What do Pakistanis have in common?

[Logic note]

The piece below lend some credence to the assertion that things wil have to go from bad to worse before we can get some relief from "democractic politicians":


‘Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic’
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, July 22: The Pakistan Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic and not tactical and it will not return to politics unless there’s a crisis in the country, scholars said at a seminar in Washington.

“The army realises that the last years have hurt the institution badly,” said Shuja Nawaz, the author of a recent book on the Pakistan Army. “They are out and they want to stay out.”

The discussion on US-Pakistan military ties was held against the backdrop of the recent increase in attacks on US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. The speakers also noted that Pakistan grappled with its own burgeoning Taliban insurgency in the tribal borderlands.

Such developments, they noted, had created new challenges for US-Pakistan military ties.

They said that more aggressive coalition counter-insurgency tactics in eastern Afghanistan were bringing US troops closer to the border with Pakistan and the situation required ever closer communication and joint efforts to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation.

The organisers, the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the US frustration with an entrenched terrorist safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and lack of faith in the efficacy of Pakistani negotiations to deal with the problem “also are creating misunderstanding and crossed wires.”

In this charged atmosphere, what are the future prospects for addressing terrorism challenges on a joint basis? Should the US shift its strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan? What can be expected from Pakistan in the near and long-term? How can both sides build trust in each other and strengthen the chances of overall success against the terrorist scourge in South Asia? These were some of the questions the speakers addressed in their presentations.

David Smith, a senior director for Pakistan at the Office of the US Undersecretary of Defence, highlighted a change in Islamabad, saying that the Pakistani policy makers now realise the need to coordinate their defence needs with economic developments and are willing to spend more on social projects.

He disagreed with the suggestion that the Afghans were getting tired of the US military presence in their country. “I have not seen any indication that the tolerance for US presence is decreasing,” he said.

Mr Smith also disagreed with another suggestion that the weapons given to Pakistan for fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be used against India. The US military assistance to Pakistan cannot bring any significant changes to the conventional balance of power in South Asia, he said. “Besides, the 2006 joint statement also talked about meeting Pakistan’s genuine defence needs,” he added.

The US official rejected the suggestion that Pakistan was protecting the Taliban so that it can use them to fight its war in Kashmir.

“Whatever utility anyone thought they had is false,” he said. “They are a threat to the Pakistani army, they are a threat to the Pakistani government and they are a threat to the Pakistani nation.”

Mr Smith insisted that the militants had established a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and were using it to attack US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

“We will not rest until that goal (of destroying the militant groups) is achieved,” he declared.

Mr Nawaz, who is the younger brother of Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua, the 10th army chief, emphasised the need for the United States to expand its ties with Pakistan and reach out to democratic forces.

“The United States should move away from the what-you-have-done-lately- for-us approach,” he said. “If the Americans insist on dealing with the military alone and on ignoring the politicians, it will hurt US interests in Pakistan.”

Mr Nawaz noted that the new army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has categorically assured Pakistan’s new rulers that they army has no plan to return to politics. “Now it is up to the politicians to ensure that the country is not plunged into yet another crisis because if there is a crisis, the army may come back,” he warned.
Mr Nawaz advised the new government to “take difficult but useful decisions, so that the army learns to respect you.”

USA will deal with the institute which is the power center in the country .
In Pakistan it is Army , In India its democratic government .

 

[muse]

Mr Nawaz advised the new government to “take difficult but useful decisions, so that the army learns to respect you.”

Thus far politicians have not measured up and I don't think they will -- now I really don't know, nnor am I saying they just don't have it in them for some congenital reason - all I'm saying is that the present crisis requires a degree of conviction and resolve in a vision, an idea -- and I think we can safely say that the so called "democratic politicians" do not have such, or at least they have not articulated or demonstrated such.

Below, a piece by a persuasive, Pakistan patriot:

A new order
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Ahmed Quraishi

Pakistan's current structure of governance is breeding serious internal divisions along ethnic lines and, on the external front, is turning the country into a soft target for foreign interference. A new political system has to emerge that is inclusive, obsessed with business and the creation of wealth, less politicized, and favorable to creating fresh leaderships. The current turmoil provides a unique opportunity for bringing fundamental change. Under the right leadership, the confusion that Pakistan finds itself in can easily be turned into the birth pangs of a new order.

How flawed this system is can be gauged from the fact that there was no ethnic problem in Pakistan at Independence in 1947. Now, even minor administrative issues, such as renaming a province, water and resource sharing, and even movement of people within different parts of the country, carry the potential of ethnic conflict. The increased social interaction and intermarriages over the past six decades have given birth to a new generation that is more mixed and integrated than ever before but the system failed to turn this into an advantage. The greatest failure belongs not just to the military or the politicians but to Pakistani intellectuals, journalists and thinkers who failed to take the lead in whipping up Pakistani identity and nationalism.

The political class is the source of all rot in today's Pakistan. It's a tightly knit club for the privileged that fights creativity and change. Under this class, political parties – the supposed incubators for leadership – have become stagnant. This leadership crisis has gradually converted Pakistani political parties into little more than ethnic and linguistic outfits that threaten to turn Pakistani democracy into a vehicle for chaos.

In foreign policy, we have created a self-inflicted defeat in the past six years by ceding too much ground to the Americans, which has emboldened our enemies in the region and our detractors abroad. A constituency has emerged, especially on the US think-tank circuit, that audaciously talks about breaking up the Pakistani state.

What Pakistan immediately needs is less focus on politics and more concentration on creating opportunities for Pakistanis to generate wealth and spend it. The Chinese and the Dubai models are instructive in this context. The genie of ethnic conflict now rearing its head needs to be nipped in the bud by creating new provinces on administrative lines. And the problem of multiple power centers in Pakistani democracy needs to be resolved for good by giving Pakistanis the right to vote directly for their chief executive in a presidential system introduced on both the federal and provincial levels.

All of this will require a new constitution or changing the existing one. To be inclusive, the change needs to bring together all the functioning arms of the Pakistani state, including politicians and the military. Failures are so widespread that no one has the right to exclude any institution. And this change does not have to immediately conform to anyone's idea of democracy. Pakistan's survival requires a period of stability and economic-building where corrections can be introduced into the system before eventually exposing the country to the rigors of endless politics.

Power rivalries in our region are so ruthless that Pakistan cannot survive without radically restructuring itself to emerge as a strong, prosperous and confident nation. The alternative is to fall by the wayside and that does not suit a nation that has built an impressive record of beating the odds.


The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com


- yes, I do recall telling you so - ok, just couldn't resist that one.

 

[niaz]

I disagree that there was no ethnic problem in 1947. I remember large number of tents on the outskirts of the city. These people were called "Panah cozen' and were looked down upon. Later there was a differentiation between Punjabis from East Punjab/Kashmiris and Urdu Speakers. Similarly immigrants in East Pakistan were always called Biharis and treated as second class.

Most of the Punjabis/ Urdu speaking mohajirs who were settled in the NWFP were maltreated and slowly found their way to Punjab and Sindh. I know of a class fellow who was from Ambala, initially allotted a house in Mardan but in 1951 shifted to Sargodha.

Only differences is that in the early years, it was only the attitude that was different but there was never any threat to life and property; ethnic problem was therefore far less apparent except in East Pakistan.

 

[muse]

Any Comments or thoughts on the following?



"The increased social interaction and intermarriages over the past six decades have given birth to a new generation that is more mixed and integrated than ever before but the system failed to turn this into an advantage. The greatest failure belongs not just to the military or the politicians but to Pakistani intellectuals, journalists and thinkers who failed to take the lead in whipping up Pakistani identity and nationalism.

The political class is the source of all rot in today's Pakistan. It's a tightly knit club for the privileged that fights creativity and change. Under this class, political parties – the supposed incubators for leadership – have become stagnant. This leadership crisis has gradually converted Pakistani political parties into little more than ethnic and linguistic outfits that threaten to turn Pakistani democracy into a vehicle for chaos."

 

[Zyxius]

Any Comments or thoughts on the following?

"The increased social interaction and intermarriages over the past six decades have given birth to a new generation that is more mixed and integrated than ever before but the system failed to turn this into an advantage.

I think this is more of an elite/upper middle class society point of view...its not true at all for the masses. Most people in Pakistan marry within their own ethnic groups and its considered rather scandalous for it to be otherwise among the lower classes.

The greatest failure belongs not just to the military or the politicians but to Pakistani intellectuals, journalists and thinkers who failed to take the lead in whipping up Pakistani identity and nationalism.

Nationalism isn't going to work because each ethnic group in Pakistan has more compelling arguments why its own smaller group constitutes more of a nation than a nationalist Pakistan. The ethnic fault-lines are far greater than people seem to be willing to admit. There really is no Pakistani identity in the face of these ethnic divides and nationalism on the premise that we are all Pakistanis is a morally and politically bankrupt slogan. Everyone feels exploited and no group feels any genuine affinity towards any other. I am definitely not anti-Pakistan or anti-Punjab...but a small group in Punjab is the only group that is happy with Pakistan the way it is. Everybody else would rather either take this part of Pakistan out, get themselves out, or redefine the whole thing altogether.

The political class is the source of all rot in today's Pakistan. It's a tightly knit club for the privileged that fights creativity and change. Under this class, political parties – the supposed incubators for leadership – have become stagnant. This leadership crisis has gradually converted Pakistani political parties into little more than ethnic and linguistic outfits that threaten to turn Pakistani democracy into a vehicle for chaos."

Totally agreed on this. These people are thoroughly corrupt and haven't one iota of sincerity to anyone or anything and they all exploit their various causes and slogans to maintain their positions and the status quo. I put the leaders of the religious parties into this same category....they are no better than anyone else.

 

[muse]

Zy


I don't know if I can agree with the inter-marriage part being a primarily upper class phenomenon -- generally it's s the lower middle class that is the most open to such -- I think karachi offers us some insight into this - from a overwhelmingly for the lack of a better term "mohajir" city to a Pashtun/Mohajir city.

Also, I think you are not taking into consideration that lower middle class has the greatest degree of interaction with all other classes and ethnicities. Further with increasing industrialization of towns in particular small towns, that degree of interaction is set to increase.

No identity? Well, that's difficult to argue against in the sense that one cannot say that a particular identity exists - Idenity itself is not a organic thing, it is a self created, self directed again for the lack of a better word, entity. This is true of any "identity" - it is a conscious creation.

Now if you were to argue that whatever the Pakistani identity is, that it does not exhibit the kinds of values and vision of self and nation that we would like to see, then I think you would be on firmer ground.

 

[Zyxius]

Karachi is pretty much the only cosmopolitan city in Pakistan with Islamabad possibly being an exception. Karachi is the only city in which you have all the people of Pakistan in large numbers so lets take a look at it:

1. Banaris is where Pathans live
2. Korangi is where Muhajirs live
3. Lyari is where Makranis and Balochis live
4. Gharo, Dhabeji, Super Highway area is where Sindhis live
5. Christians live in key parts of Saddar and Soldier Bazaar
6. Parsi colony is quite obvious
7. Even the expensive neighborhood of Clifton Block 7 has become known as the Ismaili block because they all prefer to live close to each other and to their Imam Bargha.
8. There are actually entire projects and buildings where only Ismailis or Boris (in some cases) can buy because they want to maintain a separate and distinct community.

The city is actually divided along ethnic lines and it is thoroughly ghettoized.

Most marriages in the lower and lower middle classes are arranged...families tend to look for matches based on common ethnic background, and then the other things like employment, education, etc Even among wealthy families from many communities in Pakistan will exclusively marry into their own:

1. Sindhis
2. Pathans
3. Bori
4. Parsi
5. Memon
6. Ismaili
7. Chinioti

Cities other than Karachi are mostly composed mostly of only one or two ethnic groups so even the demographic make-up of Pakistani cities should be an indication that this is no melting pot and that ethnic groups remain separate from one another, are distinct in almost every way, and wish to continue to remain separate in the absence of more compelling factors. May I ask...do you live in Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ Sort of reminds me of the distribution of communities into their respective enclaves in the US early on.

I have to agree with Muse here though, the middle class is going to lead the charge on this integration with better education and more economic growth, as is the situation now.

I don't think its being suggested that interethnic mingling is the case overwhelmingly, but that it is on the upswing, and part of the reason, and perhaps even the larger reason, behind this is economic growth and industrialization, especially through the growth of the private sector.

The private sector is key, because what a business owner is looking for is the best man for the job (at least I hope so) and if your business is in Lahore, and the talent is in Peshawar or Karachi, Karachi and Peshawar have to come to Lahore, and vice versa.

People will have time for patriotism and nationalism when they don't have to spend every waking moment worrying about how to feed their families. I would argue then that the most urgent need at this point for maintaining unity is economic growth.

Attitudes are changing and prejudices vanishing, albeit slowly in some cases, and they will continue changing as Pakistan develops.

 

[muse]

Zy

If I may, there is a lot intra-provincial movement of labor and significant transactions that go unreported - the nature of those transactions are cash based -- now, I realize that the set up of the post is self serving as we have asserted that we cannot make reference to hard numbers - I acknowledge this deficiency, however; I would request the consideration of readers for the general idea being expressed:

The intra-provincial movement of labor and unrecorded transactions is reflective of an eveolving economy (duh) but I think you may be suprised by how people are making a living, whether it's harvesting particular crops in a particular season or even movement as far away as from Afghanistan to small tons and villages in Sindh and Punjab selling second hand and ready made clothes - I offer these as evidences, yes, they are meager, but they nevertheless allow us to extrapolate.

Now I'm no fan of the middle class, but I am a fan of the lower middle class, ambitious leaders and just as with the economic activity that goes unreported, I should like to suggest that the lower middle class in particular and lower classes of people are making choices that may challenge our assumptions. -- as anecdotal evidence, I should like to suggest that we read national sections of papers --- the rise in the kinds of immoral and unethical behaviour women in our society in particular those of the lower and lower middles class have to endure is a reflection of the variety of choices some are increasingly opting for.

The Well to do classes of people are not really "progressive" (sorry for that word, I could not think of another that captures the kind of attitude and values I had in mind) types, quite the contrary yes it's a fact that in the pecking order, they are emulated - and perhaps that is why we tend to seek Pakistan as an arrested social society.

Your point about a ethnic ghettoized city is appreciated, but lets situate ourselves where we are , where we were and where we wish to be -- where we are a reflection of the values of where we were, is that not so? We must admit that the dynamic which created these ghettos is not just ethnic rivalries but also economic and political - actually essentially economic and political - think of the ANP and MQM types - now, when there is no political business to be conducted, it the same guys who hang out and as soon as the party "workers" are needed, the guys and rivalries are on display for political gain.

So I think we may have to be more cautious making categorical statements and should take into account that there is much we don't know about interactions in our societies ---- but we can say that it is unreasonable to proceed on the notion that while other things have changed and continue to change, interactions have remained static.

 

[kashifpso]

WE HAVE ONE LOVELY GREEN FLAG, ONE QUAID, ONE URDU LANGUAGE, ONE DARING PRESIDENT AND ONE BEAUTIFUL CAPITAL ARE ENOUGH FOR COMMONALITY FOR PAKISTANI NATION.

 

[Awesome]

Pakistani values

 

[muse]

Pakistani values

Ouch! Then again, why be apologetic in the face of directionless, insurrgency, insurrection, rebellion and fake democracy.

 

[Awesome]

Karachi is pretty much the only cosmopolitan city in Pakistan with Islamabad possibly being an exception. Karachi is the only city in which you have all the people of Pakistan in large numbers so lets take a look at it:

1. Banaris is where Pathans live
2. Korangi is where Muhajirs live
3. Lyari is where Makranis and Balochis live
4. Gharo, Dhabeji, Super Highway area is where Sindhis live
5. Christians live in key parts of Saddar and Soldier Bazaar
6. Parsi colony is quite obvious
7. Even the expensive neighborhood of Clifton Block 7 has become known as the Ismaili block because they all prefer to live close to each other and to their Imam Bargha.
8. There are actually entire projects and buildings where only Ismailis or Boris (in some cases) can buy because they want to maintain a separate and distinct community.

The city is actually divided along ethnic lines and it is thoroughly ghettoized.

Most marriages in the lower and lower middle classes are arranged...families tend to look for matches based on common ethnic background, and then the other things like employment, education, etc Even among wealthy families from many communities in Pakistan will exclusively marry into their own:

1. Sindhis
2. Pathans
3. Bori
4. Parsi
5. Memon
6. Ismaili
7. Chinioti

Cities other than Karachi are mostly composed mostly of only one or two ethnic groups so even the demographic make-up of Pakistani cities should be an indication that this is no melting pot and that ethnic groups remain separate from one another, are distinct in almost every way, and wish to continue to remain separate in the absence of more compelling factors. May I ask...do you live in Pakistan?

How segregated are we?

I'm a lahori, with one parent of Kashmiri descent, based in Punjab and one parent of Indian descent based in Sindh.

I think the only people amongst us unable to live together are over burdened with their own problems and as you know the grass is always greener on the other side. The national hammering that Punjab gets is usually out of those people of smaller provinces who are struggling to make ends meet.

Islam, nor languages, nor territories make up Pakistan. It's the nation, the Pakistanis.

In our separated, yet entangled way, we are who we are.

 

[Zyxius]

WE HAVE ONE LOVELY GREEN FLAG, ONE QUAID, ONE URDU LANGUAGE, ONE DARING PRESIDENT AND ONE BEAUTIFUL CAPITAL ARE ENOUGH FOR COMMONALITY FOR PAKISTANI NATION.

Most people in Pakistan do not speak Urdu.

 

[Zyxius]

How segregated are we?

I'm a lahori, with one parent of Kashmiri descent, based in Punjab and one parent of Indian descent based in Sindh.

I think the only people amongst us unable to live together are over burdened with their own problems and as you know the grass is always greener on the other side. The national hammering that Punjab gets is usually out of those people of smaller provinces who are struggling to make ends meet.

Islam, nor languages, nor territories make up Pakistan. It's the nation, the Pakistanis.

In our separated, yet entangled way, we are who we are.

You are just one example and are unrepresentative of Pakistani in this way. All you need to do is take a look at the demographics of our cities and I think that constitutes much stronger proof than your anecdotal evidence.

And being Pakistani cannot be the answer to the question, "What do Pakistanis have in common?" since that is a rather circular argument.