- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
May 5, 2009
Pakistan’s Future Continues to Hang in the Balance
There is no consensus about the future of Pakistan among Pakistan experts (scholars and previous diplomats), Pakistani government spokesmen, or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Optimists believe that despite the encroachment of the Taliban, lopping off town after town, the Pakistani military can take those areas back. Pessimists note that while it is true that the army could smash the fanatics, they see no evidence that it will. Although the modern secular population of Pakistan is alarmed by the prospect of a Taliban Pakistan, they don’t seem to have the will to fight, but the Taliban does.
The imminent collapse of Pakistan did not drop out of the clouds; it has a long history, starting with the country’s beginnings. When the British were negotiating a peaceful turnover of colonial rule to the handful of India’s revolutionary leadership (led by Jawaharlal Nehru, a secular Indian nationalist), another member of the leadership, Mohammad Ali Jinna, a secular Indian of Muslim background, insisted on partition so that a new Muslim state could be created. His motivation for this was ostensibly fear that with the British gone, Hindus would persecute Muslims. The real reason, I suspect, was that he wanted power – and what more delicious power can there be than to be father of a new country?
The partition was a horror of violence with populations fleeing from Muslim to Hindu regions and vice versa.
It is interesting to note that India, Pakistan (divided into East and West Pakistan) and Israel were all born the same year. Of the three, Israel is the only one that succeeded in producing a modern state with a modern economy and an entirely literate population. India has had a much more difficult time, being a much larger, much more populous, and much more backward, but it now making up for lost time. Their government is still secular, and its large, clumsy democracy still functions – and is showing signs of improvement. The biggest remaining problem for them is the feudal nature of rural India – with a population desperately poor and appallingly ignorant.
But Pakistan, from its very inception, could not have worked. The fact that the population was Muslim was not enough to make a country. Its provinces are feudal, tribal, and have little in common with the relatively small secular elite governing the country. First, East Pakistan fought a war to get out from under the nasty governance of West Pakistan – and became Bangladesh. Now the western tribal areas, feudal and anarchistic, are in the process of removing themselves from Pakistan (or threatening to take over the whole country themselves). One fanatical leader warned: “today Swat, tomorrow Pakistan, and then the rest of the world.” Of course this is silly, but chilling to secular Pakistanis.
Another province is on the verge of rebellion – Baluchistan in the south, is developing an important port on the Indian Ocean (with Chinese money). The Baluchis are a tribe that spills over into Iran and Afghanistan, and were until now one of the most backward and feudal of the region’s tribes. They are about to get some wealth from that port – and they want to keep it. They hate Pakistan and will probably agitate to create their own state.
The Pakistan government has wasted a half-century in paranoid fear of India; they have spent their money on repression, no public education system at all, and a judiciary that functions like that of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House. The result is that they have little to show for their independence, except for a small, English-speaking, secular elite. Their modern army has a secular elite officer corps, but increasingly, the recruits are coming from the uneducated sector that is being radicalized by militant Islam. This happened in Iran, and the Shah’s army was not able to maintain control over its recruits.
If I were part of that secular elite, I would petition India to let me (and my nukes) back in. India should never have been partitioned in the first place.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is an historian, lecturer, and author who also writes for the Santa Cruz Sentinel. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or http://www.globalthink.net/.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
