One thing I constantly hear from various members (or retired members) of the armed forces is the assertion that because of "feudalism", or the "feudal-system", democracy can never work in Pakistan and the army needs to run things in order to improve and uplift the people.
Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that the army as an institution is the biggest feudal land-owner in Pakistan.
The history behind this is interesting, and one I would love to do more research about. But essentially, it goes back to the times when the Punjab was conquered by the British and brought into the imperial fold. At the time, the need to regularly pacify various parts of British India required the existence of a large standing army. Furthermore, it was judicious British policy to incorporate the armies of newly conquered areas into the British army as soon as possible, to prevent large bands of armed men wandering around without work (something the Americans could have learned from in Iraq, but that's another story).
The problem as was, how does one pay for all of this? Going through the expense and headache of a central treasury that collected taxes and then paid them out to the armies was a large undertaking, and one for which the British lacked the patience, manpower, and frankly, money, to do. It was far cheaper to simply allocate the revenues of various lands (the same lands from where soldiers were for the most part recruited) to the army, making the army, in essence the feudal landlords of those areas and the farmers who worked on them, their tennants. This procedure was extended so that there were certain areas which were to provide provisioning for the army, certain areas to provide cattle and horses for transport, etc. All in all, it was a way to maintain a large standing army on the cheap, while helping to integrate that area more firmly under British authority.
The pay off of the system was visible during the Mutiny (or civil war, call it what you may) in 1857 when the mutinying garrisons came almost exclusively from the eastern provinces in the Awadh and Bengal. The newly recruited Punjabi garrisons stayed loyal to the British and helped turn the tide against the mutineers. After the Mutiny, the British reduced recruitment from the eastern provinces and focused on recruitment from the Punjab and frontier peoples such as Pathans and Gurkhas.
After Independence this "feudal" relationship between the army as landlord and the farmers as tenants remained. However, in recent years the army started feeling that it could obtain better yields and profits by corporatizing farming on its lands, rather than retaining a large number of small tenant farmers.
As one gentleman who is a leading light in a large investment firm and an economic analyst enthusiastically assured me a few years ago, this process of corporatization of farming would be of great benefit to the economy. Of course, one wondered if it would be of great benefit for the thousands of farmers it would dispossess and throw off the land? It is this impulse, and the fight against it, that has led to incidents like this.
In a sense, I guess you could credit the army for trying to end feudalism. But not as it ended through land reform throughout Europe, but by simply translating the relationship between the army landlord and peasant tenant to a purely capitalist relationship, and throwing the farmers off the land.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Gagging the Media
Here is the complete text of the ordinance on the electronic media. It seems to concern electronic broadcasting only so the print media is safe for now.
(Edit: No, it seems as if I was wrong. Restrictions have been placed on the print media as well. I'll try and find a link to the specific ordinance.)
These provisions are the kickers:
and just to make sure that all bases are covered:
(o) not broadcast anything which is known to be false or baseless or is malafide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or malafide.”
In other words, anything the government decides it doesn't like can be met with prison terms and massive fines. It is ridiculous in its draconian measures.
I was conversing with a gentleman yesterday who was strongly supportive of the restrictions. Making references to the television media showing the bodies of dead soldiers, showing captured soldiers, and interviewing militants, he spoke at length about the media's sensationalism and voyeurism, and then went on about how in the United States, the media exercises self-censorship by not showing bodies or coffins, or pictures of soldiers who have been captured, and refuse to give any voice to any of the militants they are waging their war of terror upon. Contrasting the Pakistani and US media, he went to say that in Pakistan, the government should impose restrictions because the Pakistani media is not responsible enough to exercise self-censorship.
To this line of argument, my immediate response is: has the American media model served America well? If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes that in the last five or six years, world events have unfolded according to a American master plan of domination - that the civil war in Iraq was planned from the start and that the American government and military are all sitting around patting themselves on the back due to their successful domination of the world etc. then perhaps you might feel that the American media model must be forcibly emulated in Pakistan. To believe this, one suspects, you would either have to be a member of Bush's public relations staff, or a complete buffoon. (The two categories not being necessarily exclusive).
Has the American media served the American people well by exercising self-censorship and allowing itself to be used by the government as a tool? Most assuredly not. It served the interests of a small clique in the ruling class, allowing them to launch a war which has been disastrous for America in terms of wasted lives, a suffering economy and growing anti-Americanism around the world. It may have been financial profitable for Bush and his immediate circle - but they are not, in of themselves, America.
So in Pakistan, a gagged media will serve the interests of a small clique of rulers and their immediate circles. But will it serve the interests of the people? No.
Edit: Some more thoughts, considerations and qualifications on this topic here.
(Edit: No, it seems as if I was wrong. Restrictions have been placed on the print media as well. I'll try and find a link to the specific ordinance.)
These provisions are the kickers:
(k) ensure that no anchor person, moderator or host propagates any opinion or acts in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan or sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan.
(l) not broadcast any programme inciting violence or hatred or any action prejudicial to maintenance of law and order;
(m) not broadcast anything which defames or brings into ridicule the Head of State, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state;
and just to make sure that all bases are covered:
(o) not broadcast anything which is known to be false or baseless or is malafide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or malafide.”
In other words, anything the government decides it doesn't like can be met with prison terms and massive fines. It is ridiculous in its draconian measures.
I was conversing with a gentleman yesterday who was strongly supportive of the restrictions. Making references to the television media showing the bodies of dead soldiers, showing captured soldiers, and interviewing militants, he spoke at length about the media's sensationalism and voyeurism, and then went on about how in the United States, the media exercises self-censorship by not showing bodies or coffins, or pictures of soldiers who have been captured, and refuse to give any voice to any of the militants they are waging their war of terror upon. Contrasting the Pakistani and US media, he went to say that in Pakistan, the government should impose restrictions because the Pakistani media is not responsible enough to exercise self-censorship.
To this line of argument, my immediate response is: has the American media model served America well? If you are a conspiracy theorist who believes that in the last five or six years, world events have unfolded according to a American master plan of domination - that the civil war in Iraq was planned from the start and that the American government and military are all sitting around patting themselves on the back due to their successful domination of the world etc. then perhaps you might feel that the American media model must be forcibly emulated in Pakistan. To believe this, one suspects, you would either have to be a member of Bush's public relations staff, or a complete buffoon. (The two categories not being necessarily exclusive).
Has the American media served the American people well by exercising self-censorship and allowing itself to be used by the government as a tool? Most assuredly not. It served the interests of a small clique in the ruling class, allowing them to launch a war which has been disastrous for America in terms of wasted lives, a suffering economy and growing anti-Americanism around the world. It may have been financial profitable for Bush and his immediate circle - but they are not, in of themselves, America.
So in Pakistan, a gagged media will serve the interests of a small clique of rulers and their immediate circles. But will it serve the interests of the people? No.
Edit: Some more thoughts, considerations and qualifications on this topic here.
Sunday, 4 November 2007
The State of Emergency
Rumours about a possible state of emergency had been flying about for several days, so Musharaf's move to suspend the constitution and, in effect, impose martial law, is not unexpected. The PCO issued by Musharaf keeps the national and provincial assemblies intact and only dismisses the judiciary and imposes tight controls on the media. The reason for this being, of course, that much of the opposition have already resigned from the assemblies and it was in the courts that a battle was being waged against Musharaf's reign. (Here is the text of the declaration.)
Musharaf claims that he is saving Pakistan from suicide, blaming militant violence and the judiciary for paralyzing the government.
Benazir Bhutto, who less than two weeks after her return to Pakistan decided to fly back to Dubai for a vacation, had earlier said that she might delay her vacation because of fears of the imposition of martial law. Then she left anyway and only returned after the state of emergency had been declared, expressing her "surprise" at the step.
So what to make of all this? Here is an article that effectively supports Musharaf's move. To me, it reads like yet another disgusting apology for the dictatorship of Pakistan's colonial elite.
Mr Eterez refers to "young professionals" and businessmen - people from the same thin upper class layer as himself who have benefited from Musharaf's rule the most. He mentions economic growth but doesnt mention the growing disparity in wealth, or the strong inflationary rates that have turned the common man against the government (over 50% and sometimes close to 100% for basic household goods and foodstuff in the period Musharaf was in charge). Furthermore, much of this growth was driven not by Musharaf's policies but by the cash windfall the country received post 9/11 from remittances looking for sanctuary from tougher banking laws in the west and Middle Eastern investment from money from booming oil prices. At the same time privatization has followed at full steam, also providing a windfall for the country's rich, but doing little to provide any kind of relief to the common man. In fact, the reference in the Emergency Declaration to the judiciary blocking "economic development" is an obvious reference to the Supreme Court's ruling against the privatization of the Pakistan Steel Mills - a shocking scandal in which several senior governmnt officials participated to sell of the industry at a fraction of its worth (in return for alleged kickbacks).
Having met and spoken to various businesmen and CEOs of investment firms in Pakistan - the same people who are most enamoured of Musharaf and his economic policies - I have found that while they are for the most part secular in their personal outlook, their virulent nationalism often leaves them obsessed with theories of the coming "decline of the west", their anti-semitism, (one refered me to Henry Ford's "The International Jew" - an anti-semitic text given all the more legitimacy in their eyes for being linked to one of the scions of modern capitalism), and insistence on Pakistan's participation in a 'great game' to dominate the region by using Islamic militants as a tool of foreign policy. They may be believers in capitalism and secularism - but, like the old British colonial elite from whom they took charge of the country - they are no believers in democracy and are full of nothing but contempt for their fellow citizens.
Its fine for Mr Eterez to sit cosily in his London home and extol the virtues of martial law, but about the only achievement of which Musharaf could legitimately boast - the blooming of a free media under his reign - has been undone by this latest move. The press has been stifled - and prison terms will now be imposed on anyone who criticizes the government. A great way to support the growth of "civil society". Conceivably, I could be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fined for writing this blog post criticizing the government's move.
This gagging of the press comes in the wake of reporting from Swat where military forces have been surrendering in droves to the militants and giving undertakings not to serve in the armed forces anymore. The militants have been gleefully arranging press conferences and inviting press reporters to photograph the weapons, arms and ammunition - ranging from armoured cars to rocket launchers - that have been falling in to their hands from these mass surrenders. Instead of taking a good hard look at their own tactics and strategies, the army has decided it needs to gag the press in order to "preserve morale".
As President and Chief of the Army, Musharaf has presided over the largest loss of sovereign Pakistani territory since the 1971 war - to the very Islamic militants he nurtured to use as a foreign policy instrument in Afghanistan and Kashmir. This on top of his failed war in Kargil in 1998. At least Yahya Khan had the decency to resign after the 1971 war. Musharaf however refuses to do so despite his complete loss of credibility. If Pakistan is on the path to suicide, as Musharaf claimed in his address yesterday - then he is one of those whose actions are pushing it to the brink.
Musharaf claims that he is saving Pakistan from suicide, blaming militant violence and the judiciary for paralyzing the government.
Benazir Bhutto, who less than two weeks after her return to Pakistan decided to fly back to Dubai for a vacation, had earlier said that she might delay her vacation because of fears of the imposition of martial law. Then she left anyway and only returned after the state of emergency had been declared, expressing her "surprise" at the step.
So what to make of all this? Here is an article that effectively supports Musharaf's move. To me, it reads like yet another disgusting apology for the dictatorship of Pakistan's colonial elite.
Mr Eterez refers to "young professionals" and businessmen - people from the same thin upper class layer as himself who have benefited from Musharaf's rule the most. He mentions economic growth but doesnt mention the growing disparity in wealth, or the strong inflationary rates that have turned the common man against the government (over 50% and sometimes close to 100% for basic household goods and foodstuff in the period Musharaf was in charge). Furthermore, much of this growth was driven not by Musharaf's policies but by the cash windfall the country received post 9/11 from remittances looking for sanctuary from tougher banking laws in the west and Middle Eastern investment from money from booming oil prices. At the same time privatization has followed at full steam, also providing a windfall for the country's rich, but doing little to provide any kind of relief to the common man. In fact, the reference in the Emergency Declaration to the judiciary blocking "economic development" is an obvious reference to the Supreme Court's ruling against the privatization of the Pakistan Steel Mills - a shocking scandal in which several senior governmnt officials participated to sell of the industry at a fraction of its worth (in return for alleged kickbacks).
Having met and spoken to various businesmen and CEOs of investment firms in Pakistan - the same people who are most enamoured of Musharaf and his economic policies - I have found that while they are for the most part secular in their personal outlook, their virulent nationalism often leaves them obsessed with theories of the coming "decline of the west", their anti-semitism, (one refered me to Henry Ford's "The International Jew" - an anti-semitic text given all the more legitimacy in their eyes for being linked to one of the scions of modern capitalism), and insistence on Pakistan's participation in a 'great game' to dominate the region by using Islamic militants as a tool of foreign policy. They may be believers in capitalism and secularism - but, like the old British colonial elite from whom they took charge of the country - they are no believers in democracy and are full of nothing but contempt for their fellow citizens.
Its fine for Mr Eterez to sit cosily in his London home and extol the virtues of martial law, but about the only achievement of which Musharaf could legitimately boast - the blooming of a free media under his reign - has been undone by this latest move. The press has been stifled - and prison terms will now be imposed on anyone who criticizes the government. A great way to support the growth of "civil society". Conceivably, I could be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fined for writing this blog post criticizing the government's move.
This gagging of the press comes in the wake of reporting from Swat where military forces have been surrendering in droves to the militants and giving undertakings not to serve in the armed forces anymore. The militants have been gleefully arranging press conferences and inviting press reporters to photograph the weapons, arms and ammunition - ranging from armoured cars to rocket launchers - that have been falling in to their hands from these mass surrenders. Instead of taking a good hard look at their own tactics and strategies, the army has decided it needs to gag the press in order to "preserve morale".
As President and Chief of the Army, Musharaf has presided over the largest loss of sovereign Pakistani territory since the 1971 war - to the very Islamic militants he nurtured to use as a foreign policy instrument in Afghanistan and Kashmir. This on top of his failed war in Kargil in 1998. At least Yahya Khan had the decency to resign after the 1971 war. Musharaf however refuses to do so despite his complete loss of credibility. If Pakistan is on the path to suicide, as Musharaf claimed in his address yesterday - then he is one of those whose actions are pushing it to the brink.
Saturday, 3 November 2007
Bits and Bobs and BB
Most outlandish statement of the day award goes to Shabaz Sharif, (brother of Nawaz Sharif who is now once again enjoying the hospitality of the Saudi government), who mentioned in a speech that he would like to see Bangladesh become part of Pakistan once again! What planet is he living one again?
CBS' 60 Minutes has finally 'outed' the intelligence source "curveball", who was the source that the American government based their allegations of Iraqi mobile chemical weapon laboratories on. The neocons still insist that Iraq had WMD.
The Grand Strategy Blog tries to figure out why BB is "so" popular in Pakistan. I have some alternative suggestions, but nows not the time to get into them. I would question though, whether she is as popular as the blogger seems to suggest. I would suggest that the PPP is more popular than BB herself is in Pakistan and that has something to do with building organized mass movements. As for her popularity in the western media - it may have something to do with the $250,000 PR campaign she launched to build up her image as this informative blog reports.
I should note here that I am undecided about which way I will vote in the coming elections, and that the PPP is one possibility. If I do vote for the PPP though, it will be despite Benazir Bhutto, not because of her. After all, as William Dalrymple wrote in the Guardian:
And here is a BBC article reminding us that even though the BB-Musharaf deal has led to the dropping of all the corruption cases against her and her husband in Pakistan, there are still plenty of cases abroad, including her involvement in the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq which allowed Saddam Hussain to evade sanctions and build up his personal wealth. Funny that the American media doesn't latch onto that one...
CBS' 60 Minutes has finally 'outed' the intelligence source "curveball", who was the source that the American government based their allegations of Iraqi mobile chemical weapon laboratories on. The neocons still insist that Iraq had WMD.
The Grand Strategy Blog tries to figure out why BB is "so" popular in Pakistan. I have some alternative suggestions, but nows not the time to get into them. I would question though, whether she is as popular as the blogger seems to suggest. I would suggest that the PPP is more popular than BB herself is in Pakistan and that has something to do with building organized mass movements. As for her popularity in the western media - it may have something to do with the $250,000 PR campaign she launched to build up her image as this informative blog reports.
I should note here that I am undecided about which way I will vote in the coming elections, and that the PPP is one possibility. If I do vote for the PPP though, it will be despite Benazir Bhutto, not because of her. After all, as William Dalrymple wrote in the Guardian:
Few would argue with the proposition that democracy is almost always preferable to dictatorship; but it is often forgotten the degree to which Bhutto is the person who has done more than anything to bring Pakistan's strange variety of democracy - really a form of elective feudalism - into disrepute. During her first 20-month long premiership, astonishingly, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Her reign was marked by massive human rights abuse: Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world's worst records of custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings and torture. Bhutto's premiership was also distinguished by epic levels of corruption. In 1995 Transparency International named Pakistan one of the three most corrupt countries in the world. Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari - widely known as "Mr 10%" - faced allegations of plundering the country.
And here is a BBC article reminding us that even though the BB-Musharaf deal has led to the dropping of all the corruption cases against her and her husband in Pakistan, there are still plenty of cases abroad, including her involvement in the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq which allowed Saddam Hussain to evade sanctions and build up his personal wealth. Funny that the American media doesn't latch onto that one...
Pakistani Counter-Insurgency
Today's schadenfreude award goes to this short report prepared by the neo-con think tank, the AEI, which examines the Pakistan counter-insurgency effort in the tribal belt and northern areas and, after criticizing the "elementary errors" made by the army, recommends that Pakistan should learn from India's successful counter-insurgency effort in Kashmir!
Its an interesting report, worth reading, but interestingly enough, the folks at the Indian policy blog, The Acorn are not entirely convinced. They point out that some of the steps advocated in the report actually backfired for the Indian army. Two points made are that cordon-and-search operations (CASO) that the AEI report recommends was found by the Indian army to alienate local inhabitants and the recruitment of former insurgents (ikhwanis) only met with mixed success.
An interesting point made though, and I think a valid one, was that the Indians soon learned that the use of artillery and airstrikes always did more harm than good and instead relied on flushing areas with huge numbers of ground troops to provide security for the local population and hinder the free movement of the insurgents. Fully one fourth of India's army was stationed in Kashmir. Soldiers were deployed on foot along entire roads and highways to check for IEDs before they were used by military convoys.
This is particularly important because firstly, as we can see in Swat, the Pakistani forces have lost their own freedom of movement and are confined in their bases and checkpoints. The militants can amass to attack and overrun specific targets and then disperse again at will, before the Pakistani army can bring significant force to bear on them. Proportionately, the Pakistani army has far fewer men to cover the areas where insurgents operate, and IEDs and suicide bombings are a major source of casualties. Furthermore, convoys move along unsecured routes and are easily attacked and overwhelmed. This was one of the "elementary mistakes" referred to in the AEI report. Several convoys have been attacked and overrun, including one in which over 200 soldiers were captured by the militants without a shot being fired.
In an interesting interview with one of the officers of a captured convoy, it was revealed that the soldiers had been told that a peace agreement had been reached with the militants and that they could travel through the area without hindrance as long as they remained in their vehicles. When the convoy was surrounded by locals asking what the soldiers were doing there, they kept radioing HQ for instructions. The local army commander kept radioing High Command for instructions. No one had any clear idea about what to do. Finally, after a long delay, the locals lost their patience and took the soldiers into captivity.
What is clear was the ineptitude and lack of clarity in the Pakistani army leadership's handling of the crisis. There is no clear idea of what the military objectives are, let alone how to go about securing them.
Its an interesting report, worth reading, but interestingly enough, the folks at the Indian policy blog, The Acorn are not entirely convinced. They point out that some of the steps advocated in the report actually backfired for the Indian army. Two points made are that cordon-and-search operations (CASO) that the AEI report recommends was found by the Indian army to alienate local inhabitants and the recruitment of former insurgents (ikhwanis) only met with mixed success.
An interesting point made though, and I think a valid one, was that the Indians soon learned that the use of artillery and airstrikes always did more harm than good and instead relied on flushing areas with huge numbers of ground troops to provide security for the local population and hinder the free movement of the insurgents. Fully one fourth of India's army was stationed in Kashmir. Soldiers were deployed on foot along entire roads and highways to check for IEDs before they were used by military convoys.
This is particularly important because firstly, as we can see in Swat, the Pakistani forces have lost their own freedom of movement and are confined in their bases and checkpoints. The militants can amass to attack and overrun specific targets and then disperse again at will, before the Pakistani army can bring significant force to bear on them. Proportionately, the Pakistani army has far fewer men to cover the areas where insurgents operate, and IEDs and suicide bombings are a major source of casualties. Furthermore, convoys move along unsecured routes and are easily attacked and overwhelmed. This was one of the "elementary mistakes" referred to in the AEI report. Several convoys have been attacked and overrun, including one in which over 200 soldiers were captured by the militants without a shot being fired.
In an interesting interview with one of the officers of a captured convoy, it was revealed that the soldiers had been told that a peace agreement had been reached with the militants and that they could travel through the area without hindrance as long as they remained in their vehicles. When the convoy was surrounded by locals asking what the soldiers were doing there, they kept radioing HQ for instructions. The local army commander kept radioing High Command for instructions. No one had any clear idea about what to do. Finally, after a long delay, the locals lost their patience and took the soldiers into captivity.
What is clear was the ineptitude and lack of clarity in the Pakistani army leadership's handling of the crisis. There is no clear idea of what the military objectives are, let alone how to go about securing them.
Benazir vs. Jemima: Round II
I've been a little slow to pick up on this one, but its interesting nonetheless. Recently, Jemima Khan, ex-wife of Imran Khan wrote an op-ed piece blasting the western media's fawning acceptance of Bhutto's self-projected image as the saviour of democracy in Pakistan. There is, of course, history between the two, given BB's personal attacks on Jemima during the 1996 campaign, but everything Jemima has to say is true.
Of course the article could not go unanswered, and an editorial in the Daily Times - a Pakistani mouthpiece for the PPP - launched a counter-attack. Once again, the points raised in Jemima's article are ignored and the article seeks to discredit Jemima personally. There are some interesting reflections on the episode on the Indian policy blog, The Acorn.
Of course the article could not go unanswered, and an editorial in the Daily Times - a Pakistani mouthpiece for the PPP - launched a counter-attack. Once again, the points raised in Jemima's article are ignored and the article seeks to discredit Jemima personally. There are some interesting reflections on the episode on the Indian policy blog, The Acorn.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
The Swat Troubles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
