08-30-2007, 05:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Pakistan at 60 â The Way Forward </b>Â
âGiven the power of the military, any political dispensation will have to accommodate itâ¦â
â Ayesha Jalal, Professor of History and Director of the Centre for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies at Tufts University
Qasim NaumanÂ
Dr Ayesha Jalal is one of Pakistanâs most prominent and respected historians and has written extensively on several aspects of the countryâs history, most notably the pre-independence period and civil-military relations.
She is currently Professor of History and Director of the Centre for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies at Tufts University. She has taught at other leading institutions as well, including Columbia University and Harvard University.
The Friday Times spoke with Dr Jalal on a variety of topics pertaining to the current political and security situation in Pakistan, as well as her opinion on the way forward.
The Friday Times: Where do you see Pakistan today?
Ayesha Jalal: There are both negatives and positives in the scenario. On the one hand, one can say that Pakistan is precariously placed: there is this apparently rising tide of extremism and a spate of suicide bombings. On the other hand, I think there is a lot to be hopeful about. Things that were rather stuck in the groove are falling apart. Iâve always believed that the worst thing in Pakistan is the tragedy of constantly repeating things and not really pulling out of the cycle. Now there is some recognition of the need to move forward. The obvious example is the judiciary, which is recognising its own significance as an institution.
The biggest tragedy with Pakistan, among others, is that it was created by a man who was an ultimate constitutionalist. And this country has constantly undermined constitutional governance. That is a major problem that has repeated itself. One would hope that now, with the judiciary acknowledging this, things may be changing.
It is also heartening that there is greater awareness among the people and different points of view are finding outlet. Democracy, for me, is conflict, and it is a positive development that there are conflicting views in Pakistan today â that was dead during the Zia period. This turmoil is potentially a positive step forward. Of course, things can go horribly wrong, but these steps need to be taken to recoup the space for democratic processes.
You mentioned the recent upsurge in extremism and related violence. In your opinion, what is the source of this rising extremism, and how do we counter it?
What has gone wrong is really a product of the late 1970s and beyond. In the 1960s and earlier, there were moments of religious agitation, but not extremism of the sort we have today. Every country has extremist elements, and there is a constant battle to keep them at bay. We must not forget that Pakistan, as a Muslim state, denounced extremist attitudes throughout the 1960s when there were modernist interpretations of Islam. What tipped the balance were the stateâs policies following the Soviet Unionâs invasion of Afghanistan, and more worryingly, its policy following Soviet withdrawal. It was, of course, going to be difficult to recoup the space that was provided to the people trained to fight the Soviets in the name of Islam.
Then there are other factors that contribute to extremism. Extremism is driven by a sense of injustice, sheer poverty and absence of any basic infrastructure, factors that we find in the tribal areas. Pakistan is 60 years old so we cannot call it an adolescent country any more. Yet, it has still not managed to control its âwild westâ.
While I donât deny the role of ideology, the situation is a lot more complex. Material factors and ideology converge to feed extremism. And I feel that people are inherently pragmatic. If the basic problems faced by these areas are addressed, we will see a reduction in extremism as people will act to preserve, not destroy, peace.
Also, thoughtful and reasonable people need to recoup the space they have lost to extremists. There are various interpretations of Islam and these views need to be tolerated. Religion is not about killing people or the size of your beard or your veil. It is also about ethical issues. That needs to be addressed.
You have written extensively on civil-military relations in Pakistan. What do you think is the status of the military in Pakistan today and what role, if any, will it play in the political future of the country?
I think the military is far more entrenched than ever before. The armed forces are not just responsible for security; they are involved in everything, especially the economy. And given the fact that the country has been dominated by the military for so long, its participation is confirmed in whatever political developments take place in the country. The militaryâs role in government is going to remain for a long time, as they hold real power. President Musharrafâs refusal to give up his uniform underlines the fact that the army continues to call the shots. So given the power of the armed forces, any political dispensation that emerges will have to accommodate the military; they will be major partners in any power-sharing arrangement.
Pakistan is dominated by the army, and people want to break out of that situation, but it has to be a gradual transition â a process. Things will not change overnight, but they can.
We must not forget that the reason the army was able to get away with all that it has done in the past is because it was allowed to. Institutions such as the judiciary let the army do as it pleased. We as a people did not address this issue properly. The judiciary seems to have found its feet in the face of military domination, and that is the first step in the process. People still respect the army as a security force and an institution, but considering the criticism that is being directed at the military today, it is apparent that their involvement in the economy and politics has shattered that once sacrosanct image. I feel this criticism is a positive development. It is something that must be furthered in national debates in newspapers and the electronic media.
The governmentâs participation in the US-led War on Terror has been severely criticised by most opposition parties. Should opposition parties come into power in the upcoming elections, do you see a shift away from the current anti-terror policies?
I know things have gotten worse in terms of the security situation in the country, and there is external pressure to act as well, but itâs very hard for me to envision a scenario where any political government will pull out of our commitments to fight terrorism, simply because our interests are at stake as well. Also, the military is key: it will not allow any political dispensation whatsoever to commit hara-kiri in the name of Islam.
These so-called religious parties, and I say âso-calledâ because they are actually political parties before religious entities, are participating in the political process now. That is a positive thing in my opinion because, as political parties, they are ready to compromise. Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the MMA has shown pragmatism on several fronts even when other members of his party, most notably Qazi Hussain Ahmed, are inclined towards agitation. So while they employ powerful rhetoric against the US and the government, it remains rhetoric â something that is good for the streets. Once youâre in power, the context and set-up completely changes.
We live in a connected world, so we cannot withdraw into a hole based on a misconceived notion of sovereignty. There is no such thing as absolute sovereignty, it is always compromised: it is a fact that Pakistan has to deal with. So it will be very difficult for any political party to force a drastic shift in Pakistanâs anti-terrorism policy.
Given the context that we have established, where do you see Pakistan going from here?
The mood now is of cautious optimism. As Iâve said earlier, there are positives and negatives in the current scenario and how events unfold will depend largely on the choices we make as a people. As a historian, there is something I cannot accept, and that is the inevitability argument. I think the Pakistani people have the future in their own hands, and it is they who will decide what kind of future they want. Obviously, Pakistanis are divided, and we have to acknowledge that. Once again, a stable transition towards democracy is required to provide space for the resolution of these differences.
The current situation is ripe for change, and this opportunity cannot be missed. Pakistan has to make pragmatic decisions in its own interests. The military needs to learn to take orders from a civilian government, but it has to be reined in via a careful process. It is because of constant military interventions that we have never really had a steady run of democracy, and that is our greatest tragedy. Hopefully, the coming elections will be relatively free and impartial. Also, I think itâs absurd that the government is trying to prevent politicians from returning to the country. Let everyone come, face charges against them and contest elections.
But letâs not be starry-eyed about democratic governments, who can be equally authoritarian. We think democracy is a great thing, but we donât recognise that it is something that comes painfully, and perpetuating it requires sacrifices and tolerance of conflicting views. We should look forward with optimism, but must break the cycle of repeating past mistakes
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
âGiven the power of the military, any political dispensation will have to accommodate itâ¦â
â Ayesha Jalal, Professor of History and Director of the Centre for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies at Tufts University
Qasim NaumanÂ
Dr Ayesha Jalal is one of Pakistanâs most prominent and respected historians and has written extensively on several aspects of the countryâs history, most notably the pre-independence period and civil-military relations.
She is currently Professor of History and Director of the Centre for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies at Tufts University. She has taught at other leading institutions as well, including Columbia University and Harvard University.
The Friday Times spoke with Dr Jalal on a variety of topics pertaining to the current political and security situation in Pakistan, as well as her opinion on the way forward.
The Friday Times: Where do you see Pakistan today?
Ayesha Jalal: There are both negatives and positives in the scenario. On the one hand, one can say that Pakistan is precariously placed: there is this apparently rising tide of extremism and a spate of suicide bombings. On the other hand, I think there is a lot to be hopeful about. Things that were rather stuck in the groove are falling apart. Iâve always believed that the worst thing in Pakistan is the tragedy of constantly repeating things and not really pulling out of the cycle. Now there is some recognition of the need to move forward. The obvious example is the judiciary, which is recognising its own significance as an institution.
The biggest tragedy with Pakistan, among others, is that it was created by a man who was an ultimate constitutionalist. And this country has constantly undermined constitutional governance. That is a major problem that has repeated itself. One would hope that now, with the judiciary acknowledging this, things may be changing.
It is also heartening that there is greater awareness among the people and different points of view are finding outlet. Democracy, for me, is conflict, and it is a positive development that there are conflicting views in Pakistan today â that was dead during the Zia period. This turmoil is potentially a positive step forward. Of course, things can go horribly wrong, but these steps need to be taken to recoup the space for democratic processes.
You mentioned the recent upsurge in extremism and related violence. In your opinion, what is the source of this rising extremism, and how do we counter it?
What has gone wrong is really a product of the late 1970s and beyond. In the 1960s and earlier, there were moments of religious agitation, but not extremism of the sort we have today. Every country has extremist elements, and there is a constant battle to keep them at bay. We must not forget that Pakistan, as a Muslim state, denounced extremist attitudes throughout the 1960s when there were modernist interpretations of Islam. What tipped the balance were the stateâs policies following the Soviet Unionâs invasion of Afghanistan, and more worryingly, its policy following Soviet withdrawal. It was, of course, going to be difficult to recoup the space that was provided to the people trained to fight the Soviets in the name of Islam.
Then there are other factors that contribute to extremism. Extremism is driven by a sense of injustice, sheer poverty and absence of any basic infrastructure, factors that we find in the tribal areas. Pakistan is 60 years old so we cannot call it an adolescent country any more. Yet, it has still not managed to control its âwild westâ.
While I donât deny the role of ideology, the situation is a lot more complex. Material factors and ideology converge to feed extremism. And I feel that people are inherently pragmatic. If the basic problems faced by these areas are addressed, we will see a reduction in extremism as people will act to preserve, not destroy, peace.
Also, thoughtful and reasonable people need to recoup the space they have lost to extremists. There are various interpretations of Islam and these views need to be tolerated. Religion is not about killing people or the size of your beard or your veil. It is also about ethical issues. That needs to be addressed.
You have written extensively on civil-military relations in Pakistan. What do you think is the status of the military in Pakistan today and what role, if any, will it play in the political future of the country?
I think the military is far more entrenched than ever before. The armed forces are not just responsible for security; they are involved in everything, especially the economy. And given the fact that the country has been dominated by the military for so long, its participation is confirmed in whatever political developments take place in the country. The militaryâs role in government is going to remain for a long time, as they hold real power. President Musharrafâs refusal to give up his uniform underlines the fact that the army continues to call the shots. So given the power of the armed forces, any political dispensation that emerges will have to accommodate the military; they will be major partners in any power-sharing arrangement.
Pakistan is dominated by the army, and people want to break out of that situation, but it has to be a gradual transition â a process. Things will not change overnight, but they can.
We must not forget that the reason the army was able to get away with all that it has done in the past is because it was allowed to. Institutions such as the judiciary let the army do as it pleased. We as a people did not address this issue properly. The judiciary seems to have found its feet in the face of military domination, and that is the first step in the process. People still respect the army as a security force and an institution, but considering the criticism that is being directed at the military today, it is apparent that their involvement in the economy and politics has shattered that once sacrosanct image. I feel this criticism is a positive development. It is something that must be furthered in national debates in newspapers and the electronic media.
The governmentâs participation in the US-led War on Terror has been severely criticised by most opposition parties. Should opposition parties come into power in the upcoming elections, do you see a shift away from the current anti-terror policies?
I know things have gotten worse in terms of the security situation in the country, and there is external pressure to act as well, but itâs very hard for me to envision a scenario where any political government will pull out of our commitments to fight terrorism, simply because our interests are at stake as well. Also, the military is key: it will not allow any political dispensation whatsoever to commit hara-kiri in the name of Islam.
These so-called religious parties, and I say âso-calledâ because they are actually political parties before religious entities, are participating in the political process now. That is a positive thing in my opinion because, as political parties, they are ready to compromise. Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the MMA has shown pragmatism on several fronts even when other members of his party, most notably Qazi Hussain Ahmed, are inclined towards agitation. So while they employ powerful rhetoric against the US and the government, it remains rhetoric â something that is good for the streets. Once youâre in power, the context and set-up completely changes.
We live in a connected world, so we cannot withdraw into a hole based on a misconceived notion of sovereignty. There is no such thing as absolute sovereignty, it is always compromised: it is a fact that Pakistan has to deal with. So it will be very difficult for any political party to force a drastic shift in Pakistanâs anti-terrorism policy.
Given the context that we have established, where do you see Pakistan going from here?
The mood now is of cautious optimism. As Iâve said earlier, there are positives and negatives in the current scenario and how events unfold will depend largely on the choices we make as a people. As a historian, there is something I cannot accept, and that is the inevitability argument. I think the Pakistani people have the future in their own hands, and it is they who will decide what kind of future they want. Obviously, Pakistanis are divided, and we have to acknowledge that. Once again, a stable transition towards democracy is required to provide space for the resolution of these differences.
The current situation is ripe for change, and this opportunity cannot be missed. Pakistan has to make pragmatic decisions in its own interests. The military needs to learn to take orders from a civilian government, but it has to be reined in via a careful process. It is because of constant military interventions that we have never really had a steady run of democracy, and that is our greatest tragedy. Hopefully, the coming elections will be relatively free and impartial. Also, I think itâs absurd that the government is trying to prevent politicians from returning to the country. Let everyone come, face charges against them and contest elections.
But letâs not be starry-eyed about democratic governments, who can be equally authoritarian. We think democracy is a great thing, but we donât recognise that it is something that comes painfully, and perpetuating it requires sacrifices and tolerance of conflicting views. We should look forward with optimism, but must break the cycle of repeating past mistakes
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->