LAHORE: Pakistan has been a garrison state, though not truly according to real meaning of the term, from the very beginning because of the threat of aggression by India and weak internal political system but it can change its aspect only in case of friendly relations with its threatening neighbour.

This was the nutshell of a debate on “Pakistan: the Garrison State” held in a session of the ThinkFest at Alhamra. Author Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed and National Defence University’s Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema were the main speakers in the session moderated by journalist Najam Sethi.

Prof Ishtiaq said the concept of garrison state emerged from the very partition of India. Majority cities in West Pakistan were on the border with India, and were vulnerable to Indian invasion. This threat perception was manipulated or exaggerated and preparations were made to withstand any such invasion. He said poor performance by the political leadership and sham democratic rules gave strength to concept.

He said on May 11, 1946 the British military had said that the Crown should not divide India (create Pakistan) as it would mean division of its prized institution, the military. But in 1947 the British army supported Pakistan on the ground that it would remain a member of the Commonwealth and block the USSR whereas India could choose its own way.

He said Pakistan was important because of its geographic location. And to give strength to its idea of a garrison state, it joined regional cooperation bodies so as to build its military with foreign assistance, saving its own little money for development. One of the Muslim League representatives had gone to America before the creation of Pakistan to convey that it would be Washington’s ally against Moscow.

A reference was made to the latest threat of invasion by the Indian army chief, and Prof Ishtiaq said both the nuclear India and Pakistan could still develop good friendly relations. It would be good for both the countries. “We should also allow democracy to grow which India has been doing from the very beginning,” he said.

Mr Sethi at this point said 70 per cent of Pakistan’s very first budget made under the Quaid-i-Azam was for army. And this happened before Pakistan’s first conflict with India in 1948.

Prof Cheema said there had been direct and indirect military rules in Pakistan but currently it was not a garrison state. There was a gradual shift towards democracy during the Musharraf regime. President Zardari transferred his powers to parliament. “We are evolving into a real democracy.”

He said Pakistan was not once again becoming a garrison state because of vibrant media which though needed to be more constructive, judicial activism and informed people. The official and baradari influence in elections was also decreasing, he claimed.

He said when Pakistan was created in 1947, it was not transferred its share of resources and India was after it, making it think of survival more than anything else. Pakistan therefore allocated 70 per cent of its first budget to its army. But the amount had been declining over the years.

Imagining Pakistan: Modernism, State and Politics of Islamic Revival: Speaking on this topic in another session of the moot, panelists said both the political leaders and the state used religion to advance their agenda but of late the tool had been picked by religious leaders and fundamentalists. Changing this narrative was not easy but one was required to find spaces for it.

LUMS’ Rasul Bakhsh Rais said the state had in the first instance assumed the role of determining who the good Muslim was. He said the fundamentalists who were using religion for advancing their agenda did not believe in peaceful transfer of power. But he believed that everything was not lost in Pakistan.

He said the military as well as civilian rulers of the country like Liaquat Ali Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto used religion for politics so as to prevent religious parties doing so. Mr Bhutto went for Islamization to counter the PNA movement.Lawyer Salman Akram Raja said the secular and modern narrative of Pakistan was hijacked by the Objectives Resolution. The martial law of Gen Zia was much more pervasive. There were different descriptions of Islam by different political and religious leaders of the past, making it difficult for people especially the young generation to follow whom for enlightenment.

LUMS’ Hasan Javid said Islam had been used a political tool before and after the creation of Pakistan. A paper of 1952 placed in the National Documentation Centre of the Interior Ministry suggested the government to use Islam to counter communism.

The Red Maulana: Bhashani and the National Awami Party of Pakistan”: Speaking on the topic in yet another session, the British Library, UK’s Layliuddin described the personality and politics of the communist leader. She said the Maulana was against the class system and was for equal rights for every underdog Pakistani.

Sheikh Mujibur Rehman had separated from Maulana Bhashani in 1957 as he wanted provincial autonomy. Maulana Bhashani had a much wider plan for the rights of all Pakistanis whereas Mujib had just a six-point agenda.

Mr Aasim Sajjad Akhtar of the Quaid-i-Azam University blamed Yahya Khan for not convening a session of the National Assembly and this, he said, led to the separation of East Pakistan.

Replying to a question on the recent mentioning of Mujibur Rehman by Mr Nawaz Sharif, he said this reflected a change because this was done by a leader handpicked by Gen Zia. Nawaz Sharif’s rhetoric belied his politics but he was creating space for discussion on the establishment. “He is fighting his own war, we will find our own way,” he said.

Published in Dawn, January 15th, 2018