Pak Tea House » liberal Pakistan » Let Pakistan Make Its Own Progress
Let Pakistan Make Its Own Progress
From The New York Times:
By Nadia Naviwala
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts — What do we do about Pakistan? Because I am a Pakistani-American who recently spent several months there, people here are constantly trying to get me to answer that question. One of the most important things I can offer them is a reality check.
I grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, but my family moved to Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, in the early 1990s. Those were Karachi’s worst years and constitute my earliest memories of terrorism. Political and ethnic violence wracked the city, becoming, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan today, an excuse for every type of crime — shootings in mosques, kidnappings, violent break-ins and streetside executions if you belonged to the wrong ethnic group. By 1996, my family gave up on Pakistan and came back to the United States. By 1999, Pervez Musharraf gave up on Pakistan and overthrew the government.
Worse than the violence, for a Pakistani-American child, was that Pakistan was boring. As far as I am concerned, Pizza Hut was the only good thing that happened to Pakistan in those years. Prior to that, there was no American fast food in Karachi, let alone malls or highways. You couldn’t even find a decent candy bar.
And as I got older, I grew increasingly irked by the conservatism. Pakistan, I felt, was easily the most closed country in the world — traditional dress was mandatory, girls were either stuck at home or harassed in the streets, and I almost never saw a foreigner.
I never imagined that I would see Pakistan the way I saw it this summer, after a mere 14 years. Karachi today looks like any major, cosmopolitan city — movie theaters, restaurants, and cafés full of boys and girls smoking, in jeans, mingling together. More women are finishing college and getting jobs, and they have traded traditional baggy shalwars for trousers and capris. The city has been aggressively transformed by a mayor so impressively capable that he seems misplaced in a culture of corrupt politicians and broken bureaucracies.
If I sound like a wide-eyed Pakistani-American, it’s because I am. Pakistan today is more open and progressive than Pakistani communities in the United States. My parents’ generation in America has worked hard to preserve the Pakistan they left behind in the 1980’s.
Pakistani-Americans whisper and shake their heads about the wild parties they hear go on in Pakistan today. It’s true: alcohol, although illegal, is everywhere. And when I celebrated Christmas in Karachi this December, it was a Pakistani-American girl I met there who commented disapprovingly. Meanwhile, my Pakistani friends didn’t believe me when I tried to tell them that, having grown up in the United States, I have never met a Muslim who celebrated Christmas.
This is the change we need in Pakistan, but no U.S. policy or aid program could have brought it about. The desire that many Pakistanis have for a more open and liberal society, and the local leaders and businesses that are making it possible, are our best bet for stability and security in the region. Social change, economic growth, political maturity — these are things that crowd out groups like the Taliban and make their rhetoric fall flat. But these things have no formulas and Americans have the least ability to understand or control them — no matter how many policies are pronounced in Washington or billions of dollars poured into Islamabad.
More importantly, progress in Pakistan — strengthening economic growth, governance and liberal values — takes years to realize but only a few American airstrikes or Taliban bombings to destroy. American mistakes in the region have been aggravating public sentiments for years and fueled fundamentalism in the mainstream. In the 1990s, none of my aunts wore burkas. Now, they all do. And Taliban bombings in the cities are leading to a flight of people with means, usually the most progressive and educated, and capital. As we learned from our support for the mujahedeen in the 1980s, the secondary effects of U.S. policy are the most damning.
How do we harness and support positive trends in Pakistan? If Washington can put good people to work on that question, who will also factor in the limits of American understanding and ground capabilities in Pakistan, they will come to a better question: How can we protect the progress that Pakistanis have already made?
Instead of fixing “Af-Pak,” the best thing America can do for the region is stop it from getting more fouled up than it already is. So my answer to the question “what do we Americans do?” is to first understand what we have done already: U.S. war policies are inadvertently undermining the social and economic progress that Pakistanis have made over the years.
We need to accept the limits of our capabilities and understanding of realities on the ground. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States and other countries have a huge presence, few Americans travel to Pakistan and U.S. officials are extremely restricted in their movements.
Finally, we need realistic objectives, which will end up looking more like damage control than the magic bullet against the Taliban that everyone is looking for. Pakistan is a different story from Afghanistan — it is far more developed and modern. Afghans may not have the ability to lead themselves out of this mess, but Pakistanis do. After all, Pakistanis are the ones who suffer the most when their cities are bombed and their soldiers killed. If the United States continues to distort the situation through aggressive policy demands, then we are only reinforcing anti-Americanism and the breakdown of Pakistani institutions. What’s worse, if U.S. attention remains fixated on narrow measures of military success, Pakistan will become collateral damage of the Afghan war.
Nadia Naviwala is a student at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a former national security aide in the U.S. Senate. She is currently researching U.S. development assistance in Pakistan.
Filed under: liberal Pakistan · Tags: Democratic society, Harvard, IHT Op Ed contributor, Karachi, Kennedy School, liberal Pakistan, modern Pakistan, New York Times, Open Society, Pakistan, Pro-West
81 Responses to "Let Pakistan Make Its Own Progress"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- real muslim
said tahir is jews agent. we can sacrifice millions of... - Dark Knight
said @Sachbol (May 18, 2012 at 12:19 am)
//...There is... - Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo
said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on... - kaalchakra said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan...
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
This article is confusing in its contradictions:
“Pakistan today is more open and progressive than Pakistani communities in the United States. ” and then she says, “In the 1990s, none of my aunts wore burkas. Now, they all do. “, laying the blame squarely on “American mistakes in the region”.
Oh boy, with national security aides to the US senate such as these, God help’em!
In Mustafa Kamal, Pakistan have a hell of a success story to tell. In MQM, Pakistan has the only secular and middle class representative party. If only MQM can attain a foothold in Punjab, then things will start to get better for Pakistan. It will not be simple but it will be a step in the right direction. I believe that the Military establishment and MQM have made peace and the latter has matured as a party.
This is rather too simplistic view of Pakistan from an American expat. She is right about a few things in this article. Many of Pakistani diasporas embrace traditional values in a Western society. In an effort to impart the Islamiat to their next generation, many Pakistani families in the West become even more Muslim than they were back in Pakistan.
However, the wide eyed description of the alcohol parties and rising liberalism in Pakistan misses one important mark. That Pakistan today is society as segmented as it has ever been. Though a liberal urban landscape appears in the media and in selected segments of the society, is still a distinct minority. And making a case for Pakistani liberalism by quoting these disparate examples is probably a big mistake.
Alcohol parties or women wearing sleeveless shirts do not define liberalism. Liberalism is about live and let live. It is about democracy and rule of law. It is about treating everyone equally. Left to its own devices, Pakistan has had a rough record in that aspect.
Pakistanis do want change; they require better governance, democracy and economic progress. The recent signs have been encouraging, and Pakistan has made good inroads towards their ideals during the past 2 years. But it is hardly sufficient to proclaim that all is well and it is the American policy that is causing democracy and liberalism to take a step back in Pakistan. It was only to the year 2006 when more than 50% of the Pakistani population were admirers and supporters of Taliban.
I don’t for a second believe that US policy in Af-Pak hinders democracy in Pakistan in its present form. It is not after the sustained offensive against them that the weakened Taliban are nowmaking gestures to initiate talks in Afghanistan. Military solution has and will never be the be-all solution; yet is a big step in dealing with a runaway problem that was threatening to overwhelm Pakistan. Taliban were a product of Pakistani miscalculation. And Pakistan needs to deal with this problem working with the US, not without it.
It is likely that this is too simplistic a picture, both of the diaspora and of the home country. One is immediately reminded of the exact, the identical situation prevailing a few hundred kilometres to the east. A classic illustration is the movie Bhajji on the Beach. While the Indians settled in the UK come across as being caught in a time-warp, unable to move out of that moment of time when they arrived in the UK, when the women go to the beach, there is a visitor in Bombay on the bus with them, and the contrast is amusing. It fits right in with this article.
A small, additional point; in the cases of those Indian immigrants who entered the UK not from India but from Uganda for instance, or from Hong Kong, there was a double handicap. In many cases, they or their communities had been caught in a time warp much earlier. So it is those embedded in amber social mores which come across to the UK, not just the norms of that point of time in India, but the norms of that point of time at which they first left India.
I am not sure that this applies to Pakistani families as well.
Looks like pakistani diaspora is as confused as people of pakistan.
Till such time pakistanis or the muslims in general objectively assess their core belief system or ideology and adapt it to the present world system they will be at war with themselves & others.
Iranians are leading the way, openly questioning their ancestors decision & moving back to zoraster instead of this arabic import.
The simplicity of the argument was probably necessary. The average reader of the American print media – even the NYT- can’t handle any more complexity … even this article would have them pulling their hair out.
The author is an old friend of ours… and is capable of a very nuanced analysis- you don’t get into Kennedy School at Harvard btw if you weren’t…
I am frankly amused at Sun’s comment. It has no relevance or significance to the article. I guess this is the normal knee jerk response from the Hindutvadi party when it gets insecure about anything in the Western press which might remotely be positive about Pakistan.
“The simplicity of the argument was probably necessary. The average reader of the American print media – even the NYT- can’t handle any more complexity … even this article would have them pulling their hair out. ”
How patronizing and unlike you, Yasser. Setting that aside, I found the article contradictory and simplistic as well. It seems like Nadia desperately wants to believe in a liberal, progressive Pakistan, but sadly all evidence is to the contrary.
Dear Bilal,
Frankly that is my opinion of the American reader in general based on my time spent there.
It always looks worst when you are outside… and what is more is that Pakistanis are notorious for self deprecation.
I think the trend identified by Nadia is on the dot. Pakistan has a rising and increasingly globalized middle class (which may at times be dragged kicking and screaming)… at times it gets confused… but that is the painful process of evolution.
Give democracy a chance…. liberal, progressive Pakistan is right around the corner.
Its a shame that we define progress by how short the sleeves on the cool chicks in Karachi are!
Scratch their minds and I bet none of them you could have an interesting conversation with! These people always existed in Pak btw.
How have the poor people “progressed” in y0ur opinion?
Vajra
your time-warp is certainly true of pakistani diaspora as well, especialy in the case of uk. north america is slightly different.
where in pakistan do the families come from is also important. and with what ability in terms of skills to become cosmopolitan. an emigrant from karachi who came across in the 1950′s might know little about present day pakistan but would be no ghetto-dwelling introvert in the west. a mirpuri arriving in the 1960s of course will fit your time-warp description perfectly. emigrants from villages from the more prosperous parts of punjab, on the other hand, arriving in the 1970s/80s/90s would be nearer the emigrant from karachi, rather than from mirpur, in his basic outlook and ability to adapt, even though he wouldn’t have the skills and qualification to escape the ghettos.
Politics and religion cannot coexist as it is not only insulting to the religion which is solely a spiritual subject but also politics is not divine the code of ethics are poles apart. Pakistan was not foreseen as a theocratic state and its charter derives its roots from progression not suppression. What we see now in Karachi, Lahore or Islamabad is reflective of the urban culture and this is no evolution as Pakistan urban centers pre-Zia were even more liberal then what we see today!
I agree with the argument that development should not be dictated rather it needs to be facilitated and tailored as per the requirements of local cultures
A very debatable subject indeed. We must know that at times when we try to help anyone, we must not OVER-Do it because it might just backfire on you.
YLH: I wouldn’t jump to too many conclusions about the nuanced analytical abilities of Ivy League students. George W. Bush graduated from both Yale and Harvard, demonstrating that it’s possible to end up with a degree from an august institution even if you have a brain the size of a pea. There are plenty of legacy students attending those institutions who drive the collective IQ of the student body down.
Well my conclusions are based on my personal interaction with the author who I have known since 2003.
I wasn’t referring to the author. I was referring to your comment about admission to the Kennedy School. As an Ivy League alum I’m merely suggesting not to buy toooo much into the hype….
@AZW: you are right about the article being way too simplistic. But the western media like YLH said, doesnt like to get into the complexity of things.
It is very true that liberalism in confused with westernization and western culture, both are not the same.
@sun: your comment doesnt make sense and is irrelevant and false. Muslims are well integrated into todays world and lay a major contributing role in many areas. Your views regarding Iranians is shocking, iranians are extremely committed to Islam. They have made advances in science and technology as well as spirituality. Just visit the cemeteries and religious sites and you will know what I am talking about. They have gone forward in the secular education as well as religious education.
@DC Media girl: G. Bush is a part of the very powerful Bush family which does not only have his father and grandfather in politics, but his cousins and extended family holding large shares in many corporations in different sectors. The Bush family is one of the most powerful families in US and being elitists they would have access to high level universities even if they dont meet the requirements. However at the same time you are right when you say that the standard of education is going down, US faces an education crises as its standards fall.
sun (March 17, 2010 at 8:32 am):
“Iranians are openly questioning their ancestors decision & moving back to zoraster [Zoroaster] instead of this Arabic import.”
Sun, I could very well understand your opposition to “this Arabic import”. You are probably against the other ‘western import’ to your country as well. But do you have a way to back your above statement regarding Iranians, or you are simply tossing cow-chips up in the air?
YLH (March 17, 2010 at 10:08 am):
“The simplicity of the argument was probably necessary. The average reader of the American print media – even the NYT – can’t handle any more complexity.….even this article would have them pulling their hair out…..The author is an old friend of ours…..and is capable of a very nuanced analysis – you don’t get into Kennedy School at Harvard btw if you weren’t…”
Yasser, please come back to the USA and pickup were you left at Rutger as undergrad. We miss you here so much.
@Musatafa Shaban: There must be a problem with my English today. I am well aware of the Bush family’s prominence. My point was not that the American educational system is poor – which it is, but that’s a whole other conversation – but that legacy students are being admitted to and graduating from Ivy League schools on a regular basis despite lack of intellectual firepower, and that an Ivy League degree isn’t necessarily the gold standard many think it is.
@DC Media Girl: You are right, srry misunderstood you first time.
It is a pity that Pakistani’s are celebrating Christmas, not because I have anything against the reverence that Christians have for this holiday, but that Pakistani’s are only celebrating because it gives them an excuse to have dance parties, get drunk and indulge in hooliganism. This is nothing to be proud of……
The state of affairs that we have landed ourselves in leaves us with little reason or time to celebrate, unless it is some form of escapism. It is of course mostly an indulgence of the affluent, the middle class just gets sucked into its wake. It is the affluent that need to exercise restraint, in order to firstly not tempt the less fortunate into digression and secondly to invest that precious time and money for the cultural and financial nourishment of this godforsaken country.
Your advice to the American government to desist from over aggression bears merit not only for the salvation of Pakistan, but for USA as well. After all the Soviet Union met its end over here and the way things are going it seems that history is repeating itself. None of this absolves Pakistan of its responsibility to put its house in order, manage religious fundamentalism, enforce zero tolerance to terrorism both within and cross border and regain economic stability. On the issue of terrorism India will have to contribute in resolving the Kashmir dispute, without which there will always be a reason for its resurgence. Also meddling in the Baluchistan insurgency India is not really helping the international effort against terrorism.
@Tilsim, agreed with you wrt the contradictions.
@AZW wrote: “Alcohol parties or women wearing sleeveless shirts do not define liberalism. Liberalism is about live and let live. It is about democracy and rule of law. It is about treating everyone equally”
In complete agreement. I don’t understand. why we define liberalism with dress, diet and lifestyle and not adherance to a tolerant philosophy.
Furthermore, the “cosmopolitan” lifestyle that Nadia describes is enjoyed by a tiny upper class segment and not the overwhelming majority of this city of 20 million people.
Nadia equates American airstrikes with Taliban attacks in harming the country. I don’t know if she realizes that these airstrikes have killed the very Taliban leaders that have brought such devastation to ordinary Pakistanis. And that it is largely American aid that has saved the economy from complete collapse since quite some time.
Ali:
Good points. Let me expand on this thought here.
I never get tired of religious fundos equating liberalism with immodesty and western way of life. Our resident extremist, Mr. Kashifiat never ceases to invoke in his passionate pleas against the waywardness and western filth that liberals seem to bring in with their ideology. While Kashifiat understanding is based on passion first and reason later, I believe it is this imperfect understanding of liberal democracy in the masses that causes so much confusion and distrust about liberalism. From not so savvy Qazi Hussains, to so called progressives like Imran Khan and Hamid Mir, we never cease to hear the chorus of liberal fascists and so on.
The pseudo democratic leaders like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or Ayub Khan do not represent the liberal democracy. Liberal democracy requires rule of law. It requires every human being to be equal. I will take a step further and say that same is true for pure capitalism; it cannot exist in the long run without checks and regulatory institutions to ensure that the investors have their rights to pursue profits within the legal boundaries. This will be a discussion for another day though, but let’s stick to the liberal democracy, and the imperfect form that is prevalent in Pakistan.
Indeed Pakistan and other Muslim countries engage in a peculiar type of religious politics. The invariably first target of a religiously mandated government is women. Walls are erected around them, their modesty becomes the first visible sign of the Islamicness of a society. Whether most of them like it or not, a religious or semi religious government in the Muslim world looks to enforce Islam by segregating the sexes first and foremost.
Interestingly, I read about the same phenomenon happening in the early 18th century India. After the austere Aurangzeb reign ended, the Indian Muslim society relaxed. The social values took a U-turn as people found the relaxed attitudes of the subsequent kings refreshing. The strict enforced modesty and religiously mandated decades of his rule were followed by lax emperors. Songs, dances and revelry flourished, that many religious figures of that era came to deplore.
This gave rise to another clergy mandated revival movement by the likes of Shah Wali Ullah and others, who wanted to put the society on the right path with their own reformation of the Muslim society.
This cyclical flow between more Islam and less Islam has been with us for centuries. And now while the religious right deplores the present waywardness of the society, the secular intelligentsia needs to take a step back and do a reality check. Are we going to let the liberalism defined just by how the society can party? Is liberalism just desegregation of sexes?
Anyone who consumes alcohol in Pakistan goes against the law of the land. These parties should be condemned, not made an example of the progressiveness of the society. While no one argues against desegregation of sexes that the religious right loves to enforce, this is not what our ideals are about. They are about protection of law to everyone; from women to poor to minorities. It is about fair society that deals effectively with those who think they are above the law. If we fail to do that, another cycle of fundamentalism will hit us sometime in the future, harkening to the same message of waywardness and corruption, and condemning us to another decade of misery garbed under the message of religious salvation.
@AZW and Ali Abbas
In complete agreement. It’s no use the pot calling the kettle black. Pakistanis should be much more balanced in their assessment of the role that the US has played recently in helping to clear up the Taliban mess that they are jointly responsible for creating alongside Pakistan’s establishment. For sure, the loss of innocent life anywhere is terrible but without US’s intervention, the Taliban/extremist challenge was appearing to overwhelm Pakistan. It’s important to make this point too to any Aunty who choses to don the burka as a result of frustration with US drone attacks. Sic.
Midfield Dynamo:
“On the issue of terrorism India will have to contribute in resolving the Kashmir dispute, without which there will always be a reason for its resurgence. Also meddling in the Baluchistan insurgency India is not really helping the international effort against terrorism”
The Kashmir dispute existed for decades before there was terrorism and continue to exist long after terrorism has disappeared, which is not unlikely, even in Pakistan.
Kashmir needs to be solved for its own sake, not because of the hortations of Syed Salahuddin and the LeT. The LeT, at least proclaims that its goals and methods are not limited to the resolution of the Kashmir problem in favour of Pakistan. From India’s point of view it is inconceivable that anything can be conceded to the activities of the Jamaat ul Dawa wa Irshad’s .
The terrror weapon in ISI’s arsenal, as far as India is concerned, is likely to remain a low yield device. It probably encourages Indian hawks to stand their ground, and to that extent postpones a reconciliation between India and Pakistan. It may be at best a self serving device for the PA because it helps delay a solution.
I must qualify here that the original Kashmiri uprising led by the JKLF petered out within a couple of years. Those who survive from it like Yaseen Malik, are peaceniks. The terror thing is controlled exogenously.
@AZW, while the rule of law is very important and not just for the “”bloody civilians” and selective politicians, but for everyone, I think a truly liberal society should encourage and tolerate free thought and a pluralityof opinions. I agree with much of your analysis regarding the ebb and flow of values. However, even after Aurangzeb and actually with Akbar and Dara Shikoh, there was a modicum of liberalism, in that different viewpoints were tolerated and an attempt was made to embrace diversity.
The cultural references in this article seem to be distracting some Pakistani readers from its central points. A few reminders and clarifications–
The motivating question of the piece is “what should we Americans do?” about Pakistan. It is a message for American policy makers and thinkers– my current classmates and former colleagues– who are worried about Pakistan and are constantly discussing and formulating potential policies towards the country, without ever having been there.
Pakistan is too often seen simplistically through the prisms of Afghanistan, Taliban, and nukes. The piece tries to challenge that image and show that Pakistanis have been negotiating these issues pretty well on their own, and that U.S. war policies are in some way responsible for fundamentalism, anti-Americanism, and violence that they were designed to counter. Hence, “the secondary effects of U.S. policy are the most damning.” Instead, the things that Pakistan needs, “social change, economic growth, and political maturity,” are things that U.S. policy is least able to effect in the current situation.
The prescription is not that Pakistan should be liberal (narrowly-interpreted) but that openness, choice, and development are good things. The celebration of Christmas shows that Pakistan is not as intolerant, fundamentalist, anti-American, and Taliban-infested as many Americans would perceive them to be. And the discussion of “trousers” and “capris” shows not that Pakistan is adopting western dress, but fusing it with its own.
The references to liberal attitudes in Karachi is not meant to promote westernization but to demonstrate that the largest Muslim city in the world “looks like any major, cosmopolitan city” today.
It’s true that some of the choices described in the piece are only open to a small part of the population in places like Karachi. But the larger point is that this group has grown and entered the mainstream over the past decade. (Yes, I have debated this latter point with my Pakistani friends.)
Also, through the reactions to this piece, I’ve realized that people tend to over-identify liberalism with the elite in Pakistan. Many liberals these days are not elites, and many elites are conservative. Also, liberal and open attitudes might be a feature of Pakistani society more than people realize. A good example, again, is Christmas. Many people assumed I meant elite parties, but what surprised me more is hearing Jingle Bells on the radio, seeing Santa caps sold on the streets, and the more conservative ends of my family telling me it was just a fun holiday and wondering why I was so surprised.
Finally, there is a personal element. What is described here is my own surprise at what I’ve seen in Pakistan. Like many Pakistani-Americans, I had given up on the country and spent time in many other places instead– mostly Turkey, Bosnia, and Lebanon, but also Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia. I was able to travel, work, and research in these countries freely, and finally wanted to experience Pakistan in the same way. I loved it, and wanted to convey to American and Pakistani-American audiences that Pakistan is not the hopeless case that it is too often made out to be.
Also, setting Pakistan against many other majority Muslim countries, rather than just the U.S., helped me accept things that Pakistanis usually complain about, but it almost made me critical of things that Pakistanis usually accept. That discussion is beyond the scope of this article, but what I’ve described in the article sets Pakistan against other majority Muslim countries today, as much as my background as a Pakistani-American.
For the record, the piece has raised as many strongly positive reactions as negative ones among Pakistanis, particularly amongst my friends who were tired about hearing constant talk about security and the Taliban in Pakistan. But I am responding to the negative comments because they raise points worth discussing, although perhaps in a separate piece.
For now, I would encourage people to focus on the policy aspects of this piece and to try to get more diverse and informed Pakistani voices heard in the mainstream American press.
” particularly amongst my friends who were tired about hearing constant talk about security and the Taliban in Pakistan.”
Precisely. Unfortunately the tendency is for people to expect only voices 1. Which is self deprecating. 2. Which is fundamentalist.
Even the positive voice about Pakistan has to champion off base characters..
The author’s comments are like a fresh air flowing into the poluted arena.There is more anti-Americanism in the world than at any other time. Pakistanis are not the exception. This is solely due to the US foreign policy.
The US has now targeted the Asian sub-continent for destabilisation and control of the areas around China. We are witnessing the revival of the cold war.
Pakistan area, prior to partition, consisted of an cosmopolitan and open society which was more liberal than currently.
From Peshawar to Karachi the people were free to practice their stye of life and religion unpurturbed.
Pakistan would need a long time to shrug off the misguided influence of the military and the clergy.
Rex sahib,
The US has now targeted the Asian sub-continent for destabilisation and control of the areas around China.
That seems a bit contradictory to me. If USA wishes to encircle China it wud make more sense to bolster the countries sorrounding it- India for eg, even Pakistan. Destabilising other countries only makes China the paramount power in Asia, which it almost is.
Regards
which it almost is
at least partly because the countries around it are either unstable to varying degrees, or affected by instability in the vicinity more directly than china is.
@Majumdar: No its not contradictory becuase the countries around China need China and they are all allies of China. They need to be destabalized in order to weaken Chinese influence, install curropt governments that will actually allow US and NATO to plant military bases on land and deploy aircraft carriers, submarines, and attacks ships in the bodies of water surrounding China. The only exceptionn is India becuase India considers itself a rival of China rather than a neighbour and hence US and Israel are doing everything they can to arm India with modern weapons.
Rexminor is absolutely right about anti american policy views in the world. Politicians and intellectuals around the world recognize the US agenda to create a unipolar world based on Anglo-American policy and objectives. You should just see the statements of Chinese and Russian politicians, they are furious.
@AZW: I agree with your view of liberalism, hwever I find IK as a true liberal. I dont think anyone understands liberalism as well as he does. Other politicians in Pakistan are mostly uneducated and curropt.
Also there is alwayz talk that the Army could not have defeated TTP without the aid of the Americans which I believe is absolutely wrong, all the US could do is use drone attacks which killed 708 civilians and only 14 Al Qaeda, whereas Pak Army crushed a insurgency of 15,000 strong and has liberated many areas in Pakistan from TTP influence. Actually Drone attacks and american intervention feul the insurgents as they find greater justification to commit thier crimes.
@YLH: You asked me what is my view on Zaid Hamid these dayz. Its the same. Why do you ask?
Nadia, The Author (March 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm):
It is good that you have come aboard and explained some of your points and positions; otherwise we were reminded that:
“The simplicity of the argument was probably necessary [because] the average reader of the American print media can’t handle any more complexity”…. and …. “even this article would have them pulling their hair out”.
I certainly hope that you as “The Author” do not hold a similar patronising view of your readers. If your article was initially written exclusively for a certain American audience then I understand where you are going with it. But it did not ‘cut’ with the regulars of PTH. In that sense, perhaps this article was wrongly posted here. No offence to you however. I wish you good luck and hope that you succeed in your efforts. Incidentally; any relation to Humza?
Many regards.
@Mujamdar
Sir, I would agree with you but the neo-conservatives in the US are calling the shots. I could not explain their rationale better than Mustafa Shaban.
Regards,
PS
Could you imagine a world with several super powers?
Dear PMA,
I (and other brother moderators) decide what is posted rightly and what is not.
That is all I have to say.
Thank you,
YLH
A hopeful and positive outlook. Why not look at just the positive change even if it is not complete, or full grounded in society…. its still something. Although attire is not a representation of progress as one of the commentators mentioned, it is an indicator of allowance. Of tolerating what is not tolerated. This gives ways to tolerating thoughts, ideas and so forth. I think the answer to the question that most people in Pakistan have about their future is already there, in their concern and impulse to figure something out. Vali Nasr’s book “Rise of the Muslim Middle Class ” answers a lot. Good read.
Nadia:
First of all welcome to PTH. Though I do not agree with many parts of your article, it is always good to hear another opinion on this forum.
The rising openness in the society is always a welcome step. I believe it is largely a consequence of Pakistan`s failed experiments with Islamizing the society, and seeing firsthand the disaster of courting the religious right politically and militarily to wage proxy wars.
I will not argue against the fact that democracy even in its imperfect form is taking a welcome shape in Pakistan. Press is generally quite free, small businesses are doing quite well and indeed there is a rising middle class in Pakistan taking shape.
However, a lot of perceptions abroad are shaped by the news of violence and bombings in Pakistan. Some of us here even on this forum have lost our loved ones in those bombings. Before we can declare all the perceptions about Pakistan being an unsafe country, maybe we need to pause and realize that we have been named one of the most dangerous states in the world a few years in a row by respected journals and political commentators in East and West. And that just ten short months ago, the rabidly Islamic extremist group had taken over the Swat Valley, FATA and was in the process of invading Buner and the plains of NWFP.
I frequently visit Pakistan and I am also struck by the openness the society has embraced lately. However a few more days in Pakistan put to rest any of the immediate wide-eyed observations. Poverty runs abounds, slums of Karachi are still hotbed of religious extremism and the parts of Punjab are still teeming with religious extremism that was at one time tacitly approved by the state.
None of the above observations are meant to disparage my country; but the recent gains against the extremism have been small and are bound to disappear if we think that Christmas jingles on the FM radios or women walking around in jeans shows that society is embracing liberal policies. There is 28% of population living below the absolute poverty level, only 0.7% of population graduates from undergraduate degree each year in Pakistan, and the population adds 3.4MM souls each year. With dwindling water resources and economy that is at best moving forward rather gingerly, these stats are bound to cause alarm among all of us.
I find it rather simplistic to quote the anecdotal evidence of an open society to make an argument that US should stop meddling in Pakistan`s affairs. Here is a problem: US did not declare Jihad against the Taliban. Taliban`s guests did that against the US while they enjoyed Taliban`s hospitality. I would be very interested in getting to know what were the other options for US when Afghanistan had become terrorist central of the world. The fact that Pakistan turned a blind eye to its neighbour in the pursuit of strategic assets is a failure of Pakistan`s policy more than anything else. That Pakistan faced an existential threat from its own creation is also hard to argue. That Pakistan and US share a very common enemy right was as true 10 years ago as it is now.
Second, the 1990s was a decade when US almost completely stepped back from Af-Pak, only to see Pakistan make a royal mess of its neighbour. It was a Pakistani Premier who was on the first flight to Washington after the failed Kargil excursion, not US jumping in to meddle in Pakistani affairs. As much as I want Pakistan to be economically and militarily independent, I cannot help but feel that our confused ideology (another topic that has been discussed to death here at PTH) has not helped us create a stellar past. That even though US does not read Pakistan very well all the times, Pakistan needs US. It needs US support (that it is getting from US) militarily and monetarily to quell the Taliban uprising. Pakistan needs an economic aid in righting its weakened economy. The day when we are politically and economically independent, I would be more than happy to say that we have proven ourselves to be the mature and responsible nations among the comity of nations, and no foreign intervention is welcomed. Until that day, I cannot just wish for US to just melt away, since my society has shown pockets of increased liberalism. I believe Pakistan will come calling for US itself in the future, if the history is any good indication.
“The references to liberal attitudes in Karachi is not meant to promote westernization but to demonstrate that the largest Muslim city in the world ‘looks like any major, cosmopolitan city’ today.”
You mean like Paris or London? I don’t think so.
You ask the readers to focus on the policy aspects of your NYT piece. There are no policy aspects. Your article reads like an abstract for a classroom thesis – all summary, no specifics. If you want the U.S. to stop the aid and leave Pakistan alone then say so. As an American I for one don’t want my tax dollars flushed down a rathole (a.k.a., stolen by a bunch of kleptocrats). But if I knew the money would be used for the good then no problem. And why don’t you write something about the role of the Pak media in promoting anti-Americanism and paranoia?
@AZW
You state that;
. the US has not declared Jehad against the Talibans. Taliban’s guest did that against the US while they enjoyed the hospitality,
and
.that even though the US does not read Pakistan very well all the times , Pakistan needs the US. It needs US support militarily and monetarily to quell the Taliban uprising.
I am really surprised to read your comments. Pakistan received its independance in 1947, and here is an intellectual who as yet not come to grips with the word ‘independence’. I know that the Pakistan army has not shed its colonial structure and have proven more than once that it is not in a position to defend adequately its borders. But as an outsider I was unaware that even the education system of the colonial days has not been reformed.
The sick man of the world today is the United States of America. The country’s manufacturing base has been damaged and instead it has been sinking in a consumption spree over a long period.
They have an army which costs them an estimated one trillion dollars annualy. They owe its creditors namely China and the Saudis around two trillion dollars. They are currently printing green dollars like their green cards and proliferating it beyond their borders around the world.
How could any one ever think of relying on the US support for the welfare of an almost bankrupt country. I thought there are institutions such as IMF to aid the world weaker economies? The US has not been able to give a proper life support to Haiti, one of its beloved project and the source of cheap labour.
The US interventions into the independen Islamic States such as Iraq and Afghanistan, is a part of the “Grand Slam” operation plan. The plan was developed by the neo- conservitives of the US ‘thinktank’ to destabilise and then establish US bases within or near the energy rich countries with a view to sorround China. It is not a secret that China is heading to become the next Super Power of the 21st century.
Let me assure you that Pashtoons are not terrorists and infact were great pals of the good old George. Their leaders were frequent visitors to his ranch in Texas simply because the US was a great source of help for them in defeating the Russians.
It is not a secret that many volunteers from different parts of the world came to Afghanistan to aid the Pashtoons against the Russians.
The Pashtoons have not taken any action against any foreign country but have always tried to defend their land against the foreign invaders. The drama currently being played in their land on both sides of the border is not new. They are going defeat the US and the Nato Armies as they have proven their metal over centuries. Pakistan Army is not a match. The Swat and Waziristan drama is nothing but the smoke Screen to justify the so called aid from the US. No independant reporters were allowed to witness the Army Operaions. What we are watching in the sub-continent is not a terrorism but resistance of Pashtoons against the foreigners. The violence in the street of Pakistan city would disappear as soon as Pakistan Army stops their intrusion into the Pashtoon land. And Afghanistan would return to normality if Karzai is allowed to obtain support from the Pashtoon opposition. Their declaed demand is that the Americans stop military operations and agree to leave the country. Pakistan Army is currently not in favour of this process and according to the outgoing UN chief in Afghanistan is preveting reconciliation with the so called Afghan Talibans who were in communication with theKarzai Govt. and the UN.
I sicerely hope that you would be fair in your judgements on Pashtoons and not simply kowtow the US and Pakistan army spins.
@rexminor: Fantastic analysis. Agree with most of what you say. Except for your view on Pakistan internal war. There is not such a resistance in Pakistan as the Pashtoons are not against Pakistan. The TTP are not pashtoons but are foreing terrorists from uzbekistan, and other arab and central asian countries and very few pakistanis. They are also foreign backed. If Pashtoon were angry they would attack military units, they would not attack innocent civilians, blow up mosques and cut heads of innocent people. The ”Punjabi” Taliban and ”Pashtoon” Taliban does not exist. This is al hype from US and some section of Pakistan media because they want to divide the nation based on province and ethinicity. Divide and Rule. There may be some Pashtoons fighting the Army, but they only fight the Army , not kill innocent civilians. There is a reaction to military operations but doesnt turn Pashtoons into barbarians, just makes them more militant. Your view is similar to Imran Khan’s view, hence his call to stop military action and resume dialogue in order to bring the Pashtoons to our side and isolate the real terrorists who are foreign and foriegn backed. I agree with him to a certain extent but not completely. In some areas it was necesssary for the Army to take action due to the brutality of the TTP and how they were killing many civilians. You are right when you say that the Pakistani elite are obsessed with dollars and that is why they want this war to continue and spread.
@rexminor: You usually talk about US/NATO surrounding China, which is very true but do not forget that US and NATO also are surrounding Russia and Iran. They also have a major problem with both these countries as they are obstacles to Anglo-American domination. Zbginew Brezinski says in his book The Grand Chessboard that the most dangerous thing for American dominance in Asia would be any partnership between Russia , China and Iran and that is exactly what is happening right now. This is demonstrated by CSTO and SCO alliances, which are counters to NATO. The Central Asian states are also slowly becoming pro Russia which scares the Americans as this trend signals the end of thier domination in that region and also thier ability to build pipelines that would avoid coming to China, Russia and Iran.
Rex Minor:
If patriotism and <independent sovereignty terms are only defined by a narrow vision of standing behind the state even when the state takes herself to gallows following shallow policies, then I am not that patriot. I firmly want Pakistan to suceed, but I also believe that burying my head in the sand, and conjuring conspiracy theories to justify our failings will keep at it for another next few futile decades.
But let’s focus on your arm chair comments about the state of the US economy, non stop printing greenbacks and that they owe their creditors in China and Saudi Arabia some two trillion dollars. I want to focus here because an international investor does not care about emotional logic. Anyone buying US treasuries in large sizes is expressing the following points of view with literally putting his money where his mouth is (and not just putting the mouth at PTH, where you, rather disappointingly get away with the most loony of the theories).
For your benefit, I have developed this trivia quiz specifically for you to test the knowledge behind the financial economics that cause you to proclaim such grand statements. I will answer all of them later, but it is your respnsibility to back up your comments. Mustafa Shaban, feel free to join in with your answers as well.
1) China holds 900BB dollars worth of US securities. Oil Exporting nations together (and that includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) include a total of 220BB of the US public debt. That sums up to 1.12Trillion Dollars. Where did you come up with the 2 trillion dollars figure for these two countries. 900BB dollars is no chump change for many people. Or is it just a rounding error to make your claims?
By the way, since we are talking big numbers here, even the combined figure of 1.12 Trillion Dollars of debt held by China and Gulf Countries form less than 12% of the total outstanding debt by US (9.85Trillion at the beginning of 2009).
2) US printing non stop green dollars for the past two and a half years should result in a menace called inflation. You see, in economy, this is a zero sum game. An action will have a consequence. Imprudence catches up, later if not sooner. Tell me why US economy is running at sub 2% yearly inflation for the past 10+ years. Also tell why inflation is actually inching down, with their core inflation almost touching the 1% mark. Also tell me if US inflationary green back printing press is so bad, why is the economic world more concerned about deflation than inflation?
3) And let’s ask a basic question: If US fiscal and monetary policies are so bad, why are the foreign investors stupid enough to buy the 10yr treasury that pays nothing but principal and a fixed coupon at a measly yield of 3.65%. That’s correct, 3.65% per year for 10 years. The investor takes the following risks to get this yield per year a) US inflation risk (if inflation rises, the coupon that the US bonds pays remains fixed) b) FX risk (if US dollar tanks by more than 3.65% per year, an Asian or Eruopean gets zero return in his own currency), and c) US sovereign credit risk (i.e. US may stop honouring its obligation).
So here are the three simple questions. The only difference between them and your rhetoric is that these stats don’t care of passionate rhetoric. They only look for a rationale that makes sense. If it makes sense then the investors all across the world invest their money based on their best interests. No one is putting a gun to Chinese or Saudis or Russians or European heads to get them to buy these treasuries. If they don’t like them, the prices of treasuries will drop until they start yielding levels that will make them interesting for foreign investors. The fact that US bonds have hovered in these broad ranges for the past 10 years show that there is something consistent about the US economy that makes everyone buy their debt at these prices.
Your job is to tell us why you are right and all of the above are wrong.
I will wait for you and Mustafa Shaban’s reply.
@AZW
I will wait for you and Mustafa Shaban’s reply.
Huh.
Have you heard of memory overflow?
Dear AZW:
Love your post.
If you ever want to take on another client willing to pay for your time and advice on the financial matters, let me know….
In the meantime, am eagerly waiting to hear from rex and Mustapha even as I supress the urge to raise my own hand in the air and try to get your attention shouting me, me, me, ………
Regards
None of this matters, as long as the Hindus are tough enough to defend themselves.
They cannot depend on the US, which now has nothing but credit cards.
They better end their foolish quarrel with China over the Dalai Lama.
They better train their young people to shoot.
Life is getting very serious.
Oh Ganpat…dear Ganpat… (Sigh!)……
It seems each time you write something; your paucity of ideas and a lack of understanding become ever more apparent.
“They better end their foolish quarrel with China over the Dalai Lama” The quarrel is less about Dalai Lama and more about the unresolved border issues, try looking up Aksai Chin and Arunanchal Pradesh. Another factor is that as two simultaneously rising powers, some degree of mutual suspicion is not unexpected between India and China. I think it is being handled rather maturely by the current leadership in both countries. Thank you.
Then you said “They cannot depend on the US, which now has nothing but credit cards, they better train their young people to shoot….”
Unfortunately, no shooting lessons for you; you too should find some easy to read texts on macro economics and stand in the corner with rex minor and young Mustapha until you get past the basics….
Besides why do you want to learn to shoot? Didn’t Hayyer Sahib already point out that people like you like to hunt in mob packs?
I can agree with one last statement you made.
Life (at least on the PTH) is indeed getting very serious. To get any respect you too will have to demonstrate some grown up ideas and a maturity of in reasoning.
Burke imitation can take you only so far.
Regards.
@Mustafa Shaban
I am looking at the events in your part of the world from the global point of view. You have certainly better view in your neighbourhood and about the so called Pakistan internal war. The situation in Pakistan is very fluid and right now there are many actors in the Afghan/Pak theatre who are on occasion going wild in their actions.
The notion that foreign terrorists, including uzbeks and Arabs, are operating in the Pashtoon land is misleading and a smoke screen. No one even from the main land of Aghanistan and Pakistan can operate without the permission of local tribes. The Waziris would not even allow a safe passage to any Pashtoon from another tribe. I know it is difficult to accept the reality that the Pashtoons revenge does not recognise any sanctuaries. This is the mistake your interior minister and the army brass made in not adequately safeguarding their civilian residences.
Let me simply state what I saw on the cable network last night. A Pashtoon father who lost his little son not older than six or seven years the night before by the US military night raid in his village, swore in his own words in front of the Camera that he is going to offer his other four sons(all children under the age of I guess ten years) to OSAMA.
Mr Shaban there is a war going on against the Pashtoons.
I echo the thoughts of some of the readers above. It is truly sad that liberalism is defined as being only skin deep. Jeans, alcohol, smoking etc are non-issues, and it’s hard to see what the ideals of liberalism such as a stable democracy, tolerance for diversity and the rule of law have anything to do with all of this. Furthermore, does anyone ever think about the suffering masses, who are literally struggling to survive?
Ganpat Ram:
None of this matters, as long as the Hindus are tough enough to defend themselves.
They cannot depend on the US, which now has nothing but credit cards.
They better end their foolish quarrel with China over the Dalai Lama.
They better train their young people to shoot.
Life is getting very serious.
This is an irrelevant (Hindus ending their quarrel with Dalai Lama and picking up guns) as well as clueless (US has nothing but credit cards) remark.
Judging from your last few comments, whatever quality of arguments that you started with, has been deserting you quite quickly indeed. Let’s just hope that you don’t turn vindictive and abusive against many who are seeing through you quite clearly here on this forum.