Pakistan: the Aftermath

TARIQ ALI

Arranged marriages can be a messy business. Designed principally as a means of accumulating wealth, circumventing undesirable flirtations or transcending clandestine love affairs, they often don't work. Where both parties are known to loathe each other, only a rash parent, desensitised by the thought of short-term gain, will continue with the process knowing full well that it will end in misery and possibly violence. That this is equally true in political life became clear in the recent attempt by Washington to tie Benazir Bhutto to Pervez Musharraf. The single, strong parent in this case was a desperate state department - with John Negroponte as the ghoulish go-between and Gordon Brown as the blushing bridesmaid - fearful that if it did not push this through both parties might soon be too old for recycling."

I wrote this opening paragraph in a lengthy essay for the London Review of Books earlier this month. That the violence would come so soon afterwards took me aback. The first shock of Benazir Bhutto's killing is now receding and it's necessary to evaluate the likely outcome dispassionately, avoiding the piety that occupies so much space in the global media. Virtually everything being written or shown on television screens is specious and designed to avoid discussing the real issues at stake.

Why were Bush, Negroponte and their British acolytes so determined to fix the crisis in Pakistan in this fashion? What did they think it would achieve? What brave new world did they envisage?

Virtually all their assumptions are based on facts that are systematically and selectively pruned, distorted or overstated. The aim is to avoid all Western responsibility for the present crisis. Since all this is endlessly repeated with minor variations by the global media networks, it is worth treating each major theme in turn.

Pakistan is a nuclear state, the only Muslim country to test and possess nuclear weapons. There is a danger that if the jihadisal-Qaeda were to gain control of these weapons they could unleash a nuclear holocaust. Musharraf has to be supported because he is staunchly opposed to this possibility.

It's worth remembering that Pakistan perfected its nuclear device during the Eighties under the dictatorship of General Zia-ul Haq, a valued ally of the West and central to its then war against the Evil Empire (the Soviet Union) in Afghanistan. The United States was so obsessed with punishing the Russians that it did so by both organising a global jihadi network to recruit militants to fight the holy war in Afghanistan and turning a blind eye to Pakistan's hardly secret construction of a nuclear facility.

The nuclear facility is under very tight military control. There is no way any extremist group could gain control of this in the face of an army half a million strong. The only way any religious extremists could achieve state power is if the Army wanted this to happen. But as the Pentagon and the DIA know full well, the Pakistani military command structure has never been broken and that the generals are heavily dependent on US funds and weaponry. The Pakistan Army invoices Centcom in Florida each month for its activities on the Pak-Afghan border. It is the military as an institution that delivers the goods, not individual generals. Musharraf has no legitimacy left since he discarded his uniform. Hence Bush's insistence that the elections go ahead despite a mass boycott, imprisoned judges, a neutered media, key politicians under house arrest and the public execution of Ms Bhutto. If only Benazir decided to boycott the elections (it would have meant a break with Washington), she would still have been alive.

Pakistan is a failed state. It is on the verge of collapse and waiting in the wings are angry, determined jihadis. Hence the need for a non-religious alternative and the grooming of Benazir Bhutto to help Musharraf acquire some badly-needed legitimacy.

Pakistan is not a 'failed state' in the sense of the Congo or Rwanda. It is a dysfunctional state and has been in this situation for almost four decades. Sometimes the situation is better and sometimes worse. At the heart of this dysfunctionality is the country's domination by the Army and each successive period of military rule has made things worse. It is this that has prevented political stability and the emergence of stable institutions. Here the United States bears direct responsibility since it has always regarded the military as the only institution in the country it can do business with and this is still the case. This is the rock that has diverted admittedly choppy waters into a headlong torrent. Economically the country is lop-sided with a corrupt and ultra-rich elite, but surely this is perfect for the Washington Consensus. And the World Bank has been full of praise for the economic policies of Musharraf.

The latest crisis is a direct result of the NATO occupation and war in Afghanistan which has destabilised Pakistan's North-West frontier and created a crisis of conscience inside the Army. There is much unhappiness at being paid to kill fellow Muslims in the tribal areas that border both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The arrogant behaviour of NATO soldiers has hardly helped matters in either country. Sending US troops to train the Pakistan military in counter-insurgency is likely to inflame passions further. Afghanistan can only be stabilised via a regional agreement involving India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan, coupled with the total withdrawal of all NATO troops. It is US attempts to avoid this that enhance the crisis in both countries.

Musharraf has failed as a US pointman in Pakistan. His failure to protect Benazir Bhutto has not gone down well in Washington and they could dump him within the next year and pin their hopes on General Ashraf Kiyani, who replaced Musharraf as Army chief. It's less easy to find a substitute for Benazir. The Sharif brothers are not as reliable and far too embedded with the Saudis. The elections will be royally rigged and thus lack any real legitimacy. The dark night is far from over.

 Yes, the Pakistanis are in great trouble and there may be much more in store for them. The only way they can be saved is by asking forgiveness for their crimes and that is by wearing canvass clothes, coming out of houses and crying /begging the mercy of Allah like did the people of Nenivah in the time of prophet Jonas. a.s.

Brother, I agree with your prescription, wholeheartedly. Just add one line: kick every single American and American agent out of their country.

Study the recent history, you will find that any Muslim country that's kissed by the US simply disintegrates into chaos. It's not by some mere coincidence or, as some of my friends say, that the Americans are jinxed. 

It's US agenda for these countries.  

to arrange marriage is very bad

but to arrange for date mate and hate is very good very forward thinking

 With due respect to the very senior member (whisper), I humbly restrain myself from giving a suggested harsh prescription for the people of Pakistan. It would be bad to blame all of it on the Americans alone.

 I have knowledge of recent history of Iran and Afghanistan who used that same anti American prescription. Khomaini sahib and Mulla UMAR, what did they do?? What was their mistake?? They had almost all the country with them. Please tell in terms of Islam, the mistake of those two great Muslim leaders. There is no running away from the consequences of the bad deeds of many decades of the muslims of sub continent.

 I cannot understand why that is suggested, i.e. the getting rid of every american from the country. as whispered to me in low tone:

 kick every single American and American agent out of their country.

 Is that possible? How many pakistanis will be expelled from the States?? The Americans are well organised. They rounded up every Japanese in America within three days when war broke out with JAPAN (WWII). So please do not suggest another war now. It is easily said than done.

It would be bad to blame all of it on the Americans alone.

My dear brother, God forbid if I would blame anything on the poor Americans, alone. I agree with you wholeheartedly that Pakistan is a sick country, it's in a very bad shape, it smells, nay, it stinks. Let's say it's just at the verge of dying!

Happy?

But if you care to study the ground realities, you will find out that the American vultures are making the situation worse. The US agenda is to create a civil war or a civil war like situation in Pakistan - to justify moving NATO forces in; taking the Nukes out + carving out Greater Baluchistan, perhaps, to please you if not merely for their own agenda!

Plus, you really believe that there is no other heaven than the United States of America? The fastest going Sunset Power!!

Kindly, forget about what I am saying, just sit up tomorrow and spend no more than just one precious hour of your time, just list all the Muslim countries the US has had anything to do with - and also list what happened to them.

Give you a clue, start with Iran in 1953.

Just one hour will make a man out of you!!

 What type of a man?? Am I not already a man?? I read your posts with interest and they seem to attract me on the surface. I was wandering in thoughts along your lines. Then I suddenly realised that it was not good to blame everything on others.

 At the same time, I remembered some of your old friends, Khomaini and MULLA Umar. Khomaini said "Russia Shaitan number one", "America Shaitan number two"......

 Also Mulla sahib, did well to oppose the Shaitan number two (America). He resisted and may have blamed it on America. In my post, I had given some example and asked a question. But you have not replied to that question and prescribed the same medicine (bitter pill) again.

 I am not for politics at all. Thanks.

In my post, I had given some example and asked a question.

I must apologise, I was a bit distracted with a few things, I have updated my post, I believe, after you read it.

"Every thing that goes wrong in the world and all injustice, killing and misery starts from Washington"

Lord Bertrand Russell's words, not mine. 

minuteman say's he is mighty

whispers shouts no

barzakh say's never mind arranging marriages first arrange friendship between cuckoo and the crow

AS-salaam alaykum

ATTN To Whisper:I'd really appreciate if you could increase the "Font Size" of your posts as I have prolem reading 'tiny prints'.I know i should be wearing glasses or Contact lenses,but just do me the favour of easy reading without straining my eyes,please'!!!

 Same from me Dear Whisper. Do not whisper. Please shout with a bigger font than usual. Thanks.

"....that all things are not political and some situations are pre-existing of any other influence. "

You may want to expand a bit on that assertion.

It is a problem of viewpoint: once we have established our own world
view-point we tend to think everybody else must also have this same
viewpoint.

. . . then we begin implementing our view-point with 52,750 feet in the air kind of kindness!

 Duende;

 Minuteman, sorry to interrupt here, but it strikes me you are showing the major cause for Muslim troubles all around the world: a refusal to consider politics above religious aspects. 

 Sorry, I do not understand much politics, nor do I believe (indulge) in it. Still I feel that all the problems of The Muslim today are the result of not understanding their religion (Quran) and not being peaceful, reasonable, God fearing. There may be a religious politics. But there should not be a political religion.

 For example, see how many religious political parties of Muslims are in sub continent? There are many Muslim leaders all having their own political party. On top of that, Muslims leave their religion and run after politics. They lose both the religion and politics.

Nah khudaa he milaa nah wisaalay sanam,

Nah idhar kay rahay nah uthar kay rahay!

[ They did not get closer to Allah and did not get any benefit from their idol worship (politics). They are neither hither nor thither, lost in the wilderness]

The mistakes that muslims made can be blamed on the religious clergy who were busy in-fighting, ignoring their duty from vey long time, say the time of mughal emperors. Those kings were having dancing girls and music. The west was advancing in technology. The maulvis did not object to the bad deeds of their rulers but kept quiet.

 Then suddenly, they were doing jihaad in 1857 against the British forces, along with hindus... Is it allowed to do any Jihaad in company with mushrikeen?? Then very educated persons were preaching against slavery, telling every one that indians were the slaves of the British. I could not understand that. I felt that the people of India were under occupation and they were the subjects of British empire.

 They were definitely not slaves. Is there not a difference between a slave and a subject??

 I feel and believe in Jihaad of the nafs ( i.e. fight against the ill desires of the lower self, Nafs e Ammaarah). But to take up the sword or gun in the present day to gain land (autonomy) needs much understanding and calculations. It is a ill gotten desire of the self to  look for the land or seat of power.

 Please do not blame me about these things. I do not feel well about the teachings of maudoodi sahib and Ikhwaan (Egyptian Brotherhood) who turned the religion into politics at a wrong time. They did much damage to the Ummah. Maudoodi sahib even said that the mission of the prophet s.a.w.s. was political and that the Salat and zakat and fasting and Hajj are a training course for Jihaad (fight the world with the sword). He said that the prophet failed to make any headway in his mission until he took up the sword. That was to prove that islam was spread by sword.

 Not all muslims believe like that. I welcome the good advice of my friends whisper and duende and others.. Thanks,  but no politics. I believe in religious politics but not in a political religion. hindus have religious politics (it may or may not be good for the muslims). The Jews also have their religious politics. So can the muslims have their politics for their faith. But muslims should not make the religion into politics. How can the ignorant muslims shout for any Jihaad. Firstthey are to good deeds and master their right knowledge before going into action.

 Kaisay teer andaaz ho, seedha to karlo teer ko !

 (What type of an archer are you? Frist you should learn to hold the arrow in the right direction !) 

Remember that arrow is the important symbol of recent planned elections in pakistan.

Sorry, I do not understand much politics, nor do I believe (indulge) in it. Still I feel that all the problems of The Muslim today are the result of not understanding their religion (Quran) and not being peaceful, reasonable, God fearing. There may be a religious politics. But there should not be a political religion.

My friend, I see your point, but could you educate us on what percentage of the Muslims are not being peaceful, reasonable, God fearing?

For example, see how many religious political parties of Muslims are in sub continent? There are many Muslim leaders all having their own political party. On top of that, Muslims leave their religion and run after politics. They lose both the religion and politics.

I didn�t realise that Islam requires Muslim Leaders to concern themselves just with pooja path (prayers and other rituals) and keep themselves buried in their hujras (seminal quarters)? That is the primary role of prohats (Hindu Monks) and Jesuit Priests.

Islam is not merely a worship format or just a mere spiritual ladder. It�s a compact system, with dimensions that span virtually anything in our lives. Now, that includes politics.

What�s the percentage of Muslim Leaders who have their own parties, in the sub-continent or anywhere else? My brother, would it ever be possible for anyone to establish a party and run it if there were no public demand for any such enterprise?

And, isn�t democracy about inclusion of all shades of opinion?

Love your poetry. But what about:

Juda ho deen jab siyasat se tau phir reh jaati hay faqt Changezi

(When we separate din from politics, we end up in Chengez Khan-ness)

The mistakes that muslims made can be blamed on the religious clergy who were busy in-fighting, ignoring their duty from very long time, say the time of mughal emperors. Those kings were having dancing girls and music. The west was advancing in technology. The maulvis did not object to the bad deeds of their rulers but kept quiet.

Bhai, the tuzks (diaries) of that time show that those pobre Mughals were most of the time engaged in statecraft and a range of other things. Are you trying to tell us that Idia, at that point of time, wasn�t turning out around 72% of global produce?

And, the world was seeking some fast-track route to the Sub-Continent just because it was some dilapidated place?

You are right, the west was really advancing in technology in the 16^th century, of beheading our �enry the VIII�s wives! 

Then suddenly, they were doing jihaad in 1857 against the British forces, along with hindus... Is it allowed to do any Jihaad in company with mushrikeen??

My friend, I need a lot of education from you on this point. It seems that my history of that period fails me. It registers it (what the English call a Mutiny) as the Indian War of freedom from Company Maharaj � the East India Company�s loot. And, India was quite a homogenised entity, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians and the Parsis lived as a single integrated community � so they had to struggle against the occupiers, together.

Then very educated persons were preaching against slavery, telling every one that indians were the slaves of the British. I could not understand that. I felt that the people of India were under occupation and they were the subjects of British empire.

I have visited at least some people of opinion and I am afraid to say that almost 96% of them seem to differ with your view. You mean the 1957 War of Independence was wrong only because the Ulema were for it, but the ultimate 1947 independence was OKAY only because it was spearheaded by Gandhi and Jinnah?

Or, you are saying that the very thought of freedom is a wrong thing?

They were definitely not slaves. Is there not a difference between a slave and a subject??

Yes, there is just of the terminology.

I feel and believe in Jihaad of the nafs (i.e. fight against the ill desires of the lower self, Nafs e Ammaarah). But to take up the sword or gun in the present day to gain land (autonomy) needs much understanding and calculations. It is a ill gotten desire of the self to look for the land or seat of power.

So it�s kosher for the west to occupy Land, power or OIL with guns, but the Muslims should prostrate themselves on the ground and just do ata hayat o lilaah e . . . without resorting to any practical means or acts for getting their poor lands back?

I am no scholar, but I am sure you will educate me on what Islam dictates on that?

 Dear whisper, my previous words had no effect on you. I would call the 1857 A.D affair a war of independence. But I cannot call it a Jihad. The muslims being highly divided into sects have no time and energy to fight any one else except themselves. There is no unity. There is no knowledge. What is the use of starting any war against any one and make a call for Jihaad.

In order to understand the truth, we may look at the condition of the poor muslims who are being divided on many basis, education, finance, beliefs, politics etc. I DO NOT MIND that the people fight to regain their lands back but remember that all the wars/ struggles of the muslims in India were lost due to the treachery of the Muslims.

 Jaffar az Bangaal, Sadiq az Daccan.

[ The two big traitors, Jaffar from Bengal and Sadiq from Deccan]

 I do not feel well about the policy of Maudoodi sahib for inciting muslim masses for Jihad. BUT I do feel good for Sir Syed sahib and Dr. M. Iqbal who told the Muslims to get educated. I myself was a victim of a misguidance from a maulvi who told me not to take up science subject in school because it was against Islam.

 On my questioning, the funny reason he gave was that science says  it is the cloud that makes rain. But Quran says it is Allah who makes rain.

The maulvis need lessons in politics too. But if they undestood their religion well, they will not need too much about politics.

 May I ask you what is the need of the moment. Should we go to fight the outside enemies or should we get rid of these inner enemies peacefully by better education.

 I will deal with your subject of too much politics and little prayers later Insha Allah.  And you did not comment on my remarks about religious politics and political religions. Also please suggest some way for poor Muslims to get over their intense bad state. Is the solution in politics?? Or there is any other way too? Thanks for calling.