Survey on Why Pakistanis support militancy - Harvard

[EjazR]

Can we please keep aid, economy, ISI/PA involvement, FDI e.t.c. out unless it directly relates to the topic.

There are more than enough threads that discuss that.

Thanks,

 

[indian_warrior]

No it is not hard to understand, but actually impossible to understand. The unholy Afghan war had effectively ended in 1989. Pakistan survived throughout 90s till 2001, when Pakistan was literally dragged into this new unholy WoT. If Pakistan's economy was so much dependent on American aid (you really love to use this 'juicy' word) as you are thinking, Pakistan would have failed between 1989 and 2001 but she did not. Pakistan's economy is not doing good, it never did in past fifteen or so years (lots of credit goes to first Afghan war and its aftermath), but its is totally dependent on few million US dollars that are coming in the name of WoT is plain wrong. The American aid never helped us, neither when it was started back in the middle of 1950s, and nor its is helping our economy now.

I agree most of your points. You are well respected member in this forum.

AID is not few millions but few billions.

My points are:

- With aid, pakistan is about to default in 09. if no AID, think of situation.

- If no WOT who is going to bailout pakistan? World bank and IMF bailed out pakistan because of WOT not due to love. (take case dubai and greece)

 

[Kabir Panthi]

Who is Amir Mir? brother of Hamid Mir? who is following the same path set by Hamid... sensational journalism? Book from which author? Post the passages from the book as the first hand source than we'll talk; till than, your post are ignored.

We're talking about something that was said publicly in the Pakistan parliament by a former ISI chief, that has appeared in books, reports and reputed newspapers, by many authors, in multiple countries, and that has never been denied.

If you have a problem with that then it's upto you to justify yourself.

 

[SMC]

You're acting really thick now. What you're posting is false propaganda and I have shown it to be so yet you continue posting it.

 

[qsaark]

With aid pakistan is about default in 09 if no AID think of situation.

- If no WOT who is going to bailout pakistan? World bank and IMF bailed out pakistan because of WOT not due to love. (take case dubai and greece)

Who would let Pakistan default? WB? IMF? ADB? other lenders (USA, KSA, China)? This does not happen because if these international blackmailers (minus China) let every country default, how they'll get their investment (the actual money plus interest) back? It is more feasible to slowly bleed a country for as long as possible than to let it die and loose your investment once for all.

Secondly, a bankrupt Pakistan would be a several hundred times more unstable Pakistan than it is now. None of the neighboring countries would want to have an unstable and volatile country in their immediate vicinity as it would adversely effect the economies and security of those countries (Pakistan is experiencing this in form of Afghanistan) and India has also tasted it in 1971, though at much smaller scale and for a brief period of time.

 

[gogbot]

Why Pakistanis Support Islamist Militancy - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Policy Brief

February 10, 2010

Authors: Jacob N. Shapiro, C. Christine Fair

Belfer Center Programs or Projects

Overview

The geopolitical reasons for the Pakistani state to tolerate militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba are well known. Yet there is precious little evidence about why average Pakistanis tolerate and even support groups that do so much to harm their nation's interests and reputation, as well as the safety of their fellow citizens. Because militant groups cannot survive without some popular backing, understanding why Pakistanis support them is a significant national security challenge for Pakistan, the United States, and the international community.

U.S. and Western policymakers have focused on creating a broad range of initiatives based on the appealing, but ultimately untested, notion that better education and employment opportunities will lead Pakistan's population to stop supporting militant groups. Such policies may be desirable for many reasons, but there is little evidence that they will help to counter support for political violence. Indeed, they fail to account for the hard reality that Pakistanis support particular militant groups for specific political reasons.

Key Findings

Data from a recent national survey of urban Pakistanis challenge the four conventional wisdoms that continue to motivate policy initiatives designed to stem Pakistani support for militant groups. The first is that poverty is a root cause of support for militancy, or at least that poorer and less-educated individuals are more prone to militants' appeals. The second is that personal religiosity and support for sharia law are strongly correlated with support for Islamist militancy. The third is that support for political goals espoused by legal Islamist parties predicts support for militant organizations. The fourth is that those who support democracy in Pakistan-either in terms of supporting democratic processes such as voting or in terms of valuing core democratic principles-oppose Islamism and militancy.

The results of the national survey of urban Pakistanis suggest, however, that the four conventional wisdoms-upon which many of the United States' policies rest-are ill founded at best and misguided at worst. Below are the key findings of the survey.

* Pakistanis' support for militant organizations is not correlated among different types of militant groups. In other words, just because an individual supports one kind of militant group does not mean that the same individual will support another. For example, a supporter of Lashkar-e-Taiba will not necessarily be a supporter of al-Qaida. Far from it, Pakistanis appear to distinguish among these groups rather well.

* Popular prescriptions that Pakistanis will stop supporting militancy when they feel confident in their own economic prospects, or their country's, are not grounded in the data. Respondents who come from economically successful areas or who believe that Pakistan is doing well economically compared to India were more likely to support militant groups, not less.

* Religiosity is a poor predictor of Pakistani support for militant organizations. A preference for more sharia law does not predict support for these groups. What matters most is dissatisfaction with sharia's current role in Pakistan. Pakistanis who want a greater role for sharia and those who want a lesser role for it are more supportive of Islamist militant groups than those satisfied with the status quo.

* Similarly, identifying strongly as a Muslim does not predict support for Taliban militants fighting in Afghanistan or for al-Qaida. Although strongly identifying as a Muslim does predict support for militant groups operating in Kashmir, the relationship disappears when respondents' support for other groups is taken into account. Whatever the common factor driving support for different militant organizations operating in Pakistan is, it is not religion per se.

* There is no discernible relationship between respondents' faith in democracy or support for core democratic rights and their disapproval of the Taliban or al-Qaida. The much-heralded call for greater democratization in Pakistan as a palliative for militancy may therefore be unfounded.

Implications for Policymakers

Three main implications follow from the analysis.

Current policies, such as those embodied in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation, are formulated upon the premise that some groups of Pakistanis support "militancy" writ large. This is clearly wrong. Factors that help to explain support for one militant group generally do not do so for others. The implication is that policies that mitigate support for the Afghan Taliban may exacerbate or have no effect on support for groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Policymakers therefore need to prioritize the groups of interest and focus on policies to diminish support for the most important ones.

Second, overly simplistic notions linking broad-based social ills to support for militancy should not drive policy. Increasing access to education and supporting economic development in Pakistan are laudable goals, but it is a mistake to believe that achieving them will do much to reduce Pakistanis' support for violent militant groups. To reduce this support, policymakers must pay greater attention to supporters' political concerns and grievances. This is good news. Achieving meaningful improvements in Pakistan's socioeconomic development is a generations-long task, but politics can change much more quickly.

Third, policymakers and analysts need to keep in mind that studies relying on public opinion data do not address decision makers' preeminent concern-the supply of militant violence. Unfortunately, there is no solid research to support the notion that decreases in the support for militant groups will translate into a reduction in Islamist violence in the near term. This does not mean that surveys of Pakistanis' political views are unimportant. Far from it. Data on popular attitudes should be linked with data on violence to test whether decreasing support does, in fact, lead to lower levels of violence. Over the longer term, understanding the sources of support for specific militant groups may lead to policies that can deprive them of the popular support they require to bring in new recruits, attract financial backing, and maintain operational security.

Conclusion

Urban Pakistanis are relatively discerning when it comes to supporting militancy. They appear to support small militant organizations when those organizations use violence to achieve political goals the individual cares about, and when violence makes sense as a way to attain those goals given Pakistanis' understanding of the strategic environment. This is sensible. Small militant organizations such as al-Qaida or even the Pakistani Taliban have no real chance of taking over the Pakistani state. Therefore, support for militant groups is unlikely to be determined by big-picture issues such as the role of Islamic law in Pakistani governance, much less by al-Qaida's purported goal of reestablishing the Caliphate.

The international community's ability to influence Pakistanis' religious views and economic status is negligible. Much can be done, however, to address political factors that drive support for militancy, such as corruption, human rights abuses, lack of security, limited access to the rule of law, and long-standing geopolitical disputes. Attempts to reduce support for violent political groups should be focused where they belong-on politics.

----------------------------------
Full Report is here Survey Analysis courtesy TruthSeeker

Please note that the Report claims that on a whole Pakistanis DO NOT support militant groups no matter what their affiliation

Table 6: Attitudes toward Pakistan Taliban, Afghan
Taliban, and the United States Government:

Views on Kashmir Tanzeem

Percent agreeing with statement that:
Justice is their objective 81.1%
Democracy is their objective 72.5
Protecting Muslims is their objective 84.5


Views on Afghan Taliban

Which government has a more legitimate claim to ruling
Afghanistan?
Current Karzai government 40.4%
Former Taliban Government 59.6

Which government did a better job of helping the Afghan
people?
Current Karzai government 42.5%
Former Taliban Government 57.5

Here are two statements people make about the Afghan
Taliban. Please tell us which you agree with more.
The Afghan Taliban are trying to liberate Afghanistan
from the United States and other foreign powers.
72.3%
The Afghan Taliban are rebelling against the government
of Afghanistan.
27.7

Views on United States Government

Do you think the United States is occupying Afghanistan?
Yes 82.9%
No 17.1

Please tell us about the U.S. government’s influence on the
world. Is it…?
Extremely positive 1.3%
Somewhat positive 6.0
Neither positive nor negative 8.7
Somewhat negative 20.9
Extremely negative 63.1

Please tell us about the U.S. government’s influence on
Pakistan’s politics. Is it…?
Extremely positive 1.4%
Somewhat positive 6.0
Neither positive nor negative 9.8
Somewhat negative 18.2
Extremely negative 64.5

Table 2: Sample Demographics

Gender
Male 53.1%
Female 46.9

Urban/Rural
Urban 32.5%
Rural 67.5

Province
Punjab 55.6%
Sindh 24.3
NWFP 13.9
Balochistan 6.3

Religious Sect
Sunni 96.1%
Shi’ite 3.9

Age
18-24 22.9%
25-29 18.7
30-39 29.1
40-49 17.5
50-59 7.8
60+ 4.1

Education
Illiterate 32.2%
Primary 13.1
Middle 14.9
Matriculant 19.3
Intermediate 12.3
Graduate 6.4
Professional 1.9

Monthly Income
Less than 3000 PKR 12.3%
3,000-10,000 PKR 53.9
10,001-15,000 PKR 22.9
15,001-25,000 PKR 8.8
More than 25,000 PKR 2.2
Note: N=6000 for all variables except
monthly income (N=5779). Data weighted
and adjusted for sampling design


Page 41.

http://pointy.stanford.edu/evnts/5986/Shapiro_paper_2010_02_18.pdf

Exhibit A

i have a question! MUSLIMS are called terrorists! well people completely neglect the fact what breeds these terrorists!

ANSWER:

PALESTIAN,AFGHANISTAN,CHECHNYA,IRAQ,KASHMIR!

COMMON IN ALL IS FOREIGN FORCES KILLING INNOCENTS! SUPPRESION BY A FOREIGN POWER!

this was the case in Vietnam as well! wherever you oppress the poor people innocent people you will automatically breed militancy!

this fact everyone ignores and questions why militancy!

Exhibit B

Here's the solution:

Free Kashmir, Free Palestine, free all Muslim majority regions that are occupied by hindus and zionists and then there'll be world peace.


Also U.S. must get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

Political agenda's connected to religiosity .

 

[Bang Galore]

Here's the solution:

Free Kashmir, Free Palestine, free all Muslim majority regions that are occupied by hindus and zionists and then there'll be world peace.


Also U.S. must get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as well.


Let the Muslims rule their own land, thats all we ask.

Isn't this a bit silly talking about "Muslim" lands? What Muslim land? According to a whole lot of you (my apologies to those who think differently), there is no genetic similarity between Indians & Pakistanis because you came from Arabia or lands adjoining it or some other nonsense to that effect. Would that not make you guilty of encroachment of other people's land. In any case when did it become Muslim land? Does history begin there? At a point of your choosing? At a point where it is convenient to make your argument? What about the thousands of years before it?

Don't reduce a complex discussion to the level of a school yard brawl.

Anyway, are you suggesting that you would be justified in supporting terrorism if these problems are not resolved to your liking?

 

[salahuldin786]

these may be some reasons, these are just a few crimes against muslims by aggersors.

 

[sparklingway]

In any case when did it become Muslim land? Does history begin there? At a point of your choosing? At a point where it is convenient to make your argument? What about the thousands of years before it?

Yeah, about that. Pakistan's history has since 1962 been traced back only to 712 AD and the era of Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka and the likes are never taught because they must be "Hindu". It therefore is obvious that most people start a discussion on history from 712 and don't know about the earlier empires.

 

[EjazR]

these may be some reasons, these are just a few crimes against muslims by aggersors.

And the solution is to become like them and kill innocent civilians in return? If these countries are to be attacked to protect crimes against humanity, then the STATE should be involved. Not these coward individuals like AQ/TTP/LeT e.t.c. who end up killing more civilians (forbidden in Islam) than troopers. Or making any change in the life of those oppressed.

IF you don't remember, it was the UN mandated NATO forces in the Balkans that finally stopped the massacres of Muslims taking place there.

There are definitely legitimate grievances and the entire world should be informed about this and the govt. pressurized to uphold basic human rights, but there is no question of supporting extremist militant groups if you want to follow Islam.

 

[ice_man]

YouTube - The Srebrenica GENOCIDE - 8000 Dead Muslims

YouTube - [IRAQ] - Oh Baghdad..They Killed You! - Ahmed AbdRapo

YouTube - Scores killed in Nato air strike in Afghanistan - 4 Sept 09

YouTube - Russian Warcrimes in Chechnya, 2

YouTube - The ISRAELI Crimes Against Muslims' CHILDREN Video Contains SOME NEW RECENT IMAGES OF THE KILLED CHILREN BY THE ISRAELI STRIKE on GAZA STRIP IN DECEMBER 2008 at PALESTINE, Crimes Against Children #2of2

these may be some reasons, these are just a few crimes against muslims by aggersors.

this reality is COMPLETELY IGNORED BY MEDIA & SPECIALLY THE WEST!!! because truth is bitter for anyone to accept!

until you carry on oppressing muslims the world will keep facing the rise of these extremisits who exploit the friction between muslims & rest of the world!

but THIS is the TRUTH and this doesn't INCREASE TRP ratings! but terrorist promising death & destruction on the US,UK & the rest of the world does!

 

[k_n]

Ok I will answer your questions, from my childhood I had heard of problems relating to Kashmir and it being the main source of collusion between our countries. I asked my parents when I was young and they told me that both countries made a few mistakes in the beginning which have could have been solved but now the matter might take a long time to settle. It did not concern me then and it sort of does not concern me now because I have never been to Kashmir and do not know much about it except for from what i have heard in the news. This is true for all my friends and there are many in my neighborhood, we are far too busy with our play station, wrestling and other activities to think about this.

I do not support the armed struggle against the ISF, I do not support any kind of armed struggle because the fact of the matter is that they never have achieved much except for more mayhem and problems for innocents.

It is absolutely inhumane to kick someone out of their home based on religion and I think that by doing such a thing, it only de-values morality and your own cause is lost.

It can be what it wants to be, democratically the people should be allowed to vote, they can choose to stay with India, become a part of Pakistan or become an independent state. Again it should be a secular one, where religion and politics do not mix at all.

Now let me tell you this aswell, Pakistan is as much a secular country as India. India has a upper hand because it did not get rid of its secular tag and one idiot from our country called Zia messed it up by making us an exclusively Islamic country. Now I say Pak is a secular country because I went to a catholic school in Pak, majority of middle and upper class go to these. I have many christians, hindus, buddhists and other religious groups in my neighborhood and we have gone on well for a long time. I have never heard any discrimination aimed at such people or any other group.

Now I think that you need to answer this, India being the biggest democracy, why does it not allow Kashmir's to hold an election to choose what it wants and then decide according to the result what should be done with Kashmir. If they had done this, then hindus just like in other parts of Pakistan would have been able to live in their home and not face many problems. Militancy wouldn't have arised and India and Pakistan will have peace.

Why doesn't India, being the bigger country, hold a fair election in Kashmir and let them decide. It would be the end of the whole matter.

P.S. I have become quite concerned by the comments that people from India post on the internet against Pakistanis, whether it is their national newspaper or youtube, the worst of all hatred is aimed at us. I want to know why does this happen and why do so many people say the most despicable of things to put us down.

India has the obligation to conduct a fair plebicite because its BIG ?

No .

Going back , much has changed on the ground since 1949 .
Pak has itself to be blame as India did nothing more but made the the most out of Pak's impatience . Where was the need of an armed intervention by the Pak Army led Tribal mercenaries . There was revolt in Poonchh , but why Pak had to bring its resources and men in the dual b/w the state forces and the rebels . The Pak govt and genral populace forwards the solidarity for fellow muslims fighting against unpopular regime as the reason behind Pak's intervention , intervention by a state formed on the basis of 'Two Nation Theory'.
Indian National Congress stood for its principles of Democracy and Secularism and carved out a nation . I'am glad that Pak has as strong secular values as the Indian state but your assertion doesn't negates the ideology behind the creation of Pak whereas India's secular credentials were sealed the day it turned a Republic in 1950 . If Pakistanis claim Kashmir belongs to them being majority Muslim then India was also upholding its values when it intervened in Kashmir . Pak leadership's impatience and belief that a 'Direct Action' by the country's armed forces in Kashmir would turn the tide in their favour as it did after 16th Aug 1946 , proved suicidal when the 'Liberators' were tagged as 'Invaders' at the UNO .
At present , Pak cannot make India to go to the people after the former has been fuelling an armed struggle since last 20 years . Indian state hit back with a gun only after it was hit at the first place . Why does Pak falls short of claiming any Human Rights violation by the ISF prior to 1989 . The millitancy is a law and order problem but has inflated into a low intensity conflict between two nations in J & K . The low intensity conflict needs to subside first before Pak begins to expect India to go to the people .

 

[zs4]

Regarding: "It's not at all strange - the more educated a person, the more likely it is that he has been through indoctrination in schools and via the media."

Read George Orwell's 1984, written in 1949, and see the many parallels of what he predicts to what exists. For some reason, Pakistanis, educated or not, understand and see these parallels moreso than Indians.

 

[ramu]

Regarding: "It's not at all strange - the more educated a person, the more likely it is that he has been through indoctrination in schools and via the media."

Read George Orwell's 1984, written in 1949, and see the many parallels of what he predicts to what exists. For some reason, Pakistanis, educated or not, understand and see these parallels moreso than Indians.

ZS4, you have brought up a very valid point however, the conclusion you derive from reading George Orwell is tangential.

The more educated you are, the more you are closer to discovering reality even if you are brainwashed / indoctrinated.
Those who are ignorant and not educated and more likely to live in a world that is as true as they want to see.

Indians are easily taken for a ride with media houses and news channels 24x7 but it has dawned on many to know what to believe and what not to.

We don't have a means or scale to see how well Pakistan's educated are coping with the make believe. So lets not compare apples and oranges. If I have a different opinion than yours, does it really matter, cause I just wont be able to convince you without credible facts/metrics.

 

[democracyspeaks]

K K Aziz's "Murder of History" and "The Pakistani Historian" are the prime books on the subject of distortion of history in Pakistani textbooks and academic world as well.

Completely agree with you and also agree to the fact that this has nothing to do with the topic.

But must say that reading KK Aziz would have been more beneficial for our pakistani friends then reading false & twisted history by the zia regime.