More Pakistani logic from Ayesha Jalal

Open Magazine has an interview with Ayesha Jalal which claims that ' Pakistan army’s supremacy can be traced to how early rulers sought to overcome disadvantages with India. 

This is nonsense. Pakistan and Myanmar both came under military rule for the same reason;- shitty civilians inviting in the army in a short-sighted manner.  In Pakistan, a stupid Chief Justice said the Constituent Assembly had no power. The Governor General, as the representative of the Queen, could do what he liked. This 'doctrine of necessity' meant that it is necessary to do whatever the guys with guns want you to do.  (Pakistan's Iskandar Mirza had been a soldier but after that he was in the Political Service. It is said that he got Liaquat to appoint Ayub thus passing over more senior candidates. However, Liaquat mut take responsibility for this act of stupidity. Mirza, an aristocratic Bengali, made a terrible Head of State. He used the army to get rid of Feroz Khan Noon before himself being sent packing by Ayub Khan. ) 

Bangladesh too came under military rule but only after the elected leader decided to impose one-party Dictatorship. Sri Lanka and India held regular elections because the Army was never invited in. 

A Pakistani patriot may believe there was some Indian threat just as a Burman patriot may say military rule was needed to get rid of a large proportion of the Indians settled there. But there was no Indian threat to either country. It is easy to get Indians to flee, just kill a few and grab their property and the rest will run away. The Army isn't needed to do ethnic cleansing when the people are physically fit and know how to slit throats. 

What of the notion that Cold War politics caused the Americans to impose military rule here and there? Again, this is nonsense because the civilians were getting on great with the Americans. Indeed, back in the Fifties when miscegenation was banned in many American States, the daughter of the American ambassador married the son of the Pakistani president. That didn't stop Ayub kicking out Mirza who had been fool enough to appoint him Chief Martial Law Administrator. 

I have written elsewhere of Ayesha's 'Pakistani logic' which is again on full display in what follows-

You have noted in a recent essay that between 2008 and 2017, military-bureaucratic rule apparently took a back seat in Pakistan.

The army did not have a C-in-C willing or able to take charge of the country. The question was whether Musharaff could return after being burned as part of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation network. In the event, it was the Court which barred him in 2013 from standing for elections.  

Could you please elaborate? How did things change in 2017?

The Panama Papers was certainly a factor. It was entirely possible that Western governments would take suo moto action against prominent leaders making Pakistan look foolish and weak. The other issue was Tariq Fatemi, Sharif's advisor on foreign policy, and the danger that Sharif would do an economic deal with Modi. This had previously been a concern during the Vajpayee era. The fact is cross- border trade could take off exponentially with a more than proportionate benefit being received by the Punjab area. This would weaken the agricultural classes from which the Army recruits relative to the 'bazaari' middle class. 

The operative word here is “apparently” since the military-bureaucratic nexus never quite takes a back seat when it comes to governing Pakistan. The military has ruled the country directly for the better part of its history and indirectly for the rest of the time.

This only happened because the civilians were foolish enough to try to use the army for their own purposes. But, the military felt, why be the monkey when you can be the organ grinder? It must also be said that civilian governments have not looked after the economic interests of any significant class of people while the Army from decade to decade, generation to generation, looks after its own. Furthermore, the Army has proven cohesive with high esprit de corps and (speaking generally) observance of the chain of command. It is a mistake to cherry pick Army Chiefs because they may decide to take over the country rather than become a lame duck threatened at every moment with compulsory retirement and some upstart being promoted over the heads of deserving officers.  

As a result, Pakistan has not enjoyed uninterrupted political processes for extended periods of time, allowing voters to throw out unpopular and non-performing governments and elect one of their choice.

Still Pakistan- till narco-terror raised its ugly head- was doing well compared to Ne Win's Myanmar.  

There has however been a difference in the degree of direct involvement by the army high command, which is the final arbiter in the destiny of Pakistan. What made the period from 2008 to 2017 different from other interludes of elected governments following military rule was that the main political parties in parliament were able to introduce legislation aimed at strengthening parliament and potentially limiting the role of the military establishment in politics.

Clearly that didn't work at all.  

This included the 18th amendment to the constitution

But the Judiciary, once Musharaff was out of the picture, showed no animosity against the Army.  

as well as the changes to the National Finance Commission Award of 2009, setting new rules for the distribution of financial resources between the federal centre and the provinces.

This is quite a complicated mathematical formula. Zardari deserves credit for getting the required consensus, but it was by no means a game changer.  

With Pakistan’s first-ever transfer of power from an elected government to a newly elected government in 2013, there were high hopes for more robust democratic political processes.

But Punjab's entrepreneurial class stands most to gain from peace with India and a booming cross-border trade. This endangers the Army's own ability to recruit and maintain loyalty.  

The dismissal in 2017 of Mian Nawaz Sharif, an elected prime minister enjoying majority support in parliament, was the result of interference by the military establishment that entailed disrupting the political process and putting a so-called “hybrid” government in its place.

But the Panama Papers could have unleashed an 'Arab Spring' like popular revolt which would have endangered all property owners or established institutions. Some action had to be taken to pre-empt unilateral action by Western countries who have their own compliance laws re. money laundering etc.  

The significance of 2017 lies in yet another interruption of the political process for the sake of narrowly construed interests, whether institutional or personal.

But the significance was reduced by the fact that other members of the Clan could take over.  

There has always been a slippage between America’s stated commitment to the promotion of democracy worldwide and actual realities on the ground.

America was hypocritical. So what? Everybody is.  

Pakistan is a good example of this problem

Not really. America wanted Pakistan to stop training crazy terrorists and to just fucking hand over Osama already. Sadly, Pakistan figured out long ago how to pump and dump the Americans.  

The jailed Prime Minister Imran Khan and the army were on the same page for some time in 2018, shortly after he won the polls and became prime minister.

Because Trump thought Afghanistan was a shithole. He became very angry when he discovered the Indians were building libraries there. Trump did the deal which got America out of that sand-trap. He was perfectly happy to praise the handsome Imran Khan because this might get wealthy Pakistani-Americans to give him money.  

Later, ties became strained.

What was good for Imran in his own ancestral province could be bad for the Army- indeed, was bad for the Army- because it involved buying off potential insurgents. But where was the money to come from?  

Where do the roots of the supremacy of the army and the chief of the army staff being the final arbiter in Pakistan lie?

They lie in Liaquat and Mirza's decision to disregard seniority and appoint the chap they thought would be obedient to them. This meant the Army top brass has a class interest in unseating any civilian who interferes in their internal matters such that their esprit de corps would be undermined.  

Yes, Imran Khan’s elevation to the prime ministerial slot represented the culmination of a long journey in which he outdid other political parties with the help of advantages conferred upon him as the favoured candidate of the military establishment.

This is unfair. Imran is charismatic and popular. He spoke against Western drone strikes against his own people. He had acquired wealth by merit and by marriage, not through political patronage.  

The roots of the supremacy of the army lie in the first decade of independence when Pakistan sought to overcome its disadvantages vis-à-vis India by soliciting the assistance of the United States of America and joining security alliances established during the Cold War for the containment of communism.

All this was done and dusted under civilian regimes. The Iraq of the Baghdad pact was a monarchy with a civilian in charge. Then came military coups and Ba'thist coups and counter coups and the creation of a 'Republic of Fear'. But America had no problem with Saddam when he was fighting the Ayatollahs.  

Since the first military regime of General Ayub Khan, the balance of power has been decisively in favour of the army high command, making its chief the natural leader of the institution seen by everyone as the last word in Pakistan.

Civilians put in Ayub as Army Chief for their own purposes. This was resented in the Army. Ayub could get rid of a crazy President who kept dismissing Prime Ministers and who had put him in as Chief Martial Law Administrator. Mirza wanted to change Ayub's designation- effectively ending his Army career- and so Ayub put him on a plane to London. Soldiers don't mind dying for their country. They don't want to have to brown-nose civilians just to avoid the humiliation of being passed over for promotions their colleagues think are fully merited and in accordance with seniority.

You have dwelt on the “platitudes about the United States’ commitment to promoting democratic values” globally. What are your thoughts on this so-called duplicity on the part of the US?

There has always been a slippage between America’s stated commitment to the promotion of democracy worldwide and actual realities on the ground.

America had a stated commitment to containing Communism. It did not have a definition of 'democracy', which, in any case, Kennedy said was imperfect, but did believe it knew which countries were part of the 'free world' even if they were military dictatorships.

Pakistan is a good example of this problem. The United States has done a great deal to bolster the role of the military establishment in Pakistan

The US gave economic and military aid to both civilian and military governments. In 1965 it stopped military aid for a time because of use of US weapons against India. It was also supposed to halt such assistance in 1971 over genocide claims in the East but Nixon made sure Pakistan got weapons. The 1977 sanctions were in respect of nuclear proliferation as were subsequent measures of the same type.

In 1999 there was a sanction against the military coup (the nuclear related sanctions had been waived) which had little effect. However there are claims that Trump's sanctions did add to Pakistan's fiscal woes. Still, to summarize, Pakistan received aid pretty consistently whether under military or other rule. Clinton seemed to be changing American policy such that democracy became the issue but whether this was actually the case is debatable. 

All we can say is that Pakistan, from the time of Liaquat, had been very good at winning friends and influencing Americans and thus benefitted from military and economic largesse. 

– a policy deemed to be consistent with American national security interests – despite periodic concerns about a commitment to democratic values.

Nuclear proliferation was a concern. Did it play a part in Musharraf's self-exile? Perhaps. But it would be foolish to picture America as either pro-military or pro-democracy. Sometimes, Pakistani diplomats and generals sweet- talked America into being very very generous but that is a reflection of the Pakistani talent for diplomacy.  

What you refer to as American “hypocrisy” is also not something limited to Imran Khan. When it comes to Pakistan, the United States has a long history of not practising what it preaches.

Very true. Uncle Sam should have sent in troops to ensure a hard-line Stalinist was installed as Dictator in 1952 itself.  

It is important to place US-Pakistan relations into a historical context to make sense of the so-called ‘cypher conspiracy’.

The context is America not really caring a fart about faraway shithole countries. Still Pakistan was important for the U2 program and, later on, helped broker Nixon's rapprochement with China. Also, Pakistan maintained good ties with both Iran and the Gulf and other Islamic countries. We have to admit they had smart diplomats and statesmen whereas India had crazy people like Krishna Menon. 

There is nothing remarkable about American officials expressing their dislike of policies being pursued by a Pakistani government, but these do not amount to “conspiracy” to overthrow an incumbent government.

We don't know whether the CIA is still in the 'Great Game'. It is certainly possible but, obviously, the Pakistanis are not a stupid or cowardly people. They can easily pump and dump rich Americans who underestimate their intelligence. What was odd was Biden refusing to call Imran on the phone. If Trump thought it worthwhile to cultivate the handsome Pakistani leader, why not show him a little respect? Afterall, Pakistan had got its invite to the Democracy Summit from which Bangladesh and Singapore were excluded. Why not call and say 'Hi, Imran, I'm looking forward to seeing you. Could you bring me some samosas? Obama keeps badgering me to make them for him. Between you and me the guy is totes a curry chaser.' 

Put differently, there was nothing out of the ordinary about the comment by the assistant secretary of state, Donald Lu. But given the long history of Washington’s involvement in Pakistan,

a long history of Pakistan pumping and dumping the credulous American 

any comment attributable to an American official is interpreted as a feature of US foreign policy, if not a nefarious conspiracy to force a regime change.

To be fair, there is only one way to interpret any foreign policy statement by the Biden Administration. The thing is the stupidest thing- the thing most damaging to America's interest- which could be said at the time. 

Ayesha Jalal's Pakistani logic

American educated, American academic, Ayesha Jalal is by no means a typical Pakistani. Yet, her latest book, 'The struggle for Pakistan', clearly shows the impress of a certain essentially Pakistani type of logic despite her having left the country as a girl.

Early in her book she asks-

How did India’s Muslim minority get transformed into a nation and win territorial sovereignty within just seven years only to end up being divided into two hostile states?

Indians had been transformed into a nation, as opposed to an Empire, by the British. Why? How? Administration is most cost-effective when it cuts along the joints of Language and Culture. In order words, the optimal administrative arrangement corresponds to the human geography of a potential nation.  But, this was not the end of the story.

The Burmese broke away first, in 1937, because they shared a commitment to ethnically cleanse Indians. They thought they'd be better off by getting rid of immigrants. Now they are the poorest country in South East Asia. Why? They have repeatedly shown a determination to kill or expel anyone who threatens the domination of the Burman even if that creed or linguistic group predates Burman expansion. But this involves their Army fucking over the productive element of the population.

Then, the Muslims broke away wherever they were the majority- with the exception of the Kashmir Valley and Chittagong. They did a lot of ethnic cleansing. But they have fallen behind India in per capita Income just like Myanmar.

 Where Muslims were a minority, they didn't get 'transformed into a nation'. Hyderabad or Junagadh did not get 'territorial sovereignty'. 

The fact is India's Muslims have not turned into a 'nationality'. The Tamil Muslim is not welcome in Kashmir. The Bihari Muslim migrant worker gets killed or chased away.

Why does Jalal make such a foolish claim? Perhaps, she wants to paint Jinnah as a prophet who spoke sooth. But the Father of Pakistan's own biological descendants are Indian and non-Muslim. On the other hand, they are as rich as fuck. 

 It was during his presidential address at the Muslim League’s Lahore session in March 1940 that Jinnah first asserted that India’s 90 million Muslims were not a minority but a nation. He made the claim with no reference to any Islamic convention. Instead, Jinnah took his cues from the contemporary internationalist discourse on territorial nationalism and the doctrine of self-determination. Like any other group claiming nationhood, Muslims wanted their own separate national home in the shape of autonomous states in northwestern and northeastern India, where they were in a majority. Muslim minorities in the rest of India were to be considered nationals of this Muslim homeland and their rights and privileges safeguarded in the same way as those of non-Muslims living in the Muslim territories.

This is bat-shit crazy. Does Jalal really believe that 'contemporary internationalist discourse' featured extra-territoriality of this sort? The fact is, after 1918, nationality was based on birth and domicile though, no doubt, ethnic cleansing could occur. The Greeks and the Armenians had not stayed on in Turkey as nationals of Greece and a newly constituted Armenia. Instead, save where there was a bilateral agreement, they were ethnically cleansed. Once the War broke out, Britain interned any Germans living in the U.K just as had happened during the previous War. It was never the case that a citizen of one Nation had any of his rights safeguarded by anything save the laws of the other Nation in which he happened to reside. Jinnah was aware of this. He knew what happened in Turkey.
Yet he said in his famous 1940 speech- The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. 
In 1940, it was apparent that 'international problems' were solved by war.

So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realised, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Mussalmans, but to the British and Hindus also. If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure [the] peace and happiness of the people of this sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into "autonomous national states."
Empires in Europe had been dissolved in 1918. 'Autonomous Nation States' had been created. What was the result? War.
 There is no reason why these states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry, and the natural desire and efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy over the other in the government of the country, will disappear.
Jinnah was saying this after the 'Sudeten' German minority had given Hitler the excuse to destroy Czechoslovakia. How is it that German Czech rivalry had not disappeared from that country? It seems Jinnah embraced Pakistani logic even before Pakistan was created.
 It will lead more towards natural goodwill by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their neighbours. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with regard to minorities, by reciprocal arrangements and adjustments between Muslim India and Hindu India, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of Muslim and various other minorities.
Which was why Europe was so peaceful!
[[23]] It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. 
If Muslims are a separate Nation and if they show a taste for ethnic cleansing then Hindus should run away from Muslim majority areas. This is in fact what happened. As for Muslims clamoring to be a Nation where they were weak or a minority- they could be locked up for sedition or encouraged to emigrate.
The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.
[[24]] History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. 
Hitler certainly made this argument in 1938. It was unfair that German minorities had to suffer in Czechoslovakia and Poland. But, history solved that problem. After the war, millions of Germans were raped, killed and all of them were driven out of lands they had lived in for hundreds of years. The problem of German minorities was solved by getting rid of Germans and taking away German land.
History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. [The] Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula. Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government, when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government, will be the herald of the entire break-up, with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after one hundred fifty years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.
The Germans, under Hitler, risked that catastrophe and the Indian Muslims, under Jinnah, made the same mistake.
[[25]] Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years, and any repetItion of such a government must lead to civil war and [the] raising of private armies, as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to [the] Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not they must emigrate.
[[26]] Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look round. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of eleven provinces, four provinces where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any defmition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political life, in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands [that we find], and [the] vital interest[s] of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find, an honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all. But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us, to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.

What is Jinnah saying? I think he is demanding power sharing at a rather weak center and more or less full provincial autonomy such as already obtained. Jalal thinks he is saying that Muslims in Hindu majority areas would be citizens of Pakistan. Her logic is more Pakistani- no question. But was it the logic of the founder of Pakistan?

What was unacceptable was a spurious notion of democracy that allowed the Indian National Congress to use the brute majority of the Hindu community to impose its will on the Muslims.

Jinnah does not say this notion of democracy is spurious. He said it was unacceptable to Muslims. Perhaps he meant there would be a jihad or a hijrat but the least marked reading is that he wanted power sharing at the the Federal level.

Jalal is reading Jinnah's speech in- to my mind- a very odd way.

The political problem in India was not of an intercommunal nature as was commonly believed.

Communities (qaums) are Nations if they are sovereign. Jinnah wasn't saying that India did not have inter-communal problems. It did. But, the Muslim qaum was also a Nation. That was his meaning.

It was of a distinctly international character. In accordance with international norms of self-determination, the only logical solution was to divide India into autonomous states so that no nation could try and dominate the other.

If this is what Jinnah meant, then he and his audience were extraordinarily stupid. Europe was at war. It was clear that 'autonomous states' did try to dominate each other. Jalal should at least mention the possibility that Jinnah was merely flexing his muscles. What he really wanted- and what his audience understood him to be asking for- was parity with Hindus at the Center while the existing provincial autonomy continued.

Jalal next remarks on Jinnah's speech-

 If it embodied a separatist demand, the resolution adopted by the Muslim League in Lahore was curiously ambiguous when it came to specifying the precise geographical boundaries of the Muslim states it wanted to set up in northwestern and northeastern India where Muslims were in a majority.

So why pretend it did embody a separatist demand? Why not say it was a tactical move which others have considered separatist? Jinnah may have been a fool, but anyone who tries to convict him of even greater folly will look a greater fool because, thanks to the internet, everybody can check Jinnah's actual words. What is the point of attributing bizarre views to him? Does Jalal feel her mastery of Pakistani logic is inauthentic? Is she being deliberately stupid so as to reverse any deracination she has suffered? Or is it rather the case that the academic discipline she has so diligently pursued has at last, as it always must do, utterly rotted away her brains?