Prof.Rattan Lal Hangloo
As a nation Pakistan is confronted with the logical and orthodox contradictions. This maligns the idealism that is supposed to be Islamic State’s special attribute. But while politicizing Islam for the nation building activity Pakistani leaders are neither able to uphold the secular nor sacred. On one side Pakistan has been trying to regulate (though with occasional restraint) the growth of orthodox enthusiasm of Ulema and Jihad’s for true vision of Islamic state and on the other hand the State is unable to run the affairs with out Western standards of governance. Today it is in this inappropriate balancing of religion and politics that Pakistan is caught up with.
Now this contradiction seems to have become very mature and the grip of orthodox elements over the state has come more than half way through. At this juncture Pakistan can neither proceed forward to strengthen her democracy nor does it want to give in fully to orthodox elements whose linkages are very strong even at international level.
The variety of terrorisms that grew in Pakistan were also facilitated and patronized by the countries dictators and the so called democrats in connivance with the West and America. Be it her troubled relationship with India on the pretext of Kashmir question or the assistance rendered to United States during the Cold War -the countries institutions have followed a serious neglect. Her politicians have deliberately allowed the appropriation of their polity by Western Powers. It is the consequences of this appropriation that has brought the people of Pakistan face to face with the truth of unrestrained radical religious enthusiasm. The zeal for this may not be uniform among the majority classes of Pakistani society but it does uniformly impact majority of people in Pakistan.
Despite the bitterness and strain that dominated Congress and Muslim league relationship on the eve of partition Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, said on 11th August1947 that our object should be peace within and peace without, we want to live peacefully and have cordial and friendly relations with our immediate neighbours and with the world at large. It is of vital importance to Pakistan and India as independent sovereign states to collaborate in a friendly way, jointly to defend their frontiers both on land and sea against aggression. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed-that has nothing to do with business of state. We are starting with this fundamental principal that we are all citizens and equal citizens of state now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in religious sense, because that is personal faith of each individual but in political sense as citizens of state.Obviously Jinnah was not aware of the turns and twists that the politics of Pakistan was going to take after his death.
As a nation Pakistan was carved out on religious basis but religion as the basis of political ideology did not gel well with the practical functioning of politics within and out side the country. From the very beginning the Pakistani politicians always starved for a viable political ideology. They always depend on politicization of Islam and promotion of orthodoxy for evolving the integral personality as a nation and for legitimizing their position in international politics. As a result the politicians of Pakistan continuously struggled between the options of dictatorship and democracy and in the process they could neither strengthen their nationhood nor serve Islam.
Basically when Pakistan came into existence Islam was the most forceful factor for Politico-cultural revival at play in the world and it provided a completely different political and global vision from that offered by the globally dominant West and unfortunately Pakistani politicians were swayed by the tendency to patronize the politicization of Islam for their legitimacy. Humayun Khan very rightly observes that Pakistan’s ruling elite in those days saw themselves as masters, or to put it more kindly, guardians of the masses in succession to the British……..In comparison, Pakistan’s political leaders, unlike those in India, were not a product of a sustained freedom struggle, they lacked ability and in strictest sense, their credentials as representatives of people were, if not suspect at least out dated. Many of them had jumped on the Pakistani bandwagon rather late in the day and few of them understood the intricacies of statecraft in an independent country.
Ignoring the fate of her citizens at that critical hour when communal carnage and partition had left millions in distress, Pakistan not only articulated the liberation of Kashmirees because of co-religionism in the neighborhood but the Muslim lands in Africa and the independence of Indonesia. Pakistan lent a great support for nationalization of oil resources by Iran and to the Egyptian struggle for withdrawal of British troops by sending twenty thousand volunteers to Egypt.4Pakistan convened a world Muslim conference in feberuary1949 with the idea of reinforcing the spirit of Islamic brotherhood umma among the Muslim countries of the world and there was nothing wrong in doing it. But when Pakistan gave the idea of Islamistan based on economic and security alliance embracing all the Muslim countries and hosted conference devoted to international Islamic economic issues in 1949. As if it was not enough, Pakistan presented the idea of formation of Islamic bloc in the second Motemar-i-Almi-Islamic conference in 1951. This strategy of Pakistan was not digested by Arab leaders who saw British and American hand behind this scheme. They felt that the West was working out alternative to Arab league.
When such a forceful and extensive Islamic revival was being carried out by Pakistan abroad, the Muslim countries like Egypt began to doubt the very credentials of Pakistan as facilitator of Islamisation. Liaquat Ali Khan the then prime minister of Pakistan and the chief architect of this Islamisation demagoguery in the Muslim world was assassinated in1951. There after the whole political scenario changed speedy. Not only was her foreign policy viewed with suspicion by the West and America but even the Islamic countries showed disaffection for the kind of political attitude that Pakistan had adopted. Herbert Feldman very rightly remarks that Pakistan as a Muslim country had reasons enough for pursuing pro-Arab policy. The difficulty does not lie in reasons, but in the execution, which is marked by overemphasis on Islam that has proved injurious to Pakistan and irritated others.
At home her programme for national integration and reconstruction also suffered immensely because of her dependence on Islam as the ideology of nationalism. The domestic situation of Pakistan during this period has been summed up very appropriately by none other than her first President Major General Iskander Mirza in his 1400 word proclamation issued on 7th October 1957 where in he stated, “For the last two years I have been watching a ruthless struggle for power, corruption and shameful exploitation of simple, honest, patriotic and industrious masses, the lack of decorum and the prostitution of Islam for political ends.……Adventurers and exploiters have flourished to the detriment of the masses and are getting richer by their nefarious practices….My appraisal of internal situation has led me to believe that a vast majority of people no longer have any confidence in the present system of government and are getting more and more disillusioned and disappointed and are becoming dangerously resentful of the manner in which they have been exploited.”
By this time the cold war had already set in. The Soviets were cautiously trying to gage the mood of Pakistan. On June 8th 1949 the Soviet Ambassador to Iran formally extended the invitation to Liaquat Ali Khan through Pakistani Ambassador. A Soviet Trade mission also visited Pakistan. But before these negotiations and visits could crystallize any basis for future relationship, the West and America perceived the Islamic assertiveness as a serious threat.. Soon they (British and Americans) discovered that the growing radicalization Islamic orthodoxy could be used for promotion and perpetuation of their hegemony and for countering the ideology and ambitions of communist bloc among oil rich nations. In such circumstances Pakistan appeared to be the most appropriate and strategic out post for assisting Americans in their cold war against Soviet Union in South Asia. Being a superpower, America always twisted societies, economies polities and ideologies in order to ensure her strength in the world and Pakistan became the perpetual victim of their policy.
Pakistan’s last hopes for Muslim support petered out about 1952, the same year that saw the election of a Republican administration in Washington (USA) that was anxious to complete the containment ring around China and Soviet Union. With the unwillingness of India to cooperate, an alliance with Pakistan seemed to be an ideal match. It was as a result of this that Pakistan’s dependence on the West became inevitable particularly United States and United Kingdom. This alignment found expression in CENTO SEATO treaty groups. It all started from 1953 when Ghulam Mohammad visited United States of America and rumours of Treaty of Mutual Defense taking place became public until then Pakistan pursued no affiliations even if there was a pro-West and anti- communist world view. Before 1953 Pakistan accepted point four aid which US President Truman had instituted within the frame work of Atlantic charter and aid through Colombo plan. It was during the Governor Generalship of Ghulam Mohammad that the domination of the Western diplomacy (USA and United Kingdom) in Pakistan’s affairs came more than half way through. From then onwards Pakistan’s foreign policy was always predominantly tutored by United States for her own interests and Pakistan is now paying the price for the aid and the military equipment that it got from United States from time to time in return for assistance in the cold war.
For controlling Pakistan’s foreign policy the worst thing that Americans did was to bolster the prominence of a foreign threat particularly from India 13Initially even though President Ayub Khan had stressed friendly relations with her neighbours but neither did he exclude Islamic phraseology nor his appetite for siding with Anglo –American block from the elements of his foreign policy. On 25th December 1958 at Karachi in a brief of 150 words, Ayub Khan committed to United Nations charter abhorrence of colonialism and friendship to all Muslim countries. He said that the structure of our foreign policy is based on fundamental needs of our country. Pakistan started her foreign policy with certain initial disadvantages. If it is accepted that the principles which guide all relations between states are founded upon the necessity for preserving sovereignty, upon the defense of people and the soil, upon the protection of commerce currently accepted values, and way of life ,then the shape of any country’s foreign policy sooner or later becomes plain So with Pakistan whose territories are divided and bounded, over great distances, partly by unfriendly Afghanistan and partly by India with which relations have waxed and waned in warmth and at all times, have been greatly complicated by the problems of Kashmir and river water. There was strongly felt intention and desire to pursue the faith and values of Islam, in concert with those other nations where the same belief prevailed.
In April1959 when Indian bomber was shot down in Pakistan, the Pakistani president counseled moderation. In 1960 this was reciprocated by the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru by visiting Karachi and pledged to forget old rivalry/past conflict and signed Indus water treaty. Both the governments initiated negotiation about refugee property, payment of pensions, outstanding debts, trade, passport, visa and many other issues. But these developments were not appreciated by Pakistan’s Anglo-American allies. Despite all these measures the Americans did not allow undermine the threat perception from India to be undermined because Pakistan’s foreign policy was totally subordinated to diplomatic interests of United States. In October 1958 when coup took place in Pakistan, the new establishment did nothing to discourage American interference. On 5th march 1959 at Ankara a treaty called bilateral agreement was signed between Pakistan and United States, Turkey and Iran.In1959December President Eisenhower visited Pakistan and Ayub khan Visited Tehran and Ankara. Upon the conclusion of his Asian tour of 1961Vice-President B.Johnson reported to his own President, through the letter John Fitzgerald Kennedy, as follows, “President Ayub, in Pakistan, is singularly impressive. He is seasoned as a leader, where others are not, confident and straight forward and, I would judge, dependable”15 United States gained confidence and the trust of Ayub Khan but Pakistani polity and diplomacy lost its integrity completely. Karl Von Vorys very rightly says that “otherwise Pakistan’s Foreign policy lacked initiative. It was the tale of American kite.
Because of United States dictation Pakistan made it implicit to oppose the communism from the day it allied with US. In his address to Darul Uloom Islamia, on 3rd May 1959 Ayub Khan said that while challenging communism that Islam should be retrieved from the recesses of the past and presented to world in the light and language of today. In his address at Dacca University’s (now in Bangladesh) convocation 21 January 1960 Ayub Khan again stressed, “to modern slavery of communism there was only one answer and that answer was to be found in Islam.” (Herbert Feldman. 1967.p.172)But in July 1961 when Pakistani economy was in shambles and Ayub visited United States and felt that America was reluctant to help Pakistan he suggested to United States that unless they gave fair amount of aid Pakistani economy will break down and inevitably lead to communism. Even though aid was a genuine need but bringing in the question of communism was a potent weapon for Pakistan to yield Americans.
When Ayub Khan took certain independent steps to structure Pakistan’s foreign policy the Americans and British expressed their disliking strongly. For example when Pakistan acquired 750 square miles of mountain peaks in her border treaty with China, the United States, State Department, expressed its displeasure and serious concern about the Pakistan’s friendship with China. The agency for International Development suspended aid for enlarging the Dacca air field (presently in Bangladesh) which was to be the main air link between Pakistan and China at that time. While India’s foreign policy was establishing its own identity as a neutralist, self reliant and nationalist, Pakistan found only few opportunities to establish its own identity and independent thinking in the international arena. At times Anglo-American block deliberately gave the feeling to Pakistan that its Western allies were prepared to build up India militarily even though it would mean upsetting the already precarious balance in the region. Pakistan’s Foreign minister Mohammad Ali called the Western military aid to India unfriendly act to Pakistan. West had a purpose and to spot light the friction between the two countries and keep the issue of Indian threat before Pakistani as a stick and occasional military aid as carrot. This justified United States deliberate effort to perpetuate the Military dictatorship in Pakistan and nurse it with religious orthodoxy which was actually meant for containing the advancement of communist ideology in the region and not for strengthening Pakistan against India.
As a result the free speech and democracy were perceived dangerous to the dictatorship in Pakistan because people would demand priority on social and developmental spending in order to improve conditions for country’s poor. The United States instead persuaded leaders to know that they need a strong, contended military if they were to remain in power. Pakistan spent even more money, buying latest and most expensive weapons systems than required, to raise the regimes prestige. During cold war, under the United States pressure Pakistani government was made to lay the over emphasis on intelligence gathering for the defense of US activities which was portrayed as national defense. Pakistani dictatorship put a premium on information gathering that pleased them and discredited them which in course of time led to wasting of country’s resources because there was a poor coordination. Under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sheriff and General Musharaf, the government authorities carried out no legislation to this effect nor did Pakistani media or any organization criticize the government to curtail such behavior.
Each experiment of dictatorship or occasional democratic government in seeking legitimacy by assisting American establishment and by appealing religious sentiments of subjects went on strengthening the voices of fundamentalists and blurred the vision of Pakistan’s institutions for modernity. It only suited to the interests of Anglo-American block so they remained silent about it. In sixties Pakistan was getting tired of United States dictation but they had no option and when Pakistan tended towards USSR it was too late because Soviets had lost trust in Pakistan and USSR raised the question of Pakhtunistan to remind Pakistanis that they were unwelcome to the Soviet camp. But the tendency to lean towards Soviet Union reflected the popular mood which found expression in transcending to democracy under Bhutto -though only for the brief interval and to the great disliking of United States.
When finally Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his Pakistan Peoples Party replaced Ayub Khans Martial Law regime with a populist political ideology that he characterized as “Islamic socialism” but so far as the domestic and international politics was concerned he discovered that all the institutions were very deeply attracted to Muslim ideals of power and authority as evolved and grown by Martial Law in connivance with Anglo American block, so much so that he could not initiate any effort towards their reorganization. Despite his efforts to portray the viability of new phraseology of Islamic socialism, people suspected his rhetoric and his 1977 electoral victory over the conservative Pakistan National Alliance. It landed Pakistan in such a crisis that Pakistan easily reverted back to Martial Law (military regime) under General Zia –ul –Haq.
….to be continued
Professor Rattan Lal Hangloo, Chair of Indian studies, University of West Indies
