Pages

Search This Blog

Monday, January 7, 2008

Pakistan's National Tragedy by Aryn Baker

A capsule history of a few aspects of Pakistan from birth to current muddle that attempts to put things in perspective....

Thursday, Jan. 03, 2008
Pakistan's National Tragedy
By Aryn Baker

Pakistan was a country orphaned at birth. Born of hope in 1947, the new nation — an independent state for the Muslim-majority provinces of northwestern and eastern India — promised to be the success story of the subcontinent, a democratic entity divested of India's terrible legacy of caste entitlement. Little more than a year after Mohammed Ali Jinnah signed the document declaring Pakistan a sovereign state, the erudite, Savile Row–suited father of the nation died of lung cancer and tuberculosis, leaving the infant democracy bereft of his enlightened guidance. With him died the charismatic leadership that his new nation, divided into West and East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), desperately needed in order to grow as a modern state. In a sense, Pakistan has been searching for its parents ever since.

As the young country staggered through its grief, seeking a unified identity out of dozens of feuding ethnic divisions, history continued to deal blow after blow. Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first Prime Minister and Jinnah's political heir, was shot dead in 1951 by a Pashtun separatist. Fifty-six years later, Benazir Bhutto died in the very same park. One of her attending doctors was the son of the physician who tried, and failed, to save Khan's life.

At the death of Khan, Pakistan was inherited by a succession of caretakers more intent on grabbing power than building institutions. The nation was little more than 10 years old when President Iskander Ali Mirza declared martial law to try to save his presidency from growing unpopularity. The army stepped in, overthrowing Mirza in 1958 and establishing a pattern of military "rescues" that has plagued the nation ever since. Not once has the country seen a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While Pakistan considers itself a democracy, its governments rarely have a mandate from the people, and leaders — be they Presidents, Prime Ministers or army chiefs — have catered to the élites, at the expense of the masses.

That was supposed to change in 1967. A young, charismatic politician, born of the ruling class but speaking for the people, rose to prominence, bringing his new Pakistan People's Party to power in 1971, after the civil war that ripped East Pakistan from the nation. For the first time, Pakistan's poor felt they had a voice. "Zulfikar Ali Bhutto taught us to live," says Abdul Shakoor Agaria, a resident of Karachi's notorious Lyari slum. He went on to relate the apocryphal story of a poor farmer who demanded of the young President what he had done for the people. "I have done this," Bhutto is said to have responded. "A poor farmer such as yourself is able today to ask the President that question." For the first time, Pakistan felt that it had regained a father.

But Bhutto's reign was troubled. Military and feudal élites were threatened by his socialist policies, and rivalries over resources between his home province of Sindh and the Punjab of the traditional ruling classes roiled Pakistan. In 1977, the military government stepped in, hanging Bhutto in 1979 over controversial charges of conspiracy to murder. The country's grief turned to rage in its adolescence. The Soviet invasion of neighboring Afghanistan in 1979 sparked a jihad. Death and martyrdom became an honorable answer to oppressive power, a legacy that Pakistan has been unable to shrug off.

When Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan in 1986 to resume her father's mantle, the nation responded with joy, and a landslide democratic victory. The daughter was accorded her father's adoration, but she also inherited his flaws. Her two truncated terms in office were plagued by incompetence and allegations of corruption. Twice she was ousted, and in 1999 she chose exile over remaining in Pakistan under the rule of yet another military dictator, Pervez Musharraf. Her return eight years later was supposed to herald a new beginning for the traumatized nation.

But it wasn't to be. Hours after her death, the country erupted in spasms of self-destruction. The Lyari slum, which had pinned its hopes on the return of a mother figure, descended into apocalyptic chaos. The streets were blackened with ash, and the burned-out skeletons of scores of buses, trucks and cars smoldered at intersections. Despair still blankets the tiny, ramshackle houses, and shopkeepers linger listlessly at their doors. "There is nothing left," said one. "Only violence remains."
Pakistan will continue on, limping and damaged. But the legacy of loss, from the first father to the last mother, has taken its emotional toll. The cult of martyrdom has taken over where voices fail to be heard. In Lyari, walls are plastered with posters of local boys who died protecting Bhutto when she made her triumphant return to Karachi on Oct. 18. The question for Pakistan is how it can find life without celebrating death.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is in response of the article "Behind the crisis for India's Muslims" by Aryn Baker in TIME. The author has pointed out that the terror attacks in India are the response of ill treatment done in India against Muslims. First of all, surprisingly author's time scale starts from 1857, for a country like India. When Columbus was looking for India and discovered U.S.by chance, Babur was establishing Mogul empire in India. Among Mogul kings, Akbar was the most famous and successful one. He brought whole country under one umbrella with his religious resilience and spirituality. On the other hand, his great grandson Aurangazeb was a failure who brutally imposed the Muslim religion. British followed the strategy of 'Divide and Rule' while ruling on India and widened the gaps between Hindus and Muslims. Regardless of all this, Indian freedom fighters were not limited to one community.

Secondly, is she trying to justify the killing of innocent people worldwide? India has long history of working with religious minorities (Muslims, Sikhs and Jain). India's most of rich people are Sikh, Parsis and Jains, some other minorities in India. Ratan Tata, an icon of India's progress is a Parsi. Dalai Lama with his follower Tibetans, displaced Budhists from Tibet which is occupied by China now, live in India peacefully. Even Muslim such as Sania Mirza brought grace to India. It does not take hundreds of years for minorities to represent themselves in free India. India's current Prime minister is a Sikh and last President was a Muslim. And in the modern time, which society or religion is perfect and clear? President elect Obama was under the threat of assaults, because of different skin color than majority. India's last 60 years of freedom and democracy has been far better than any other country in the world. Considering the author's arguments, many countries (Japan, Vietnam and Iraq) should never stop fighting against U.S. after being used as showcase of American mass destruction weapons.

There are definite problems when the parents do not let their daughters and sons to go to school since they believe that women have no right of education and sons should be taught only one book, written hundreds of years ago. All the Americans, who died in Mumbai terror attacks, were in India to learn about spirituality. If Hindus, 87 % of Indian population, are fundamentalists, why do the Christians and Jews travel to learn about the religions? The author has insulted all the people who lost their lives in this henious act, regadless of their religions and nationalities.

The author needs to go beyond her geographical limitation though it is getting tougher day by day to travel with U.S. passport. I am afraid that her skewed arguments can rage the feelings of Muslims without any clue about the greatness of India, so it hurts both sides. Publications of journalists, who try to obtain minutes of fame by misrepresenting the facts, must be banished from the national publications. I ask for a public apology from the author to all Indians.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Zaoaix3FQ&NR=1

Anonymous said...

she is a bitch

Rajeev Ranjan said...

Its sad for a writer of her standard to retort to such cheap publicity gimmick. In the light of present truth, we know how flawed her article was.

Living in safe havens in India, she writes about Pakistan. Convenient? It is!

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge she has about the country she is living in. If I were to go to France/America I would gobble up the History, associate the people with it.

After India & Pakistan were divided on the sole basis of religion, 85%of the muslim population chose to remain back in India. This is an insult to them.

Muslim majority states, in India exists like J&k, Pondicherry, and Lakshwadeep.
Sikh Majority Punjab.
Christian Majority, Nagaland, Mijoram etc.

She must get back to her grammar school and learn history, and socio-political facts correct. She is a fucking shit, disgusting!