Owning the state

I RECALL a conversation I had with a friend a couple of months ago, after the government’s operation against Lal Masjid in Islamabad. My friend’s perspective was that the operation had given him a sense of ownership in the state. For the first time, he truly felt that the state had taken an initiative on behalf of millions of Pakistanis who do not subscribe to an extremist ideology.

Later in August, I also happened to attend a friend’s Independence Day celebration party where a lot of young professionals, working primarily for international NGOs and companies, were dancing and celebrating. The national anthem was sung with great enthusiasm and a sense of nationalism or ownership of the state was vociferously expressed.

One didn’t have the heart to tell these people that Independence Day celebrations in Pakistan of the magnitude that one sees today date back to the days of General Ziaul Haq.

The military dictator had made sure that the people were part of a general celebration and procession in which they could all hold the national flag, hoist it on their personal cars and even trample these under their feet, all in the name of owning the state. Personally, Independence Day celebrations today are no different from Halloween or Valentine’s Day celebrations.

The common thread between these events is that it involves the upcoming young middle class in the country which feels comfortable partnering with the state apparatus due to the doors which have been opened up, leading to a better financial future.

One is not even sure that these rejoicing people spare a thought for the perception of the millions of underprivileged people living in this country. Even if they did, it would be nothing more than ridiculing the lack of understanding and sympathy which the common man might express towards a centrally controlled and authoritarian state.

After all, is the man on the street even capable of appreciating the state? The common man is not educated and is perceived as incompetent to judge. How would he understand, for example, the benefits which the state could provide and that must not be sacrificed for some political, ideological or religious belief?

Some might call this behaviour naive but this is essentially co-option. Not all people have the physical or moral strength to constantly question the state. In any case, the middle class anywhere in the world is the easiest to co-opt — and also foremost in challenging a prevalent ideology.

For instance, in Iran, the middle class, the primary beneficiary of the Shah’s economic progress, was at the forefront of questioning his model of progress. Intellectuals such as Dr Ali Shariati were in the forefront of creating the revolution. What happens to such people later is quite another story.

But in most other cases, the middle class is keen to be co-opted. This is the segment of population which is educated, has acquired the techniques to progress, is comfortable with modern technology and means of information and is thrilled by the possibility of gaining greater wealth.

This segment is also least concerned about the fate of the common man. In fact, the middle class operates on the basis of the Darwinian principle which means that it believes that the survival of the fittest is a wonderful idea that helps at least the men and women from the middle class make their way up without a lot of competition. An authoritarian state, hence, is wonderful for the middle class.

Such a state system reduces the amount of competition and increases opportunities for those who learn the art of exploitation.

The greatest benefit under an authoritarian dispensation is that it does not let everyone exploit. Only those that are acceptable to the ruling regime are the natural beneficiaries of economic redistribution. For all others, there are the laws of the state which ensure that people do not rise.

The co-option of the middle class is obvious in the subcontinent, especially in India and Pakistan. The upcoming and energetic middle class in both countries is another face of authoritarianism.

In both countries, the middle class is very expressively patriotic and has a deep sense of ownership of the state. What goes without saying is that they are least concerned about what happens to the millions of poor who do not benefit from the state at all. The fear of not wanting to be part of the dispossessed keeps the middle class attached to the state apparatus.

Although it will be unfair to say that the entire middle class is averse to religious ideology, a dominant segment keeps its distance from the religious right or does not want to be associated with socio-cultural conservatism.

This problem is more intense in Pakistan’s case because of the constant struggle on the issue of the ideology of the state itself. We are still not sure if Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic state or a Muslim state with an ideology dominated by religion. In such conditions, the middle class changes its thinking based on what the authorities believe in.

Unlike the 1980s, these are the days of cultural liberalism in the country and so the youthful middle class is more comfortable in associating with a western concept of modernity. They feel imperilled by the religious right, especially those that challenge a western concept of life and liberty. So, I am really not surprised if my friend, who is no longer a part of the struggling and dispossessed lower middle class, has a feeling of ownership of the Pakistani state.

I also appreciate the fact that my friend and many others like him, who can boast of good pay packages, latest mobile phones, nice cars and other material goods, do not want to problematise the issue of religious extremism in the country.

It is not that I am sympathetic to the religious right or the extremists, but there is a need to understand where militancy emanates from and what it is trying to say to all of us.

The growing militancy is a complex issue and while there are many aspects to understanding it, the most interesting is its connection with the state of poor governance in the country. There are people in Pakistan who have not been beneficiaries of economic redistribution for a very long time. Moreover, the political apparatus and system are not even designed to ensure upward mobility.

For many years now, the entire ruling elite, assisted by the middle class, has made it impossible for the poor to find opportunities or to get a sense of partnership with the state. Resultantly, some of these people have begun to view the imposition of Sharia as a way out.

Although it is personally difficult to subscribe to religious ideology, the fact is that there is a risk that religious extremism might represent those who are otherwise denied ownership of the state. Year after year of breakdown of governance and subversion of politics can only produce dissatisfaction with what the state represents.

It would be unfair not to understand what this extremism actually represents. So, the middle class might as well stop and think about what its sense of ownership means for the future of Pakistan’s state and society.

The writer is an independent analyst and author of the book, ‘Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy’.

E-mail: ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

N-deal to exact a heavy price

I HAVE full faith in the integrity of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. His views on the Indo-US nuclear deal are what he believes in. He honestly feels that the deal is the best thing that has happened to India. If not pursued, the country would “miss the bus”.

He reminds me of some top American scientists who were for the bomb when it was built but regretted the decision for having pushed the world to death and devastation.

The reason why I have given this example is the belief that Manmohan Singh may one day regret that the price he paid in the field of foreign affairs for negotiating the nuclear deal was inordinately high. The sequence of events has made things worse: one, economic policies in the name of globalisation have benefited the multinationals; two, the controversial deal has polarised the country. Consequently, the impression that has gone around is that Manmohan Singh has joined hands with the US.

I do not think that the uproar over restrictions on holding tests is that justified. When the New Delhi government, under then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, the BJP leader, promised not to make “first use” of the bomb, it made a moral commitment. That should have ended the debate on this point.

I am also not unnecessarily worried over the absence of guarantees about uninterrupted fuel supplies. Indian scientists are resourceful enough to find a way out if Washington ever stops the fuel all of sudden, without consulting New Delhi. After all, the Tarapur plant has been running even after America stopped fuel supply some years ago.

My point of concern is that the deal has put a question mark against our independent foreign policy. Since winning freedom in 1947, India has been traversing a particular path which Jawaharlal Nehru paved for us: staying equidistant from two ideologically opposed worlds. His stand of non-alignment steered us through the Cold War and its debris.

Nehru not only kept us away from any involvement but also provided a safe platform in the name of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) to small, weak countries which did not want to be crushed in the fight between the two blocs. It was Nehru or, for that matter, India which helped save the world from the Cold War becoming hot.

With such credentials, how can we even think of tilting towards America, if moving into its camp is a strong phrase to use? The NDA government’s foreign policy under Vajpayee was wishy-washy except for the initiative he took when he rode a bus to Pakistan. As regards America, BJP Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh had unending rounds of talks with the top US officials, particularly Strobe Talbott and probably sowed the seeds of the nuclear deal. Still, the NDA did not send Indian forces to Iraq despite President Bush’s pressure. The policy of non-alignment stayed more or less on course.

The Manmohan Singh government has broken the consensus. It came through loud and clear when India was found cosying up too close to the US for comfort during his regime. This has alarmed our neighbouring countries as well. The perception there is that India is already in the American camp. When I was recently in Pakistan, even the liberals chided me for having aligned with the US. They said: “We had no option, but you were in a position to stand up to Washington.”

I sensed the same impression among Bangladesh’s leading intellectuals and journalists recently attending an India-Bangladesh colloquium in Delhi.

Nehru’s attitude was different. Even before Partition, he convened a meeting of Asian countries in New Delhi. He was then the prime minister of the interim government. He said in 1947, on March 23, the day the Pakistan resolution was passed in 1940, that “For too long we of Asia have been petitioners in western courts and chancelleries. That story must now belong to the past. We propose to stand on our own feet and to cooperate with all others who are prepared to cooperate with us. We do not intend to be the playthings of others.” Does the nuclear deal with the US underline that message?

I maintain that the entire legislation of America, including the Hyde Act, cannot affect our sovereignty if we remain firm. Unfortunately, when I read the fine print of the Hyde Act, I felt we had compromised. In the second paragraph, it is said that India “has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States”.

The word congruent means in harmony, agreeable. How can we accept this formulation when we know how the Bush administration has trampled upon the rights of the countries which it has found in its way?

On Iran, the Hyde Act assumes “India’s full and active participation in US efforts to dissuade, isolate and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction”. We too do not want one more country having the bomb in our neighbourhood. But why should we allow the US to dictate to us? American relations with Iran are going from bad to worse. Bush has authorised his commanders to confront Iran’s “murderous activities”.

The phrase, “weapons of mass destruction”, is a familiar one. Washington used it to hoodwink world opinion. America knew beforehand that Iraq had no such weapons. This was the pretext that the Bush administration used to get rid of President Saddam Hussein and to control the oil fields. Thousands of Iraqis were killed during the war and many more died in the post-war efforts to bring order. America has used the same phrase “weapons of mass destruction” for Iran in the Hyde Act which we have accepted.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statement that Iran has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear activity is only meant to allay irritated Indian opinion. As of today, New Delhi will have to fall in line if and when America attacks Iran.

I wish the prime minister would realise that India has to play the same role: staying independent and non-aligned. A lonely path is forlorn but separate. The advantage is that it is considered different. Gradually, nations come to respect an independent position. This is how our prestige skyrocketed even when the growth rate was nowhere near nine per cent.

Nuclear energy is not a big deal. We can get all the energy we want from other sources, water, coal, wind, etc by spending far less than the $150 billion earmarked for nuclear energy installations. Hazards will be less and the price per unit will be half the cost of nuclear energy. The biggest advantage is that America will not be looking over our shoulder, something which is implied in the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The writer is a senior columnist based in New Delhi.

Proposed names for the Northern Areas

THE Northern Areas of Pakistan, an area of regional and cultural diversity, is the point where Central and South Asia and China meet.

It is also where the world’s great mountain ranges — the Karakorams, the Himalayas, the Hindukush and the Pamirs meet. These attributes make the Northern Areas one of the most strategic regions in the subcontinent.

Before August 1947, the Northern Areas had their own political identity with princely states established in different valleys. After the emergence of Pakistan, the region’s political entities were endangered as there was no unifying force holding them together. The princely states had emerged on the basis of their ethnic composition and religious beliefs as was clear in the case of Hunza, Nagar, Baltistan and Yasin. After these came under Pakistan’s control, they were given a common name, the Northern Areas.

Thus the Northern Areas had no adequate logical and historical basis. Several names were suggested for this entity based on its political history. But unfortunately, names such as Baloristan, Burushal, Sargin, Dardistan, etc did not catch on because of the cultural and political diversity of the region.

Recently, the Northern Areas Legislative Council (NALC) set up a committee to invite proposals, review suggestions and finalise a name for the Northern Areas of Pakistan. This was a positive move, coming after six decades of neglect. After considering a number of names, the committee opted for Arz-i-Gulistan. But this name came to be disputed and was not considered a good omen for a territory whose status was disputed. Literally, ‘arz’ in Arabic, from where it is derived, means land; and ‘stan’ as a suffix comes from the Persian meaning land or place. So, it makes little sense to call a place “the land of flowers’ land” or “the land of land of flowers”. Metaphorically, this name also raises questions with regard to the region’s representation.

I have been concerned about the new name for the Northern Areas of Pakistan for the last five years. I deliberated on the issue. The new name should be representative of the people. There are two key religious groups inhabiting these valleys, namely, the Sunni and the Shia, the latter being further divided into the Ithna’asharis and the Ismailis.

It was thought that the least controversial would be to put together the abbreviations of the great mountain ranges of the world that converge here. In this regard, Baqahistan was proposed four years ago but was not released to the media. The literal meaning of Baqahistan is derived from its two main syllables: ‘baqah’ from Arabic meaning life, and ‘stan’ for place. Baqahistan thus means the “life place” or the “living place”.

Metaphorically, ‘baqah’ represents the great mountain ranges: for instance, ‘ba’ for Bom-e Dunyo (roof of the world), that is the Pamirs; ‘qa’ for the ‘Qarakorum’ (distorted form of Karakorams); ‘hi’ for the Himalaya and Hindukush; and ‘stan’ for the place where these mountains are located and for the people residing in their valleys.

The second name for the Northern Areas that is being proposed is Kuhimir, literally meaning the “mountain chief” or the “mountain leader”. ‘Kuh’ in Persian means “mountain” and ‘mir’ in Arabic (shortened from amir) means “leader”. But conceptually, Kuhimir has been abbreviated from the names of the great mountain ranges of the world: i.e., ‘ku’ taken from the Karakorams; ‘hi’ representing the Himalaya and Hindukush, and ‘mir’ for the Pamirs.

Kuhimir gets its logical position within the geographical locations of the Pamir to its north and Kashmir to the south. More importantly, Kuhimir cannot be controversial like Sargin, Dardistan, Burushal or Boloristan which are derived from their political/ethnic/linguistic affiliation to different groups.

This would certainly lead towards pluralistic unity of the diverse cultures (ethno-linguistic groups) and regions/valleys of the Northern Areas. It should also be noted that even though the four giant mountain ranges extend beyond the region, the name has been confined to the Northern Areas of Pakistan as that is the point where they converge.

In conclusion, I would earnestly request the readers and the inhabitants of the Northern Areas to explore ideas to hit on a name that is representative and wins the unanimous approval of the different geographical, cultural, religious and political entities of the region. It is now up to the readers and the leaders of the region at all levels to be objective and deliberate honestly and rationally on this issue.

The writer is an international researcher and consultant specialising in cultural and social anthropology.

fazalaminbeg@gmail.com