Despite the countrys status as a frontline state in the fight against Islamist terror, the reactions of its Western or West Asian allies were symptomatic of a lack of faith in Pakistans political institutions.
Even after a month, the relief aid from international donors was negligible. The amount that came in was largely in the hands of international and national NGOs than in grasp of the government. While Asaf Ali Zardari was much reviled for his leisurely sojourn to his Surrey estate in the United Kingdom during this hour of crisis, it still has to be said that after the 18th amendment, his role was not that significant. The prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, was present in the country as were many other political leaders like Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif. But their efforts were so wanting that till the army got into the act of providing actual relief, the situation was not stabilised.
There were also reports that like the infamous earthquake of a few years ago, the void in government institutional delivery was filled by militant institutions like Jamaat-ud-Dawa and the like. They took this as an opportunity to connect with the people, which could help them in the future in terms of their mobilisation.
Many Pakistan commentators feel that Zardari survives by default. He survives because the army does not have a choice, stuck as it is between him and Nawaz Sharif. And the Americans consider him a man of convenience. Zardari is seeking redemption through a process of what he calls “political reconciliation.” In September 2009, he even proposed a truth and reconciliation commission for Pakistan. Though that idea did not gain much traction amongst the political and military elite of the country, he still advocated a form of reconciliation amongst the political parties as the problems of the country needed joint and concerted action.
Right from the beginning, the elite of the country had perpetuated a myth about its raison dêtre. While it was not formed as an Islamic country, but merely a nation of the subcontinental Muslims, the Islamic twist to its story was given by the rulers to suit their convenience
But in the view of at least one political analyst of the country, it is set to rebound on him because it has turned into just another patronage system by which sections of the elite are being co-opted to side with the ruling Zardari–Gilani combine. The gains accruing from Mr. Zardari’s legalistic measures, or their hazards, may not count for much but it is his fancied “reconciliation” that confuses people and undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy. Kunwar Idris wrote in the Dawn of 14 November, “To his [Zardari] mind, the alternative to reconciliation is confrontation. In fact political parties are in a state of confrontation while staying within the boundaries of his make-believe reconciliation.
“Quite a few politicians and clerics are riding Zardari’s gravy train and yet blame him for all the ills. PPP ministers in Punjab grumble that they never get to see the chief minister, much less advise him, decisions are made in a cabal and not in the cabinet and bureaucrats ignore their orders. Sitting in the opposition they could have played a useful role but it was a hard choice between the perks of power and the rigours of opposition. Their party chairman’s reconciliation drive came to their rescue with the cost borne by the people.”
Idris refers in his opinion piece to the PML-N and PPP coalition that rules the crucial province of the Punjab. In his opinion, the alliance in the province is make-believe. In the context of Pakistan’s zero-sum politics, it appears to be so.
Conclusion
This analyst has been of the view that Pakistan’s real problems stem from its flawed history. Right from the beginning, the elite of the country had perpetuated a myth about its raison d’être. While it was not formed as an Islamic country, but merely a nation of the subcontinental Muslims, the Islamic twist to its story was given by the rulers to suit their convenience.
Pakistans Islamic connection was found to be a suitable vehicle on which the interests of the feudal class and the bourgeoisie could ride.
This seems to be the growing view in sections of Pakistan’s thinkers. Shahid Javed Burki, one of Pakistan’s historians, wrote in the Dawn of 9 November 2010: “. . . identified religion as the motivating factor behind the movement for the creation of Pakistan. The question of why a segment of the Muslim population of British India came to believe that separation from the Indian mainland was the only way to protect their interests acquired importance in the writings on the founding of Pakistan. Increasingly, the answer came to be provided in religious terms.
“This interpretation of history is not only wrong, it is also dangerous. What we are seeing now in terms of the rise of extremist Islam in the country can be attributed to this line of thinking. This approach to history has also resulted in casting ‘Hindu’ India as the eternal enemy. I have advisedly put the word ‘Hindu’ in quotation marks since India is not by any stretch of the imagination a Hindu state. It is a secular state that defines itself as such in the constitution it has followed carefully and dutifully. It is no doubt a Hindu-majority country but has permitted all religious communities to exercise their rights according to the law of the land.”
Burki goes even further in his debunking of Pakistan’s current history writing. In his article, provocative titled, “History must not lie,” he wrote, “As I have written in several of my own works, the Pakistan movement may have used the idiom of Islam as a way of drawing mass support; it was not a movement for creating an Islamic entity but an attempt to secure a better economic future for the Muslims of British India. This is why there was a paradox in the way the movement achieved its ultimate objective — the creation of Pakistan.
Please wait...
