Time to change course
Trade unions and labour unions are good starting points for re-asserting democratic rights of people. When people are empowered, economically and socially, they can easily be diverted from the extremist tendencies
There are some other persistent problems, which have resulted into religious dogmatism inside Pakistan. Internally, Pakistan is a very dysfunctional state in every sphere of its activity—political, economic and social. The political instability, economic bankruptcy and social anomie have been at the epicenter of this rising spectre of terrorism. Myopic foreign policies are now haunting us like wild ghosts in scary nights. I will focus on the massive social break down of our society and its contribution in the current wave of terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism and the government’s neglect of this significant issue at length. Recently the War on Terror has prompted the people from all the quarters to bring this issue into limelight. Every phenomenon has historical baggage behind; therefore, the spread of terrorist violence too has a heavy baggage of past blunders and current mistakes.
Terrorism is a plague long germinating. Its sources are multiple—sectarian, fundamentalist or extremism. A few are rooted in the Muslim people's fractious history, wounds which good governments did not open and the rotten ones did to the detriment of the 'community of believers'. The latest in the latter line were Mr. Z.A. Bhutto, a worldly politician, who sensed an opportunity of sorts in favourably entertaining sectarian demands to declare the Ahmedis a non-Muslim minority. His successor and tormentor General Mohammed Ziaul Haq went way beyond his patron-and-victim in sectarianizing this hapless country. To begin with, 'Islamization' was an open invitation to sectarianism. It is easy to see why.
The Islamic is an intensely political civilization marked by contestation over power struggles. While the believers share the premises of belief, since early Muslim history they have been divided over the issues of succession and law. When Islam is dragged explicitly into politics, in multi- denominational countries such as Pakistan, it is bound to arouse anxieties especially in the minority sects, enliven old differences and spawn sectarian hatred and violence. This is precisely what ensued following Zia's 'Islamization' agenda. The Tahrike Nifaze Fiqhe Jafariyya lodged its protests and staked its claims. Sunni extremists, enlivened by the promise of theocracy, reacted. Thus a framework for the renewal of sectarian confrontations was created. Unfortunately, both the domestic and external environment was favourable to its growth.
Three primary factors - uneven development in Pakistan, revolution in Iran, and strife in Afghanistan - contributed greatly to this climate of growth. I should mention the first two briefly in order to discuss at some length Pakistan's Afghan predicament. The most discernible change in Pakistan has occurred in its economy, which has grown since 1950 at around 5.5 percent annually. As a result, the system of production has been gradually shifting from rural to urban, agricultural to industrial. This change has been accompanied by the emergence of a working class and a new middle class. A corresponding change in the system of power has not occurred. It remains by and large under the control of the old elite drawn from the landed and urban upper class.
Lack of correspondence between a rapidly changing system of production and a relatively fixed system of power invariably yields social and political conflict and violence by the new classes and individuals seeking access to power. The conflict over resources often takes form of violence when it is provided political or religious context. Since the 1970s and the 1980s, the socio-political climate of Pakistan was steeped in ethnic, religious and authoritarian politics. It was also a period in which state and society were enmeshed in conflictual relationship. The result of that violence was associated with the eventual separation of East Pakistan, insurgency in Balochistan and rise of Ziaul Haq.
Hence, it yielded a harvest of ethnic and religious groupings. All these groups drew their cadres largely from new middle class elements; all were sectarian in outlook, and authoritarian in style and structure, and all viewed violence as a necessary instrument of attaining their objectives without engaging in constructive discourse or non-violent political action.
Iran's Islamic revolution and American and Arab opposition to it brought a bonanza to the religious political groupings. Iran's radicals were keen on promoting Islamic militancy especially among Shi'a the world over. Its opponents - the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq - were out to undermine Iran's influence. Thus began the battle for the Muslim soul, which inevitably became a contest of the body count. For obvious reasons, Pakistan became a primary battleground: it borders on Iran, it has a large Shi'a population and General Zia made it the center piece of U.S. sponsored Islamism, and it became the site of a lively jihad against communism. Naturally, this country became seeped in sectarian hatreds, guns, and drugs. And the very complex Islamic notion of jihad became identified with the cult of violence and its indiscriminate use throughout the state. It was an era of free-trade in Jihadis, guns and drugs.
Socialization of Talibanization has become widespread since Zia. Graduates of Pakistan's madaaris, owing their sponsorship and logistical lifeline to Pakistan, they were, and still, deeply linked to security establishment of Pakistan. In Afghanistan they unleashed hordes of fanatics in the name of Islam. At societal level, they are a state of mind and model of governance. They are a reality mirrored in the horrendous acts of terrorism. The days of visiting idyllic valleys in a hope to escape the sweltering heat of the summer have gone for good. Fear has gripped the whole region. These areas have become the cauldron of terrorism, militancy and, above all, an area to be used as ricocheting board for implementing a distorted and debased version of Islam, which will be emulated in the parts of the state.
The Taliban had appeared to be a good bet in 1994. They were young and raw, anti-Iran and welcome to many Afghans who had been suffering from scarcities and the violence of militias. Hence Washington nodded; American corporations like UNOCAL put in some money and promised bonanzas. Our elite had a Pahlovian reaction to American nods. So our Afghan operators became happy as clam. But the US is a democratic country where sacred cows are routinely de-sanctified, and policies change when mistakes are recognized. Washington did not any more back our Afghan illusions; nor did the Chinese, the British nor the Europeans. We were isolated in our support to them, but we refused to be cowed down and showed unshakable tenacity to remove support for the Talibans.
In recent times, the war on terror has annexed a new dimension to the problem of militancy in the already tattered state of Pakistan. Now there are suicide bombings coupled with the collapse of economy to the very detriment of the state and society. For six consecutive years, the managers of economy boasted that Pakistan had achieved the much-touted modernity and a constant rate of economic growth. It proved to be an economic hoax as economy is in serious trouble now. The conditions which boosted the macro-economic indicators are now dwindling—our support for the WoT. As the economy is in deep recession so is the social stability. It is drifting a large number of youth into the Penelope’s web of extremism. A large number of people are without job, without security of life. They are desperate for change—less political, more economic and social. Unaware of their own power, they are fed by the political rhetoric and electoral exercise twice in a decade or so. This has not worked and will not work in future. The top-to-down democratic model of power hierarchy is an illusion of democracy. It only deceives people to believe in change. Democracy of this model works only for those who keep the resources and modes of production in their own hands—feudal class, businessmen, media tycoons and big business consultants. The result: a polarized society, in the literal sense of the word. The apartheid map of Pakistan is visible: ghettos and slums have surrounded the palatial colonies of parasitic affluent class. English speaking class is out-maneuvering the product of local schools. They out-perform them at every level of competition marginalizing them to constricted and extremist tendencies. It is beyond argument that a polarized society is a hot-bed of multiple forms of vicious tendencies: delinquent culture, criminal syndicates, fundamentalism and terrorism.
This virulent trend, or more appropriately, regression points towards a harsh reality: Pakistan’s real security threats lie in its highly troubled economic model, social disorder, its ailing system of governance and its failed system of education from primary to higher level. These are in need of urgent and systematic attention, and any extra expenditure, which divert from it will decisively harm this country's internal security.
Political activism by the ordinary people can bring democracy from bottom-to-top hierarchy, which can bring democratic ethos in the means of production. Trade unions and labour unions are good starting points for re-asserting democratic rights of people. When people are empowered, economically and socially, they can easily be diverted from the extremist tendencies. This is what, Noam Chomsky called, anarcho-syndicalism. Pakistan has so far not reached that stage of economic development, where people can organize themselves to bring democracy in the means of production. But we are not far from it. As we see in recent years multi-national corporations swarmed inside to maximize profits.
On Islamization, any further dose of 'islamization' and 'Shariah' shall further divide this country, produce paradoxes in the structures and rules of governance, add harmfully to centralization of power, and contribute greatly to the loss of international support, which we need for reasons strategic no less than economic. Throughout the 1980s we remained embedded in using religion for economic gains at the behest of the U.S., but it resulted into economic deficit and social conflict. Reversal of this policy is, indeed, exigent no less than beneficial for our security. Majority in Pakistan think that Taliban, Pakistan army and the U.S. are intertwined for their own benefits. It seems to be bizarre at the moment. What we must know is that U.S. is a business society and war-based economy. It reaps a great deal of profit from war machinery and has, therefore, become the biggest merchant of death. Pakistan cannot afford war as a policy initiative as it will destabilize the whole region. Violence is not an instrument to settle crisis of state and society. Pakistan should learn this lesson from history.
On religious front there is a need to alter the dominant discourse of Islam. The government must try to change discourse of Islam from war to peace, from community to humanity, from exclusion to inclusion, from Jihad to Ijtihad, from destruction to construction, from stagnation to struggle, from radicalization to rationalization, from acrimony to harmony, from ignorance to knowledge, from negation to acceptance, from localism to globalism. It has to develop an attitude more prospective than retrospective, more futuristic than nostalgic.
In this murky situation, there is a need of a firm and well thought out policy to disarm such groups and bring them under control. It is quite mind-boggling that Pakistan’s professional military does not yet seem to have realised the very serious threat that this situation poses to itself as well as to the State and society as a whole. If such policies persist, Pakistan will continue to stagger towards an uncertain future with contradictory state policies.
![]() |
Hammad Raza works as Project Report Writer with Center for Research and Innovation UK. He holds a M.Sc degree in International Relation. He has worked as Coordinator to the VC of the University of Gujrat. |





Comments
Moreover, having gone through a recent very bloody/costly war and numerous other injustices suffered during their exitence as 'East Pakistanis' no political or military leader or party in Bangladesh can dare to turn back the clock.
It is no secret that most if not all (West) Pakistani military and political leaders as well as many ordinary folks did not consider their fellow East Pakistanis as ' true Muslims' and hence equal citizens of undivided Pakistan.
Since, unlike Bengali, Urdu is written in Persian/Arabic alphabets, it is much easier for literate Pakistanis to read ( but not necessarily understand ) the Holy Quran.
This Quran reading ability gave West
Pakistanis a very false and absurd sense of
religious superiority over those from East Pakistan.
Another big blunder made by the Pakistani riligious elite was to embrace tightly all Islamic practices/rituals a designed/invented by Arab religious scholars bsed in Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus and Jeddah.
This Arab-minted version of Islam or Shariah Law is totally wrapped in the pre-Islamic primitive Arab tribal culture.
Undoubtedly, it is not suitable for non-Arabic speaking Muslims especially those living in muticultural societies such as India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc.
It is a fact that Islam came to the Indian sub-continent along with non-Arab people of Central Asia several centuries ago.
However, by allowing unrestricted infiltration of Saudi version of very rigid and violent version of Islam, Pakiststani leaders such as late ZAB and General Zia-ul-Haq hava turned Pakistan into a safe heaven for Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists.
In my humble opinion, the best way to ensure
the survival of Pakistan as a viable and progressive state is that:
1. It must be turned into " secular"
democratic state;
2. Resolve Kashmir issue through peaceful
means prefferably by accepting the
current or slightly modified geographical
boundaries;
3. Then a non-agression treaty with India
should be signed;
4. A 'free-trade agrrement and other
measures to ensure easy movements
of various goods and services should
be agreed to;
5. The entire border between the two
countries should be demilitarized
as is the case between Canada and the
US. This should facilitate easy movement
of people from both sides across the
border.
Hopefully,once people of both countries start experiencing socio-economic benefits resulting from such arrangements, a confederation between the two countries may then be negotiated by the two elected governments.
In loose alliance you will be able to safeguard your independence. In this context I am reproducing my article written to my friend on internet.
Confederation with India or Bangladesh
I agree with the author’s assertion that “If Germany can express its regrets over the Holocaust and international figure like Willy Brandt can kneel down before Poland then why can’t Pakistan admit its mistake and apologize to Bangladeshi people”.
But the stink of intention of the author to write this lengthy essay seems to me that he ardently desires to form a federation with Bangladesh which is neither advisable nor pragmatic in the scenario of the present world. The cause of separation of Bangladesh referred to above is not more potential than the causes inherent from the very birth of Pakistan. Please find it from the resolution of Pakistan 1940, which reads:
“ No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”
Keeping in views the importance of the distance between the two federating units of Pakistan and Bangladesh, cultural and linguistic differences of the existing realities confederation will remain always vulnerable to all sorts of windstorms.
But some of the zealous members of Muslim League could not understand the ground realities and desired one state, and passed a revolution in Dheli amending the previous one, and this remained inherent flaw in the constitutional set up of the country.
It is my considered opinion that the confederation with India is more advisable and beneficial from many points of views. In the matter of advisability and feasibility of my suggestion, I reproduce my article for readers and request their candid comments on it to enhance my awareness on the subject.
Confederation of Pakistan and Bangladesh/or confederation of Pakistan and India.
One of the intellectuals of my internet friends has suggested confederation of Bangladesh and Pakistan to make both the countries to progress and get a high position in the comity of nations. According to him, this is the best recipe for strengthening and progressing of both the countries.
Some of our intellectuals are too poetic to see the ground realities. I think some people met uncle Ghalib. Assessing their desires and longings of the visitors he read out to them this couplet:-
[Space for the verse]
754 p
hazaron kh[v]ahishen aisi kih hark h[v]ahis pe dam nikle
bahut nikle mere arman lekein phir bhi kam nikle
[A thousand such desires that upon each one I would rather die,
Though many of my longings were fulfilled, many so remained.]
Let us see impartially the probabilities of confederation in the vision of the following facts and figures and come to the conclusion whether this suggestion of confederation of Pakistan and Bangladesh is workable or a mere flight of a crazy man with a burning desire to see a larger Islamic State in the world.
A nation may be defined as a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
[a] According to the above definition of a nation, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis cannot be a nation because we have different language, culture and different boundaries of territories.
State has four components.
[1] Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries.
[2] Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
[3] Has a government which provides public services and police power.
[4] Has sovereignty. No other state should have power over the country’s territory.
There is no commonality of territories which is essential to unite a nation. This has already proved in the 1971 war.
In Pakistan we do no have sovereignty because in a considerable area of the country the writ of the government has been challenged. Moreover most of the articles of the constitution are not working in the area which is called Azad territory. They have their own laws to regulate the affairs of the inhabitants.
The other most antagonist attitudes to the sovereignty of the country is that a considerable part of our annual budget of the year owes its existence on the charities and loans from the foreign countries. For this purpose we have to pledge our sovereignty with the donors and lenders. It suggests that heavy loans which have become an essential part of our budget for a long time entails a compromise with the sovereignty of the country. The proof of this is that we cannot go ahead with our programme designed and tailored for the welfare of the people. This is chiefly because of the tragic fact that our elite do not pay income tax etc, and the government from head to the toe is buried in corruption. We due apology, I am impelled to conclude that consciously or unconsciously the author of the article wants to drag the peaceful nation of Bangladesh into the mire in which we are sinking day in day out because of the corruption and misgovern ace of the government.
Confederation may be defined as an organization that consists of a number of parties or groups united in an alliance or league. A more or less permanent union of countries with some or most political power vested in a centre authority.
Confederation is a loose alliance between two or more countries for some purpose. Traditionally Foreign policy, defense and currency are the subjects of the federal government and the rest of the subjects rest with the confederating units. The residual legislating authority usually also rests with the confederating units. In such alliance the culture, all kinds of faiths and other such inherit- age are guaranteed and secured.
In the present political, social and economic scenario it is more advisable and beneficial to make such alliance with India,
{a} to get rid of a war which is a Damocles’ sword over the two countries.
{b} To break the backbone of creeds mafia.
{c} In stead of wasting resources to nourish and flourish revenge and enmity among the 1/4the mankind, there would be singing of mantras of love, brotherhood and peace.
{d} A chunk of national revenue is spent on defense and to mitigate the influence of India which is considered the first enemy of Pakistan. By saving a large amount we can exploit it in the furtherance of education and civic amenities. On the contrary we cannot obtain deliverance from the strong shackles of conservatism imposed by the coward political leaders of the country by surrendering to a small section of society
The paramount and wholesome impact of the confederation with India is to redeem the conceited strategy of adventurism as expressed in the following catchphrases.
[2] The defense of ideology.
[2] The invincible defense of Pakistan.
[3] Pakistan a fort of Islam
In light of the facts and figures the wish of federation/confederation with Bangladesh is a poetic thought and should remain so to please the conservatives of the both countries. The slogans that we are Uncles of Islam, have to be abandon for the progress of the country. We should make our country secular to accelerate the speed of progress. Only secularism makes the country a welfare state. Secular state means a state which guarantees religious freedom to every citizen and which, without distinction of religious or race, endeavours to promote the advancement and welfare of all its citizen.
m. a. butt
Pakistan seems to be the only country where there is:
- NO clear center of power;
- NO accountability for those who constantly
abuse'power' or position.
- The society at all levels is itself
practicing but also suffering horribly
from the worst kinds of corruption.
- Organized religion ' Islam" is modelled,
controlled and directed by foreign sources
having vested interests of their own and
NOT those of the Pakistani nation.
The source of deadly and rapidly expanding
sectarian wars being fought even during
the Holy month of Ramadan in Syria, Iraq,
Bahrain, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. etc.
are the DIRECT result of ravalaries among
Saudis, Qataries, Kuwaities etc. on one
side and Shia regimes of Iran, Iraq and
Syria on the other.
- Key Pak government sectors and institutions
have been and continue to be at bltter
and often bloody wars with each other.
For instance:
1. The ongoing struggle among the judicial
and executive branch of the Pakistani
government.
2. The Pakistani Army remains at constant
war with its own people but has failed
to win any decisive victory with its
so-called 'most dangerous adversary'
India.
3. Whereas top military and political leaders
keep on worrying about the 'soveregnity'
of Pakistan, they have no trouble giving
away their air space and land use by the
US and any one else who can write a big
cheque such as oil rich Gulf Arabs.
The best way for Pakistan to get out of this mess is to follow Turkey's path to SECULAR DEMOCRACY'.
The trouble is that Turks were fortunate to have legendary Kemal Ataturk who came forward to save his nation. The question is how can it be done in case of Pakistan and who can do it?