Don’t talk of vision!

Nasir Aslam Zahid, a highly regarded ex-judge of the Supreme Court, was talking to Geo TV’s Kamran Khan on June 30, 2010 about how to rescue Pakistan from its current internal crisis. His insights into foreign policy and the economy suffered from flaws of lack of expertise as well as vision. He thought Pakistan’s policies were made by America. There is no consensus on Pakistan’s exercise of foreign policy options after 1947. Attaining supremacy inside Pakistan on the basis of Pakistan’s anti-India nationalism, the army has dictated all rational choices and made them irrational. Today, if Pakistan were not restrained by its dependency on external support, it would go to war with India. Its anger against the US stems from their refusal to endorse this war with their weapons.

Justice Zahid also referred to the welfare (falahi) state featuring in most constitutions as a desirable political fiction to be aspired to. On ground, it means a heavily subsidised economy which actually creates poverty in place of happiness. India, one of the most subsidised states in the world, is being punished by country-wide protests at the government’s efforts to lower the budget deficit by cutting back on subsidy. The judges’ general view of privatisation in Pakistan is coloured by a non-expert attachment to ‘national assets’ despite their sabotage of the national economy through ‘humanitarian’ loss-making.

The real cause of the crisis of Pakistan is the Pakistani mind, and this mind is created through the textbook curriculum that underpins national education. It has been spelled out in Shaping a nation: An Examination of Education in Pakistan (OUP 2010), edited by Stephen Lyon and Iain Edgar, under series editor Ali Khan of LUMS. Ayaz Naseem, who teaches in Canada, has contributed an important paper on what may be at the root of Pakistan’s status of a weak state. His study shows that the Pakistani mind is shaped by textbook militarism which mixes lethally with the Islamic concept of free-wheeling jihad.

Of the school textbooks, he writes: “The battles and wars of early Muslim adventurers in India such as Mohammad bin Qasim, Mahmood Ghaznavi, Ahmad Shah Abdali, and Sultan Tughlaq are used to normalise war and militarism as cherished activities” (p151).

Islamabad controls the textbook content through the curriculum division of the federal ministry of education. The author tells us: “The curriculum seeks developing an understanding of Hindu-Muslim differences; enhancing the understanding of the forces working against Pakistan; promoting realisation about the Kashmir issue; evaluating of the role of India with reference to aggression” (p31). The curriculum directives seek to designate India (and by association Hindus) as the ‘other’ and develop a siege mentality by learning that there are a number of outside forces working in Pakistan, Israel and Jews among them (p152).

Ayaz Waseem defines militarism thus: An uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of the ways of the military by the general population of a society (p150). More significantly: “The normalcy of war and violence also normalised violence against the domestic ‘other’. Thus, we see in Pakistan how the military and militarism of all shades and hues, whether in the form of religious fanaticism, violence against women, children and minorities, or support for jihadi organisations domestically and internationally has come to be seen as normal” (p157).

Given this collective matrix, it would be most harmful to demand ‘vision’ from a Pakistani leader. Justice Zahid has been my favourite judge. I have had the honour of appearing before him once in Karachi and will never forget his humane but strict adherence to the universal principles of justice.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 25^th, 2010.