October 27, 2011
Pakistan Aslant: the two-hour version
Christopher Lydon at Radio Open Source:
Here’s the short form, as we say: nearly a month of strong conversation in Pakistan this past summer, distilled to two radio hours.
Both hours are illuminating the judgment that (1) Pakistan is not about to destroy itself, much less go away and (2) that Pakistan’s mutually-abusive marriage with the United States is not about to end, either. When our Pentagon accuses the Pakistan’s army intelligence of targeting American troops, and when Secretary of State Clinton says we’re not going to take it anymore, count on it that the Pakistan story is with us for a while. But what’s the history unfolding here? How did it come to this? What do Pakistanis say?
What I didn’t know, going in, was the deep old under-layer of tribulation in Pakistan. I wasn’t prepared for the edgy energy of Pakistan either, the confidence of tough people, and much beauty, too. Among the contradictory truths that we Americans barely know about Pakistan are (1) that it’s a cultural powerhouse (in poetry, fiction, and especially music) in South Asia and beyond; (2) it’s been a resentful and prickly junior partner in our US-sponsored proxy wars for thirty-plus years — first (embracing terrorism) against the Soviets and later against the terrorist groups and ideologies we promoted; (3) the troubles of Pakistan can be (and in conversation often are) traced back before the Cold War and the Islamic revolution to the moment of birth in 1947, the Partition of British India that created two unequal sibling rivals in 1947; and (4) that thoughtful Pakistanis talk not only of the rising trend of estrangement from the US but also of a convergent trend toward inequality and the over-reach of elites in both countries.
Listen to the excellent programs here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 01:48 PM | Permalink
Comments
Wow!
Loved the partition story, Salman Rashid - Mahindar Partaab. Your segment caused sweet pain that one feel when listening to Heer-Waris Shah.
Posted by: Tehseen | Oct 27, 2011 3:07:21 PM
I wonder why, when people are trying to be sympathetic to Pakistan, they first start by saying "its not going anywhere soon"? Who exactly thinks its going away somewhere? and where would it go? That sounds like a straw man to me...an unnecessary positioning of oneself as the "good analyst" who doesnt think they are dead...when in fact, most people who are NOT sympathetic also dont think its going anywhere.
Posted by: omar | Oct 27, 2011 3:49:29 PM
The part with Salman Rashid is profoundly powerful and human. Great series, didn't know about it, wonderful post.
Posted by: Shahzad | Oct 27, 2011 4:29:25 PM
Being a materialist, I'm not so sure.
Population overshoot, ecological destruction, a food system based on industrial ag and energy dependent, religious fundamentalism and illiteracy, and military control, to name a few issues.
Culture is great, but thermodynamics and energy couldn't care less.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 28, 2011 1:53:27 AM
Omar, as someone who has lost all patience with Pakistan (the Mumbai killings and the lack of any meaningful response was the last straw), I do think that its contradictions will soon tear it up from within. It happened with East Pakistan, and if the Punjabi military doesn't change its terror-loving ways, it will get consumed by the very tiger that it rides.
Pakistan's only hope to avoid disintegration isn't from feel-good sympathetic culture-vultures from the West who are adept at stroking its elite's ego. It is from young rebels from within who dare to bravely state that the emperor (General) has no clothes. It only takes a spark - like how the beating death of a blogger in the hands of the police led to the overthrow of the Pharaoh and discredited his military machine in Egypt - and this defiant video raises a tiny ember of hope that some young Pakistanis may finally be seeing through the barrage of lies that the military-media complex spoon feeds them with from birth.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/18/enjoying-aaloo-andey-with-the-people.html
Posted by: Sam | Oct 28, 2011 4:34:30 AM
@Sam
Describing Chris Lydon as a feel good sympathetic culture vulture is pretty low. His interviews were balanced and very interesting and to your dismay probably,had no hidden agenda behind them in my opinion. He interviewed a variety of people, maybe you should listen to the whole series first.
Posted by: Shahzad | Oct 28, 2011 10:17:05 AM
For my money, there is no other interviewer in the states who covers a similar range of subject matter, at such depths, and with as much artfulness and passion as Chris Lydon. He's a national treasure! Everyone should treat themselves to a few of his interviews at Radio Open Source (http://www.radioopensource.org/).
Posted by: Bryon | Oct 28, 2011 4:50:01 PM
@Sam: I think partition was a horrendous mistake (or an evil act..mistake is less judgmental, so maybe too mild a term) but with the second partition, Pakistan is now a viable geographic entity in itself. Because of various reasons, its also likely to remain one entity…partly, in my view, due to the fact that subnationalities, neighbors and interested faraway powers will never be able to agree on how to carve it up and everyone is afraid of the chaos that may follow, so everyone works hard to keep it in one piece..for now.
I also think its survival will become more pleasant if the border with India becomes a softer border, with mutual peaceful trade and travel, but most paknationalists and many Indian nationalists disagree.
About identity, I think a certain Pakistani identity is taking hold and will eventually become real enough, but I also think that the version of this identity currently promoted in Pakistan by the deep state (I am not referring to various versions any of us may hold on our own or in our small liberal/Gucci/westoxicated groups) is dangerous, is incompatible with peace in the region, and is an invitation to various parties (including relatively powerful ones like the USA and NATO) to try and pressurize or even undermine Pakistan because it is so genuinely dangerous and threatening. So I think that this paknationalism (you can see it in full flower at websites linked to the Pak army, like paknationalists.com or rupeenews.com) is going to have to be given up…one way or the other. With “one way” being less painful than “the other”. Thats a sort of summary of my views.
But I think whatever our opinion about its desirability, its survival is still more likely than its demise…I think you are underestimating the real links that hold it together...and the real (and well justified) fear of even its "enemies" that a collapse may be worse than the current headache. Of course, I could be wrong.
Posted by: omar | Oct 28, 2011 6:03:48 PM
Omar, the partition, while immensely tragic and needlessly bloody, was probably one of the key factors that allowed India to succeed even as Pakistan failed. One of the more perceptive (and wickedly funny) bloggers from Pakistan, Major Bearls Oph Wisdom, recently posted his analysis of Pakistan's seemingly irrational actions in Afghanistan and the possible consequences that make far more sense than anything written by C. Christine Fair and other S. Asia pundits who do this for a living. http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/pakistan-and-indonesia-are-different-countries/
Posted by: Sam | Oct 29, 2011 4:14:46 AM
Sam, saying that Partition was one of the key factors that allowed India to succeed while Pakistan failed ignores the fact that had Partition not happened, there would have been no "Pakistan" to fail and the past 60 years would have been very different. I do not believe that a United India would have cooperated with the US to use radical Islam to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Also, had Partition not occurred there would have been no Kashmir conflict. Third, both countries would not have had to spend so much of their budgets on defense and on their mutual arms race. Certainly, they wouldn't have had to develop nuclear weapons to use against each other.
Much of Pakistan's problems can be traced to the fact that it's identity is based on being the "anti-India". If there had been no Partition than this dynamic would not have been created. I only wish that our political leaders had found some compromise to address Muslim fears of being dominated by Hindus in a post-British India. Every time that Gandhi and Jinnah were close to achieving some sort of middle ground that compromise was scuttled by the Hindu Mahasaba and similar extremists on the Muslim side.
I think it is definitely a mistake to imagine that a United India would have failed while Partition allowed India to succeed.
Posted by: Kabir | Oct 29, 2011 2:07:57 PM
about Pakistan's "charter state", I think Razib Khan was right when he claimed that the Delhi Sultanate was the charter state of modern Pakistan (and Gupta India of modern India). I added a comment to that which I reproduce below (the original link and discussion is at (http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/07/02/two-south-asian-charter-polities/).
so, my comment: I agree about the Delhi Sultanate setting the basis for a particular Indo-Muslim polity that was IN India (and slowly becoming more and more “Indian”) but that continued to have a certain outsider identity.
Of course, once you say something like this, everyone from Hindu nationalists to Muslim separatists is ready to jump on you, but I also think that British India very decisively created a new, modern India and partition, which was many confused things to many people, but which (as editor rupee news will be the first to tell us) was definitely a continuation of that Indo-Muslim polity to SOME people, has not created and CANNOT IN THE FUTURE replicate, that Indo-Muslim state again.
Of the two charters, the first, with a very decisive British overlay, will survive as modern India. The second is now dead though some people dont know it yet (saying this, I feel like Zarthushtra when he came down that mountain, so there).
Anyway, back to my favorite bugbear: About the last point, I believe (and this is, I know, a minority belief at this time) that the crucial fact about Pakistan is that it is an exceptionally superficial and incoherent idea (and does not sufficiently intersect geographically, culturally or historically with the Delhi Sultanate). It also appeals back to an imaginary Islam that never existed and an actual Islam that failed to evolve beyond its medieval form. So it will eventually have to give up significant elements of its confused identity and the various confused efforts to bring it closer to some dream (about which its elite cannot even agree among themselves). It may then become more like, say, Gabon: a potentially functional country, contiguous and economically and politically integrated country, but one whose Gabonese identity is known to be an accident of history and little more, and then everyone carries on as so many other countries do…thats a hard thing to accept for most Pakistanis (and some Englishmen) but its fate and you cannot escape your fate...
Further comments on that link clarify some of my notions and add others..
Posted by: omar | Oct 29, 2011 2:54:41 PM
Post a comment