Pakistani establishment, the threat and answer to Mr Haq
I usually do not drag the comments of my readers to the new posts. However there was a comment on my previous post If November comes by a fellow blogger which necessitated longer answer. When I wrote it I thought that it should be shared with the general audience too because I have tried to do away with many misconceptions regarding Pak-US relationship, Pakistani establishment and other such contextual problems. Those who need to understand the context should use the above hyperlink to peruse my original post. The original comment of the reader I am reproducing here nevertheless.
Riaz Haq wrote on June 20, 2008 at 7:30 pm:
Wow!
What a warning!
Please define “establishment” in the context of Pakistan as you use it in this piece. Is it just the military and the “agencies”? Or does it include the narrow elite (including PML, PPP, Feudal zamindars, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the military, etc.) who have ruled Pakistan since its inception? Do you think any members of this elite have ever been held accountable to the people for their misrule and corruption? Do you think the “establishment” in US is in any way comparable to the Pakistani “establishment”?
If there is “annexation” with Afghanistan (which makes no sense to me), are the beneficiaries going to be any different? How would the US benefit by annexing Pakistan? Or would it just be a merger of the tribals with the feudals to serve the interests of both rather th the US? How would the middle class (the backbone of any democracy) fare under this or any other possible arrangement?
My Response:
Thank you very much Mr Haq,
I don’t know whether this wow from you is a routine jeer from you that I often receive or true appreciation. However from your later statement “which makes no sense to me”, I deduce that it is pretty much routine.
I think in the second line of the article I have given most precise definition of establishment as is possible. Do yourself some good and read the definition again in any of the internet dictionaries or encyclopedia.
Tell me who do you think is conservative in this country and who not? If you consider the People’s Party, perhaps the only progressive political force in the country which does it on its own accord and not out of sycophancy for any dictators, conservative then our conversation is already over. However if you do not then I have problems with your observation regarding the establishment. You certainly are viewing everything with an erroneous elitist model.
Tell me have you heard or read about Milbus? Have you been through Dr Ayesha Siddiqua Agha’s tome Military Inc.? I know what conservatives would say but I really respect that work. If you have you should do so again to know that the civil military and judicial bureaucracy comprise the most powerful element of the Pakistani establishment. But I do not deny that the political elements, the land owning class or the entrepreneurs do not have anything to do with it. They sure do. But since the first element has more control over the state resources that the latter can only work as a vessel in order to preserve selfish interests. How many years in power have politicians actually been successful in setting the agenda of the state, no matter in power or not? Who has ruled this country in most of the years? Who were Ghulam Muhammad, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Ali Bogra, Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Ishaq Khan, Moeen Qureshi, Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz? Do you get my point? Yet I do not discount your views absolutely. My concern is that the People’s Party has never been a conservative force of the country and never part of the establishment.
As for the invasion of annexation of Pakistan I daresay you are not using your imagination. I gather that you have just been offended by my criticism of Musharraf and hence not bothered to see reason in any argument. Sir, I can also say tally ho on most of points you are making in your weird blog which always takes the wrong direction in argument. But I do not. I know that since my views are principle centered rather than whims or personality cult centered people will get what they need from mine.
Pakistan is endowed with quite a few gifts including its geopolitics. From Gwadar to Wakhan corridor and our presence in such an important theater to our rock structure and nuclear prowess, while most of what we have got may not be of use to us but it is to many others. No matter what we say about collective security the world right now is operating on the good old balance of power. While we may not have it in us (evident from your case), there are many who view us a threat. Hence Balkanization or annexation of the country is quite a convincing option. Whether such elements can succeed in doing so or not is besides the point. My only concern is that it can weaken two good countries, which could have played quite benign role, further. If truth be told Pakistan is the most loyal ally of the US after Israel as time has proved time and again. But that doesn’t qualify us for the mercy of the neocons who do not see the world through anything but an insecurity paradigm. You seem to think that the elite other than the establishment would benefit from such an annexation in Pakistan. The problem again is with your judgment. The elite will be replaced with higher and distant elites or suzerains and owing to the zero sum game our political elite is only bound to lose not gain anything.
And let me also settle an old point here. Apparently in another post you wasted your breath in apparently suggesting that the existing US basis in Pakistan are normal while an international inquiry into Benazir’s murder is wrong. I don’t know what kind of self serving and blind notion is that? Either you are stupid or downright hypocrite to suggest that. If there are US bases in Europe that is because in World Wars the US has fought their battles and preserved them from their fellow Europeans from whom many still feel threatened. Whom has the US fought for us? Nobody. It is us that have repeatedly sacrificed ourselves. Again in the Western Europe and the US there is no historical or pronounced mistrust. It is a relevant concern in our case though. The US studies have never indicated that they desire or plan to seize the European nuclear asset in case of any eventuality. There are countless US research/thought papers from prestigious think tanks which recommend that their administration should do just that.
Meanwhile there is no harm in investigating Benazir’s assassination through any international organization. What harm can it do? We all pay lip service to the IGOs like the UN. We all say that collective security is the only way. Then why not seek help of someone who cannot influenced at least by any Pakistani. Kindly think and read again before speaking. Otherwise I am weary of your hollow rants.
Posted on June 21st, 2008 under General • 
Print This Post
• 
Email This Post
• RSS 2.0 feed • Both comments and pings are currently closed
June 21st, 2008 at 4:45 am
I am mystified as to how the PPP , the party of the biggest feudal lords in Pakistan can qualify as “progressive”. It’s a party where there has just been a “monarchical” succession that emanates from a sense of entitlement. I think your labels are very misleading and lead you to reach the wrong conclusions.
Please take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8nnYo_Ieuo
Thank you for you “kindness” in your response. Unfortunately, I hear a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. You really haven’t answered the questions I posed. Please go behind the convenient labels. Please address the real substance calmly, instead of trying to abuse me personally.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:43 am
Aha, so you who often use harsh words for me on my own website now worry about courtesies. That’s a good one.
I think you are trying to imply that Zulfi Bhutto was the part of the establishment that is why this elected prime minister was hanged by the very set up. That is perhaps why his two sons were butchered. His wife forced to lose her marbles. And guess where his daughter was killed? Rawalpindi! That essentially must be a special tribute by the establishment to Bhutto for his contributions. I mean can you simply not see?
Regarding the People’s Party being not progressive, excuse me but what is you complaint. You have issues with the way the party chooses its leader? Well maybe I ask who has been advocating authoritarian rule rather than democracy in this country for months now? I daresay you. Who has been busy in mudslinging on the political class? You sir. Now you have problems with democracy in the party? Come off it now.
Zulfi Bhutto made passport the right of a common citizen when earlier it was prerogative of the elite. His daughter introduced adult franchise in the tribal areas where only the tribal elders could vote. Every foreign policy paradigm by Miss Bhutto has been adopted grudgingly by the establishment of the country not because she was part of it but because she was right in her policy direction. THis is why I call her party progressive.
And as for this video I mean have you watched it yourself? Both Steve and Shuja Nawaz were excellent. If anyone kept barking mad it was that bony and skeletal puppet of the establishment Shahid Husain who could not even control his breath and was visibly suffering from social anxiety. I mean if a shameless man can keep on blabbering about a great leader just killed you can assess his mental stature.
And before you challenge my terms which you, owing to your own lack of diction, call labels, you should open some good dictionary and read it cover to cover. Sorry I am not this rash usually but how can you complain when you keep doing it quite often on my very on site.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
I rest my case.