One of the Middle East experts that has disappointed me was Daniel Pipes, who has suggested overlooking the bloodbath in Syria and allowing both sides to destroy each other. In a TV interview, he restated his policy, suggesting that the West should back Assad, and keep Syrians killing each other.
While many following Syria’s destabilization focus on NATO and Russian military exercises in the region and their relationship to Iran’s looming nuclear capability, few, it seems, care to focus more exclusively on Russia’s Soviet and post-Soviet relationship with the Assad regime, President Putin’s partial realignment with Israel — alternatively, a shifting away from Iran — and his commitment to the fulfillment of Russian defense deliveries, including, recently, surface-to-air and surface-to-ship missiles, that sustain the Assad military while keeping NATO at bay in Syria.
Syria presents a difficult puzzle, one whose possibilities include Obama and Putin (Pipes may only watch) colluding to drain through Syria Iran’s financial and military strength.
Whether that’s what they’re doing while reprising Cold War posturing, I have no idea, but whether so or not, that’s what’s happening: Russian defense contracts have been fulfilled with Iranian financial support; Hezbollah has mobilized in Syria; and Syria as the state it was two years ago has failed and can never return to its former state of affairs, and that partially guaranteed by Maher Al-Assad’s propensity for shooting, bombing, and perhaps gassing noncombatants; and such as Qatar have already replaced Syria’s embassy with a compound ready for revolutionaries who make it.
* * *
Syria may also be surveyed from the future: what’s in it for whom among the outside forces?
If Qatar picks up a state under Sunni sway, where would that leave Putin who, in light of the experience in Chechnya, has zero interest in allowing or encouraging other than a predominantly secular state on his flank? What’s in the Syrian rebel mix today certainly isn’t working for Vlad.
Given the U.S. experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, an enthused NATO intervention, much less one irritating Russian forces (again, if they’re genuinely deployed for Russo-NATO confrontation), may not have much to recommend in relation to the mixed results associated with experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Israel and NATO may have broad democratic and humanitarian interests in ameliorating the disaster in Syria, but, as suggested elsewhere on this blog, I think the true target in the region is Iran and its nuclear weapons program, and while the Obama Administration on the surface seems to be urging Putin to pressure the Assad regime out of business, it’s Putin who, colloquially, holds the cards, starting with Syria’s status as a Russian buffer and client.
Only God knows how Putin’s going to “work Syria” so that it works not only for Russian long-term interests but for his own greater glory and historic reputation as well.
* * *
I’m leaving the whole video alone here, but remarks on the Syrian Civil War start at about 14:00.
Daniel Pipes: “I don’t want to see anyone win here. They’re disastrous, they’re horrid. They’re both engaged in war crimes . . . I shudder to think what it would be like were the rebels to take over Damascus . . . it would be as bad if not worse than the Assad regime.”
In the previous post, I played around with an hypothetical concept possibly undergirding the west’s approach to the Islamic Small Wars: “The Least War Possible”. What is there to greet me when I’ve finished with it? The above referenced article in Dawn.
Here I’m arguing for managed change, evolutionary adjustment, a slow but least costly working out of many things, and with many things to be observed and discovered as we go, and the news from overseas is telling me that someone’s idea of progress divides over whether ” . . . women will be completely banned from obtaining an education . . . or just limited to a fifth-grade education.”
What would Malala say?
I am not the only one asking the question.
How should the young Malala see the incoming Prime Minister’s reaching out to the Taliban? They are her tormentors but he wants to mend fences with them.
Much of the foreign invasion of Afghanistan was advertised as a measure to liberate the Malalas from the patriarchal country’s hand-reared medieval rulers. Are we looking at a U-turn ahead, on both sides of the Durand Line?
In the direction suggested by each article, Prime Minister Sharif’s Pakistan may be heading toward the kind of freedom known to North Koreans, i.e., an isolated state of affairs best preserves the narcissist’s bubble.
However, as elsewhere among the Muslim-majority states of the world, that bubble has been popped in some places and pressured in others: mining, productivity, and trade remain essential to the world’s economies, and none are so grand or great as to get away with removing themselves from the world altogether.
Perhaps with more assuredly secure dangerous nuclear power sources and fragile alternative energy systems in place, state reliance on deep global economic integration and cooperation may be reduced, giving local to regional cultures greater ability in “sustainable development” (hark ye back to McRobie and Schumacher and Brown).
However, the world will not get there with women held captive in cruelly imposed ignorance.
“By blocking websites and bringing Internet access to a crawl, Iranian authorities are saying their own citizens don’t deserve information about the election,” said Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa Coordinator. “What kind of an election is it when journalists are tossed into prison and voters are denied access to the news?”
The beleaguered General Musharraf is in such dire straits these days that it is with a heavy heart indeed that one pens these lines–with heavy heart because one is a personal witness to the qualities of head and heart of the esteemed General. To witness such a man bandied about like a common criminal is a painful sight indeed.
What cannot be denied is that he certainly is the man who took over the country extra legally, held its constitution in abeyance, suspended the basic rights of its citizens, beat up and imprisoned at will an enlightened section of its society, had a sitting Chief Justice of Supreme Court manhandled by lowly cops then fired him from his job and sacked dozens of other judges who refused to play to his tunes.
These indeed are serious crimes in any civilized society ruled by the word of law. But who will cast the first stone in our country. And here is where the biggest of the ironies lies. Those baying for the blood of the General are not exactly babes in the woods.
The wolf pack jumping at the General’s throat is formed of four distinct set of actors i.e. The PML Nawaz Group, the Pakistan People’s Party, the judiciary and the religious right. While every Johnny come lately knows the reason for the religious right’s reason for going after the General, let us have a quick look at the moral credentials of the other three subsets crying for the General’s blood from a moral high ground.
The first subset of the wolf pack is led by a man who goes by the name of Nawaz Sharif and whose political mentor was another General of the yore, who was twice sacked for corruption as Prime Minister of Pakistan forcing that eminent columnist Ayaz Amir to recently call the two brothers as the ‘loan artists’, who wanted to himself become the Ameer-ul-Momineen once, who launched a physical attack on the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a goon squad, who was elected as the Leader of the Pakistan Muslim League and subsequently the IJI (Islamic Democratic Alliance) by the ISI (Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency) as documented in the testimony of the then Army Chief in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who got thrown into a lockup by General Musharraf from where he managed to slink out after accepting exile to another country in the most shameful of manners.
He today has taken up the flag of justice and is crying himself hoarse hurling threats all around with not a morsel of shame visible on his well-fed façade.
The second subset is led by a man who is also the President of Pakistan, a man who goes by the name of Asif Zardari and who was once affectionately called “Mr. Ten Percent” because of the alleged 10% extortion he forced on people during the various PPP governments, who in 1990 was arrested on charges of blackmail for attaching a bomb to a Pakistani businessman, who stands accused of taking unaccounted millions of Rupees from local Pakistani banks for forestation of Pakistan, who maintained a polo ground in the Prime Ministerial residential compound, who finally admitted owning a £4.35m estate in Surrey, England after denying its ownership for years (including a 20-room mansion and two farms on 365 acres, or 1.5 km², of land), about whom a Swiss investigating magistrate had amassed enough evidence to indict him for a proper jail term and who is alleged to have a role in the brazen murder of his brother-in-law. He has risen up today to become the very personification of virtue grinning like a Cheshire cat all the while.
That leaves the Judiciary–the Holy Cows. If one recalls correctly, in the year 2000, after the proclamation of PCO (Provisional Constitutional Oreder), an Oath of Office for Judges called Order-2000 was issued that required that judiciary to take oath of office under PCO. Four judges, including Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, answering the call of conscience, refused to take oath under the PCO. Rather than becoming a part of a PCO Supreme Court, they resigned and promptly vacated their offices. To fill the positions in the PCO Supreme Court General Musharraf appointed other judges including, among others, none other than Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan today. General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional acts were legitimized by this very PCO Supreme Court, and the Parliament elected under General Musharraf legitimized everything including the PCO Supreme Court by the Legal Framework Order, 2002.
And just to refresh the memory, here is the wording of Article 6 of Pakistan’s Constitution dealing with High Treason.
(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.
(2) Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.
(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]
(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.
In scribe’s opinion the whole charade of the General’s trial should start crumbling sooner than later. For if the General is tried for any of his ‘crimes’, his abettors should not be far behind in line.
So it is not without a reason that the first thing the scribe wants to do after seeing all this hollow moralizing is reach for the sick bag.
So sit tight General. And while you do that, let us all pray;
“O lord who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, have mercy on us.”
—-
Canadian resident Anwaar Hussain is a former Pakistani F-16 fighter pilot and a graduate of Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad with a Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies.
Pakistani moderates/liberals until now have opted to stay way lower on the radar.
There is no doubt this society is becoming less receptive with each passing day.
Fanaticism in Pakistan is just another day, but could the reason for this on-wheel progression be the absence of an easily accessible alternative narrative?
The abundance of ultra-right wing misinformation and propaganda is something, which people like us meet daily through various media. This material is being channeled through every media known to the dictionary. Where is the equally vocal liberal narrative, needed to confront the populist, ultra-right wing version? Those days are long gone when a silent majority of Pakistani moderates existed. People, who engage the masses, are well aware and concerned with this development.
Pakistan is truly a magical land, where any well has to reach out to people, for quenching their thirst, instead of people coming to the well, to get theirs quenched.
So, an alternative narrative to this rhetoric of hate and ignorance has to be channeled in a manner to Pakistani masses, that it is comprehendible and a source of least contention.
The song has been immensely popular amongst all classes. Its ‘controversial’ lines were digested in most cases by the listeners, with smiles drawn to their faces. The reason being that, the message was comprehendible for many Pakistanis who understood Punjabi (if not spoke); the manner in which it was presented also blunted possible criticism from the far right.
Lines holding rebellious disapproval of society’s collective behavior, did certainly make Pakistanis scratch their heads.
The song at some level was successful in engaging the largest segment of Pakistanis, whom liberals consider outcasts and are content with calling, “simpletons”. Too bad there wasn’t more from the band!
Taimur Rehman’s “Jhoot ka sir ooncha” based on Jalib’s poetry was another inspiration. Forums like “Khudi” and RSOP are also making a difference in whatever narrow space they are provided with.
Just like politicians have been facing allegations of ‘drawing room’ politics, I think Pakistani moderates and liberals too should engage in introspection. Engaging the “simpleton” is the key, some liberal forums had that opportunity, to engage this segment of Pakistanis. They instead have since recently, started using this opportunity for misdemeanors and provoking the masses instead.
They were initially doing a pretty good job, addressing the easy comprehension and accessibility problem, rather effectively.
This tells us that this engagement needs to be carried out in some prescribed bounds, so that offense is minimal, while the message is also conveyed tactfully. If anything is done to the contrary, then it would be just like providing fodder to conspiracy theorists and ultra- wing wingers, hell bent upon proving liberals to be enemies of state and the religion of majority.
We must learn this and learn it quickly, that the space available for liberals to maneuver in this highly intransigent society is very reedy.
To make any difference would require a mixture of perseverance and sugar coating one’s message.
Today we see many liberal forums on Facebook and Tweets from the “enlightened ones”. There is all sort of discourse on politics, religion, notions of ‘ghairat’ etc. Ideological rhetoric is being splashed against groups and pages walls, but I ask you, what I used to ask my own self: Frankly speaking, it doesn’t make much of a difference, because rightists don’t give a fish about all this blabbering.
Liberals immersed in their drawing room culture and extreme cynicism keep on crying all day long about the injustices and ignorance in our society, but do not engage “The Simpleton”.
Exchange of ideas between the “enlightened ones” alone can’t make miracles.
The rationale has to trickle down to the common man in a comprehendible and “toned down” language, for things to change for good. Presently, this is not happening, liberals are content with communicating amongst closed communities, which give little space to simpletons. They need to at least start pitching their version to a larger audience. When you do not engage other side in a rational dialogue and put forth your options, how do you expect it to start thinking out of the “establishment’s box”?
There are numerous forums, which attract far greater following (from the age group of 15-30, mainly) than liberal forums. These basically promote the same tattered versions of history and farfetched conspiracy theories, which today’s Pakistani liberal-moderate detests with all his/her power of reason.
Present day Pakistani moderates and liberals have yet to embrace this fact that social media is a revolution in itself.
While, in Pakistan’s case it is an opportunity unparalleled by any other, since the past three ‘lost’ decades. This media of all others could provide a robust platform for objective discourse, ultimately concluding itself in reshaping public opinion and redirection of priorities (in matters encompassing state and religion).
Over 8 Million Pakistanis maintain regular Facebook accounts.
The number of internet users in Pakistan is over 20 Million with 11.5% internet penetration, per ITU statistics. Internet penetration in Pakistan is second highest after India in South Asia. Pakistan is amongst the top thirty countries with most Facebook users, while the breakup of the Pakistani Facebook users in terms of age groups tells us that, 98% of Pakistani Facebook users are between the age group of 13-44.
Intellectuals have been writing extensively on how Evangelists and Televangelists targeted Pakistani middle class youth, since the 80-90’s. They penetrated universities and colleges. They then made inroads to the electronic media. Even Pakistani pop music industry was approached, resulting in transformation of two singers, Junaid Jamshed into an evangelical and Ali Azmat into a Televangelist.
The religious conversion of Pakistani cricketers is not news unheard, either.
Without spiting the evangelicals and televangelists for what they did, I would like to guide the attention of my readers to the success their strategy bore. There are lessons to be learned from the strategy adopted by these groups. They mainly targeted youth, which had humongous amounts of potential and were easy to manipulate after a decade long fundamentalist indoctrination during Zia’s regime.
They invested in the FUTURE.
Visibly evangelicals and televangelists cashed this situation big time.
How are the liberals and moderates utilizing the social media?
Liberals and moderates aren’t approaching their fellow countrymen and women with their versions of the story, they instead keep attributing all ills of the country to role of state agencies, the government, army, clergy (religion itself at times-society isn’t ready for that, yet), Saudis, right leaning media and Zaid Hamid without making any serious effort to play their part in bringing some lucidity to this freak show.
This all happens in small restricted groups, composing liberals, hence, no trickling down.
It is often observed that these episodes transform into bashing or disowning Pakistan after getting frustrated.
Does bashing the only place we could call as ‘home’ in the name of realism help? The answer would certainly be in negation.
Then what could be done?
Rational argument never goes unheard, if your addressee refuses to accept the validity of your rational argument on your face, he/she will certainly give it a thought once trying to sleep at night. There is something about a rational argument, that some part of it always seeps deeper into the skin and touches hearts. Even if, some of it seeps in, consider you have a job well done at your hands.
Key will always be the same, keep pitching the liberal narrative in easy access and comprehension of the simpletons.
Availability of options will provide people with choices, something, which they really never had before.
On 4 January 2011, Salman Taseer, a liberal human rights campaigner and the governor of Punjab, Pakistan’s largest and most powerful province, was killed by Mumtaz Qadri, his bodyguard, for insulting Prophet Muhammad. Taseer‟s „crime‟ was that he had stood up for Aasia Bibi, a poor Christian woman, sentenced to death for insulting Prophet Muhammad. Taseer‟s murder fused the educated, the less educated, and the illiterate into an Islamistnationalist unity
Abbas Zaidi’s review of the motivations involved and license taken in the January 4, 2011 murder of Salman Taseer takes a fair look at Pakistan’s “God Mob” (my term) in its pervasive national aspect.
Just one paragraph before the conclusion, Zaidi makes this point that runs slantwise to my own interest in “Facsimile Bipolar Political Sociopathy (FBPS)”, a bastard mix of the clinical descriptions of bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder lifted out of psychology proper and into political psychology and sociology:
“Based on the preceding discussion, a point may be added to the definition of postcolonial insanity: Postcolonial insanity is enchantment with grand narratives which are held to be universal in their reach, inviolability, and truthfulness.”
Bipolar indulgence in grandiose and messianic delusion and manic expression; narcissistic resistance to criticism while obsessed with one’s own powers . . . and there they are doing their thing, system-wide, soaking Pakistan in blood accompanied (outside of the body of the state) by near universal condemnation.
While the event hosting these speakers — “Profiles in Courage: Human Rights Defenders in the Struggle to End Violence Against Women” — took place in New York City early last month, the testimony tells of atmospheres in which women live (meaning in which everyone lives) in several of our world’s muddied and persistently dimmed quarters. Continue reading →
BackChannels 