By Raza Habib Raja

A few weeks ago I wrote a detailed piece on the reasons as to why democracy in Pakistan and its neighboring India has taken such divergent paths. In my opinion the reasons have to do with history of independence movement, early years after independence, image of the army in both the countries and also the attitude of middleclass in both the countries.

In any society, particularly a modern democratic society, middleclass provides a critical as well as decisive mass. Moreover it’s an extremely important contributor to intelligentsia, media and services sector, particularly critical services such as bureaucracy and armed forces. In our side of the world, the middleclass particularly urban middleclass, eventually is the major determinant of the dominant opinion and even the official policy.  This influence is not merely through electorate (where they are always numerically less strong), but through other institutions such as army, judiciary, media and civil bureaucracy as well.

In my opinion, the so called “public” support of army (or at least encouragement of fixing “corrupt” politicians by interfering in the political affairs of the country) is coming from this class.

Of course the liberal (assuming that they exist) oppose this and try to present a case for democracy but at the same time “defense” from the liberal quarters does not go beyond name calling and allegations. For example a typical response would be to brand middleclass as bigoted and authoritarian with naïve understanding of geopolitical culture. Moreover, standard references to disrespect of “unwashed’ masses would be made. And of course this is supplemented by terms like drawing room gossip, reactionary , chattering classes etc.

Defense of democracy has to be realistic and not based on lauding passionate speeches about unwashed masses particularly when politicians apparently care little
themselves about the masses. The central thrust should be to present first a convincing case as to why democracy is a better option compared to armed dictatorship and frankly a very strong case based on historical evidence exists. despite chequered history of democratic regimes. And yes admit the shortcomings of the politicians also as weaknesses of politicians are not necessarily weaknesses of the entire political system.

Spinning facts to absolve politicians of their follies is not the way. Simply assuming that everyone is just bigoted or plagued by bias is also a form of denial. And interpreting everything as a grand conspiracy of the establishment mirrors the general mindset of the Pakistanis who have developed this habit to see everything through the conspiracy paradigm.

That brings us to a related question: does the middleclass hate democracy? The answer cannot be a definite yes because it’s the some apparent outcomes of the democracy in our part of the world which it detests. It does have concerns which periodically surface when democratic rule is again given a chance. One cannot conveniently dismiss every concern by branding it as reactionary or a manifestation of deep rooted insecurity about losing privileges the status quo offers. One can blame armed forces for harboring such insecurities but not the entire middleclass.

For the doubters let me remind that when elections of 2008 took place there was a severe hatred against army and it was expressed by the SAME middleclass. In fact so much so that General Kayani immediately upon assuming command as CNC had to withdraw army officials from various civilian posts. At that time even Zardari had a favorable impression and in fact several polls were revealing that by and large public was in the process of reevaluating their opinion about him. So the notion that middleclass simply hates him for the sake of hating is slightly exaggerated. There is more towards the current surge of hatred against the President.

So then what are the reasons?

In Pakistan, democratic regimes have been short on providing stability. One thing this class really loves is stability which too some extent is an outcome of its pro status quo orientation. Democracy in the developing countries, particularly if it’s not “regulated” tends to bring chaos as coalition building and consensus formation process does not develop quickly. Consequently the romantic love for a strong ruler intensifies each time the politicians indulge in destabilizing and chaotic practices when given a chance. It’s a small wonder that whenever army has intervened directly, there has been a sigh of relief from the middleclass.And historically armed forces have intervened when political chaos was reigning supreme.

However the most persuasive and unfortunately convincing argument is about the quality of governance. The executive has often overstepped its authority and has used mandate as a justification for anything from nepotism to controversial allocations of contracts. Moreover, the justification is also supplemented by the argument that if people do not approve of these “steps”, they will remove the government in the next elections. These repeated acts which use explicit justification of a public mandate, has at times alienated middleclass from the notion of democracy itself. Moreover, one has to understand the some of the interventions (though not all) by the armed forces were actually an outcome of the chaotic situation the politicians had brought.

Obviously the arguments against democracy by this class also constitutes anti feudal sentiments. It is often pointed out that the representatives of the people are actually feudal lords who come to the power through votes and in this way the feudalism is further strengthened. In fact according to some elements of the middleclass, democracy is even more problematic as it creates an umbrella of legitimacy due to mandate.

But then questions arise as to what has given rise to the above issues.

One of the major problems in Pakistan is that it still is an agriculture based society with a strong social patriarchal structure which thrives on contact building. Now this contact building and largely obliging culture comes into full play when political class is in power. People who have voted EXPECT to be given a share in the governance and this in turn has given rise to out of merit job allocations and contracts.

Expecting favours is culturally deep rooted and democracy merely facilitates it as the ruling class is accountable to the voting public. This practice of obliging of course seriously undermines quality of governance. The apparent advantage that Middleclass sees in the military establishments is that these are apparently insulated from such kind of pressures. Moreover majority of the people while growing up have seen military a shade away from normal civilian life even during the martial laws. The disciplined look, insulated from public pressure creates this strong impression that military won’t be obliging the way Politicians are.

Secondly it has to be realized that Parliamentary democracy has evolved in the industrial societies and is functionally geared to address the needs of that kind of society. Western model of universal suffrage also presupposes educated and informed electorate,established social voluntary structures like unions, associations, mature and responsible media and above all a strong tradition of constitutional liberalism which is underpinned by independent courts, separation of powers and strong emphasis on individual liberty.

In the Western world these features evolved before the advent of universal suffrage. Farid Zakria’s excellent book titled as “future of freedom” chronicles the development of constitutional liberalism in various countries of Europe and argues that such development needs to precede democracy for it to be stable, sustainable, and for ensuring that governments remain accountable in every respect. Zakria argues giving historical examples that voters alone cannot make the government accountable without a strongly entrenched tradition of constitutional liberalism.

In fact historically countries where democracy arrived before these traditions have fallen victim to chaos and eventually despotic rule by some strong man. Chaos, if developed would naturally be countered by establishing authority and unquestionable subservience which normally comes with military rule. That of course does not justify Military rule but provides a reason as to why it often takes place and why some people are obsessed with it.

Another issue which has to be kept in mind is that democracy would need independent institutions like Judiciary and Media no matter how “reactionary” these are to ensure that it remains on track. And these institutions do not automatically develop through voting process. The notion which has often proven irrelevant in a country like Pakistan is that voters alone can provide the necessary accountability. This unfortunately is not even true for developed countries. First of all mandate does not necessarily reflect complete will of the people due to principal agent problem and moreover vote received in an election does not necessarily validate every step taken by the Government during its reign. Voters eventually appraise the OVERALL PERFORMANCE of a party, not every step. So therefore claims that if voters do not approve of a particular controversial step, they will vote the party out in the next elections is not a valid argument. For democracy to be effective strong and INDEPENDENT institutions, even if they are “reactionary’ are needed!! Due to this factor, there is a legitimate rationale for judiciary and media to keep a check on the government during the interim period.Independence of these institutions is a prerequisite on these grounds.

And So what is the way out?

First the convincing has to explicitly RECOGINIZE these problems and liberal intelligentsia has to support independent institutions and check and balances. Yes it includes this vulgar media also!! Sorry but even if it is vulgar, it is needed!!And yes STOP defending political class when it merits condemnation and please stop interpreting criticism as merely “reactionary”. Trying to defend incompetence through spinning factual position and branding everything as a grand conspiracy of the establishment will not do. If anything it further insulates the political class from political discipline and questions the credibility of the liberals themselves.

For democracy a culture of accountability has to be there and that culture may even at times evolve through excessive lynching (provided that does not result in army’s intervention!) phase into more mature criticism. Yes at times media is unfair but it is OK if it points to nepotism and poor governance. The argument which should be given is that we should stick with democracy but also strive to cultivate a culture of accountability and strong institutions.

What the stability obsessed crowd should be made to understand is that the solution is not replacing democracy with autocratic rule or judicial rule but by ensuring the mechanism which ensures that chaos does not develop and governments do not become excessive in their conduct. Democracy may not be a perfect system but a modern and
ethnically diverse state needs it. The central thrust has to be on recognizing where democracy is faltering and how to ensure that those areas are strengthened.

Second and the most important argument is ethnic fabric of our country. What is often overlooked by critics of democracy is that for an ethnically diverse country such as Pakistan, lack of democracy will be catastrophic and in fact historically every dictatorship has resulted in increased feeling of marginalization. Democracy is the only workable framework in a modern industrial society which can tap diverse voices and ensure integrity of the state through preservation of diversity through negotiation and renegotiation. Just simple analysis in chronological order can prove the point that after each dictatorship the feeling of depravity and anger has increased. Bangladesh and bloody 1971 episode owed a lot due to lack of consensus building which only democracy could have ensured. Ayub era despite apparent high growth rates delivered a broken Pakistan.

Zia regime instilled hatred in Sindh and Mushrraf a lot of hatred in Baluchistan. An ethnically diverse and now charged up country cannot exist without democracy. Democracy may have proven short on quality governance (for that matter so has dictatorship) but it is the only workable way to ensure that diverse voices are heard and their concerns are properly incorporated in the policy framework.

Third people have to be reminded that every military dictator’s regime ended with some kind of public protest which actually went too long because the dictator was not politically feeling the heat the way a political government would. They even went on suspending courts! Protests went on and eventually far more frustration was felt and of course when the dictatorship ended Pakistan was in a more miserable state.

Fourth, while Military regimes may have provided a façade of stability, there is nothing to support that military dictatorships fared any better in financial corruption. And moreover
systematically the resources were transferred to bolster the army schemes and industries. Of course due to censorship most of the corruption scandals never came to light. It is a fallacy that only politicians are corrupt.

We need to win the battle of minds and address skepticism through concrete, rational and factual defense of democracy. We need to reinforce an obvious truth that a modern industrial society which is so complex needs democracy and the solution is to push for better governance within democracy not substituting it with dictatorship or even through army’s proxies (known as indirect rule).

Raza Habib Raja
Professor Philip Oldenburg is a professor of political science in Columbia University and author of the book titled India, Pakistan, and democracy: solving the puzzle of divergent paths. As an academic, Subcontinent has been his prime area of political research. A few months ago, he was invited to Cornell University where I was privileged to hear his views on a very interesting topic which was why India and Pakistan despite being apparently similar in history and culture have taken divergent paths as far as democracy and role of military are concerned.

First of all Professor Philip made an interesting statement that India’s successful evolution as a democracy is not a “normal” phenomenon but rather an exception whereas Pakistan has evolved the way most of the third world countries with similar characteristics are likely to evolve. Now this contradicts with most of the stuff I hear about the reasons as to why India and Pakistan have taken different trajectories. I have mostly heard that democracy has not evolved simply for the sole reason because military has not allowed it to evolve. Explanation for the difference in India and Pakistan has always been pinned down to only deep conspiracies of the “deep state” against political class.
Now this analysis at least partially disagrees with the overwhelmingly prevalent and rather simplistic explanation according to which democracy does not function solely because Pakistan’s army has always been conspiring against it whereas in India the armed forces have decided to respect the political template of the government.

According to Professor Philip, a country with low literacy rate, weak industrial base and with a colonial legacy is often expected to take the similar trajectory as of Pakistan. He then cited many examples of the countries where military coups have taken place and the institution enjoys great power and privileges.
However, he made an interesting remark that Pakistan in many ways had performed worse and while many other countries (like Bangladesh and Turkey) are gradually shaping towards the ascendency of political class and strengthening of democracy, in Pakistan the political developments are pointing towards the other direction.

So what makes Pakistan a similar and yet in the longer run a “different” case as far as the role of military is concerned? Why the neighbouring India is an exception and why could not Pakistan follow the same trajectory despite the fact that it was carved out of the same British Empire?
Well the reasons are complicated and cannot be solely just attributed to the conspiracies of the military. Besides trying to understand as to why military intervenes, it should be worthwhile to also dwell as to how it is actually able to intervene. In Pakistan’s case the reasons are rooted in:
1) its general cultural and political traits such as low literacy, rural dominance and lack of developed stabilizing as well as independent institutions like Judiciary,
2) the history of Pakistan movement and its early years after coming into being
3) chaos when civilians are in power and their inability to take a decisive action when opportunity presented
4) Urban middleclass impatience and excessive emphasis on “order” which has provided armed interventions a semblance of support
5) Manipulations by the army and the intelligence apparatus

Firstly, one has to understand that military in weak third world country is often the only well-disciplined, centralized and sophisticated institution. It has sophisticated instruments of violence and has a top down chain of command which is seldom if ever broken. Particularly in countries where democratic institution are either nascent or democracy after its introduction leads to chaos, military due to its ability to bring “stability” and restore order often intervenes. Third world has thus witnessed a number of coups and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination is an exception. However, military interventions by no stretch of imagination are good developments, though in the context of tremulous political cultures, understandable .

Military once it intervenes to overthrow the political government becomes a political stakeholder and from that point onwards, takes steps particularly in the constitutional and legal realm, which solidify its acquired political status, powers and privileges. Of course the military is not accountable to the electorate and therefore in the longer run is quite insulated from the normal pressures which a political government has to go through. Military rule seriously undermines the democratic evolution and does not allow the political culture to deepen. It depoliticizes the populace and also creates a state which is not responsive to its people.

In Pakistan unfortunately the genesis of the military rule is actually in the way the Pakistan movement shaped up and the complex interplay of the dynamics of the movement with cultural and political characteristics of the region which eventually became Pakistan.

Compared to Indian freedom movement, Pakistan’s independence movement became a mass movement at a very late stage. Whereas Congress’s birth was in 1885 and it became a mass movement particularly due Gandhi’s efforts by 1920s, Muslim League even in early 1940s had not been successful to garner the same kind of mass support. Ironically the areas where it was actually popular were areas which subsequently became part of India.

It was only in the second half of the decade of 1940s that the Muslim League started to make real appeal to the people of the areas which subsequently became Pakistan.

Muslim League did not attain the political maturity the way Congress did which had gone through several generations of leaders and the political culture was institutionalized in the party as well as the movement headed by it.

This is an important distinction which shaped the respective roles of the military in both the countries. In India the political class was dominant from the beginning and moreover the public perception of the army was not of a saviour as the Indian army had served loyally under the British empire . The entrenched political culture ensured that Indian political landscape made a smooth transition from a movement into a functioning democracy from the word go. Moreover, Nehru remained at the political helm in the initial years providing the much needed political stability under democratic umbrella. Military was never in a position to stage a coup both because the chaos-which often precedes the military coup and at least is the justification the first time- was never there and secondly the army did have an “image” issue due to its close association with the colonial rule. Nehru’s revered and towering status also prevented the development of any militaristic bonapartism.

Pakistan on the other hand was founded in an area where had already been militarized as most of the recruitment was taking place from so called “Martial Races” of Punjab and what is now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa. Moreover the state apparatus was stronger in Punjab and local politicians had to rely a lot on the civil bureaucracy in order to get things “done”. The reliance of political class on the state apparatus in areas falling under West Pakistan was much greater than in areas which later became India.

So when Pakistan came into being, the local politicians, particularly in the rural areas, had already become too entrenched in the practice of looking towards state apparatus to gain privileges and powers rather than rather than through political mechanism consisting of parties, manifestoes and ideology. In rural Punjab, this practice with varying degrees continues to this date.

When Pakistan came into being the Muslim League despite having gained support in the last two years was still not a deeply rooted political party in the area which was West Pakistan. The main leaders of the League actually belonged to the areas which were in India and when they came to Pakistan, they were without the same kind of support. The nationalist movement actually brought leaders in West Pakistan whose roots had been left behind. In addition, Jinnah through charismatic did not live long and during his one year at the helm also did not do much in line with democratic norms. His one year rule was as a Governor General and was highly personalized.

In the initials years army was needed again and again both at the external front (Kashmir front) as well as the internal front (riots of 1953) to restore order. During these times while army’s role strengthened, the political landscape was fraught with chaos and repeated change of governments. The political class in the absence of a stabilizing political leader (Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead in1951) and a political infrastructure underpinned by proper political culture, could not gain strength.

While government heads kept on changing, the Chief of Army Staff continued to gain power and moreover whereas in India the Chief of Army staff position witnessed at least five different individuals, Pakistan persisted with Ayub Khan. Repeated changes of governments and chaotic situation provided the impetus for the military intervention and when finally military intervened; there was actually a sigh of relief.

The military intervention of 1958 is extremely important as it initiated several things. First, military’s image among the urban middle class (at that time small in number but powerful due to its monopoly over education, and white collared job market) as a saviour was created. From that point onwards, the middleclass, particularly the urban middleclass has seen army in that light particularly when during short stings of democracy the situation gets chaotic. It actually expects army to intervene. Secondly, army’s self-image also enhanced to include itself as the ultimate custodian of the political stability as well. Third, it gave the loudest signal that army was a definite stakeholder and in fact more powerful than all others. So from that point onwards, political class had to factor in army more than any other stakeholder for its own survival.

Although Ayub was personally perhaps a secular but increasingly the army was tutored in Islam in order to provide it with an ideological fabric to bolster its combative zeal. Increasingly the army also started to see itself as the ultimate custodian of the ideological frontier also. It was in fact during the Ayub tenure that army also started to make overtures to the religious outfits for both external and a domestic objectives, a trend which over time has only increased .

The ascendency of army given the unique circumstances of Independence, earlier turmoil, the “expectations” of the urban middleclass, and the work done during Ayub era to solidify its status as political power, was difficult to check but nevertheless there were several opportunities which could have been availed.

Given army’s “respect” as a saviour, the best time to curtail army’s role as a political force is at the time when it has been dishonoured or humiliated. However, for that the political class besides removing the head of the armed forces also needs to exercise maturity in its own conduct. This is essential in order to dispel army’s potential role as the “saviour” of the last resort, a role which is largely perceived by the urban middleclass.

Unfortunately Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto due to his personal conduct and “I am above the law “ attitude squandered the chance. Bhutto ruled in a capricious manner, and used security forces to terrorize his rivals. Moreover, he alienated the urban middleclass too much due to his personal conduct and dictatorial traits. He rigged the elections and once again it was urban middleclass which was in complete resentment as ZAB had taken several steps to displease them and supplanted those with his style of rule. The “movement” against the election rigging was primarily an urban bourgeoisie movement and during those times there was a resurgence of army’s image also. The leaders of the movement were in fact giving overtures to the armed forces to intervene and “rescue” Pakistan. Army, at that time while apparently supporting Bhutto, was at the same time also in contact with the opposition and was cleverly plotting a coup. When army finally intervened on that fateful night, it was not only in accordance with its own institutional interests but also the interests of the urban middleclass.

This point is essential here because the urban middleclass actually has historically provided the armed interventions a semblance of popular support. Although urban middleclass is not monolithic and it would incorrect to assume that it can actually think like a unified orgasm but by and large this class is anti-democratic and apolitical in its orientation. This class is upwardly mobile, prefers stability over chaos and has been successfully tutored in a nationalist brand of civic nationalism. In Pakistan’s case the brand of civic nationalism has Islam as an important ingredient coupled with inherent negation towards plurality. Civic nationalism here tries to promote a strong centre and homogeneity or oneness. This brand of civic nationalism is strongest in the urban middle class as it is cultivated chiefly through education and then further reinforced by mass media. Further on this brand of nationalism also places strong emphasis on Pakistan’s place in the Islamic world and also in the global context.

Army, particularly the officer cadre is chiefly drawn from the middleclass and its ideological thrust is quite identical to that of the urban middleclass. So besides the deep suspicion about “corrupt” politicians and “chaotic” democracy, another major reason that urban middleclass likes army is its own ideological thrust resonates closely with that of army. Consequently despite major blunders army’s respect remains high. Even when it has suffered a blow it has buoyed again.

In some ways, it is the expectations of the urban middleclass and the pedestal on which it by and large holds the army that the latter finds additional incentives to keep a “check” on politicians.

And then there is the case of almost complete ownership of foreign policy by the army which was taken over during Zia’s time. Of course Zia was the head of the government also but the espionage activities of the army and ISI during the Afghan war made it the most important stakeholder. Once Benazir came into power she quickly had to resign to the fact that foreign policy was not an area where a civilian government could have much leeway.

Over the years, even under the façade of civilian governments, army has been running the show. Foreign policy particularly its terms of engagement with “foes” like India and “friends” like USA has become the sole domain of the army. It is from here that army draws its most strength and even its reason for existence and it won’t allow any sort of “interference” from the civilian government.

Over the years, army has ensured that Pakistan double deals with the United States, constantly adopts a hostile posture towards India and pursues the policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan. For these objectives, military and its intelligence apparatus has constantly courted militant organizations which at times have gone out of control like a Frankenstein monster only to at times turn against itself.

It is here that military simply does not listen to the concerns of the civilian governments and in fact won’t hesitate to pressurize it through back door means and even mount a coup. In 1999, it deeply embarrassed Nawaz Sharif government by initiating Kargil war while he was trying to make peace initiatives towards India. And it is agitated against Zardari led government for being too cosy with Washington (though these charges are hardly credible).

Unfortunately USA has also more or less accepted the dominance of military and has adopted the tactic of directly dealing with the military at times bypassing the civilian governments. And of course all the military dictatorships have been supported by the US which found it easier and convenient to deal with them and were ready to ignore “trivialities” like democracy.
In fact Hussain Haqqani’s masterpiece ( one of the most extraordinary books I have ever read) also makes the same point that USA in its desire of convenience found it easier to deal with military.

Turning a blind eye policy adopted by the USA has eventually resulted in military being the party they have to negotiate with even when it is not cooperating and indulging in double games. Civilian governments virtually are irrelevant.

It is hold over foreign policy and terms of engagement with critical countries like India, United States and Afghanistan which military guards even more than its finances. The entire intelligence apparatus is dedicated towards this end and if a civilian government tries to assert its authority in this domain, it pays the price.

Can we break this hold? Yes, it can be broken but for that politicians too have to show maturity and respect rule of law. They also need to show unity instead of cheap opportunism when the opportunity to weaken military presents itself. My mind immediately goes back to what happened when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Instead of having a united front, Mr. Zardari was keen on creating a rift between army and Nawaz Sharif for short sighted political gains. That opportunity was lost. And subsequently Mr. Sharif actually went to Supreme Court in Memo scandal despite the fact that the military establishment was targeting him also and if democracy were to be derailed, he too will be a loser. However, in Mr. Nawaz sharif’s head nothing mattered more than Zardari’s scalp.

We cannot wrestle away the power unless we show unity and an unshakable belief in democracy. However that belief in democracy is also underpinned by the way major political actors govern when in power and also engage with each other. Urban middleclass does not love army just for the sake of loving it. It likes army (rightly or wrongly is a separate issue) because it restores order and since it is politically insulated therefore gives an impression of merit. Army needs chaos as a reason to intervene. It needs political governments to fail to ensure its hegemony. It wants political class to be riddled with internal rifts.

What the political parties (the two main parties) can do is to at least ensure that they govern properly and ensure rule of law. They need to be united on the fact that they would not conspire against each other and will not try to seek army’s help for derailing the other.

Remember that it is no longer feasible for the army to directly rule the country and therefore the chances of an old fashioned coup are very rare. The chances of a complete roll back of the system are slim and therefore the political parties can take decisive steps provided they are united and get their act together.

By Danish Khan:

In the apprentice of political economy, there are distinct theories to elucidate the lack of development in the developing countries. Some political economists point towards the colonial days to trace back the roots of the contemporary social and political institutions of the developing countries, while others rest blame on the geography of the developing world, and the variance to the doctrine of the free market capitalism as some of the possible sources of the nuance. The inclusion and the close examination of the social and political institutions of the developing countries are certainly worth discussing, while I cannot say same about the other posed explanations. One of the few possible explanations of the developing countries to being socially, politically and economically astern are their historical “extractive colonial institutions” which were established during the colonial times, and in most developing countries, they have stayed alive and functional in one way or other, even after the official withdrawal of the former colonial powers. Colossal wealth disparity, lack of modern infrastructure, and the diminutive industrialization are some of the cardinal features which have differentiated these countries from the developed part of the world. Certainly, I find legitimacy and rationale in this “institutional” framework explanation to understand the lack of development in most developing countries, and especially in Pakistan.  Comprehending the contemporary abject situation of Pakistan in the paradigm of the “Extractive Colonial Institutions” certainly helps us to understand this complex phenomenon of persistent under-development in Pakistan.

The abysmal socio-economic conditions in Pakistan are not a mere result of certain dissolute and adulterate politicians in power, although they are a part of the problem, but not a core problem. In Pakistan, the mainstream media and right-wing political parties tend to amalgamate all the problems in one basket, and then they dump that basket on the democratically elected government or generally on the politicians of the country. While during all this ambiguous and miserable socio-economic situation of the country, one institution of the country allays itself, and it is able to keep itself insulated from the brutal criticism of the mainstream media and the mainstream political parties. To not make it a riddle, I am talking about the Pakistani Army, if one institution that can help us in rationalizing the contemporary socio-politico and economic conditions of Pakistan; it would be none other than the Pak Army.

Although most liberals in Pakistan strongly condemn Martial Law, and any interference of military in the political affairs, but not many liberal commentators risk to go beyond this popular stance. By that I am referring to the fact that, military certainly makes things worse off by disrupting political process and violating the constitutional framework, but even during the epoch of the civil rule, when there is democratically elected government, military continues to play the integral role in formulating the socio-economic and foreign policy of the country. And this hegemonic power runs on the blood and sweat of the people of the Pakistan, figures vary around depending on the source, but most statisticians, politicians and economists would agree that around 75 percent of the national budget goes in to the tummies of the military of Pakistan. Furthermore, the huge sum of US dollars ends up in the hands of the army, and it makes the Pak Army one of the supreme and fortified post-colonial institutions of the country. The Army of Pakistan is not just an army anymore, it has become a one of the most powerful and hegemonic social, political and financial institution of the country. One might say, what’s wrong with that? Well, the constitution of the country, clearly defines concrete role of the army, and according to constitution, army is not supposed to be a real estate enterprise and those who have read Ayesha Siddiqa’s Military Inc., they do know what I am talking about. When military of a country turns in to Military Incorporated, then it should be imminent to the rational people from where the problems are originating. The narration of completely flawed and lethargic ideologies like, “Two Nation theory”, and “a persistent threat from our neighboring state India” have been the popular rhetoric of the military, and they have launched their political wing in the form of religious parties and ISI, and the right-wing religious forces second every single notion made by the Pak Army, and they spread and impose the word of the army on average citizen by amalgamating it with the religious sentiments of the people.

The assiduous people of Pakistan are sick and tired of their fathomless lives; it is quite pleasing and apposite that most folks in Pakistan are demanding a change. But unfortunately, the mainstream political parties, and the newly emerging political force like Tehreek-e-Insaaf are not challenging a status quo by questioning the social and political role of the military. On contrary, they are focusing on the peripheral issues, i.e. corruption, Zardari, etc. Thus, anybody who understands the socio-economic structure of the country finds it nothing but a mere rhetoric when Tehreek-e-Insaaf shouts out for a change and revolution. The change cannot be realized in Pakistan, unless the hegemony and absolute power of the military is not challenged. The dismal lives of the people of Pakistan cannot be altered, unless we transform and substitute the “extractive colonial institutions” with our own new institutions. The people of Pakistan cannot afford to write a hefty check to the military of the Pakistan to venture in to real estate, and other business ventures, i.e. cement industry, cereal industry, etc. It is the time that oppressed and downtrodden masses of the country challenge the extractive institutions which have been the dominant source of their distress and affliction. In our contemporary political situation of the country, it is only possible through a grass-root social and political movement of the tyrannized and exploited classes.

Danish Khan is a social and political activist, and a final year student at University of Utah, US, studying Economics and International Studies.

By Saad Hafiz:

It seems at the first sign of cracks in a democratic setup in Pakistan, a battle cry goes out from media pundits, back-door politicians and professional pontificators alike to end or derail the democratic process. As the knives and bayonets are sharpened, headlines like “End the farce”, “Noose tightens” and “Government isolated” dominate in the media.

Many affluent Pakistanis, enjoying the fruits of Western democracies, hypocritically chime in to denigrate democracy and espouse the benefits of a return to strict authoritarian rule or a managed democracy for the unwashed masses in their native land. The mainstay of their argument is that a “controlled” political process can deliver peace, order and stability which the country desperately needs and which the natural chaos of a parliamentary democracy cannot hope to emulate. “The man who has gotten everything he wants is all in favor of peace and order.” Jawaharlal Nehru

The propagandists and doomsayers who predict the end of democracy are helped by the macabre political situation prevailing in the country. The Prime Minister is being held in contempt and has had to appear before the Supreme Court for balking on writing to the Swiss courts to reopen the President’s past corruption cases. A former envoy to the US has taken protection in the PM House, possibly seeking protection from the country’s security services who may seek to harm him for allegedly instigating a memorandum inviting foreign intervention to check the power of the country’s military.

The government has been forced to have a pro-democracy resolution passed by the “sovereign and supreme” Parliament requesting all institutions to respect the primacy of democratic institutions. It is a wonder that a democratic government, constantly watching its back, is also expected to focus on urgent issues facing the country like poverty, hunger, unemployment and the sorry state of government hospitals and schools.

Conditioned by years of playing second fiddle to autocrats and their henchmen, politicians and civil society are reluctant to stand together to fight the misleading allure of authoritarianism or a managed democracy. This is surprising because the non-democratic road in Pakistan is well travelled, taken a great toll on the country, and shaken its foundations to the core.

A strong case can be made that the three long periods of dictatorship in Pakistan’s history, Ayub 1958-69, Zia 1977-1988 and Musharraf 1999-2008 greatly contributed to the disintegration of the country and the spread of a retrogressive Islamic ideology, sectarianism and violence. The “men on horseback” trained in a unitary environment failed and will continue to fail because they are unable to understand the discordant demands of a multi ethnic society.

There is also little evidence that a “controlled” political environment is any less corrupt or can ensure long-term economic prosperity when compared to a parliamentary democracy. It can be argued that whitewashing authoritarianism every few years, does not remove its intrinsic violence and corruption and the way its tyrannies intrude into ordinary lives.

It seems ridiculous to imagine that a command decision made by an unelected leadership can be implemented without question in a complex nation of a 180 million people. History has proven time and time again that changes needed for the betterment of the people require discussion and consensus and not heavy handed approaches to be effective. Given the opportunity, the people will support liberal democracy and its ideals of tolerance, due process and constitutional rights.

Governmental legitimacy should continue to be derived from the ballot box. A silver lining often ignored by pessimists is that Pakistan has legitimate political parties, an increasingly independent judiciary and vibrant media, which are prerequisites for preserving and enhancing a democratic society. Pakistanis also have a history of fighting dictatorship and checking obscurantism through democratic means when allowed.

The critical issues of corruption and poor governance, disillusioned populace and a young population with few economic prospects have to be addressed quickly. This requires Pakistan to come up with a new generation of leaders, who are capable of relaying the foundations of State in crisis and who are also capable of defending its populations’ interests better, based on unwavering respect for different State institutions.

By Taha Kehar

By Shahnaz Khan:

The purpose of this article is to highlight the impact of the religious laws in Pakistan as they are being currently interpreted and implemented without going into the finer nuances of either the law or the religion. These laws come into limelight from time to time for brief periods only when a famous person is involved or if there are political implications.  Once the issue disappears from the front pages of the news media the whole thing is forgotten.  But the fact is that these laws affect ordinary citizens on a daily basis.  I want to make the point that these laws, implemented without using common sense or taking the present day realities and the changing nature and circumstances of the crime, have become vehicles for promoting injustice, threats to the peace and harmony of the society, tools for political expediency, and suppression of critical thinking.

On promoting injustice: Qisas and Diyat laws are a prime example of this, being used to the detriment of the weaker members of the society that is women and the poor. Let’s first take the issue of women. Honor killings, disfigurement and mutilation of women by cutting of their body parts or throwing acid on them because someone’s “honor” is threatened are common occurrences.  Under the above mentioned law it is the “wali” of the victim who is authorized to negotiate the terms of punishment with the murderer.  He (since it is almost always a male) has the right to forgive the murderer and accept monetary compensation.  But the irony is that in most cases, wali himself (or those closely related to him) is the murderer, being the husband, the father or the brother etc.  Now does it make sense to have the murderer dictate the terms of his punishment?  It is like investing the powers of the judge, jury and the executioner in the same person who is also the offender, giving him the right to make all the decisions.  Is that the spirit of the Islamic law?

In the case of disfigurement and mutilation, the victim herself (since most of the time it a woman) should have the right to negotiate and agree to the terms of punishment.  Has there ever been a court decision where a woman was authorized to throw acid on the face of the offender or cut off his nose as a punishment?  If this is not a mockery of justice, what else is?

In fact an even more sinister aspect of this whole situation is that men, family or tribe have been granted the right to impose their will on women in the name of honor.  This is the basis of honor crimes.  That is why killing of a woman is justified because, “she deserved it” because she broke the so called moral and ethical code of the society.   This assumption, this mind set, this atrocious behavior in the name of tradition, culture and religion is a horrifying aspect of “our values and norms” that we never tire of flaunting and praising, because these values make us better than those ‘immoral’ westerners. Really?  There is a need to challenge this.  What is honor and who defines it? Why do women have to give up their decision making powers, happiness, dignity, and freedom to save the so called honor of men, family, tribe etc. etc.?  It has become honorable to kill and maim women and dishonorable to respect them, their bodies and their humanity.  If this is not a skewed logic, what else is?  And if this is not denigration of women, what else is? And we never tire of telling the world how Islam has elevated the status of women and how she has been protected!

Now let’s see how this law affects the poor.  If the victim is poor and the offender rich, he/she not only has the financial wherewithal but in Pakistan also has the added political, social and legal clout to coerce the victim’s wali into accepting the monetary compensation instead of paying with his/her life for the perpetrated crime. But what if the victim is rich and the offender is poor?  Do I have to explain what will happen?  Religion which claims to bring economic and legal justice is in fact failing the poor on both accounts.  Can there be any more atrocious consequences of a law?  Can there be a law that is more discriminatory against the poor?  If this is not a distortion of justice to the utmost, what else is? And if all of the above is not promoting injustice, what else is?

On threat to peace and harmony:  Whenever a law is passed in the name of religion, it becomes nearly impossible to change or modify it even if subsequently it becomes apparent that it is being misused, has become a contrivance for aggression and is actually causing harm to the society by disturbing peace and tranquility.  This is evident from the blasphemy laws as applied in Pakistan, which are being used to harass the religious minorities, for personal revenge, or for political motives.  Even when the accused is not convicted by the court, he or she faces a constant threat to his or her life.  At times people feel free to punish the alleged offender without due course of the law.  The person is presumed guilty unless proven innocent rather than the other way around.  Even minor and unintentional actions are interpreted in the harshest way possible thus leaving very little room for justice to be carried out fairly and impartially.  Unfortunately this, like all other religious issues, has become a political tool to be used to inflame people’s emotions (which are, regrettably, highly inflammable).   It has come to the point where even an utterance of unintended phrase, any discussion about the problems surrounding this issue, or any mention of further probing this legitimacy and authenticity of the law can cost one his or her life.  If this is not disturbing peace and tranquility of the society, what else is?

As James Baldwin, a black American novelist and play writer and a leading voice in the civil rights movement, said, “If one really wishes to know how the justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected—those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! —and listens to their testimony.”  So, the flag bearers of the religion, the rulers and the politicians, go and listen to the women, the religious minorities, and the poor and find out if justice is being administered in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan!

On use for political expediency:  Since religious laws are amenable to different interpretations, they have a tendency to become tools in the hands of dictators, other autocrats and selfish political motives.  Wasn’t the Qisas and Diyat ordinance of 1990 signed by Gen Zia for political expediency? Didn’t various political entities i.e. the government, the religious parties, and the army use and justify the Qisas and Diyat law to their own advantage during Raymond Davis fiasco?  Aren’t there enough historical examples and cases where religion was used to support the decisions of the ruler rather than guiding it?  Why do we refuse to learn from them?  There always have been and always will be scholars who are willing to comply with the demands of the authority.  The alliance of religion with the power will drown any dissenting voice.  It has been so in all religions and Islam is no different.

On suppression of free thought:  The last point I would like to make is that the danger lies not only in the specific laws but also the fact that when the word religion is attached to any law, rule or issue it immediately becomes off limits to any further discussion or debate among the very people whose lives will be affected by it.  The doors of reason are closed.  Questioning is not allowed. Any debate becomes a prisoner to rigid and fixed parameters set by the self proclaimed scholars, many of whom have vested interests and people are forced to suspend their intellectual faculties.  And gradually it becomes their second nature to accept whatever edicts they are asked to follow.

Plato said, “Justice in the life and conduct of the state is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.”  But when the hearts and souls of citizens have given up the quest for justice because an intellectual decay has set in due to suppression of free thought, is there still hope?

The purpose of the media is an easy one to understand. The dissemination of factual information on issue relevant to the citizenry. This entails (or should entail) a research and effort to uncover the truth, as well as a responsibility to uphold principles of free speech, adequate voice (as absolute voice and impartiality is impossible) and a separation to some extent from the control of politics. Thus the media has always been imagined as a ‘watchdog’ in its role in politics. This is what it was traditionally meant to be, thus its freedom was protected (like during the American Revolution when printing presses came in vogue) and thus its is critiqued today based on how free it is and how free it lets itself be (like Chomskys critique of the role of the media during the War on Terror). But who watches the watchdog?

Recently Deputy Chairman Planning Commission Nadeem Ul Haque was asked by a reporter on him speaking at the National Defence University (NDU) on December 26 against the nuclear program. In fact the reporter had his story wrong. It seems his “facts” were based on what he thought usually goes on at the NDU and he was oblivious to what the expertise of Nadeem Ul Haque was. Haque was actually scheduled to speak on the Planning Commission’s New Growth Framework, but the event had been cancelled due to lack of interest.

Thus Haque raised an important question in this article he wrote after the interaction with that reporter: “Why should such reform not get media space? Whose fault is this?”

He went on to say: “I know they want a headline against the current establishment. Consequently, all governments regardless of creed and origin have avoided serious governance/civil service reform. All have failed to change the paradigm on market competition. No government has attempted to use public service delivery to underpin our governance approach. No government has reviewed our current approach to urban development that produces a sprawl… Our intellectuals’ efforts, evident in the media, display little interest in these crucial issues. Countries seeking development spend a far larger proportion of their public debate on crucial development issues than we do.”

If the media does not pick up on issues that actually require policy reform, it will never signal the politicians and policy makers to reform nor will it create space for a debate on the issues that really matter.

As this Pak Media Watch article puts it: “If reporters are hunting for headlines against the government with utter disregard to whether their stories are factual or in any way useful to the country, they are failing in an important responsibility as journalists.”

This brings us to the second issue. Where have all the honest journalists gone? A narrow focus on specific types of stories is one thing but blatant lies and corruption is another. This story is just one example of the decay of the media profession itself. Najir Nazi in 2009 caught himself in a plot scandal (had it been today it would be sensationalized ridiculously as “plotgate”). A reporter called him and asked about illegal allotment of plots by the federal government and got a dose of expletives, and the established journalist unabashedly told the reporter to even record his words that would put PTA to shame.

Our watchdogs are certainly not above the dirty game the rest of the country is playing, heavily ties into local politics. Why would the media then talk about things like a New Growth Framework or public service delivery, when kicking the opposition in the shin and then using it as a headline is what can bring them closer to a G-8 plot allotment? (Read about it here)

Media to an extent is always funded and influenced by politics. However, in well function democracies, the media thought not unbiased, takes a position and provides information on policy, business, economy and development rather than only infotainment and vapid critiques of individual politicians that has no bearing on the conditions of the masses. A cursory look at Pakistani media takes us so far way from the ideals that this essay started off with that one feels dirty. If only the media felt it too.

 Raza Habib Raja
This article tries to evaluate the politician Benazir Bhutto and the way she affected her party and the Pakistani political landscape. Since the article tries to adopt a CRITICAL approach therefore it points her weaknesses besides appreciating her strengths.

Cult of personality which has become somewhat of a rarity in the West is an integral part of the political culture here. Such personality cults form around Political leaders, particularly famous ones, in our part of the world. Strong political leaders are not merely the reflection of the society but are often strong enough to affect it. Late Benazir Bhutto was one of such political personalities. Charismatic personalities are often riddled with contradictions and like all such personalities she also had her strengths and weaknesses.

Benazir Bhutto though it is not often acknowledged was in many ways Pakistan’s only true liberal leader. Compared to her charismatic father who was ready to manipulate religious sensitivities to extract political mileage, Benazir Bhutto knew where to stop. Yes, she was pragmatic and like all politicians acted in rational self interest-Politics is after all realpolitiks- but she did not try to whip religion for that purpose.

Those who believe in a secular, liberal and plural Pakistan, like to remember Jinnah for his 11th August speech; likewise I would like to remember Benazir Bhutto through a statement she made in early 1990s when she said “Insanoon ke hath Paon Katne munasib Nayee Samajte. Khuda Zalim Nayee Hai. Zalim Quaneen ko Islami nayee manti” (We do not think amputating hands and legs of human beings is an appropriate thing to do. God is not cruel. I do not think that harsh laws can be Islamic). This statement, though now rarely quoted caused quite a stir in early 1990s. In fact the Imam of Badshahi Mosque even issued a fatwa against her. Other than her, I have never heard ANY politician utter such a statement. I wish that this statement had started a wave where people could have mustered enough courage to actually start a critical discourse on religious laws and on the role of religion in their lives. Sadly it merely created short term controversy and print media of those days lapped on it for creating sensational headlines. The statement could not define her legacy but nevertheless is an important indication of the stuff Benazir Bhutto was made of.

Benazir Bhutto inherited the party from Bhutto but in many ways she earned her title. After all when her brothers chose to stay outside and indulge in militant tactics she decided to adopt the political course and tried to engage with the supporters of her party. Even legacy politics need charismatic inheritors who can engage with the masses. It is that kind of mass populism which acts as a cancelling agent to religious fervour and its political manifestation at the mass level. Benazir Bhutto could do it brilliantly despite the fact that her Urdu was not as fluent as her father’s.

Her biggest achievement for the PPP was that she was able to glue the party after him. Her stature which was underpinned by much more than her blood linage ensured that unity prevailed. While it helped the party in the transitory phase as it needed a strong leader but in the longer run has proven counterproductive as legacy politics has become too entrenched.

In legacy politics the direction of a political party is often controlled by the cultish leader. PPP’s direction from 1986 owed largely to her vision and political outlook. PPP changed with times and Benazir while holding on to the legacy politics was very willing to embrace newer ideas. As socialism waned globally, Benazir was quick to reform her party’s ideological outlook and PPP started to transform from a centre left to economically conservative and socially liberal party. In fact the privatization program started with her tenure. She was also extremely keen on bringing in foreign investment and her second stint as Prime Minister witnessed huge investments in the power sector as several Independent Power Projects (IPPs) were set up. The move which was severely criticised by subsequent Nawaz Sharif government as being “unfair” to Pakistan, ultimately proved one of the most beneficial economic decisions taken by her government. As Pakistan suffered from terrible electricity shortages, the situation would have been virtually catastrophic if there were no IPPs.

Politically she was a realist though knew how to balance the pragmatism with ideological stance of the party. Her pragmatism emanated from her experience as a Prime Minister particularly her first tenure. She quickly realized that in Pakistan the “deep state” held all the keys and if her party aspired to have power, it could not go totally against the so called establishment. Therefore when Nawaz Sharif conspired to remove her from power in 1990, she returned him the favour in 1993 when she supported Ghulam Ishaq Khan in his efforts to remove him.

Moreover despite having liberal outlook she had no stupid romantic notions about militant parties like MQM. She was firmly behind the 1995-96 operation and understood that action was needed to eradicate militancy. She was pretty firm and did not yield to blackmailing tactics even when the killings mounted. At one time, corpses were being daily found in bags with chits attached to chest stating “Naseer Ullah Baber ke liey Tuhfa” (A gift for Naseer Ullah Baber).

I think it was her administrative quality which perhaps was her weakest trait. Her second tenure was riddled with severe controversies and in fact it alienated her core support which was reflected in 1996 elections. Although it is often claimed that in 1996 establishment rigged the elections but the reality was that PPP voter simply did not come out to vote. In fact throughout Punjab and NWFP, its candidates were getting less than 10,000 votes per constituency in the elections for national assembly seats.

It was the controversies of that tenure which continued to cast a deep shadow over the rest of Benazir’s life. All of the infamous cases are related to that period.

Despite going into exile in late 1990s, Benazir continued to have a lot of influence on the local politics and once Nawaz Sharif was again removed, her popularity witnessed resurgence. PPP became a key party after 2002 elections and in the last years of Musharraf regime was the most sought after party by the establishment and US alike for tackling rising extremism and for ensuring trouble less continuance of the battle against Islamic militants.

Things started to move in an uncontrollable direction after the lawyers movement started. Although now the PPP tries to call the movement “reactionary” but the fact is that during her life Benazir never publicly criticized it despite the fact that she knew that from pragmatic point of view, the movement though weakening Musharraf could also adversely affect her leverage. In fact PPP selectively supported the movement. An intelligent person like Benazir would have never supported the lawyers’ movement if it was totally “reactionary” particularly at that point. Of all the politicians, she was the best in striking a balance between political necessity and ideological orientation. In fact the fact that PPP in post Benazir time adopted delaying tactics allowed the right wing elements to literally hijack the movement. Had she been alive, things would have taken a better turn as she was far more astute than her successor.

Her death has obviously been a big blow to Pakistan’s prospects of becoming a more tolerant and moderate political entity. Religious extremism in fact benefited the most from her tragic death.

Moreover her tragic death also solidified the legacy politics as her successor had to be from her nearest relatives to keep the party intact. Dynasty politics became further entrenched and even Bilawal had to be renamed as Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It is claimed by the PPP that BB Sahiba nominated the current Joint Chairman, Asif Ali Zardari. By following him, they are actually following her desires. And yet the ones who were near to Benazir during her lifetime and even her final moments like Sherry Rehman, Naheed Khan and Amin Fahim are now out of the limelight. If her wishes were that dear to PPP then people on whom Benazir had trust should not be given such treatment.

To be fair to the current chairman, PPP led government has tried to reach out to various ethnicities and tried to adopt reconciliatory approach. In some constitutional matters the party has fared quite well and has successfully brokered an improved NFC award. Provincial autonomy has also improved. However the quality of governance remains a problematic area.

It has to be understood that eventually people judge a government not merely on its ideological orientation but also on its actual performance in economic and administrative realm. And yes there will always be those who despite ideologically agreeing with a liberal party will nevertheless assess the actual performance and vote against it. In USA the registered Democrats far outnumber the registered Republicans and yet there have been Republican presidents and legislatures. Even in the recent midterm elections the conservatives make a strong comeback.

Merely calling the critics as “Pseudo Liberals” or members of naive “chattering classes” or “closet conservatives” will not do the trick. Pakistan Peoples Party has to improve its governance and since it is the mainstream liberal party it is critical that it improves. Likewise whipping Benazir’s and Bhutto’s name won’t make the issues with it disappear. A Shaheed may act as a powerful rallying force in one election but cannot deliver performance. Post Benazir PPP needs to realize that.

Raza Habib Raja

Most of the political developments in Pakistan involve armed forces and also Punjab’s politicians as Punjab is the most populous province. Some or the other, a narrative has developed which links Punjab and armed forces (who mostly hail from Punjab) in a conspiring role.  Even now as President Zardari is having political problems, several journalists are calling it a conspiracy of Punjab, hatched with the support of armed forces, against smaller provinces.

So does such a linkage exist? Can we establish with certainty that army is nothing except an armed wing whose sole existence is to ensure Punjab’s dominance?   Does the army systematically and more importantly INTENTIONALLY safeguard Punjab’s interest or army is merely protecting and promoting its institutional interests and Punjab due to its dominance in the army gets “spill over” benefits? Does army interfere when Punjab is in political problems or it intervenes when its own institutional interests are in jeopardy? Does army differentiate between Punjabi politicians and others?

These are very key questions and need a serious thought rather than rhetoric and opinions based on hearsay. When we lump together Punjabi elite and army, whenever a political development takes place, what exactly are we trying to say? Are we trying to infer that there is a deep conspiracy which involves Punjabi politicians and army high command? If yes, then has army only removed politicians from smaller provinces? If it has removed Punjabi politicians as well then who are those Punjabi elite we keep on talking about?

The answer to all of these questions is important because if Pakistan has to survive as a political unit then we have to cultivate harmony and remove mistrust. We also need to find the real source of Punjab’s dominance and try to correct it because it needs to be corrected.

So is it really the army?

There is absolutely no doubt that Punjab dominates the armed forces both in the Jawan as well as officer cadre. Armed forces have a tremendous budget allocated to them (a huge portion of it is not quantified even though Miss Ayesha Siddiqua’s book does make a good attempt). Consequently, as a result the benefits accruing to army affect more Punjabi households rather than other provinces. And these benefits are extraordinary ranging from subsidized commercial plots, after retirement high profile civilian jobs to memberships at paltry rates to otherwise very expensive clubs.

However a closer look would reveal that most of these benefits are actually accruing to three districts of Attock, Jhelum, and Rawalpindi. The high recruitment from these areas is a legacy of colonial times. Yes there is a spillover effect to other areas as well but primarily the economic benefits within Punjab re restricted to these areas.

Secondly it is true that while Punjab gets more benefits due to its higher representation but army’s interest may or may not be completely synonymous with Punjab’s interests each time. Yes these may even overlap at times but we need stronger evidence to conclude that army is a non elected political institution SOLELY geared to just ensure Punjab’s hegemony. Let’s not forget that army has intervened two times to remove Nawaz Sharif, a Punjabi Politician. First time it was a completely chaotic situation with a very realistic chance of a clash between federal security and Punjab police (1993). The second time army moved to protect itself as an institution and deposed Nawaz Sharif after he had dismissed General Musharraf who was of Mohajir ethnicity. Before the whole Musharraf drama occurred, Nawaz Sharif was actually trying to take peace measures with India. It is argued and with justification that army staged Kargil to derail peace process at that time.

Musharraf’s coup is an interesting case as it took place when technically Musharraf was not even a CNC. He had already been deposed and there was no “official” obligation for the core commanders. The majority of core commanders who brought the coup were from Punjab and they moved to ensure the preservation of their institution’s privileged status and had no qualms in deposing Nawaz.

For army, its own interests reign supreme and these may or may not always coincide with that of Punjab and its civilian rulers.

However, having said that whereas army may not be always consciously safeguarding and promoting Punjab’s interest its ideological orientation does have some effect. Ideologically armed forces are geared to hold up Islamic values as well as Pakistani nationalism in terms of their orientation and identity. This ideological orientation, designed chiefly to ensure internal cohesiveness and combating zeal, is also identical with the general state nurtured ideology which tries to negate ethnic plurality. So whenever army is in direct power its ideological thrust amalgamates with and in fact reinforces that of the broader state’s cultivated ideology.

In fact that is why generally armed forces are viewed as more “patriotic’ by a substantial chunk of Punjabi middleclass as they appear to hold the same values as that of the latter.

Moreover, the centralised modus operandi of army, though originally designed for military and professional purposes, gels well with the overall centralized state structure when army is in power. Thus small wonder that every military rule has seen a reinforcement of centralized way of governance and thus ethnic rift has increased during every rule.

Personally I think that the relationship between army and Punjab’s dominance exists but is somewhat murky to be conclusive with respect of causality. Dominance even if attributed to Punjab’s high representation in armed forces is not always a result of their (armed forces) conscious efforts. Yes there are times when the interests of the province and army will coincide but army does not consciously, at least most of the time, connive to promote Punjabi interests.

Yes, if we change the army’s composition it will ensure more benefits to other provinces but may not change the centralized structure favouring Punjab. Over emphasis on population based distribution of resources is diverting too much resources to Punjab’s advantage The overall state structure with all its political institutions, elected and non elected, are geared towards excessive centralization both administratively and ideologically. This centralized structure is the major culprit and it has Punjab as its major beneficiary.
Beneficiary parties, irrespective of their ethnicity, seldom give up privileges voluntarily. The better way to wriggle out of this situation would be decentralize, remove emphasis on promotion of political Islam and yes may be divide Punjab into smaller provinces. In NFC award the percentage weightage of revenue collection and poverty has to increase.

You can diagnose any one around you talking politics if he/she is PTI supporter or not. Here are few (of many) symptoms. They blame CIA and US from anarchy to bad Governance. They protest throughout the year. They want a liberal political leader and yet they like to be friends with fundamentalists who like to [...]

Cultural identity provides us with an opportunity to protect our cultural space individually, and this can pay positive dividends in a national sense.

This is a Doom Metal project with a heavy stoner vibe going on throughout, but with a political bent to it and a vocal style not usually used in pure doom metal. Stoner Doomdeath? You decide. Anyway, these guys are from somewhere in Sindh (a friend’s project, and he’s asked for total anonymity.) Check this [...]