I was delighted to see that you have tackled this subject in your latest entry. It is probably the most important security issue of our time.
Pakistan was a country founded on the belief that religion alone could act as a glue to form a nation. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, argued that the Muslims of India were a nation and deserved recognition as such. Unlike the thugs who have run Pakistan for most of its history, Jinnah was actually an erudite man by comparison. He was also not a Muslim in any real sense. His wife was a Parsi and he was known for being a thoroughly anglicised Muslim—he was known to enjoy his whisky and pork and had disdain for religious fundamentalists.
Jinnah’s politics were based on jealousy and resentment. He was an ambitious man and wanted to become the leader of the Congress one day. He was probably the most successful lawyer in British India for more than a generation and he saw that as naturally developing into the role of India’s leader. Gandhi’s rise to power scuttled those ambitions and created a problem for Jinnah’s ambitious plans. And so he left the Congress and formed the Muslim League. Jinnah argued that Muslims could never live as the equals in any society with a Hindu majority because the Hindus were more enlightened, better at trade and business and much better at the professions.
For the British, Jinnah’s dislike of Gandhi was a godsend and as good imperialists they exploited this difference to stay in power. However, two decades or more of taking Jinnah’s separatist ideas seriously meant that his claim to Muslim nationhood could not be ignored when the British wanted to leave India. Hence, Pakistan was formed.
Politically, Jinnah’s ideas were based on a serious delusion. Probably the greatest delusion was that the Muslims were a nation. But even more so, the idea that the Muslims would have their own nation but not descend into religious theocracy—this belief was that of a man of a Western liberal bent who didn’t really understand his own people. The Muslims were really incapable of self-governance and soon after Jinnah’s death (a bare few months after partition in 1947), a power struggle ensued in Pakistan. Democracy was on weak footing anyway and soon the military took over. The entire history of the country in one of brief periods of “democratic rule” interspersed with military dictatorship.
Pakistan is a very fractious country. It is not (in some respects) more divided than India but the divisions are more violent. Culturally, a Pakistani Punjabi is closer to a Pakistani Sindhi or Balochi than an Indian Punjabi is to an Indian Tamilian. Racially too, Pakistan is a lot less diverse. However, religion makes those differences very dangerous. Whereas Punjabi Hindus and Tamilian Hindus in India can work side by side in India’s cities and co-operate commercially and never attack each other violently, in Pakistan such restraint is less likely.
The country is run by a small elite of landed Punjabis. The Sindhis detest rule by the Punjabi elite—I met Pakistani Sindhi guys at university who hated rule by the Punjabis and they referred to Pakistan as “Punjabistan.” The Punjabis have co-opted the Pathans to some extent but the Pathans are essentially barbarian tribesmen and no law (except their own tribal code) runs in their lands—in the North West Frontier Province on the border with Afghanistan.
Like the Sindhis, the Balochis dislike Punjabi rule and have been waging a guerrilla war for some time to gain their independence. To add to these divisions is the miserable condition of the Mohajirs (Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India at the time of independence). The lot of Mohajirs in Pakistan has been very bad and this resulted in the creation of the MQM (the Mohajir Qoumi Movement). The MQM is a violent organisation and has been known to blow up cars, buildings and gun down people. The resentment among the Mohajirs in Pakistan is so great that their leader Altaf Hussain called the creation of Pakistan “the greatest blunder” in the history of the Indian sub-continent. The Pakistani establishment consider Hussain a terrorist. Tony Blair’s government gave Hussain British citizenship recently which caused a furious uproar in Pakistan.
On top of all these violent divisions is the divide between Shiites and Sunnis. Pakistan has a sizable Shiite minority (about 20 percent). Shiite mosques are often bombed in Pakistan by Sunni extremists—scores have been killed over the last few years although no one keeps track of these things and the Western media has almost blotted out all news of these events. But these bombings and the killings emphasise the unstable nature of the country.
Corruption in Pakistan is endemic—and it is much worse than in India. The entire establishment, the security apparatus, the military is steeped in corruption. The Western media has recently made a heroine out of Benazir Bhutto. This indicates the ignorance of Western journalists and the extent to which they remember any history. Bhutto was a corrupt leader and when she was the head of the Pakistani government, she is alleged to have amassed a fortune totaling about $1 billion—in bribes and by embezzlement of the country’s funds etc. She was ousted from power because even the long suffering Pakistani people had had enough. She was replaced by Nawaz Sharif who was as corrupt or even more corrupt. This is why when Sharif was ousted by a military coup by Musharraf, there was no popular revolt.
Of course, Musharraf is also a corrupt man and a rascal—but that appears to be the sum total of political options in Pakistan. The country will only ever throw up rascals and scoundrels as leaders. Those who are screeching for “democracy” will in a few years wash their hands off it as they see what kind of government their beloved democracy brings about.
Musharraf is a rascal but he is the least undesirable of the rascals. Like many in the Pakistani military, he exploited links with the extremists and encouraged them in Kashmir. But 9-11 changed that significantly and now the Muslim extremists and those who sympathise with them see him as an American stooge. There have been assassination attempts which have failed so far. The extremists would want to see him dead sooner rather than later. However, he seems to still commands some respect in the military and unless the situation on the ground becomes a lot worse and he becomes too much of a liability, the military should stand by him.
Within the military there are those that side with Muslim extremists but in the main the Pakistani military officers are drawn from a Western educated elite who do not want to die in a nuclear Armageddon with India (or the U.S.) with hopes of meeting their 72 virgins in paradise. Therefore, the military can be used effectively as an ally against the extremists and it is the only institution which has any authority today.
I don’t think democratic elections will automatically mean that religious extremists would take over. If there were to be elections, either Bhutto’s or Sharif’s parties would take power again. But these are corrupt politicians and their support will evaporate fast because people will again become sick of their corruption. Sooner or later, either there will be a military coup or the conditions on the ground will become even more anarchic. The latter is the worst of all possibilities and something the West should seek to avoid at all costs.
America is going to have stay engaged in Pakistan for the foreseeable future. There is no other way. But even more so, this will need to be done with some feel and understanding for the conditions that exist on the ground in that country. It cannot be done with deluded neoconservative ideas about “democracy”—that way lies anarchy and more trouble.