By Ayesha Siddiqa
THE other day a friend discussed the idea of organising a conference where social scientists would analyse the current situation in Pakistan. Her idea was to have views presented from perspectives representing the left, centre and right.
The conversation made me think if such classifications worked in this country any more. I was also reminded of an article written by a friend a few months ago arguing that a lot of liberals had joined the restoration-of-the-judiciary bandwagon along with a majority of right-wingers. The fact is that in today’s Pakistan all such older and simpler classifications are defunct. The more we look into these categories, the harder it is to make sense of where things stand.
Gone are the days when it was possible to distinguish leftists from rightists or liberals from the conservatives. In any case, it is not possible any more to come up with a single category that can describe people’s views. As such, those supporting the judiciary movement do not necessarily become rightist or leftist nor do they become liberal or conservative. Individuals, groups and parties are known to vary their positions in accordance with the issues they deal with.
Should the classification be based on how sympathetic is it to the public perspective as opposed to the establishment’s point of view? The problem then is that the public view is not something that is naturally organic but is formed by policymakers and opinion-makers. For instance, the support that is rendered to Sufi Mohammad or the Taliban in some segments of society would not make the relevant policy liberal or leftist.
But then should the classification be based on whether the particular position is secular or religious? This classification is equally defunct because how would one explain the association of parties like the ANP and the PPP with the Taliban? Is it not association when these parties support policies that will only strengthen the Taliban and not the secular forces?
The unfortunate politics of pragmatism has made things highly complex and fuzzy. It is sad that people are being forced to pick sides based on their insecurity rather than principles.
For instance, today many think of the MQM as a liberal party which will protect secular values while forgetting that the party has been accused of brutalising ordinary people or its rivals. A lot of people who once condemned the party are suddenly now convinced that Altaf Hussain might be the only source of salvation for the country.
Many might consider this commentary as a tirade against ‘liberalism’, in much the same way they objected to any criticism of the PPP or the ANP’s deals with the Taliban. However, my point is that such terms lose their meaning in a state where the government systematically surrenders its capacity to establish its writ and in fact outsources the process of safeguarding the interests of the people. Equally condemnable is the state’s inability to provide opportunities to the migrant population, the Baloch and other nationalities and give them a sense of security in the country.
When the majority of people are lost in classification, principles tend to lose all meaning. Parties and groups are striking deals on the basis of their interest to remain in power rather than anything else. Such politics is bound to deepen the chasm in the country. The most glaring example of this is the peculiar nationalist politics that is unfolding in most parts of the country.
One of the most critical developments pertains to the boxing out of Pakhtuns from urban Sindh and Punjab. Although this is not a big movement at the moment, the threat of bloodshed in Karachi aimed at pushing the Pakhtun out is a possibility. Unfortunately, no government or political party has thought about a formula for allocating political space to different communities, which may be the only way that ethnic politics, mired in conflict and violence, may be curtailed.
Similarly, we are observing greater coordination between groups from opposite ideological polls in the Frontier to protect their nationalism. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to see the ANP getting together with the mullahs and other conservative elements in support of Pakhtun nationalism. After all, the ANP’s bid to sign deals with the TNSM and condemn human rights activists that tried to highlight Taliban atrocities in Swat and other places was nothing else but Pakhtun nationalism. The Pakhtuns are not only upset with the treatment meted out to them in other parts of the country, they are also unhappy with the presence of Punjabi militants in the tribal areas and in Afghanistan.
Interestingly Punjab also considers itself a victim, which is obvious from the popular perception that there is some conspiracy by the Pakhtuns (funded by India and the US) to damage the largest province. Hence, the urgency to push out Pakhtun workers in the province. This policy of course does not appreciate that Punjab has its own share of militants that are now popularly known as the Punjabi Taliban.
Over the years, and due to the present conflict, nationalist tensions seem to have become extremely intense. What’s most amusing is that proponents of each nationalism and ideology consider their point of view to be liberal and people-friendly. Most strive to impress that they are fighting imperialism without admitting that their position adds to the strengthening of colonisation rather than achieving the reverse.
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.
