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

Playing with fire

By Huma Yusuf Share

The market has recently been flooded with books about Pakistan by academics, policymakers, and journalists. Many of these have sought to explain - and to some extent apologize for - contemporary Pakistani society to the western world. Pamela Constable's Playing with Fire: Pakistan at War with Itself is the rare exception that acknowledges this goal, and then lives up to its appointed task. Western readers could hope for no better guide to present-day Pakistan than Constable, a veteran journalist who has reported extensively from Pakistan for over a decade with The Washington Post. Her new book is a sound introduction to Pakistan's contradictions, inequalities, tumultuous politics, and every fluctuating national identity. 

As newspaper headlines about Pakistan policy choices become increasingly shrill, readers seeking context will find much of use in Playing with Fire. The book traces political and security developments across the country, primarily since 2007, that fateful year when former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and the army's poor handling of a siege at the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad led to a spate of nationwide suicide bombings. In addition to political upheaval and terrorist attacks, Constable documents new laws, corruption scandals, media trends, civil society movements, and more, making her book one of the few holistic backgrounders on Pakistan.

Indeed, Playing with Fire benefits immensely from its author's journalistic background. The book covers those aspects of Pakistan that are rarely examined in works by political scientists or retired diplomats focused on Pakistan's security issues or regional geopolitics. Constable includes chapters on women and their divergent experiences in different social classes, upper-class Pakistanis, religious minorities, and life in rural Pakistan (in the interests of disclosure, I read an early draft of one of these chapters while Constable and I overlapped as fellows at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC).

Like good journalism, the book also combines faithful documentation with sharp analysis: Constable bookends extensive quotes from Pakistanis - whether brick kiln workers or land-owning politicians - with her own insights into Pakistan's problems. These insights are inevitably the best nuggets in the book; for example, Constable observes that the dynamics of landed feudalism have trickled down into the contemporary industrial sector, where factor workers remain indebted to their employers.

Constable's most profound insight into Pakistan is stated at the outset, in the book's introduction. She argues that Pakistanis are essentially powerless: "they see the trappings of representative democracy around them but little tangible evidence of it working in their lives." The various chapters of Playing with Fire then show how this powerlessness is manifest: in the vestiges of the feudal system, in the failings of the judicial system, in the endless paperwork of a bloated bureaucracy, in the limited circles of dynastic politics, and in the ‘honor' codes of a patriarchal society. Through characters, narratives, statistics, and direct quotes, Constable shows how Pakistanis are denied rights and opportunities in a way that perpetuates the status quo. One only wishes that with each example of a powerless Pakistani she offers, Constable reiterated the theme more explicitly for emphasis. 

Interestingly, while acknowledging their powerlessness, Constable allows Pakistanis to speak for themselves in her book. The liberal use of direct quotes provides an insight into Pakistani perceptions of global trends and political issues. Numerous excerpts from newspaper editorials and columns (including one of mine) also give a taste of public discourse within Pakistan. The country is frequently faulted for its head-in-the-sand attitude towards internal security developments, particularly the long-term fallout of cultivating militant groups. But Constable's regular nods to Pakistani opinion-makers show that a spirited, if convoluted debate about Pakistan's future and identity is currently underway in the country.

The most interesting chapter in Playing with Fire documents the slow ‘Talibanization' of Pakistani society. Constable points to the diverse elements that have led many Pakistanis to equate patriotism and religiosity: the content of government-issue textbooks, the successful campaigns of religious political parties, the moralizing rhetoric of student politics, the vitriol of television talk show hosts, and the state's foreign policy. Moreover, she uncovers how Pakistani society has evolved in a matter of years from wearing its religion loosely to developing extremist sympathies. Constable shows how Islam became "hip" among university students who embraced their religious identity as a way to participate in global trends. She also notes that "poor yet pious" Pakistanis use religious fervor as a way to push back against "errant Muslims of a higher class," introducing equality in what is otherwise a highly stratified society.

This nuanced chapter is bolstered by Constable's overview of the origins and ideologies of Pakistan's various militant and sectarian groups. The book also documents major security-related events such as the formation of the anti-state Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the takeover of the Swat Valley in 2009 by TNSM, another extremist organization. With these snapshots of militancy, Playing with Fire becomes a handy user's guide to terrorism and security for those who have not followed regional developments at a granular level.

One argumentative disconnect does however emerge in the book. Constable's chapters on the ‘Talibanization' of society and Pakistan's use of militant groups as ‘strategic assets' emphasize that extremism is a top-down phenomenon in Pakistan, perpetuated as a result of state policies. But in other sections of the book, she suggests that extremist tendencies are organic-the expected fallout of widespread poverty, joblessness, and frustration. For example, Constable quotes the bitter complaint of a young man from Peshawar who graduated from a prestigious engineering school but was unable to find a job. He suggests that the lack of opportunity creates terrorists. Similarly, in a chapter about sectarian tensions and violent discrimination against religious minorities, Constable includes a rant by a butcher who denounces rampant corruption, crime, and poor leadership. The decision to include his viewpoint implies that the failure of state institutions is fostering religious intolerance.

There is an ongoing debate about whether extremism in Pakistan is a product of years of state-sponsored militancy and General Ziaul Haq's Islamization policies in the 1980s, or whether it is a contemporary response to flawed Pakistani and American policies. Given Constable's intimate knowledge of the region, a direct summary of her perceptions on this matter would have given the book even more substance.

Throughout her book, Constable draws out the clashing ideological and political stances of Pakistan's liberals and conservatives. She will be aware then that some liberals may find her book too soft on the Pakistan Army. No doubt, the book maps the fallout of the army's many dalliances with militant groups. But the chapter on the ‘murder of democracy' focuses on corrupt politicians such as President Asif Ali Zardari, dynastic politics, and the inefficient bureaucracy. Meanwhile, Constable's analysis of the Pakistan Army delves into the choices made by military dictators Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf as well as the shenanigans of the intelligence agent Khalid Khawaja. This focus on controversial characters (though compelling to read) makes the army's flaws seem individual rather than institutional. A concise assessment of the impact of military interference in Pakistan's political and economic spheres over the decades would have served the book well.

Ultimately, though, Playing with Fire is an accessible yet comprehensive guide to a country that is constantly evolving and much written about, but little understood by westerners.  

Huma Yusuf is a columnist for Pakistan's Dawn Newspaper, and was the 2010-11 Pakistan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

BANARAS KHAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

MARTY MARTEL

3:43 PM ET

October 20, 2011

Terrorist State of Pakistan

The malaise of Islamic radicalism runs deep across Pakistan’s entire establishment - civilian and military as well as society.

Nobody forced Pakistani government to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Democratic government of Pakistan chose to do so of its own free will.

Nobody forced Pakistani Army and Intelligence to create what ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel called ‘this jihadist Frankenstein’ monster in 1990s. Pakistani Army and Intelligence chose to do so with the full financing provided by Pakistan’s democratic governments at the time.

Is ’poverty, lack of economic development or lack of education’ a valid excuse to promote, spawn, shelter and support umpteen terrorist outfits on Pakistani soil?

Is ’wanting strategic depth’ a valid excuse to terrorize neighbors like Pakistan terrorizes Afghanistan and India or even take over a neighbor like Pakistan took over Afghanistan in 1996 and wants to do so again once U. S. troops depart? Should India create terrorist outfits to terrorize Pakistan and take it over because India feels sandwiched between China and Pakistan?

Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court and an influential Muslim scholars group praised the assassination of the governor who was recommending to reform Pakistan‘s sharia laws.

The Pakistani parliament’s joint session convened on 5/13/2011 after Osama’s killing and ended after adopting a unanimous resolution condemning the American raid on the Abbottabad compound in which al Qaeda chief was killed.

Pakistani parliamentarians did not appear to be bothered about Osama living in Abbottabad for the past five years and in other parts of the country since 9/11.

Osama bin Laden was a hero in Pakistan even prior to his death and remains one now as well.

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

How can Pakistani State or its nuclear weapons be threatened by Islamic fundamentalists when its Army, Intelligence Agency and Democratic governments SPONSOR such Islamic fundamentalist outfits like Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, Mullah Omar’s QST, Haqqani’s HQN and Hafiz Saeed’s LeT and will NOT abandon them for any amount of US money as reported by ambassador Patterson?

 

TRUTHSEEKER

2:12 AM ET

October 23, 2011

lazy copy-paster..

one wonders if you have an intelligent bone in your body at all.. You obviously have nothing to say regarding the topic instead of peddling your anti-Pakistan bigotry any way you can.. In any case, wherever you copy-paste your nonsense, you will find my response pasted in kind. Enjoy!

Spewing lies consistently doesn’t change the facts on the ground. There exists NO evidence that Pakistan facilitated OBL’s relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan. Claiming to do so without citing irrefutable evidence goes to show your utter anti-Pakistani bias that you constantly peddle in every single Pakistan related article here on Foreign Policy.

Bruce Riedel? Who really takes Bruce Riedel seriously apart from the bureaucrats who have been working on the so-called Af-Pak American policy for years now and have gotten nowhere with their ill-conceived notions of success in the region! Taliban didn’t come crashing to Earth from Mars; they were the same ‘jihadi Frankenstein monster’ that the Americans (CIA) & Saudis created and funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.. Pakistan merely re-organized them to quell the Afghan civil war that had erupted post Soviet departure and American abandonment of the region. Obviously, Riedel is too ashamed to admit some cold hard facts.

NO one in Pakistan ever says that whatever methods of implementing its own foreign policy objectives Pakistan employs is because of lack of development or lack of education, etc. The methods that Pakistan employs are a direct result of American intransigence regarding Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. How does putting terrorists of Northern Alliance (Taliban competitors bankrolled, financed and armed by India) in to positions of power in the puppet Afghan gov’t of Karzai help Afghanistan prosper? The performance of Karzai's stooge govt is for all to see.. bribery, corruption, feudal lords stacking looted cash from national coffers in Dubai and Swiss accounts while ordinary Afghans suffer!

Your ignorance is starkly visible from your statement, "Should India create terrorist outfits to terrorize Pakistan and take it over because India feels sandwiched between China and Pakistan".. this is sheer ignorance in the face of the fact that India has consistently financed Northern Alliance to counter Taliban in Afghanistan. Let’s not forget that these Northern Alliance terrorists were regularly supplied with finances and arms/ammunition via Indian forces base/outpost in Tajikistan that also includes an air-field. India doesn’t even border Afghanistan, so why all this jostling for influence?

Surely, Pakistan will do what it can to root out India’s nefarious designs in Afghanistan wherever and however possible. It’s a legitimate security concern for Pakistan that borders Afghanistan and it should come as NO surprise. Come 2014, the Pashtun majority, who support the Taliban by and large will make their influence felt in Afghan politics one way or another – which has thus far been sidelined by the current Afghan govt which is staffed by a plethora of minority Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazara, etc who peddle the interests of their masters in India and by extension their benefactors in the United States.

Surely your nonsensical narrative of events from cherry-picked information couldn’t more deviant from the actual ground realities. Yes it is wrong that some sections of the Pakistani society celebrated the killing of Salman Taseer and venerated his killer. So what? Big whooping deal! Which society doesn’t have right-wingers? A simple look across the border in India will reveal how much love fanatic Hindus have for the guy who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi and who decry Gandhi as a traitor and a Muslim-lover. Need I say anything about the Tea-Party in America? The delusional likes of Sarah Palin and/or Michelle Backman? Bottom line is, the killer has been sentenced to death and the court’s decision is resolute in punishing a criminal of his magnitude. Simple as that.

Ofcourse Pakistani parliamentarians passed a resolution condemning U.S unilateral action against OBL on Pakistani soil.. Hardly any parliamentarian (except those from the religious far-right) had any issue with OBL being killed. Ofcourse OBL is hero to some just like Anders Behring Breivik , the Norwegian killer is a hero to many right-wing Europeans who rejoiced in the killing of innocent ‘Muslim-lovers’ and ‘left-wing softies’.. What does this point raised by you prove? Absolutely NOTHING. What almost everyone in Pakistan, not just the parliamentarians, had a problem with was U.S flagrant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. That is a legitimate and understandable grievance. Your rants to the contrary are nothing but an exercise in rhetorical polemic with very little substance.

In your condemnation of Pakistan’s elected parliamentarians and labeling them as somehow pro-OBL, you forget to mention that most of the Pakistani population today regards the regime of Asif Zardari as nothing but a puppet of the United States in its continued support for American operations in Afghanistan via intelligence sharing, military cooperation, etc. Hence the dichotomy in your argument is fully exposed.

To date, no concrete evidence exists of ISI’s current support of Haqqani or anyone else.. Opinions, assumptions, conjecture by this official or that official, whether it be Anne Patterson or Adm. Mike Mullen; its all about political maneuvering to put more pressure on Pakistan by making an scapegoat in the failed saga of American adventurism in Afghanistan, which after a decade, still has no certain end. Here’s some refreshing information (excerpt) for you from TIME magazine’s recent report:

…’ But Thomas Ruttig, a co-founder of the Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN) and expert on the Haqqani network, thinks ISAF may be crowing over very little…’ , Ruttig of AAN, says, "It is difficult to prove that the ISI is behind, or advises in, particular operations of the Haqqani network, or, for that matter, other Taliban subgroups or other terrorist organizations. Often, reports about the Haqqani network or other organizations' involvement in certain attacks remain unclear. This is still the case in the latest attacks." For what it's worth, both the Pakistani and Taliban spokesmen have denied that links exist between the ISI and the Haqqani network.’ Courtesy TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2096545-1,00.html

You got one thing partially right – Pakistan will not abandon its interests for any amount of money. Only way to seriously engage Pakistan in a constructive manner is to listen to what it says. Wind-up the endless Indian consulates popping up everywhere in Afghanistan and limit Indian influence in Afghanistan to a legitimate minimum as would be required to conduct the ‘good’ work that Indians are doing in Afghanistan as per their claims. Negotiate with the Taliban (which the U.S is doing off and on but trying to outflank Pakistan in such negotiations – another misstep and height of foolishness) and other such concerns. Then only will Pakistan respond positively and favorably and do what it can by using any leverage, if there, it has over any sort of militants.

Your comments in every other Pakistan related thread are highly ignorant and have very little logic or understanding of the complex situation that involved Afghanistan-Pakistan region. I am extremely tempted to think that you are nothing but an alternate user I.D of another user here on FP who goes by the name ‘DRKUCHBHI’. May very well not be the case but surely, you both have nothing better to do than regurgitate the same anti-Pakistan bile again n again.

 

HALFORD

2:14 PM ET

November 21, 2011

Lawyers showered the

Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court and an influential Muslim scholars pc geeks group praised the assassination of the governor who was recommending to reform Pakistan‘s sharia laws.