Letter to the Economist on "Survey of Pakistan"

I just finished reading the Special Survey of Pakistan, which I had been eagerly awaiting since last week. What a treat I hoped it would be; to read an intelligent compilation of solution-oriented analysis with new perspectives, from my favorite periodical. Although the survey was what the caption promised, it failed to provide any concrete solutions and in the end it came across as just another mainstream media article that serves little but to unnerve the target Westerner audience. As I read on, my eagerness slowly turned to dismay and ultimately abject laughter. By the end of the "Special Survey" I was torn on whether to even write a response.

I believe that the Economist did a good job of paraphrasing the state of Pakistani society. However, you could have found similar articles and reports on Pakistan 20 years ago. Other mainstream journals do similar reports on a regular basis these days. However, I expected the Economist to do more than merely paraphrasing the facts. I hoped it would provide thought-provoking solutions, drawing comparisons to other situations, both historical and contemporary. The mess of Pakistani politics, corruption of bureaucracy, overreach of the ubiquitous military, all are well known and documented. The big question is what is the solution? And what should be the incremental steps taken to hammer some order and discipline into this society which has been broken politically and economically, notwithstanding the current economic resurgence.


LESSER OF THE FOUR EVILS:
The benign dictatorship of General Musharraf, for all his flaws might actually be lesser of the four evils that Pakistan is essentially forced to chose from; namely Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutoo, strict marshal law, and an Islamic fundamentalist govt. Your proposed "solution" of giving more power to the democratically elected bodies is not only too general and vague, it also contradicts your own assertion that democratic leaders in Pakistan have mostly proved to be ineffective and corrupt. Having the country run by democratically elected, yet effective leaders would indeed be nirvana for this Pakistani who had to abandon his country to find better (civilized/richer) home. However, with a feudal and tribal culture so deep rooted that it eliminates any possibility of electing a true representative that will protect your interests, how can we expect that the subsisting peasants and workers will be able to elect anyone except the local land lords who controls the livelihoods of everyone in their constituencies?

I hope you were not surprised, even if dismayed, by the conduct of landlords who would not provide cooking gas (even when it's almost free) or minimal education to their subjects, since these are the norm rather than exception. Insurgency in Baluchistan is very heart-breaking, especially since it is ravishing the poorest living in the most inhospitable environment. But if you think that these landlords have the interest of their subjects at heart you might be hopelessly off the mark. For the rulers of the land, these subjects often are nothing more than pawns in the game of getting biggest slice possible from the government handouts, only to line their own pockets and corrupt the other officials. Would you really want to put the fate of the country in the hands of such self-serving money hogs?

I had the displeasure of attending a session of National Assemby after Zia's death. This was the time when democracy was budding again, and there was nascent optimism in people’s representation. And National Assembly, unlike today, was not powerless. Still nothing got done. Most issues got buried under mutual bickering, petty rivalries and a general apathy by the assemblymen who were more occupied with jostling for cabinets positions, official junkets and their next hunting trips rather than debating and formulating effective laws to govern the country. Yes, democratic institutions take time to develop, but in case of Pakistan this will indeed be a very long while. And in the mean time lack of economic progress and frustration with the system will create the same problems that dictatorship does. Many among the countries that became prosperous in the last one hundred years were not democracies, but benign liberal dictatorships! Just look at Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and even Malaysia. Even a liberal and prosperous place like Dubai is far from being a democracy. Democracy is indeed the least-worst of all political systems. It provides a vital avenue for redress of grievances, hence providing a pressure valve for outlet of expression, lest the pressure threaten to blow up the cauldron. But many countries have been able to provide liberalism and rule of law without having a democratic system in the Western sense. And as countries progress economically, a burgeoning educated middle class presses for incremental reform, eventually leading to a well functioning democracy.


I BROKE IT, YOU OWN IT:
Your article seems to suggest that the Taliban government was created solely by the ISI to extend its influence on Afganistan. Yes, ISI had a big hand in it. But Taliban were a creation of the mutual alliance of the ISI and the West (mostly the US CIA) who generously praised them as Mujahideen (holy warriors) in time of need. Madrassah's were never a problem when they were needed to provide fighters for the Western war against the truly evil Russian empire. No wonder the number of Madrassahs went from hundreds to thousands during the war. These were supposed to be the equivalent of what is known in the West as Sunday Schools, but due to the need of the hour they were turned increasingly militant. When the war ended, the west conveniently packed up and left, leaving Pakistan to deal with these madrassahs and 21 million refugees from Afghanistan.

Afganistan was a failed state that created serious problems for Pakistan. Abductions became a thriving business. As they said only Allah or money can bring back anyone who’s taken to Afganistan. One warlord known as "Mullah Rocketie" (a complimentary title for his unprecedented arsenal of rockets) became such a nuisance that eventually Pakistan army had to take action and arrest his brother during one of his abduction forays into the country. Mullah Rocketie then valiantly abducted the Mayor of Quetta (biggest city in the fourth province of Pakistan) along with some army personnel. Saudi government had to get involved to negotiate the release of these senior Pakistan officials. To explain the significance of this incident to my jittery American friends, imagine if some Mexican militia abducted Governor Schwarzenegger and took him hostage inside a remote part of Mexico. If the Mexican government backed the militia, the US would probably flatten a lot of Mexico to get Arnold back. Pakistan government paid tens of millions of rupees to secure these officials’ release. And I should know, since I was the young bank officer in a Middle Eastern bank in Pakistan who stuffed Saudi Embassadors' briefcase with 1000 rupee notes!

As Pakistan’s utility for the West/US after the Afghan was apparently minimal, not only did the West ignore the problems on Pakistan’s West (Afghanistan), it didn’t even make a perfunctory effort to fix the problems in it’s East (Kashmir). In an ultimate insult, the US government imposed crippling sanctions on Pakistan, which was now was under the crushing burden of foreign debt and Afghan refugees. Mindful of India’s mighty army, a desperate Pakistan had coughed up a few billion dollars to buy F-16’s from the US. It had made the payment in advance, but the new sanctions blocked their sale. The US delivered neither the planes nor gave back the money. This money was partly returned much later during world-savvy Clinton years. But a lot of poison had already been spread among the populace in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s problems, to a very large degree are of its own making, and the result of unfortunate geopolitical development. But the West did much to poison the populace as well. And in return it expected the general citizenry to hold Western values of democracy and freedom dear to their heart (as they should). But given the lack of true commitment from the West, this is merely a pipe dream. Future of Pakistan lies in its own hands. But any survey that fails to point out these factors which were beyond this little resource-strapped country’s control, and the misadventures of the West, is bound to be disingenuous.

If your survey were merely an article in the passing, my reaction would have been much more subdued. But one would expect a more thought provoking analysis from a “Special Survey”.



WHAT IF THE WEST HAD EXACTLY ITS WAY:
Through the extremely unfortunate events of 9/11, the West got another chance to prove that it is serious about fixing the problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, its commitment started to wither away almost immediately after the successful removal of Taliban. How could the leaders of the most educated, developed, and resourceful countries be so naïve to assume that the mere removal of a hostile regime would fix the deep rooted problem of a country?

The West got a chance to do almost exactly what they wanted in Afghanistan after the Taliban’s removal. However, even their handpicked leader (who uses American body guards) has been able to do little to fix the country. Poppy cultivation is at all time high and the government controls little outside the main cities. Desperate to shift blame, it has been using Pakistan as a scapegoat for the militant “incursions”. Pakistan and Karzai’s government have to forget bitterness of the past and work toward a joint prosperous future. However, how can you move on when the government is staffed with anti-Taliban officials who always held Pakistan in derision? Political ill will, like tribal rivalries is hard to kill, and in many cases is only temporarily suspended. If the West with all it’s might could not fix the problems of Afghanistan (where it has a much freer hand and a much smaller country and population to deal with), would it not be unfair to assume that Pakistan’s government on its own would fix all the problems of the country?


ROME WAS DESTROYED IN 15-20 YEARS:
Pakistan’s destructive Islamic militancy was not built overnight. The virulent spread of madarssahs during the Afghan war started a bread of young extremist who grew up overtime to spread their poison far and wide. I remember that during my freshman year in Karachi I increasingly started noticing religious students with green bandanas. I learned these belonged to some upstart parochial group called “Sipah-e-Sahabah”. A product of Afghan war madrassahs, this group later on went on to bigger missions and rose to global infamy. The Afghan war and resultant militancy that started in late 70’s gave rise to Islamists who were kids or teenagers then, and full grown adults by the late 80’s. I literally watched these kids grow up and start vicious sectarian wars as there remained no Soviet Union to fight. Pakistan’s desperate attempt to contain a much-bigger India in the Kashmir region through these militants mostly backfired.

So what will reverse this tide of fundamentalism? Just the way modern day extremists were created over time rather than overnight, it will be a spread of modern education coupled with teachings of a tolerant Islam over the long term that will reverse the tide of fascist Islam. What is most incredible that the West and particularly the US has not shown much inclination to do so in any meaningful way. And it would have cost a tiny tiny fraction of what it has cost to invade and occupy Iraq, a country whose threat was tenuous at best. But then it is easy to sell a war to citizens of any country, be it a liberal democracy or a expansionist dictatorship, than it is to sell peace. Tell the citizens of Iowa that we need to spend two billion dollars to set up modern, tolerant school systems in Pakistan, and their immediate response would be “why not in our own country”, but tell them that there is a war going on and we need guns and they will be willing to spend a hundred times that much.

Tolerant and practical education is the most effective long term remedy for many of Pakistan’s ills. Yes, it will be difficult to implement, and yes, there will be money lost to corruption and/or incompetence. But you don’t stop watering a plant just because some water might spill out of the pot. It would have been wonderful if your article has focused on this long term solution, and appealed to the conscious as well practicality of the West to lend a much bigger helping hand. But then the West even failed to live up to it usually high standard of compassion even after the devastating earthquake that killed more than seventy five thousand people in Pakistan. At the end of the day, it was the army and the religious group, both vilified in your article, that saved many more from perishing.