where is the disconnect of the western way of thinking and the Oriental one.

True there is election and a coalition of convergent party is in power. But, will they accept that the problem is of their won creation? They will consider it as US bequeathed! Therefore, while they are ready to assist, the problem, as far as they are concerned is that of the US and they are the sufferers!

For every change there is a balance shift and if a new Pakistani government chooses not to address considerations which a lot more countries than the US are concerned about then they may find that the pressures they face will be much different than those Musharraf did.

Given the situation, the ISAF has more to lose than the Pakistan. The pressure will be the same since nothing extraordinary has been done for Afghanistan to change the equation! The promised financial boost is yet to materialise!

[Ron Humphrey]

[QUOTE=Ray;44199]

Do forgive me, but that is where is the disconnect of the western way of thinking and the Oriental one.

True there is election and a coalition of convergent party is in power. But, will they accept that the problem is of their won creation? They will consider it as US bequeathed! Therefore, while they are ready to assist, the problem, as far as they are concerned is that of the US and they are the sufferers!

This was exactly what I was trying to get at. The reality that it is a disconnect between ways of thinking will not unfortunately mean that that won't be the thinking anyway. At least from many of the areas where that thinking comes out in the public sector.

This would or will bring out the second issue you described. It is at that point I think the shift may take place. Unlike the devisiveness of the Iraq war in the political realm almost noone within the political or public realm in the west disagrees with operations needing to be conducted in Afghanistan. I mean after all that's where OB and Zawahiri are, right. Thus the pressure change in that I don't see the lack of popular support for dealing with AQ and the Taliban and thus the expectation for the new Pakistani government to do something besides say (Not our Problem).

Seeing as it won't be their fault would it follow that they wouldn't have to fear the same popular backlash and as such should we go ahead and take care of the problem we "caused"

[Ray]

Here is an analysis from an Indian think tank as a backgrounder.

PAKISTAN: New Dawn or New Nightmare?
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper2609.html


While the West maybe resolved about the issues of Afghanistan, AQ and OBL, it may not be the perception in Pakistan, be it their masses or their political leaders.

One has to understand the Islamic mindset. Unlike other people, Moslems think that their loyalty is first to Islam and then to the nation. This is a singular and powerful difference from the mindset of the rest of the world. That is why the issue of the ummah and the Caliphate keeps re-surfacing regularly. In fact, one Pakistani lamented soon after the London carnage as to why Pakistani boys (British born) prefer to wear Arabic clothes in preference to the accepted Pakistani men’s wear! But then, such Pakistanis, as the one who lamented, are rare! It indicates the overpowering influence of Arabia on the mindset. It is also common to find Pakistanis, including in the educated and literary realm, rejecting history and reinventing the same to reengineer a new identity shorn of the ancient history! There is a definite desire to align itself with the origins of Islam, the deserts of Arabia is preferred to the bounties of a green Pakistan! Odd, but the lure of being ‘pure’ is a very strong emotion that underlines the Islamic existence!

That said, the fact that Moslems are being killed by infidels and even Moslems (Pakistan Army) revolts the Islamic sensibilities. Within that mental makeup, the Pakistani govt has to function, be it Musharraf or the new govt.

Therefore, as I see it, the new govt, in any case is shaky, since there is no clear mandate and cannot be seen to be with the US or the West as their vote base is of the Islamic mindset which is oblivious to realpolitik and are shackled to Islam as the supreme guide.

I am afraid the West has to work the issue of Afghanistan on its own and with help from Pakistan which does not compromise the govt. They will still have to run with the hare and hunt with the hound whether they like it or not, because they require western funds to shore them up as also western weaponry to be able to keep up with India.

[tequila]

I have to argue that this analysis sounds quite reductionist at its heart.

One has to understand the Islamic mindset. Unlike other people, Moslems think that their loyalty is first to Islam and then to the nation. This is a singular and powerful difference from the mindset of the rest of the world. That is why the issue of the ummah and the Caliphate keeps re-surfacing regularly.

Nationalism is a rather recent phenomenon in world history and was brought as a Western import to South Asia. India and Pakistan did not exist as nations before 1947, and indeed most postcolonial countries have struggled with continuing issues of nationalism vs. older identities. India, for instance, still struggles with numerous insurgencies that appeal to just such identities.

As for the idea of the ummah and the Caliphate, I'd argue that the former has more weight than the latter, which has not existed in a coherent political form since 820 or so. The lack of such unity indicates the relative strength of religious identity alone as an indicator of political identity.

In fact, one Pakistani lamented soon after the London carnage as to why Pakistani boys (British born) prefer to wear Arabic clothes in preference to the accepted Pakistani men’s wear! But then, such Pakistanis, as the one who lamented, are rare! It indicates the overpowering influence of Arabia on the mindset.

Every Pakistani man in my neighborhood wears Pakistani clothes at home. I'd wager this is the case for most Pakistanis in Pakistan as well. If you have any hard data on this, I'd like to see it.

It is also common to find Pakistanis, including in the educated and literary realm, rejecting history and reinventing the same to reengineer a new identity shorn of the ancient history! There is a definite desire to align itself with the origins of Islam, the deserts of Arabia is preferred to the bounties of a green Pakistan! Odd, but the lure of being ‘pure’ is a very strong emotion that underlines the Islamic existence!

Invented histories invoking ancient glories are not isolated to Muslim Pakistanis. Indeed, the seeking of specious connections to one's religious antecedents has a long history in non-Muslim countries. The Crusades could be seen as a form of this. Also it's doubtful that Jesus was as paleskinned as this guy, but yet this is the most common image of him as propagated by Western artists (he probably looked a lot more like this):

[Ray]

I have to argue that this analysis sounds quite reductionist at its heart.

Nationalism is a rather recent phenomenon in world history and was brought as a Western import to South Asia. India and Pakistan did not exist as nations before 1947, and indeed most postcolonial countries have struggled with continuing issues of nationalism vs. older identities. India, for instance, still struggles with numerous insurgencies that appeal to just such identities.

Nationalism is not new to Asia or is it? Sub continental history, I believe does indicate nationalism as also sub nationalism. That is as far as I know.

Insurgencies have nothing to do with such simplistic reasoning as nationalism. It is more complex than that. To wit, religion, economic health etc. It is a subject by itself. For the Westerner, let us ask if the Israeli Palestine conflict only about nationalities?

As for the idea of the ummah and the Caliphate, I'd argue that the former has more weight than the latter, which has not existed in a coherent political form since 820 or so. The lack of such unity indicates the relative strength of religious identity alone as an indicator of political identity.

Every Pakistani man in my neighborhood wears Pakistani clothes at home. I'd wager this is the case for most Pakistanis in Pakistan as well. If you have any hard data on this, I'd like to see it.

I quoted a Pakistan who felt otherwise. What is the men's wear they wear? I have also seen the comment from Lahori from WAB. Do search it out! I am not here to change you opinion. I just wrote what I know and heard. If you are a Pakistan, I am sure you will know better about Pakistanis in the UK.

Invented histories invoking ancient glories are not isolated to Muslim Pakistanis. Indeed, the seeking of specious connections to one's religious antecedents has a long history in non-Muslim countries. The Crusades could be seen as a form of this. Also it's doubtful that Jesus was as paleskinned as this guy, but yet this is the most common image of him as propagated by Western artists (he probably looked a lot more like this).

If you think I have hurt you, that was not my intention.

But do let me know if there was anything called Pakistan in history before 1947 or was there any history that is singularly different from the annals of history that was taught during the British Raj?

If you are a Pakistani, say so, so that I can be clearer knowing that you will understand the issues more lucidly.

[tequila]

Nationalism is not new to Asia or is it? Sub continental history, I believe does indicate nationalism as also sub nationalism. That is as far as I know.

My position is that it is relatively new. Modern nationalism only really took hold as a political phenomenon in most Asian countries in the 19th century. Modern nationalist mass movements arose only in the 20th.

Insurgencies have nothing to do with such simplistic reasoning as nationalism. It is more complex than that. To wit, religion, economic health etc.

I agree - indeed, that is largely my point. To say that only Muslims ("unlike other people") have some sort of befuddled loyalty to religion first, then nation ignores the fact that almost everyone has mutiple, competing identities that often subsume loyalty to nation to other needs. My old football coach used to end every practice with a prayer, where he intoned "God first, then family, then country." Oddly this gentleman was not Muslim - he was a Presbyterian WASP.

But do let me know if there was anything called Pakistan in history before 1947 or was there any history that is singularly different from the annals of history that was taught during the British Raj?

Was there a unified nation called India in history before 1947? I know for a fact that the history taught in India nowadays differs from what was taught during the Raj, and that this is a matter of some controversy.

And no, you have not hurt me, don't worry. I'm not Pakistani, nor Muslim, nor of subcontinental descent, as if that matters. You'd be better off just addressing my arguments.

[Ron Humphrey]

RAY,

One might perhaps listen to what our esteemed Senator Bayh had to ask today at the briefings

[Ray]

The idea of Nationalism and sub national pining is not new to Indian history. A study of Indian history would indicate that it manifests itself even in the modern context and has foundation. However, it is a truism that political India as it is today, was but an entity only after the British arrived. And independence, carved out another country – Pakistan!

It may not lead to correct conclusions if one was to confine one concept to nationalism to the period of the British Raj merely because one understands it better.

The present mindset, in both India and Pakistan does draw heavily upon ancient history as motivators for present problems that embarrass both countries as weak and beyond redemption. That is why, there is the rise of the ultra conservative elements in both India and Pakistan. And that aspect does impinge upon the political thinking and actions of the people of India and Pakistan. The terrorist influx into India, well before 9/11, has sadly weaned many a secular Indian to veer on ultra nationalism, fortunately not in the violent way of a jihad. I cannot comment on Pakistan in the context of their apprehension that the US is hell bent in making it a vassal state. Personally, I feel that that has a tinge of paranoia!

Therefore, to ignore the same and confine oneself to modern history alone would be an error.

One has to understand the interplay of history, ancient and modern, and the craving to find respectability after years of colonialism to rid the guilt of being impotent to remove the feeling of a second class citizen of one’s own land. This aspect cannot be ignored. A self flagellation, if you will! Self pity is a very strong emotion!!

In it lies the verity of why the evil of terrorism find respectability amongst a large majority in Pakistan. It is their subconscious that imagines that it is time for rectification of their previous impotence to fight the earlier enslavement!

It maybe flawed when viewed in the realpolitk realm, but it is real!

In so far as religion goes and that some feel that religion comes first, apart from Moslems, I would not really know. But having seen the cross section of Indian society, the vast majority does not care a fig about religion. And instead, do put their country above religion since the workings of the country affects their lives more intimately than religion. Religion cannot fill the stomach, but a country’s policies do! Religion is taken to be for inner peace while the external peace is left to the govt.

One example of a WASP would not make a summer. But, as far as Islam goes, it does claim Dar ul Islam is the panacea for all ills of the world and the Moslems do believe in that. New religions seem to be more exuberant. Possibly there is the urgency to make a stamp on the world to say that they too exist! It would do wonders if one watches QTV (Quaran TV) to understand Islam! However, a word of caution. One must know Islam or else one could add to their numbers. Very convincing and very powerful!

Saying a prayer is not a stamp of religious supremacy or that one’s religion is the sole religion. It is merely an action to rejuvenate the soul and the resolve, and so it is not usual that your coach ended sessions with a prayer. Though it appears irrational, religion does actually gives one that extra 'oomph' when faced with the impossible!

I know for a fact that when I was in school, I read Indian history and British history too and all was well! And yet today, there is a huge controversy of Indian history in India since it is believed that Left wing historians have hijacked the issue. It has more to do with politics than history since the Moslems who are a huge vote bank in India and can change political fortunes have to be appeased! However, it is still not tweaked to make it appear totally different from the history taught earlier.

It maybe worth your while to read Pakistan's Sustainable Development Policy Institute’s study on “The State of Curricula and Textbooks” and “Re-writing the History of Pakistan, in Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience”, to realise the extent history has been turned on its head in Pakistan and how Islam and injustices done to it, has been ingrained in developing minds.

Here again is an indication of how the West is catching the Bull, not by the horns, but by something else! The West is fretting over madrassas. If the complete education system is geared to sing paeans to Islam and its supremacy over other religions and the injustice done to them, then why only blame the madrassas?!

The whole system is convinced that Islam has got the wrong end of the stick and everyone else is to blame for the same!

This aspect has to be kept in mind before cranking in West driven solutions into Pakistan.

[Ray]

Sift the garbage from this link and then see the sentiments

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strateg...teps-down.html

In fact, check the forum and observe how everything and every action seems to find a solution in Islam and ummah!

Unbelievable that such an abstract thing as religion can be taken as a panacea for all ills over economic and realpolitik!

[Ron Humphrey]

Unbelievable that such an abstract thing as religion can be taken as a panacea for all ills over economic and realpolitik!

Understanding that sentiment is it actually so hard to identify with the fact that individuals always deal with much of their own lives in a manner reflective as to how it affects their spirit. In otherwords whether one ascribes to any given faith or even the existance of faith the reality remains that most anyone we might meet throughout this world will have something which guides them that can not be given a physical form but rather is simply the way it is :for them.

This is where I can buy what you say about misinterpretation of one group by others and the subsequent issues that arise. If as you say there is a large element on self-pity or I might even say victimization of those within countries such as Pakistan or Afghanistan Then does it not naturally follow the a large part of how this must be addressed in the arena of emotion/thought (spirit). And does that not generally point out the role that much of the current religious role played by certain factions have focused on using.

People always look for answers somewhere and they always seek out that which comports most with what they want to think but does it really mean they are impossible to address in other ways as well. Especially if one manages to slightly adjust the paradigm within which they find themselves.

[Ray]

No, it is not impossive to address the others' misconceptions and fears.

One has to be educated enough of the sensibility and apprehensions of those who have to be placated.