Omar Ali
Pakistan is in the throes of an existential crisis.
Pakistan has always been in the throes of an existential crisis.
Pakistan’s interminable existential crisis is, in fact, getting to be a
bore. But while faraway peoples can indeed get away from this topic
and on to something more interesting, Pakistanis have little choice in
this matter; and it may be that neither do Indians.
The partition of British India was different things to different people, but we can all agree on some things: it was a confused mess, it was accompanied by remarkable violence and viciousness, and it has led to endless trouble. The Paknationalist narrative built on that foundation has Jihadized the Pakistani state, and defanging that myth is now the most critical historic task of the Pakistani bourgeoisie.
Well, OK. We don’t actually all admit any of those things, but all those are things I have written in the past. Today I hope to shed my inhibitions and go further.
First, the crisis.
Some friends think I am being unnecessarily alarmist and the only
crisis is the presence of American infidels/imperialists in the region.
Let America leave and all will be well. Others believe that if the
army had a “free hand”, they would have things under control within
days. Let us dispense with both theories. The crisis is not primarily
American generated (though they have a long and glorious history of
feeding dollars to the crisis) and no one is in complete control. The
existing corruption-ridden state is a British colonial creation
struggling to get by alongside an unstable mix of Islamist ideology
and a very shallow and self-contradictory foundational myth. Even
though the karma of the Raj is potent stuff, it will not last forever
against these forces. When it goes, the next step will not be the dawn
of Chomskyan enlightened anarchy or democratic socialism; it will
either be Salafist Islam or the dissolution of the state. Dissolution
being physically and diplomatically difficult (who will handle the
scramble over borders that would follow?), Salafist Islam administered
by the army (perhaps with a charismatic cricketer as its public face) is the likely option.
Unfortunately, it is not likely to work very well. In fact, it is
incapable of sustaining even the bare minimum of modern statehood.
Unlike Iranian Islam (which is literate, modern and sophisticated
compared to Salafist fantasies) there is no there there. A militarized
salafist Pakistan may hold together a few years in the name of war
against the infidels, but after the war (and who wants a war that could
go nuclear?) we are left with little more than the vague notion of a
rightly guided caliph, the whipping of uppity women and the accelerated
cleansing of undesirable smaller sects. After all, if you have a
religious state, then you cannot have ten different interpretations of
religion (not to speak of ten different religions). Which vision is in
charge has to be clear. The state must enforce religious uniformity or
become secular. There is no third option. One can see this principle
in operation in Pakistan ever since General Zia started Islamizing in
earnest. Ahmedis were already beyond the pale,
but Shias, a sect that provided the founder of Pakistan and were an
integral part of Pakistan, now face the prospect of second class
citizenship or worse.
If you happen to believe in the Salafist project you may find this a
desirable endpoint, but everyone else will want to stop this process
and reverse it if possible.
To stop short of that particular landing, we have to repair what we
have. What we have is very confused and the current “approved”
mythology of Partition and an Islamic state serves to increase
confusion and undermines what exists. That approved mythology
therefore has to be set aside or defanged. This does not mean there
are no other problems. There are tons of other problems, and many of
them are bigger than salafist Islam in a worldwide context. But those
problems are common to the whole region. They are common to the third
world. They are even common to the rich countries. They are problems
of power arrangements, of unbridled capitalism, of environmental
degradation, of individual alienation and so on. They are, in short,
problems of where humankind is in the 21st century. There
are many different approaches to these problems and many different
solutions, precisely because we have not yet solved them. But there
are other problems that were identified and solved centuries ago. For
example, we moved on from the divine right of kings, the segregation
of women, even the revolutionary vanguard and national socialism. The
notion that we can have a religious state but somehow bypass the known
problems of the religious state is not tenable. But a salafist coup
will be just that. The world has moved on, we will have to move on
too.
While this explains why Pakistanis need to worry, what about Indians?
With enough problems of their own, why should they care two hoots
about all this? I think they will have to care because there are clear
limits to how far Indians can downgrade the importance of whatever
craziness is going down in Pakistan. IF we go down, we will take a
lot of people down with us. India is not protected from the fallout by
two oceans or even the high Himalayas. If Pakistan crashes down to
Taliban level, India will have to scramble to avoid the fallout and
given the realities of geography and the capabilities of the Indian
state, that is not a job they can do very well.
There is also a second reason why Indians should worry a little about
what happens in Pakistan. India itself is a work in progress. Its
integration of British India, modern democratic forms and the ancient
but scientifically underdeveloped and culturally heterogeneous
civilization of India is not a done deal. It is easy for commentators
to “discover” that India on the ground is not as different from Pakistan
as Indians may wish it to be. I am aware that there are differences
and they are real; the stated ideal is superior, the historic basis is
sounder, the religious landscape is too heterogeneous to even imagine
monocultural purity, the dominant religion is Hinduism and so on; but
the existing reality of everyday life is still very far from the
ideal. While neither economic development nor democratic rule nor
national integration are in imminent danger, none of these are out of
the woods. If Pakistan heads for salafist Islam, India will face not
only terrorist attacks or overt hostility, it will find its own
problems and weak spots revealed and exploited at a time when it needs to pretend it has moved beyond them in order to actually move beyond them.
The rational choice therefore is for India to help prevent such an
outcome. And luckily, there is much that India can do in that
direction. Trade with India has the potential to transform the economy
of Punjab and beyond. Transit to Afghanistan and central Asia will
double that dividend. And travel and cultural exchange with India
undermine the entire paknationalist narrative (which is why Hafiz Saeed
and other Jihadist leaders have been launched to try and stop any such
initiatives). While it would be a mistake to get carried away with
the possibilities it would also be a mistake to miss opportunities
just because the Indian-nationalist narrative emphasizes the
differences.
This sort of argument is very infuriating to some Indians (it also
makes Paknationalists go ballistic, but I lost that constituency at
paragraph two). To be asked to help not because we are fellow human
beings or long lost brothers (we already have that group of
Indians lighting candles at Wagah border every year and I love them for
it) but because if we really truly catch fire we could set the whole
neighbourhood aflame? It sounds almost like blackmail. “Internet Hindus”
will obviously want no part of this, but even mainstream analysts can
be sceptical; but dear think-tankers, think about it. Trade, travel
and cultural exchange with India are the least expensive and most
“high-return” means of saving Pakistan from a salafist catastrophe.
Realpolitik, not sentimental humanism (I personally approve of
sentimental humanism, but that is a separate matter) suggests that India
actively take steps to prevent Pakistan from going down to the next
level. Realpolitik also suggests that it is still possible. Pakistan is
not the basket case it is sometimes projected to be; it is a fertile
land with hardworking, enterprising people; a large economy with real
possibilities of trade and investment; its ancient Indic cultures and
shared Indic languages are still alive and provide a basis for deep
interaction. India can open channels to help an alternative national
myth to take root and survive in Pakistan even as it takes precautions
to wall off harmful trends. Without some deft assistance (and
precautionary walling off, the two contradictory trends will have to go
together; it is crucial to know which approach is needed where) the
“good” side is more likely to go down.
The other big player is, of course, Uncle Sam. But that will have to
be the topic of another article. Paknationalists had also set their hopes on Uncle Chin, but that may be wishful thinking.
