Business Recorder Column June 25, 2024

Here we go again

 

Rashed Rahman

 

Here we go again with another military operation against the religious extremist terrorists that afflict this country, chiefly Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). This time it is Chinese pressure, casting a deep shadow over CPEC, that has tipped us over the edge, not the past terrorist massacres such as the Army Public School, Peshawar one in 2014. Even before that, the local, so-called ‘bad’ Taliban (as opposed to the perceived ‘good’ Afghan Taliban) were subjected time and again to military and security forces’ operations since 2000. The fact that the terrorist problem has not gone away despite this long spate of military operation after operation compels pause for thought. The earlier operations under General Pervez Musharraf usually ended in a ceasefire and ‘peace’ agreements with the terrorists, usually broken soon after by the religious fanatics. General Kayani’s venture in South Waziristan yielded more displacement of local people than beneficial results in terms of rooting out the terrorist menace. General Raheel Sharif’s operation pushed the TTP into Afghanistan, but failed to follow up with sufficient intelligence-based operations under the consensus National Action Plan to demolish the remaining presence of the TTP on our soil in the shape of sleeper cells. Imran Khan and General Faiz Hameed, in the wake of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in 2021, undertook a criminal invitation to the TTP ensconced in safe havens on Afghan soil to return, ostensibly with the hope that the returnees would lay down their arms and rejoin society as peaceful citizens. This was apiece with Imran Khan’s (and others’) view that since there was no military solution to the problem of religiously motivated terrorism, the best option was to talk to them. The fact that this had been tried and failed repeatedly during Pervez Musharraf’s regime was blatantly ignored.

But blaming later mistakes runs the risk of losing the forest for the trees. The rot begins with Bhutto’s project to take Islamist Afghan leaders and students under the ISI’s wing, starting in 1973 after the Daud coup in Afghanistan. From there, a long and sorry tale winds its way through the emergence of the Afghan Mujahideen after the Communist coup in Afghanistan in 1978, the Soviet invasion in 1979 (and our hitching our wagon to the coattails of US imperialism), the civil war amongst former Mujahideen ‘comrades’ from 1992 onwards after the fall of the Najib regime, to the advent and victory of the first Taliban regime in 1996. Having achieved the undeclared goal of foisting a ‘friendly’ regime in Afghanistan (considered a great success by our military and security planners), we soon discovered that this was an illusion, if not a bed of thorns. The old received wisdom about proxies being a double-edged sword, which seemed to have escaped notice by our strategists, soon manifested itself by the behaviour of the Taliban towards ethnic/national minorities, of which Afghanistan has aways boasted a mosaic, to women and other marginalised social groups, manifested in an extreme, violent regime of compulsion to adhere to the antediluvian dreams of the fanatics.

The Afghan Taliban came a cropper in 2001 after they refused to surrender Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11. The Afghan regime fell before US military might, but Pakistan’s double game of running with the fox (the Afghan Taliban) and hunting with the hounds (the US) eventually wore down the US military and persuaded it to withdraw in a most chaotic, disorderly, unplanned manner, reminiscent of its fleeing Vietnam in 1975. Initially, it seemed the military establishment was blissfully happy that their ‘protégés’ had returned to power. Such is the abysmal lack of understanding of our establishment that Imran Khan’s fantasies of a returning Pakistani Taliban embracing ‘good’ behaviour was implemented with the help of then ISI chief General Faiz Hameed. History is unlikely to treat either foolish author of this debacle kindly.

But the story’s beginning and its impact on our society is so far unsaid. Our Napoleons failed to understand the potential infection of our Pashtun tribes in the former tribal areas (main staging posts for the Afghan Mujahideen and later the Taliban) with the extremist religious views of our Afghan ‘guests’. At first, the local tribesmen attached themselves to the Afghan Mujahideen and Taliban, but later, after the Lal Masjid episode, declared themselves openly as the TTP. Hence, if anyone is to be blamed for our long running Taliban problem, our strategists and planners must head the list.

Repeated military operations indicate that none of them in the past has had a strategic purpose. That is why seeming tactical victories (e.g. driving the bulk of the TTP forces into Afghanistan) satisfied our establishment, only to find a resurrection of the problem sooner or later. Operation Zarb-e-Azb failed to cut off the retreat of the TTP into Afghanistan for militarily inexplicable reasons. The restored Afghan Taliban regime was foolishly considered our ‘brothers’ (despite the evidence after 9/11) and expected to rein in the TTP for us. When they have cocked a snook at our entreaties to this effect, we seem trapped in an unresolvable cul-de-sac. Lower Dir is only one of the areas experiencing cross-border attacks. The Awami National Party is warning of a TTP takeover of Malakand.

Meanwhile, contrary to the chorus baying for the moon of a dialogue between the political parties, our divided, polarised politics currently yields opposition to everything for the sake of opposition from those feeling victimised (PTI) or marginalised (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) by their former establishment mentors. That may provide them some satisfaction of adhering to Imran Khan’s defiant campaign, but it will achieve little in overcoming the resurgent TTP threat, much to the regret, perhaps later, of all and sundry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Column June 11, 2024

The tide is turning

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The Indian elections are an indicator of the fact that Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) hubris has been punctured, signalling a turning of the tide. The defeat and retreat of socialism worldwide in 1989-91 opened the door to a triumphalist neoliberal capitalist globalisation. In its wake, right wing populism has held sway until now. But its essential hollowness as far as the people are concerned and its tilt towards enriching the already wealthy and pushing the poor further into misery in the name of economic growth by now stands exposed and subject to ill winds. India under Modi since 2014 had been trumpeted as the hugely successful example of what unbridled capitalism could bring about. But behind the GDP growth figures and claims of being poised to become the third largest economy in the world (after the US and China), India’s ground realities have now asserted themselves.

Of course, it must be admitted that this turn of the seemingly unstoppable tide of capitalist growth and aggressive saffron campaigns to achieve a Hindu rashtra (country) may not have been possible without the continuation of India’s parliamentary democratic system, whose credibility stands further enhanced by the results of its people speaking out through their vote in these elections. It is the continuity of that democracy, with brief interruptions, that should be an object lesson for us in Pakistan. Instead, we still are left to admire India’s genuine, credible democracy while being subjected to authoritarian rule and rigged elections for most of our existence.

The commentariat in Pakistan has used up much space and many words on trying to delineate the trajectory of the Narendra Modi-led coalition government of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with the BJP at its heart and centre. The obstacles to its smooth running have been more or less unanimously laid out. At the risk of boring readers with repetition, let us merely summarise the main roadblocks to a hoped-for third triumphal term for Modi, only the second Prime Minister (PM) in independent India’s history to achieve the feat (the first was Jawaharlal Nehru). First, Modi is accustomed to ruling with absolute authority without the need for allies since 2001 when he was elected Gujarat Chief Minister, to 2014 when he ascended to the PM’s chair. That ‘luxury’ will no longer be available to him. After being sworn in on June 9, 2024, Modi announced his would be a 71-member cabinet (down from 81 in his previous exclusively BJP administration), including 11 of the 14 NDA allied parties’ nominees. How unwieldy and manageable this conglomerate will prove only time will tell. Modi has, because of his egotistical personalisation of his past two terms, irritated the BJP’s mother party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and given birth to resentments inside the BJP’s top ranks. These fissures could conceivably come back to haunt him before his day is done. Modi’s aggressive repressive drives against religious minorities, especially Muslims, and his threatened reversal of the reservations policy that ensures jobs for these minorities and Dalits (untouchables) proved another negative factor at the hustings.

Ironically, the traditional North-South divide between the ‘Hindi belt’ and the non-Hindi peninsula, respectively, operated in unexpected manner in this election. In UP, with 80 seats in parliament and boasting the recently Modi-inaugurated Hindu temple on the ruins of the Babri Masjid, the BJP came a cropper. Similar reversals appeared in Maharashtra, home to sister Hindu fundamentalist party Shiv Sena. It appears a case of Hundutva ‘overkill’ (accompanied by some actual killings of Muslims and other religious minorities such as Christians in the restive North-East). When Modi’s aggressive and abusive saffron drive seems to have stalled in the former strongholds in the Hindi belt, what does this portend for its future in India as a whole?

To add some historical context, in the fourth quarter of the 19^th century, when British colonialism had consolidated its hold in post-1857 War of Independence India, the Muslim Mughal Empire was gone, leaving its landed elite suspended in a virtually powerless vacuum. On the other hand, the rise of a Hindu salariat imbued with English education, learning and culture, persuaded Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to launch his educational campaign for otherwise rudderless Muslims. In the midst of this conjuncture, V D Savarkar launched his concept of Hindutva, by which he meant not just the Hindu religion, but the entire spiritual, religious and cultural history and social construct of the Hindus (Aryans). From this set of ideas emerged a revanchist view of history that painted the Muslims as ‘outsiders’ (invaders) who had lorded over and oppressed Hindus for around 1,100 years. This revanchist history now sought a reversal of this past in favour of the majority Hindus as the independence struggle emerged. These ideas are the parents of today’s saffron brigade, which first emerged in the shape of the RSS, one of whose cadre assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948 for being fair to Pakistan on the issue of the division of assets between the two newly independent states. Later the RSS intervened in parliamentary politics, and through various avatars, finally triumphed in the electoral fray in the shape of BJP.

Modi has now been hoist on the petard of India’s tryst with the secular, inclusive state the founding fathers envisaged. Let alone aggressive, abusive saffron policies, Modi may have to tread carefully if he is not to bite the dust even before his five-year term ends. Try he will, Modi being Modi, but it will no longer be as easy as in the past. And we in Pakistan should refrain from holding our breath in anticipation of some opening or improvement in relations any time soon. Too much water and bad blood has flowed down the rivers for this to prove easy. Modi is no Bajpayee, lacking the latter’s visionary attempt to settle matters with Pakistan, which unfortunately were sabotaged by Musharraf’s irresponsible adventure in Kargil in 1999. One of the abiding ironies of history though, is the fact that the same saboteur of peace Musharraf travelled to Agra in 2001 in an effort to seal peace between the two neighbours, who came within a hair’s breadth of a truly historic turn. God knows how long it will be before such a turn arrives again. In the meantime, both countries are stuck in their own paradigms, with nary a ray of hopeful light to be seen anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Column June 4, 2024

 Predictable decline of ANC

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The results of South Africa’s general elections have delivered a stunning blow to the ruling African National Congress (ANC), depriving it for the first time since it came to power under Nelson Mandela 30 years ago of an outright majority under the country’s proportional representational system. Seats are allocated to the parties in this system according to the percentage received of the total votes cast. ANC’s tally this time has fallen to 40.2 percent from the 57.5 percent in the last elections in 2019. This means the ANC will garner 159 seats in the 400-seat parliament, necessitating the formation of a coalition government. Possible partners in such a coalition include for example the centre-right Democratic Alliance (DA) with 87 seats and 22 percent of the vote. Missing from the coalition, in fact arraigned in militant opposition to any coalition that emerges will be the newly formed uMkonto weSizwe (MK) (Spear of the Nation, the title during the struggle against apartheid of the ANC’s military wing) of former ANC leader and President Jacob Zuma. Zuma fell from grace and high office on corruption charges, to be replaced by outgoing President Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa’s background includes student activism against apartheid, trade union leadership (Council of Unions of South Africa, CUSA, and Conference of South African Trade Unions, COSATU) starting from being a mine workers’ leader. He was also very important in leading the ANC’s negotiations with the white apartheid regime from 1991 onwards until that abhorrent ‘system’ gave way to Nelson Mandela’s victory as President in the 1994 elections.

The transition from white apartheid rule in South Africa is a very interesting story. Dutch (Boers) and British white settler colonialists had taken over South Africa starting from the first colony set up by the Dutch East India Company in 1652. The Boers set up their South Africa Republic and the Orange Free State while the subsequent British colonial settlers established the Cape Colony and Natal. All this transpired at the expense of the indigenous black population, and only after a series of resistance wars against the colonialists. Eventually, the desire of the British to merge the Boer areas with their own in a united South African colonial enterprise led to two Boer-British wars in 1880-81 and 1899-1902. The second war led to the defeat of the Boers who wanted to retain control of ‘their’ territories and ‘modern’, unified South Africa was born. The pre-existing oppression of and suppression of the indigenous black South Africans at the hands of the white settler colonialists finally transmogrified, especially after WWII, into the apartheid system, which implied ‘separate development’ for the blacks, a euphemism for displacing the black population into Bantustans (black reservations) and grabbing their land. Even those black South Africans who were not confined to these Bantustans or managed to escape them and enter mainstream South African life in the cities were horribly discriminated against and oppressed. ‘Whites Only’ signs were ubiquitous in public areas, transport, even washrooms. If people think the US deep south’s slavery was bad, even it could not hold a candle to the cruel fate meted out to the indigenous South Africans.

Gandhi travelled to South Africa in the 1910s after finishing his law studies in Britain to help the Indian indentured labourers community in the country, who had been transported there by the British colonialists. There he set up an ashram and conducted struggles on behalf of his unfortunate countrymen as well as against the horrific white settler colonialist laws and practices such as the pass laws. Every non-white person in South Africa had to, on pain of persecution, to carry an identification pass. Gandhi, amongst other actions, led the movement to publicly burn these passes as a show of defiance of and resistance to white domination and persecution. The ANC was born out of, and deeply influenced by, Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance. But long after Gandhi had left South Africa to continue his struggle for Indian independence, the ANC tended to adhere to these precepts.

The turning point arguably came with the Sharpeville massacre in 1961. Ironically, the defiant rally against the pass laws and other oppressive laws and practices was led by ANC’s smaller and more militant rival, the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). The South African police opened massive and indiscriminate firing on the peaceful rally, murdering, according to official (understated) figures, 69 people, including nine children, and wounding 180, including 19 children. Many were shot in the back as they turned to flee. After Sharpeville, the mood turned ever more militant amongst the black population. Even the hitherto pacific ANC turned to armed struggle (hence ‘Spear of the Nation’). The armed resistance was not very successful, and crackdowns eventually led to the arrest and incarceration of ANC’s leader Nelson Mandela in 1962, sentencing to life imprisonment, of which 27 years were spent with the ANC leadership on maximum security prison Robben’s Island.

The long internment of Mandela and growing opposition to the inhuman, cruel and oppressive system of apartheid the world over, especially in the US-led west, which was the main supporter, politically and economically, of apartheid, led to South Africa incrementally becoming isolated and morally condemned (Cf. Israel today). This eventually translated into economic isolation through the boycott movement, triggering an economic crisis, actual and of confidence. Apartheid South Africa did not, however, concede to the demand for a just society without the countless sacrifices of the South African people. Eventually, white South African President F W de Klerk brought Mandela back from Robben’s Island, negotiated with him and was sufficiently persuaded by Mandela’s vision and wisdom to concede an end to apartheid in favour of a democratic South Africa.

While the world rejoiced with South Africa at this turn of events that culminated in Mandela being elected President in a free and fair election in 1994, and while the demise of apartheid went unmourned, informed analysts had fears and question even then about the future of a South Africa in which Mandela had prevented a potentially bloody civil war by promising there would be no black revenge against the whites, who would continue to live peacefully as citizens of the changed country. Truth and Reconciliation processes healed many wounds and helped South Africans to look forward to a very different and better future. Mandela’s peaceful revolution was in sharp contrast to the rival PAC’s position, summed up in their slogan: “One settler, one bullet.” But while Mandela’s incredible peaceful victory promised much hope, there remained a fly or two in the ointment. The ‘revolution’ was political, but it left intact the economic structure, in which the whites were a privileged elite and the blacks impoverished and destitute. Without a revolutionary restructuring of the economy and wealth ownership in favour of the blacks, the chickens of this compromise were sure to come home to roost some day. Instead of addressing this historic inequality, Mandela’s successors fell prey to the temptations of high office and were increasingly perceived as corrupt. This apart from the inherent inequity of a white rich elite and a struggling mass of the poor black people.

Those poor have now spoken. Whether the ANC manages a coalition that agrees to retain Ramaphosa at its head, as the ANC is insisting, or he is removed from within the party, the message delivered by the people of South Africa must be heeded, or the ANC’s decline could end up in a complete rout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

The June 2024 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) is out

 The June 2024 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents:

1. Rashed Rahman: Revolutions in the Third World today – II: The role of the peasantry.

2. Vijay Prashad: The students will not tolerate hypocrisy.

3. Communist Party of India (Marxist): Party Programme.

4. Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist): Party Programme.

5. Fayyaz Baqir: My life and struggle – IV: General Election 1970.

6. Mohammad Ali Talpur: The Rise of Baloch Nationalism and Resistance – X: Apathy or sympathy fatigue.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook)