The AFPAK Channel
Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Karachi's complex culture of violence

By Madiha Sattar, August 9, 2010 Share

The last time I remember not being able to pick up bread from a corner store in Karachi was in December 2007 in the days following Benazir Bhutto's assassination. But last week Pakistan's city that never sleeps again fell utterly silent as its residents, scared of rioting, firing, and arson, locked themselves indoors for three days - many giving up daily wages -while over 85 people were killed and billions of rupees in earnings were lost in the country's commercial capital. Since then, at least 12 more people have died in continued targeted killings. The empty roads, closed gas stations and shuttered shops were brought on by the murder last Monday of provincial assembly member Raza Haider, a leader of Karachi's dominant political party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). But while they were eerily reminiscent of the tense hush two and a half years ago, this time they have a far less simple explanation.

The defining characteristic of the history of Karachi's ethnic-slash-political violence is its complexity. Unlike the one-off reaction to Benazir's death or the terrorist attacks here against foreigners in 2002, the city's indigenous carnage - which has flared up repeatedly since the 1980s - is perhaps the most confounding problem confronting Pakistan's government today. The country suffers from everything from electricity shortages and food and fuel price inflation to stalled talks with India and a total failure to manage natural disasters. But none of these problems present quite the same tangled mix of political incentives that Karachi does.

This city is one of migrants, where Sindhis, Pashtuns, Balochis and Muhajirs - Urdu-speakers arriving from India after 1947 - have uneasily lived in localities that are separated along ethnic lines but crammed next to each other in the 17-million-strong megalopolis. To compete for land, jobs, resources and votes, these groups have formed, or decided to support, rival political parties, which have in turn exploited these ethnic tensions to win supporters.

But thrown into Karachi's mix are also criminal gangs who could not possibly operate so brazenly without the patronage, or at least the blessings, of these parties. Clearly protected, they run land, drug, transport, weapons and extortion rackets and keep rival ethnic groups out of their respective localities; just yesterday, five criminals allegedly belonging to a drug cartel were killed in a shoot-out with law enforcement, who also found arms, ammunitions, and police uniforms in their hideout. But aside from the rare bust such as this one, police and the paramilitary Rangers are famously limited to main roads in many of the city's neighborhoods, whose inner streets are controlled by arms-bearing gang members operating beyond the reach of the law. Every once in a while, sparked by events such as upcoming local elections or high profile assassinations or simply when one group is angry enough at the other, the tense stand-off bursts into flames. This occurred several times in 2009, in the early part of this year, and again this week.

Untying this knot is all but impossible - even before one overlays the city's Sunni-Shia rivalry, politicized and armed through groups such as the Sunni Tehreek (different from the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP) and Sipah-e-Sahaba - because the political parties involved are very much a part of Pakistan's governing structure. Between them, the Pakistan Peoples Party, the MQM and the Awami National Party run the federation and three of the four provinces. They are also three of the parties believed to be behind Karachi's ethnic violence over the years.

What this means is that it is incredibly difficult to hold anyone to account for the city's instability. The people at the top of the pyramid are simply too powerful; they city's politics are run by some of the same people who also run the country. And the links between political parties and crime - or at least the desire to exploit rather than curb it - has been disguised well enough so that it is all too easy for a political leader or party to deny their link to the violence; failure to try captured suspects, for example, can easily be attributed to lack of evidence rather than institutional unwillingness to try criminals. It is also possible that leaders at the highest levels of city and provincial politics cannot control the political workers and gangs they have spawned. In any case, under the usual scenario parties find a way of fighting without publicly dragging each other through the mud, perpetuating a cycle that nonetheless allows each of them to maintain their partial hold over Karachi. After a spate of violence in January, for instance, MQM and PPP leaders held a press conference to deny that those clashes - which had claimed at least 35 lives in four days - had ethnic or political roots. They attributed it to "criminals" instead, which is not untrue but is hardly the whole truth.

But Haider's murder, and the lower intensity conflict that preceded it for several weeks, broke away from this mutual public politeness. The MQM and the ANP, locked in clashes that had erupted from land disputes, openly blamed each other. Once Haider was dead, the MQM accused the ANP of at least indirectly being responsible by harboring criminals, extremists, and the Taliban. Meanwhile, Interior Minister Rehman Malik of the PPP insisted that it was a sectarian killing carried out by extremist Sunni group Sipah-e-Sahaba, a version also proposed by the official investigation team.

So even when blame is clearly assigned, the complexity of Karachi's violence protects the people who perpetuate it. Partly through its own evolution and partly through strategy, the situation today is such that that you can throw any number of explanations at it, and most of them will stick - but without holding anyone truly accountable. At any given point, Karachi's violence can be attributed to Islamist militants, criminals peddling various contraband goods or people fighting land grabbers. Everyone but the political parties who could stop the fighting if they wanted to.  

Madiha Sattar is a senior assistant editor at the Karachi-based monthly The Herald.

 

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

CEOUNICOM

3:21 PM ET

August 9, 2010

Pre-emptive...

Shut up Marty.

Please, please, please don't post the same dumb thing here you did on the previous thread. Asking you probably won't do any good, but for the love of god, please don't. Just take a week off or something.

 

ADVISOR

1:41 AM ET

August 10, 2010

Too soft

I applaud your understanding of the complex situation in Karachi. However, I believe that the following analysis presented is slightly weak.

"And the links between political parties and crime - or at least the desire to exploit rather than curb it - has been disguised well enough so that it is all too easy for a political leader or party to deny their link to the violence; failure to try captured suspects, for example, can easily be attributed to lack of evidence rather than institutional unwillingness to try criminals."

Often has been the case that the protection from the judicial system is often extended to the criminal gangs by the political parties. With crime always comes evidence and the crimes in Karachi have entailed much evidence. On the one hand the political parties actively hamper any process that would lead to a criminal's trial and on the other hand many of the judges are corrupt who take side with one party or another.

The government of Pakistan must intervene and start a dialogue among the parties. Such atrocities only exacerbate the already difficult situation on the ground.

 

MARTY MARTEL

12:22 AM ET

August 11, 2010

Pakistan's self-created culture of violence

Even though Ms. Madiha discusses only Karachi, it applies to entire Pakistan.

Let us just look at say last 15 years or so.

Nobody forced it but Pakistan’s democratic government of Benazir Bhutto chose of its own free will, to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996.

Nobody forced it but Pakistani Army and ISI created what ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel called 'this jihadist Frankenstein monster' on their own with full financing provided by Pakistan’s democratic governments during 1990s.

Al Qaeda, Taliban, LeT, JeM, JuD, HuJi and countless other terror outfits have been spawned in Pakistan, the official ’terror center’ of the world as per CIA with the help, support and sanctuary provided by the Pakistani State that is owned by Pakistani Army that uses ’terrorism’ as an official tool of state policy to further its own objectives.

Osama bin Laden had publicly congratulated Pakistan in 1998 for exploding world’s first Islamic nuclear bomb.

Pakistani Army used to provide military protection to Osama bin Laden during his umpteen visits to Pakistan. Osama bin Laden has received many dialysis treatments at Pakistan’s military hospitals.

Osama bin Laden had made huge campaign contributions to Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s election campaigns in 1990 and 1996. Let us NOT forget that Nawaz Sharif has personally met Osama bin Laden at least three times in Saudi Arabia at Nawaz Sharif’s own request. Nobody can call Nawaz Sharif’s PML(N) a fundamentalist Islamic religious party.

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in March, 2004 that ’Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban’.

Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.

Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.