What confuses Pakistanis?

The narrative that television disseminates is based on a travesty of nationalism which blinds the public to facts.

If one were to listen to television talk shows, one would conclude that Pakistan’s enemy number one is the United States, and that the Taliban or other jihadi groups, whether Pakistani or Afghan, can get away, literally, with murder. Whenever there is a bomb blast, suicide attack or otherwise, our religious parties immediately credit Blackwater, and even RAW and MOSSAD with the said blast. And even when the reveren jihadis claim the blast, the press goes into the ostrich (‘head in the sand’) mode.

Now take the recent survey conducted by Geo Television in nine cities and 42 villages across the country. According to the report, 77 per cent consider the United States as the enemy. For them, the release of the CIA agent Raymond Davis was more traumatic than the usual suicide bomb blasts and 70 per cent blame President Zardari (not the intelligence agencies) for his release. And, connected with this anti-Americanism, half of the people surveyed think nuclear weapons (which everybody calls ‘assets’) are in danger (presumably from America). And that is probably why only seven per cent people are ‘happy’— relieved? — over Osama bin Laden’s death though, paradoxically enough, half the population is ‘sad or worried’, while also not believing he was killed at all.

Can the confusion get any worse? But there are reasons for this confusion. Look at the narratives that the public is exposed to. Parents, family, peer group and teachers all contribute towards this confusion. The books most Pakistanis read tell them that the British and the Hindus conspired to keep the Muslims deprived, powerless and marginalised. And yet how MA Jinnah got Pakistan, and without even going to jail, is never explained. They are told that India attacked Pakistan on September 6, 1965 but not that Pakistan had, in fact, sent fighters across the LoC in an insane adventure called Operation Gibraltar earlier. They are told that East Pakistan rebelled against the centre and India helped to create Bangladesh, but not that West Pakistan had exploited the eastern wing like a colony and that the army’s brutal military action had precipitated a civil war. The textbooks are completely silent over the fact that, since 1990, Pakistan has used jihadi groups to bleed India in the hope that India will leave Kashmir. That this has put Pakistan in danger, both internally and externally, is never mentioned in any textbook.

As if the textbooks were not enough, television provides incendiary material par excellence. Almost all anchorpersons vie with each other in misplaced chauvinism when it comes to India and America. After the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, nobody was even ready to admit the possibility that groups based in Pakistan could, just possibly, have conducted the operation. No sympathy for the dead could be shown, otherwise one would be considered worse than a traitor. It is another matter that the Indian media was even more aggressive, but surely two wrongs do not make a right.

The narrative that television anchorpersons disseminate is based on a travesty of nationalism which blinds the public to many facts. It says that the war on terror is America’s war and Pakistan should withdraw from it. Because of this, cases of America’s unilateral actions in Pakistan or the conduct of its spies are made into a loss of sovereignty. But the fact that jihadi groups — Arabs, Chechens, Afghans and Pakistanis — have actually established a parallel state where our government does not rule and does not constitute a violation of sovereignty. Otherwise, had America been considered an ally, some such actions might have been seen as irritants or high-handedness but most of the public would not even have known about them whereas, there would have been outrage at our land being occupied by forces, other than our own military.

The narrative of national honour I have pointed to leaves out a number of awkward truths. First, the most powerful decision-makers of Pakistan — the military and some members of the government — actually have the relationship of an ally with the US. Senator John Kerry reiterated this a few days back and nobody in government or the military contradicted him. Secondly, billions of dollars have been received mainly by the military, precisely, because we are allies. And, thirdly, the jihadi world view could be the undoing of Pakistan as we know it.

The jihadis are not only against the American occupation of Afghanistan. The problem is that they are also against India. And if their hatred again manifests itself as another strike into India, it will be the beginning of the end. For India’s ‘Cold Start’ doctrine is that a ‘surgical strike’ will be undertaken within Pakistan. If such a thing happens — and I hope it never does — Pakistan may retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons and this would mean a war. Can we count on sanity or luck that these exchanges do not escalate to a nuclear doomsday scenario? I think not!

And even if there is no war, the jihadis have a philosophy, a world view, a narrative which they believe in with fanatical zeal. In this, democracy is an alien western concept; the leaders of the Muslim world are western stooges; the concepts of  ‘women rights’, ‘human rights’ and ‘rule of law’ etc. are misguided at best and heretical at worse; and societies must be punished in order to correct them. Now, if such groups become very powerful, it is possible that the state will no longer be able to impose its writ even on the non-elitist areas of the cities, what to talk of the small towns and villages. It is also possible that opportunistic politicians or the military high command give control of the society to the jihadis, while keeping control over defence, foreign affairs and the budget — somewhat like the Saudi royalty’s relationship with the Wahabi clergy. If this is what our people want, then let them decide but let them not be kept confused by our sentimental, mendacious and propagandist media and textbook writers.

Let the truth be told to them and they will make wiser decisions. If the public is misled, misinformed and emotional, it cannot be expected to take decisions in the interest of the country. If the decision-makers of Pakistan start a war with the US, our people will suffer. Direct democracy of the uninformed and the irrational would be suicidal.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 22^nd, 2011.