Page 1 of 2 SPEAKING FREELY
Ideas before bullets
By Asim Salahuddin
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.
Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
The current crisis of militancy gripping Pakistan is the most serious threat to
the integrity of the state since the loss of East Pakistan in the war of 1971
that led to the creation of Bangladesh.
Pakistan today is surrounded by hostile neighbors, is crippled economically and
is slowly being crushed under the weight of world public opinion that it is a
terrorist state, which is being generated by its supposed ally America. With
Balochistan province already rumbling with a separatist insurgency which has
not yet thankfully gained popular traction, the armed conflict which is being
fought with Taliban forces in Swat, Buner and Dir is threatening to roll back
the writ of the Pakistani state to just the provinces of Sindh and Punjab.
A solution must urgently be found to prevent further bloodshed on both sides of
this conflict. The problem, however, requires a detailed analysis and also a
solution that provides a lasting fix and not just another short-term truce or
treaty that will be broken.
The roots of the current conflict between the Pakistani armed forces and
Taliban fighters can be traced to the American invasion and occupation of
Afghanistan in 2001. This conflict is a direct spillover from the fighting in
Afghanistan against the Americans and a reaction against the support of the
Pakistani state for America's war and its actions of bombing and killing its
own Pakistani citizens at America's behest.
The opponents of the Pakistani armed forces, the Taliban, are not a coherent or
unified group. Made up of various factions known collectively as the Taliban
you have Central Intelligence Agency Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Russian Taliban,
Punjabi Taliban, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Taliban,
Tehrek-e-Taliban and others.
These numerous factions have varying agendas, with some being armed resistance
to US occupation, some being armed resistance to Pakistani attacks, others
still being those who are funded and equipped by foreign intelligence agencies
to create unrest and strife in Pakistan.
Varyingly, apart from those foreign-sponsored groups using the following
reasons as cover, these groups are demanding an end to the bombing of Pakistani
territory by American and Pakistani armed forces and an end of Pakistani
support for the American occupation in Afghanistan. Some groups, failing this,
want an end to interference from a Pakistani state which has proven itself
incapable of looking after both the needs and security of its people.
In origin, the demands of the Taliban do not constitute a military threat to
Pakistan. These groups are not foreign invaders seeking to control land or
territory as part of some imperial adventure, as America is in the Muslim
world. The principle grievances of these groups are political. The challenge to
the Pakistani state therefore is from Pakistanis, civilians who have taken up
arms against the nature and policies of the state.
This problem is further being driven by America in collusion with the Asif Ali
Zardari government of using force to wipe out any resistance to the American
occupation of Afghanistan, as it lost the battle for hearts and minds a long
time ago.
It is interesting to note that this is actually a complete continuation of the
policies of the General Pervez Musharraf era, and that the popular change which
people were expecting with the departure of the military dictator nearly two
years ago has not materialized.
America and the Zardari government are actually instrumental in creating and
perpetuating this crisis in order to turn Pakistani public opinion in favor of
America's imperial campaign in Afghanistan and the wider Muslim world by
repackaging this conflict from being America's war to Pakistan's war, as the
people have rejected the colonial ambitions of the US and its "war on terror".
This was one of the key sound bites issued by Zardari as he came to power,
which was a pledge for Pakistan to adopt America's "war on terror" as
Pakistan's own war.
The fact is that this is America's war, not Pakistan's. Pakistan is being
pushed into a conflict with its own people and neighbors. Pakistan is being
directed towards civil unrest and ultimately breaking point, and this is in
accordance with the American plan for Pakistan.
Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters, in his article "Blood borders: How a
better Middle East would look" for the US Armed Forces Journal, proposed a new
map of the Middle East which showed the breakup of country, with only Sindh and
Punjab remaining as Pakistan. It is now well established that both America and
Britain are trying to fragment or Balkanize Pakistan for four principle
objectives.
To take control of Balochistan for its immense resources.
To use the port of Gwadar in Balochistan to establish an economically viable
energy corridor from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and away from the
influence of Russia.
To remove a strong Pakistan as an obstacle for India so it may act as a true
counterweight to China.
To break up Pakistan to remove the potential of an Islamic ideological threat
from Pakistan which it brands as the "Islamist threat".
With this being the true reality of the problem which is manifesting itself as
the conflict with the Taliban, tribal areas and Balochi insurgency, how is the
Pakistani state equipped to respond to such crises?
It is clear for all to see that the current government is insincere and
incapable. The country is now almost openly being run by America. When you have
a situation where the military head of a foreign power, Admiral Michael Mullen,
chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is paying regular visits to Pakistan
and the fact that the Pakistani armed forces are deployed to Dir when US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticizes the Pakistani government for
"basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists" in the wake of the
Swat deal of February, it is a no-brainer that Pakistan is no longer a
sovereign state.
This is aside from the regular bombings and killings in Pakistani territory of
civilians by US Predator drones. Such a situation is leading to instability in
the country as Pakistan participates in America's colonial war. As Pakistan
follows a foreign agenda, people are beginning to challenge the legitimacy of
the state, questioning its purpose and the use it provides to the people. If
the Pakistani state is going to kill its own citizens on the orders of a
foreign power, it is clearly not serving its people, by any stretch of the
imagination. What then is the nature of this Pakistani state? If it will not
look after its people, what is the source of its strength, and from where does
it derive its authority?
The Pakistani state is the manifestation of the contradictions embodied by the
political classes and a product of external agendas as defined by foreign
powers. The Pakistani state has no organic authority from the people; hence it
is constantly challenged by the people. These challenges in the past have
manifested themselves in various forms, with military coups and the breakup in
1971 being some examples.
The current problem of militancy is the latest incarnation of this challenge to
the authority and legitimacy of the Pakistani state. Currently there is one
strata of society ruling Pakistan and implementing a system which the people do
not respect. Politically, the system has no value as many of the politicians
are known to be corrupt, inept or both.
Ideologically, the system has little support from the people as it is simply an
imported British product and a relic of the colonial era based on secularism.
As democracy loses its facade of providing a mechanism for electing and
accounting rulers and reveals itself simply to be a tool for the rich and
powerful to change laws as they see fit, the people are shunning the system and
apathy is rampant in society.
The ideal of Pakistani nationalism, which the system is supposed to represent
and protect, has shown itself to be incredibly weak at binding the various
peoples in Pakistan together. Pakistani nationalism is founded on a
contradiction, namely that the state of Pakistan was created in response to a
popular movement to live according to Islam by the Muslims of India, yet what
was yielded was secularism.
As this Islamic ideal was left by the wayside, the only situation in which the
people within the borders of Pakistan would come together and bond as
Pakistanis would be when faced with an external threat like India. As such, the
state, lacking internal domestic support, is propped up by foreign powers that
manipulate it for their own ends. The ruling class therefore willingly follows
the diktats of those it relies on to stay in power, namely the colonial nations
such as America and Britain.
If we look at the response of the Pakistani state to the current Taliban
militancy crisis, we can see that it has been one of almost colonial ruler to a
conquered people rather than a state dealing with its citizens. Army chief
General Ashfaq Kiani declared, "The army will not allow the militants to
dictate terms to the government or impose their way of life on the civil
society of Pakistan."
Interior Minister Rehman Malik said before the latest operation that "enough is
enough", adding that "a handful of militants cannot challenge the writ of the
government". For the sake of argument, if Kiani is given the benefit of the
doubt for thinking as a military man responding to the threat of violence, no
such excuse can be made for Malik. As the civilian authority and representative
of the state, Malik's response epitomizes the response of a state that is out
of ideas as to how to deal with a population dissatisfied with its performance.
By using physical means to put down an uprising which is political in origin,
is to stoke the flames of internal unrest and civil war.
If the stick of the government is leading to violence, then the carrot being
deployed is leading to the voluntary amputation of the state itself.
Nizam-e-Adl, the government bill being implemented in Swat as part of a peace
deal with the Taliban where sharia law will allegedly be implemented, is a
non-starter as a method of conflict resolution.
The fact that the implementation of a few social rules makes a mockery out of
sharia law and a farce of Islamic ruling is only part of the issue at hand. If
one goes along with the ridiculous assertion that sharia law is indeed being
implemented in Swat,
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
