Ethnic Nationalism as a Façade for Class Exploitation: the case of the Pashtun Nationalist Struggle

Pakistan has been prey to strong ethnic and sectarian divides since its inception. The politics of ethnic nationalism has been used to disguise the exploitative class structure and this paper explores the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in this regard. The politics of ethnicity has scarred national integration and solidarity. As politics has mainly remained the domain of the elite, the slogan of ethnicity has been raised time and again to perpetuate the existing political structure and class inequality. The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is no different. The Pashtuns are a historic race who takes pride in its bravery, hospitality and heroism. This strong cultural tradition and affiliation only to one’s own ethnicity and tribe should have faded over the years somewhat with the influence of modernity. However, this was not the case. This strong allegiance continued and the role of the tribal Sardars and the ruling class is crucial in this. It is always essential for the ruling class to maintain the status quo, since that is what perpetuates and strengthens their control. In order to achieve this goal they use the slogan of ethnicity to distract people from the real economic and social disparities that confront them. This is precisely what the nationalist leaders of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have done in the name of the Pashtun nationalist struggle.

           

                   According to Lenin on Marxist ideas about nationalism:

“Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language … Therein is the economic foundation of national movements.” (Lenin).

            

                  Marxist point of view believes nationalism to be a capitalist construct created by the bourgeoisie in order to detract the masses from the real issue of class exploitation that they are facing. For Marx the proletariat are a community in their own who are not subject to national boundaries but it is imperative for them to recognize their class exploitation as a whole. In much of the third world “nationalism” was used to mobilize the masses against colonial rule. In the case of Pakistan as well, the ruling dominant party was the Muslim League which consisted mainly of the landed class. However the concept of a separate state for the Muslims without Hindu subjugation and with equal economic and social opportunity seemed very attractive for the masses that ended up supporting the Muslim League. However once the new state was formed the ruling elites entered the spheres of state and nation building and the idea of equal economic opportunity proved to be an elusive dream for the vast majority of Pakistanis. In essence the elite bourgeoisie not only directly affect the lives of the masses through means of the market forces and means of production which they control but also indirectly affect the way the masses perceive their own reality. This is identified by Marx as “false consciousness”. Through the disguise of ideology the ruling class in reality serves its own vested interest and manipulates the lower classes into believing that their progress lies in uniting under the flag of ethnic nationalism.

When we apply the above mentioned dynamics to the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it transpires that the same is true for this enigmatic Western Frontier. Wali Khan at one occasion made a historical statement that has been quoted by ANP supporters till today. According to him :

“I have been a Pakistani for the last 40 years, a Muslim for 1300 years and a Pashtun for 400 years.”(Khan).

The above statement is a prime example of rhetoric used for manipulating masses to believe that their escape lies only in uniting on ethnic grounds.

Although the overall social structure of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is much like the rest of Pakistan, certain differences exist. Tribal “jirgas” form an important part of state machinery in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Even at the eve of partition the Governor of NWFP consulted the tribal elders on the issue of “Pakhtunistan”. The elders of the village not only made decisions on behalf of the tribes but also had the agency to call the “Lashkar” (Stewart). The importance of “Jirgas” cannot be ignored as even today they stand unchallenged hence the lives of ordinary people depend to a great deal on the tribal elders and leaders. The British Raj played almost the same card in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as they did in Punjab and other areas of the subcontinent. The big “Khans” were given huge tracts of land on which they exercised considerable social and economic control. Below them were the small “Khans” who owned smaller landholdings and also were not the direct favorites of the British (Banerjee). Therefore a class conflict in the society of Khyber Pakhtunkwa was bound to evolve entailing control in the hands of the aristocracy and marginalizing the peasantry.

After the creation of Pakistan, over time the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (known as NWFP before 2010) began its own nationalist struggle on the grounds, that for the Pashtun race Pakistan was a secondary identity and that their ethnicity was the foremost source of identity and affiliation. Much like the Muslim masses of the subcontinent, the Pashtun masses of Pakistan have been made to believe that their salvation lies in attaining self determination and in the ideology of ethnicity that is promoted by these nationalist leaders. The Awami National Party (ANP) has been the single most important voice of the Pashtun nationalist struggle since independence. The party has come a long way from before partition under the auspices of Bacha Khan and the “Red Shirts”. The “Red Shirts” or the “Khudai Khidmatgar” party in essence was a non violent anti colonial movement that wanted to rid the subcontinent of the British Raj (Sufi). It is noteworthy that over the years the movement has evolved a great deal and is now one of the mainstream political parties in Pakistan; however the class element among the party leadership remains quite the same.

The Red Shirts were lead by Abdul Ghaffar Khan who wanted “Pakhtunistan” - a separate homeland for the Pashtun race. He came from a family of aristocratic landowners. At the time of independence in 1947, majority of the Red Shirts voted against Pakistan as according to their demands the referendum should have had an option of voting for “Pakhtunistan” (Ahmed). After independence, the Red Shirts elected Abdul Ghaffar Khan as their party President. Initially in 1958 with the imposition of martial law the party suffered a setback however later came together in 1964. Throughout much of the next decade the party adopted a socialist ideology and consisted of leaders from both wings of Pakistan demanding provincial autonomy (Rashiduzzaman). Later in 1986 the Awami National Party emerged along with other ethnic nationalist groups, and elected Asfandyar Wali Khan as the chairperson.

Abdul Ghaffar Khan belonged to the Muhammadzai clan which is a sub division of the Abdali or Durrani tribe. Ahmed Shah Abdali was the founder of the state of Afghanistan so in essence the Muhammadzai clan is one of the royal dynasties of Afghanistan. The close association of this family’s nationalist politics to the politics of Afghanistan can therefore be attributed to this link. According to the Marxist conception of the Asiatic mode of production, land was allotted to “jagirdars” for raising revenue for the state. After the introduction of the Permanent Settlement Act, the “jagirs” became private property. Furthermore, the Indians who had helped the British in the mutiny of 1857 were rewarded a great deal. The case of Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s father Bahram Khan falls under this category. He extended his support to the British in the mutiny and as a result got awarded acres of land which later became his personal “jagir”. Nevertheless Abdul Ghaffar Khan involved himself in an anti colonialist struggle and went ahead to mobilize the masses against the foreign rulers. Nevertheless, when viewed closely it is evident that throughout his movement the interests of the Muhammadzai clan elites were always accounted for (Ahmed). More so he never raised the slogan of land reforms or anti feudalism as land is the principle means of exercising political, social and economic control in the rural areas of Pakistan especially.

            

               The introduction of the ‘One Unit’ plan, in 1955, developed anguish among the smaller provinces of West Pakistan. This lead to the formation of the National Awami Party (NAP) which was a conglomeration of individuals from various political and ideological leanings all demanding provincial autonomy and representation. The overall tilt of the party was anti imperialist especially opposing the inclusion of Pakistan’s entry into defense agreements with the United States. Although the political ground realities had changed to an extent however Wali Khan, the son of Abdul Ghaffar Khan, decided to continue his father’s political heritage. Hence the idea of “Pashtoonistan” was not completely washed out of the picture. Cold war politics was at its peak at that time and he used the appeal of socialism to prove his anti imperialist stance and to gain support from the USSR. They portrayed themselves as a progressive bourgeoisie who was fighting for the rights of the oppressed proletariat against the imperialist and centralist state (Ahmed).

          

                   If viewed in contrast to the other nationalist struggles for provincial autonomy and representation of language, the Pashtun struggle cannot compare on equal footing. Unlike the Bengalis they were never able to forward the cause of their language as they did not form a majority in the overall population. Although the centralist tendencies of the state did impose Punjabi-Mohajir dominance, it is evident that the leadership of the Pashtoonistan struggle simply wanted to regain their past hegemony. The people of the province had voted in favor of Pakistan with a majority. The creation of the state of Pakistan was to harm the Pashtun elitist leadership the most. Many of the powers previously exercised by the tribal leaders and landlords now became the domain of the state.

            

                When considering the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa it is essential to realize that the Pashtun bourgeoisie consist of landed as well as industrial families. The three major capitalist families are the Hotis, the Khataks and the Khanzadas. These families were also part of the 22 famous families of Ayub Khan’s era which controlled the majority of Pakistan’s financial assets. Much of their financial capital is invested in sugar mills. These capitalists can easily associate with other capitalists in Pakistan on the basis of shared interest and material welfare. They are aware of the fact that economic links with the rest of the country are crucial to their survival as it provides the chunk of the market demand for their sugar. The Pashtun capitalists have also invested in other industries such as pharmaceutical and textiles (Ahmed).

The interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the urban middle class of Pashtuns have always been in line with integration with the rest of the country’s economy. The Pashtuns have dominated the transport business in the country especially in Punjab and Sindh. The migration of Pashtun workers to these urban centers has provided them with employment opportunities and has enabled them to send back remittances home to their province (Ahmed). So much so that this migration has caused ethnic violence in Karachi especially between the Pashtuns, Mohajirs and Sindhis who are all competing for employment and land. The Sindhis feel that their rights are being usurped by these foreign immigrants. On the other hand we do not find many examples of the Frontier hosting as many migrant workers from other parts of the country or in that case the vast majority of land and property in the Frontier is owned by the Pashtuns.

In order to establish the claim that much of the ethnic nationalism is lead by the elites and does not essentially hold mass support it is essential to consider the viewpoint of the peasantry as well. Statistics reveal that many evicted peasants from Khyber Pakhtunkwa ended up in urban centers of Punjab and Sindh specifically Karachi for alternative sources of employment (Ahmed). The peasants now have realized that the concept of “Pakhtunistan” would have entailed total control of the landlords over all means of production hence depriving the peasantry of any chances of education, employment etc. They have realized that tendencies towards national integration are in their best interest. This by no means implies that they are willing to give up their cultural and traditional values and practices; rather it implies that they accept that assimilation with the rest of the country and acceptance towards the social setup of other provinces will help them achieve economic progress and development.

The Green Revolution of the 1960s was a watershed event in increasing economic and class disparities in Pakistan targeting the peasants directly. Upon independence most of the peasants in Punjab and NWFP were involved in a sharecropping relationship. The Green Revolution in President Ayub Khan’s era introduced mechanized farming techniques and the use of HYV (High Yield Variety) seeds. The idea was to improve efficiency and to eradicate the parasitic relationship that existed between the landlord and the peasant in which the landlord was not responsible for the entire process of cultivation but was only interested in the final produce (Herring). However, this reform plan backfired, as  on most middle and few large land holdings  the use of tractors and tube wells rendered many of the peasants evicted from the land and unemployed (Alavi). The new techniques improved the yield and hence a large majority of peasants in the rural areas found themselves landless and searching for alternative employment. This lead to unrest followed by armed clashes as income disparities reached new heights.

           

             The Pashtun proletariat in Karachi has on several events proven himself to be part of a class struggle against the capitalists as opposed to being involved in an ethnic struggle. The economic and social deprivation that he suffers at the hands of the capitalist makes him realize that it is more imperative to confront this class exploitation. The notorious slaughter of S.I.T.E workers in Karachi was a landmark event for the labor struggle in Pakistan. The ruling political bourgeoisie though at once subdued the unrest; however the event had far reaching effects throughout the country. The Pashtun peasants in Peshawar lead a protest and rally in order to express their solidarity with the innocent workers who had been killed. During the same year a group of peasants were involved in a fierce struggle with the landlords in Malakand when 14 other peasants from Mardan were arrested on the grounds of extending their support to the peasants of Malakand (Ahmed). This made them a part of a greater class struggle beyond the narrow bounds of ethnicity or province. 

            

                 The urban and rural middle class of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa also do not share grievances on ethnic grounds as have been witnessed in the cases of Bengali or Sindhi nationalist movements. In Pakistan, the civil service and military are the major employers for the middle class. According to the government’s statistics, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa accounts for 13.40% of Pakistan’s population whereas they account for 22-25% of the military according to unofficial estimates (Rizvi, 199). This represents a more than proportionate representation of the Pashtuns in the army. A similar observation can be made about the civil service. Moreover employment in the military provides a valuable indication on the socio-economic reality of the Pashtun middle class. This is because defense expenditure forms the greatest chunk of Pakistan’s annual budget. Moreover the military as an institution is well grounded in Pakistan and hence provides people with fair chances of upward social mobility unlike most other institutions which have been riddled with corruption and have no marks of meritocracy left. Therefore the Pashtun middle class has no grievance against the military in terms of not getting an equal chance rather many other communities accuse the Punjabis and Pakhtuns of dominating the military and hence other organs of state machinery as well.

            

            The last elections of 2008 once again saw the Awami National Party coming to power in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. They were welcomed once again as a breath of fresh air after the suppressive regime of MMA. Overall the country’s political situation took a turn as a democratically elected government came to the fore after a nine year long military dictatorship. One of the landmark measures that ANP was successful in taking was the change in name of the province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Attaining a separate identity for the Pakhtuns and their province had long been on their agenda and this was finally achieved through the eighteenth amendment. However when examining their role within the past four years it appears that politically and economically their performance has been quite dismal. The politics of elitism was once again witnessed when Asfandyar Wali, named his nephew Ameer Haider Khan Hoti as the Chief Minister. Such an act in the presence of other senior and competent candidates such as Bashir Bilour was a golden example of the dynastic politics which is characteristic of the politics of not only ANP but also of most other mainstream parties of Pakistan. 

            

                 The Chief Minister in 2009 explained that a massive reform in health, education and industry was one of the foremost goals of the ANP on attaining power. According to the United Nations assessment report the flash floods that hit Swabi District in 2009 created massive problems of food supplies and sanitation (UNDP). However the government was unable to bring the situation under control without the help of international agencies such as the United Nations. The catastrophic floods of 2010 were a classic example of failure on the part of the provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa especially. The military had to step in with its resources in order to rescue people from the disaster (UNDP). The government’s steps have been insufficient and the plight of thousands of poor and helpless people continues. Furthermore to aggravate the situation, the international donor community has expressed serious skepticism on the efficient use of funds. The state apparatus is prey to corruption and the funds are not being used properly which is a big question mark for the government of ANP.

            

              On coming to power another major claim made by the ANP was to curb radicalism and hold dialogues with the militants in order to achieve peace in the region. However the police was often found inefficient and helpless and the vacuum left by them was filled by the Taliban. Incidents of Taliban taking over the sphere of law enforcement in the province indicate the failure of the government in its promise of providing law and order and security to the public. The Chief Minister of the province also claimed to build underpasses, major hospitals, Burn and Trauma center of Peshawar and provision of clean drinking water however ground realities are quite murky ( ANP).  

            

              On its agenda of eradicating illiteracy and lack of awareness, the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa faced another setback recently. In August 2011, the anti polio drive carried out in the province failed to produce the desired results as a vast majority of parents refused to get their children vaccinated. This percentage was mainly to be found in areas with lower literacy rates where parents were misconstrued into believing that vaccinations might render their children infertile or impotent. The United Nations has expressed concern over this alarming trend as it is arising out of many of the relatively peaceful areas in the province (Dawn News). This establishes the fact that the government despite carrying out the drive has failed to take necessary measures in order for the drive to be successful. The masses with low rates of literacy need to be made aware of issues concerning their own health and betterment but the government’s role is nowhere to be found in this regard.

A close examination of the Awami National Pary’s rule shows that they ended up preferring the politics of expediency over their claimed politics of nationalist struggle. An example of elitist politics in the ANP was when Wali Khan awarded a ticket to Ghulam Farooque for a seat in the National Assembly. Ghulam Farooque was one of the architects of the industrialization of the era of the 1960s which resulted in increasing disparities and depriving the Frontier of its rightful share in Pakistan’s development (Ahmed).The leadership though itself belonged to the landed class and the bourgeoisie, adopted leftist and socialist leanings in order to forward its cause of Pashtun nationalism.

The overall economic conditions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have never been appreciable. The central government has always been accused of neglecting Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and lack of development plays an important role in shaping the minds of the people. According to the Bureau of Statistics, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the literacy ratio for the province is 37.26 %. The situation in the tribal belt is even more appalling with a literacy ratio as low as 17.42%. Despite this the provincial government has allocated only 6.04% of the revenue expenditure for education (Federal Bureau of Statistics). Overall a low rate of education means that the masses are more prone to the rhetoric of ideology and ethnic nationalism. The lack of exposure means the people readily accept the claims of the Awami National Party.

Supporters of “Pashtun” nationalism argue that this ideology cannot simply be brushed aside by arguments regarding class cleavages. It is essential to look into history to view the various ethnic nationalist struggles that have taken place in this land. The British Raj experienced numerous tribal insurgencies from the Pashtuns. The Faqir of Ipi’s revolt is an example of one such struggle. He was a man of good repute and saintly demeanor however was only able to mobilize a small force to fight against the British. Despite inadequate supplies and overall asymmetrical capability against the British army, Faqir Ipi’s force fought with valor and bravery. The Pashtuns gathered under his umbrella to fight foreign intervention and with the hope of maintaining the purity of their land and race. However it is noteworthy that the tribes of the area always found it impossible to unite. Apart from their differences and feuds, another reason for the lack of support to Faqir Ipi’s movement was the fact that the British secured the loyalties of many of the tribal leaders by giving them financial subsides. This provides analysis into the class structure of the area. It suited the tribal lords to admit allegiance to the British Raj when they were provided with financial incentives that kept the control in their hands (Talbot).  

            

             Another historical example of Pashtun resistance are the Anglo Afghan wars. These wars must be analyzed from the viewpoint of the Pashtun race as resistant not only to foreign military invasions but also to the cultural change brought about by outside powers. The first Anglo Afghan war especially has been considered one of the worst defeats for the British army leaving them with only one survivor (Eliot). The wars took place as part of the larger phenomenon of the “Great Game” which was a tussle between the Russian and British empires for influence in Afghanistan.

            

             Ethnic identity throughout the world is one of the strong notions of affiliation. Several movements and struggles have taken place in the name of ethnic nationalism. In some cases such as East Pakistan, they have produced the desired outcomes. In other cases however they continue to be futile. Although the socio economic and cultural realities of every community differ nevertheless all such movements share certain characteristics and all aim to achieve autonomy and identity. Pakistan in its initial years had to deal with Bengali separatism until finally in 1971 the two wings of Pakistan parted ways. The Bengalis too were promised an elusive dream of self identity and equal economic opportunity and an escape from the colonial hegemony exercised by West Pakistan. However with the exception of the acceptance of Bengali as their national language, Bangladesh too has failed to achieve much. The post independence politics of Bangladesh too has been a victim to military dictatorships and dynastic elitist politics.

            

                 The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Awami National Party presents a similar dilemma. The politics of pragmatism has caused the party to shift sometimes in favor of socialism and sometimes in favor of industrialization. What began as a non violent anti colonial struggle against oppression has over the  years corrupted and become one of the many opportunistic political parties found in much of the third world. The flag of ethnic nationalism continues to win the ANP votes in most areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Low rates of literacy and lack of awareness has rendered the masses incapable of realizing that their elected representatives are in fact their exploiters. The masses need to realize that their freedom lies in confronting the class conflict which is existent not only in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but in all parts of Pakistan. Uniting under the banner of ethnic nationalism will simply continue this process of exploitation and prevent them from achieving upward political, social and economic mobility. 

Works Cited

Ahmed, Feroz. Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

Ahmed, Feroz. "Ethnicity Class and State in Pakistan." Economic and Political Weekly 31.47 (1996). Www.jstor.org. Economic and Political Weekly. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4404794>.

Ahmed, Feroz. "Pashtoonistan and the Pashtoon National Question." Pakistan Forum 3.12 (1973). Www.jstor.org. Middle East Research and the Information Project. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2569059>.

Alavi, Hamza. "Elite Farmer Strategy and Regional Disparities in the Agricultural Development of Pakistan." Economic and Political Weekly 8.13 (1973). Www.jstor.org. Economic and Political Weekly. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4362483>.

Banerjee, Mukulika. The Pathan Unarmed. Karachi: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.

Bessler, Manuel, and Stephanie Bunker. FLOODS IN NWFP PAKISTAN – 17 August 2009. Rep. UNDP. Web. <http://oneresponse.info/Countries/Pakistan/publicdocuments/FLOOD_17August-2009.pdf>.

Elliot, J. G. The Frontier 1839-1947. London: Trinity, 1968. Print.

Federal Bureau of Statistics. Web. <http://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/Departments/BOS/fatadevstat-educa-tab-74.php>.

Herring, Ronald J. "Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the "Eradication of Feudalism" in Pakistan." Comparitive Studies in Society and History 21.4 (1979). Www.jstor.org. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/178694>.

Rashiduzzaman, M. "The National Awami Party of Pakistan : Leftist Politics in Crisis." Pacific Affairs 43.37 (1970). Www.jstor.org. Pacific Affairs, University of British Colombia. Web.  <http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=pacificaffairs>.

Stewart, Jules. The Savage Border The Story of the North West Frontier. Gloucestershire: J.H Haynes and, 2007. Print.

Sufi, Juma Khan. Bacha Khan, Congress and Nationalist Politics in NWFp. Lahore: Vanguard, 2005. Print.

Talbot, Ian. "Waziristan, the Faqir of Ipi, and the Indian Army: The North West Frontier Revolt of 1936-37 by Alan Warren." The American Historical Review 106.4 (2001). Www.jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692976>.

UNDP. "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government and UNDP Release First Ever Millenium Development Goals Report." Www.undp.org.pk. UNDP. Web. <http://undp.org.pk/khyber-pakhtunkhwa-government-and-undp-release-first-ever-millennium-development-goals-report.html>.

Www.awaminationalparty.org. Web. <http://awaminationalparty.org/main/archives/date/2010/06>.

Yusufzai, Ashfaq. "Anti-polio Drive in KP: Over 16,000 Refusal Cases Recorded in July." Dawn News [Peshawar] 4 Aug. 2011. Print.

Rizvi, H.A (2001). “The military” in Gilani and Weiss (eds) Power and Civil Society in Pakistan. New York : OUP. Pp. 186-213 


Written By: Chanel Khaliq

Change in ideology – from socialism to capitalism: the case of the Pakistan Peoples Party

The guarantee of equal economic opportunity and an end to exploitation has long attracted the masses of underdeveloped countries - victims of poverty, inequality and despair. Pakistan’s case is no different. The wave of communism began when USSR adopted the Marxist-Leninist model and this lead to the creation of a new sphere of influence. Socialism began to be viewed by many countries as a respite from the unjust and exploitative capitalist system created by the West and the sway of modernity. It was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan who raised the slogan of socialism and founded the Pakistan Peoples Party in 1968 (PPP). In his words:

          

            “Socialism is of direct interest to Pakistan, an underdeveloped country, marked by internal and external exploitation” (Grover, 237).

The party’s manifesto, that won them 81 seats in Parliament in the 1970 general elections, stated “Islam is our faith, democracy is our policy, socialism is our economy. All power to the People!” Clearly the beginnings of Pakistan Peoples Party had socialist and communist leanings (Chaudhry, 128). For them equality and justice could only be upheld if there was economic egalitarianism which was not possible if the capitalist system, in its existing form, continued. However, the 2008 manifesto which has brought PPP to power today, claims that “ social democracy is our economy” (PPP). It also mentions that the party will try to blend economic liberalism with state responsibility. Even if we consider the actual political situation today, we find no traces of the policies that PPP initiated under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. It is pertinent that even later governments of the PPP in the 1990s became allied to the United States and its capitalist policies to win support and to come to power. This paper will attempt to examine why socialism failed to achieve its intended goals in Pakistan causing an ideological shift of the PPP from being overtly in favor of socialism, to an acceptance of the capitalist system and ultimately joining the US block.

In its 1970 manifesto, the PPP identifies two major causes that have plagued Pakistan. Firstly the exploitative capitalist system and secondly, the fact that Pakistan is an underdeveloped country in the global world. In order to fulfill the claims to bring an end to the unjust economic system, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s government took a number of steps. As per their manifesto the PPP government began the nationalization of basic industries. The government would now control the affairs of 20 private firms worth $200 million (Kaushik, 226). The aim was to prevent the big entrepreneurs from accumulating surplus earnings in their own pockets and not compensating the laborer adequately. However, Bhutto left out the cotton textile manufacturing industry from his nationalization program which was incomprehensible, considering the fact that cotton crop is the backbone of Pakistan’s economy. Surendra Nath Kaushik contends that in reality major industrial tycoons and powers were excluded from this policy and so it appears that Bhutto did not want to challenge or upset their established financial control and took this measure as mere window dressing. 

In order to live up to its status of being the voice of the working classes of Pakistan, the PPP introduced new labor laws. These included the effective participation of the workers in the management and the system of collective bargaining (Kaushik, 227).  Bhutto’s education policies lead to the nationalization of private schools as he aimed to provide quality education for all. However, his most revolutionary step to hit the country was the Land Reform Measure. This reduced the ceilings on land from 500 to 150 acres of land on irrigated land and from 1000 to 300 acres on unirrigated land. (Kaushik, 228).

On the whole, the economic measures taken by Bhutto’s regime bear a lot of semblance to the ten point agenda of The Communist Manifesto, especially in case of his education policy and the nationalization of key industries. These measures, however, failed to achieve much. The major reason was that Bhutto failed to curtail the power of the big businesses. Rather than a completely socialist economy, he opted for a mixed economy which favored more state control. Pakistan’s economy was dependent upon these big entrepreneurs for much of the development and creation of employment. This was also due to the fact that the government increased the defense budget, leaving less allocation for development projects (Kaushik, 243).  Furthermore, the administrative system was a victim of red tapism and corruption. The Land Reform measures could not be implemented properly due to the dishonesty and issues related to bribery at the lower level, especially in the law enforcement agencies. Records were forged and transfer of land was made on paper to relatives etc, which failed to break the grip of the existing landed class (Malik, 92). In other words, the infrastructure that was required for the effective functioning of much of these socialist measures was not present. Moreover, the economic dependence of many of the ‘harees’ on the ‘jageerdaars’ in much of rural Pakistan prevented the landed aristocracy from abiding by the law. Much of the resulting economic disaster lead many circles to be critical of the actual implementation of socialist policies and whether they can produce results on ground or not.

Keeping in line with Leninist ideology on imperialism, Bhutto stood for state sovereignty. In his essay “Political Development in Pakistan” he talks about this concept and explains how Pakistan has always allied itself closely to the US and has been among the foremost to join SEATO and CENTO, but has, however, not benefitted. He disregards foreign aid when it comes with a compromise to state sovereignty (Grover, 250). This idea of self autonomy and resistance to foreign Western subjugation touched large sections of society. Bhutto exposed Pakistan’s vulnerable position in world politics, especially with relation to India and the United States. He was a strong supporter of improving relations with the Peoples Republic of China (Grover, 255). Nevertheless, it is debatable as to what extent Bhutto could live up to his anti-imperialist stance. After the 1971 fiasco Bhutto became obsessed with achieving armament parity with India. For this purpose, support from US would be crucial. However, when the US refused armament supply, Bhutto expressed his disapproval by withdrawing from SEATO. Under Nixon’s government, relations between the two states improved considerably over the issue (Kaushik, 204).  Nonetheless, on the issue of nuclear proliferation, Bhutto’s strong standpoint is quite appreciable. Despite US warnings to stop Pakistan from purchasing nuclear technology, Bhutto went ahead with the project and in this regard he portrayed, although in limited capacity, Pakistan’s ability to make sovereign decisions in its own interest.

Right from its inception, Pakistan has been facing an identity crisis. Initially, Islam was taken to be a uniting force for the Muslims of the subcontinent that lead to the creation of Pakistan. Later, rifts began to develop not just on the basis of ethnicity but also the religious circles raised their voice demanding the implementation of Shariah. Iftikhar H. Malik, in his book “State and Civil Society in Pakistan”, refers to the contention between the ruling elite of Pakistan and the religious elite. Pakistan faced problems in defining a system for itself. Some of the clergy’s demands were fulfilled with the incorporation of the Objectives Resolution, although, issues on the basis of religion kept emerging (Malik, 51). However, this continuing variance made one thing absolutely clear; Pakistani politics could not be separated entirely from religion. Furthermore, if any doctrine or ideology was to make its place in Pakistan, it had to be compatible with Islam or else strong opposition would result from the Ulema. Although religious parties have not had a majority in the Parliament historically and the common people may not be practicing Muslims per se, the rhetoric of the Ulema has been instrumental in wooing public opinion of the masses against anyone who threatens the rule or principles of Islam. This is why all governments in Pakistan till today have not parted from Islam rather, have used it as a tool to manipulate the masses and to legitimize their rule. This is why even concepts such as, democracy and electoral politics, were initially under much criticism and leaders such as, Bhutto had to assure the public that they were in no way contradictory to Islamic principles.

When considering Socialism in the context of the Pakistani society, it is essential to view the compatibility between socialist principles and Islam to reach any conclusion. Bhutto himself, in his essay “Political Development in Pakistan”, states that there is no incompatibility between Islam and socialism. He uses Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Iqbal’s vision of Pakistan to justify socialism. He claims that they both dreamt of a country established on Islamic principles with a socialist economy (Grover, 245). The concept of egalitarianism is one of the foremost essentials in an Islamic society. Islam preaches that in the eyes of God all men are equal and a higher status is accorded only to those who are more God-fearing. In this sense, Socialism and Islam are essentially attempting to achieve similar ends. Social equality and justice cannot exist in the presence of economic disparity.  Bhutto, therefore, introduced the concept of “Islamic Socialism”. This implied the development of an egalitarian society on Islamic principles.

However, as astute as Bhutto was, he failed to realize that the comparison of Islam with socialism simply on the rhetoric of egalitarianism is not enough. He could not justify this on philosophical grounds as to how he was comparing an ideology based on materialism with religion which has its foundations on transcendental reality. Perhaps the most fatal blow that socialism suffered was at the hands of the religious circles. Nadeem Farooq Paracha, an eminent writer of the left in Pakistan, views the failure of Islamic Socialism in Pakistan and much of the Arab world because of the clergy. Traditional Islamic scholarship has always viewed socialism to be an anti-religious creed. However, the divergence is simply not on philosophical grounds and the ground realities must not be ignored. Nadeem Paracha points out that much of the clergy, especially those in politics themselves, come from the landed aristocracy which makes them skeptical of socialist policies in the first place. This brand of socialism tried to emphasize those aspects of Islam which are in harmony with modern socialist ideals however; at this they were criticized of wrongly interpreting the holy text. Furthermore, in the case of the Pakistani society issues such as drinking, music, cinema etc, have mostly been disapproved of and the modernist regime of Bhutto was strongly condemned by the ulema (Paracha). Besides this, some religious Ulema were against the policy of land reforms based on their school of thought. Scholars such as Muhammad Taqi Usmani asserted that the ceilings or limitations on land holding, such as the ones proposed through land reforms, had no place in Islam. Also, the state does not possess the right to forcefully acquire land from some party for the purpose of redistribution (Web).

In this discussion, it is also imperative to consider the role of ideology in general. In world politics, hard core ideology cannot sustain if it does not mould itself to the social, political and cultural setup of a society. In his essay “Interaction of Ideology and Strategy in Pakistan’s Domestic Politics”, Khalid Javed Makhdoom explains the problem ideology has to face in opposition of realism and pragmatism (Grover, 528). The PPP claims that Bhutto envisioned a Pakistan in which power was invested in the hands of the masses. He brought to the forefront an ideology that was the voice of the working class, however, political expediency demanded something else. His socialism was the idea of a “mixed economy”. This implied that he could not essentially hurt the big entrepreneurs and could not break their grip of the economy. The measures he could in reality take were not enough to reform the established capitalist system. Therefore, the inefficacy of policies such as nationalization and Land Reform owe to the imbalance between ideology and realism. Bhutto, unfortunately, was unable to attain the right balance and tilted too much towards expediency leaving ideology in the background.

Purely socialist oratory and ideals, to break away from the “Jagirdari” system in Pakistan, had to be put in accordance to the social and political setup of the country. It was not plausible to raise slogans of socialism and implement those policies in a country where funding for the election campaign comes from big landlords and industrialists. Moreover, the majority of the vote bank resides in rural areas where voting decisions are decided by the tribal chiefs or the bigger landlords (Sayeed, 46). Sayeed points out that in viewing the structure of the PPP at the time of Bhutto, it was visible that the upper positions were occupied by those belonging to the upper middle strata, however, a large number of active workers were industrial laborers, small shop owners and workers. Relations between the upper and lower levels of leadership weakened and more and more workers belonging to the peasantry and the working classes began to leave the PPP.

When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s daughter, Benazir, came to power in 1988, she had to face entirely different political realities. She came to the forefront after Pakistan had been ruled by an army dictator for several years. It was imperative for her to deal with the new issues at hand such as relations with the US and the military (Grover, 447). She could not afford to sustain the concept of socialism at that point in time when communism was declining throughout the world. For many analysts, the decline of the socialist ideology was apparent when the USSR fell in 1991. As US had emerged as the victor from the cold war, it was essential for Benazir to look towards maintaining cordial relations with it. Hailing from a modern upper class family and being exposed to secular Western education, she became the target of much criticism by the Ulema and religious circles (Malik, 162). Pakistan had been exposed to Islamization policies for a while now and Benazir thought it in her best interest to adopt practices such as the “chaddar” and “Tasbih” to appease the religious faction. Upon assuming power, she made the deep-seated decision of pursuing a capitalist system for Pakistan, keeping in view the global context. She disregarded much of the socialist ideas without providing solid reasons (Shafqat, 658). During both her tenures, Benazir stayed far from nationalization policies, in fact in 1990 she ordered privatization of around 14 units. In her second tenure, the private sector even went as far as entering railway, telecommunication, energy and transport (Bhowmik, 931). This was a move much in contrast to socialist agenda of arguing for important industries such as these, which are essentially the backbone of an economy to be under state control.

After the death of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, PPP split into many factions. Benazir had to deal with the issue of keeping the party together and to continue the struggle for democracy. Professor Khalid Mahmud sheds light on these splits and describes them as the confedralists, the leftists and the pro party establishment group (Mahmud, 144). It is evident that in the wake of Islamization policies, Benazir looked for support in the Western and particularly US block to rally and legitimize support. She now considered the US to be her constituency for gathering support and coming to power. However, this move of hers was strongly criticized by the leftist factions in PPP. To their disappointment, it was obvious that she had abandoned the path of “anti imperialist” policies unlike her father, but much like him she also preferred the politics of expediency, although with regards to different issues. Moreover, eminent names in the party such as Mumtaz Bhutto and Hafeez Pirzada who had also been close associates of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had split ways with the mainstream PPP leadership. This perplexed the leftist circles even more and created more controversy about Benazir’s ability to lead her party through the turmoil (Mahmud, 145). Maliha Lodhi, who has enjoyed an illustrious career in Pakistan’s Foreign Service, also analyzes this aspect of Benazir’s leadership in her article “25 years of the PPP”. It was Benazir who shifted the focus of the party from socialism to social democracy. Although the outburst of socialism had by the 1990s diminished to a great extent, however, the PPP is still known among the common man as the party that forwards the upward mobility of the oppressed classes (Lodhi, 311).

Pakistan’s strategic location has turned out to be quite unlucky for it. Due to this fact, Pakistan has remained in the eyes of superpowers such as the USA and the USSR. During the cold war years, it was in USSR’s interest to ally with Pakistan and underdeveloped countries would always prove easier grounds for the propagation of socialist ideologies. Although Pakistan never became an outright ally of the USSR, it has in fact, throughout most of history, remained loyal to the US. Rampant corruption and disrespect for merit, lack of envisioned leadership and institutional imbalance has been Pakistan’s plight. Unfortunately, Pakistani leadership has always looked towards the West to legitimize its rule rather than its own masses. This is to a great extent owed to the reality that colonialism might have ended but imperialism has not. Pakistan has remained dependant economically on the US especially. The strategic location as regards to India and the two major wars that Pakistan had experienced always left Pakistan dependent on the US, either for arms or other forms of foreign aid. Be it the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the September 11^th attacks, US has always used Pakistan for its own interests. This realization has created a lot of anti-American sentiment, not only in the masses but also among the intellectual circles of Pakistan. Hamid H. Kazilbash, in “Anti Americanism in Pakistan”, sheds light on the aspect of American control over Pakistani politics. In fact, it is assumed by the masses to a great extent that the fate of leadership and rule is in the hands of the White House (Kazilbash, 62). It is pertinent for parties to take notice of this important fact. The US has been responsible for mentoring authoritarian dictatorships in Pakistan such as that of President Zia-ul-Haq. Therefore, when Benazir Bhutto had to assume power it was impossible for her to ignore this colossal influence that US exercised. Taking an anti imperialist stance like her father was not what the situation demanded of her.

Considering the case of the Pakistan People’s Party, it can be deduced that Z.A Bhutto’s socialist policies fell prey to the institutional imbalance between the bureaucracy and the politicians, most of whom hailed from the aristocracy and who never let national interest take precedence over vested interest. Moreover, Maliha Lodhi sheds light on an altogether different aspect of Z.A Bhutto’s case. She points towards the fact the political circumstances at the time that Bhutto ran for elections were ripe for a socialist change. Ayub Khan’s authoritarian rule had lead to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few big families and economic disparity was unbridled. In such a situation, Bhutto strung the right chord by raising the slogan of “rotti kapra makan” and showing them the dream of a classless and just society (Lodhi, 311). Therefore, in this respect his commitment to ideology can be viewed with some skepticism. Benazir Bhutto inherited more complex circumstances, in which she not only had to legitimize her position, but also look to keeping the party together. She saw the United States as her savior and so joined the line of many of the opportunistic and power driven politicians of Pakistan.

Supporters of the Pakistan People’s Party today contend that although they now look towards being a social democracy, the party does retain much of its original character of being a voice for the downtrodden masses. This argument can be viewed by looking at the party’s 2008 manifesto. Claims such as provision of education, healthcare and sanitation are much similar to their initial claims and are much like the claims of most socialist parties. Due to the change in global politics and the world scenario today, it is quite unthinkable to adopt policies such as nationalization and land reform. This also partly owed to the fact that once these policies encountered failure in the 1970s, people are unlikely to restore their faith in them again unless or until they are assured  of their success in the form of determined and willful leadership. M.B Naqvi in his article “PPP: The party continues” puts forth the fact that now no matter  what ideology a party adopts in its manifesto, it is of no use to the common man whose economic position does not depend on promises but on what action a party takes on assuming power (Grover, 459).

Furthermore, when considering ground realities, many supporters of the party today argue that socialist ideologies have now become part of history especially after the fall of the USSR. Pakistan is now beset with new problems such as terrorism, although economic tribulations remain. In such circumstances, the party has to look towards stabilizing Pakistan’s image in the Western world and to fight stereotyped conceptions of Pakistan portrayed in the Western media. Moreover, it is also claimed that the essential nature of socialist policies or the ends that they try to achieve as regards bringing economic equality are still dear to the PPP. This is manifested in their initiatives such as The Benazir Income Support Program. This program aims at providing income to 40 % of the families living below the poverty line (BISP).

The implementation of socialist policies, especially in a country like Pakistan, requires headstrong leadership and revolutionary change. Rejecting imperialism is no easy task for the leadership of any third world country. Although socialism, unlike hardcore Marxism, does not rely as much on revolution, reform in the case of Pakistan could not work because of the socio-economic realities. Z.A. Bhutto, however, can perhaps hold claim to the revolutionary task of enlightening the masses about their status. It was the first time in the history of Pakistan that some leader belonging to the upper stratum of society stood up and made them realize the exploitation and oppression they were subject to. Although Bhutto was possibly the only leader in Pakistan to have experienced such ground swelling, his effort of reforming from within the existing framework failed terribly. Moreover, Pakistan’s legacy is unfortunate in this respect that politics of expediency end up taking precedence over any ideology or vision and PPP’s shift from being a party for change to a party supporting status quo is very much owed to this reality. 


Written By: Chanel Khaliq

Pakistan and Central Asia : The New Great Game

Few had imagined that Rudyard Kipling’s picaresque novel “Kim” would be remembered as such an apt satire on the political affairs of the region. The old great game has ended and today the politics of the post colonial world is quite distinct from the past. Independent states have now come about to establish their self-rule and sovereignty. Nevertheless, an end to colonialism must not be equated to an end to imperialism as well. The aim to establish control and maximize domination continues to direct international affairs till today. Newly independent states as well as superpowers continue to aspire to establish hegemony but the players and the means of the great game have changed. The old Great Game emerged when the Russian and British empires struggled for dominance in the region. Today the economic resources of the central Asia have raised its importance in the region with China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan all aiming to establish relations such that their countries can benefit from the Central Asian oil and gas. Pakistan specifically due to a host of factors has lost a chance of doing so mainly due to US influence on its foreign policy and the situation in Afghanistan. This paper will examine what were the exact circumstances that prevented this relationship from flourishing. Moreover, future prospects for Pakistan will also be analyzed as regards its position of being one of the major contenders in the region.  

         

                Afghanistan has been the bone of contention for centuries and continues to be so today. Its strategic location and importance has caused several powers to attempt to establish control over it. The nineteenth century saw the Russian and British empires competing for supremacy and control throughout the world. This led them to colonize various lands and cultures. Both powers attempted to establish control over the most prized lands and Afghanistan due to its prime location was significant. The British suspected that after establishing control in most of Central Asia, the Russians would move towards Afghanistan since it would help them gain access to a sea route through the Indian sub continent. This was alarming for the British as the Indian sub continent was considered the “jewel in the crown” for the British Empire. The situation reached somewhat of a halt in 1907 when the Anglo-Russian agreement was signed and both powers agreed to contain their advances and define their spheres of influence[1] . However in foreign policy, interests end up taking precedence disregarding historical relations and similarly the situation changed between Russia and Britain. With new powers such as Germany and USA coming to the forefront, world politics took a different turn. The two empires lost their strength and later in World War II ended up becoming allies. With the new political situation, the old great game drifted into the past as the empires involved lost their glory.

Soviet hegemony in Central Asia can be traced back to the 18^th century. Two phases majorly define Russian domination of the region of Kazakhstan; the first from 1731 to 1854 and then from 1865 to 1881. This followed a period of immense transformation and change. The populace was a mix of a variety of ethnicities, and most of them were culturally well wedded to Islamic norms. The Russians at first considered it expedient not to interfere with the cultural set up but to focus on urbanization and development. Around 1926, communist reforms took hold and a ban was put on religious propaganda and schooling. The script was changed from Arabic to Latin and the entire clergy was now dependant on the centralized Soviet system[2] . The Soviet efforts although prioritized centralization in economic terms but in terms of politics, they favored setting up of a political elite. Also through conscious efforts of movement and migration, they altered the natural ethnic composition of these lands. These steps were to have far flung consequences on the future of these countries even after independence from the USSR.

After US emerged as the victor from the cold war, Pakistan lost all strategic value for it. US left Afghanistan as well without any reconstruction initiatives or infrastructure building. The decade of the 1990s saw “Islamic fundamentalism” other such movements as the next menace after the decline of communism. Building ties with the newly independent Central Asian Republics was crucial for Pakistan at this moment. These states possessed rich mineral resources and also a similar cultural and historical background. On the other hand the Central Asian states wanted to assert their identity and independence and to free themselves of Russia’s patronage. The southern side seemed an attractive option for the Central Asian Republics to build up ties with. Due to their secular politics, India appeared as the most suitable option. However Pakistan was also a major contender in the region especially with regards the fact that it was the rightful heir of the Muslims tradition and rule in the sub continent [3].Moreover strengthening of ties with India was a plausible option since India sided with the communist USSR right from the beginning.

 Nevertheless, Pakistan was a most viable option due to geographical proximity foremost. The Special Technical Assistance Program was started under which Pakistan provided training and courses to Central Asian students in English, diplomacy and a variety of other subjects[4] .Although after the fall of communism in these states, religious freedom did find its place, nevertheless the long standing secular mindset could not be eradicated in a short time. This is why these states were initially apprehensive of developing stronger ties with Iran fearing the export of a revolution. Pakistan seemed a safe option as no strong religious movements were thriving in Pakistan at that time. Turkey was also not a priority for the Central Asian states since they had long sustained a history of Turkish domination and they were now looking forward to self assertion. Furthermore, Pakistan provided a reliable sea route for trade and commerce and so relations building with Pakistan became an important foreign policy concern for these newly independent states as well. Therefore they have shown considerable support towards Pakistan.  Islam Karimov, of Uzbekistan pressed that a solution to the Kashmir dispute through peaceful means was essential in order to maintain peace and stability in the region. The Foreign Minister of the ECO has also asserted a similar claim that the Kashmir issue is central to peace in the region and must be resolved according to the United Nations resolutions[5]

By far the major stalemate in the relations between the Central Asian Republics and Pakistan has been the situation in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s policy towards Afghanistan has been whimsical and ineffective. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was a landmark event in the history of the region. It became the central focus for the United States as the intensity of the cold war reached new heights. The US viewed Pakistan as an ally through which it could rid the region of Soviet interference. During the 1990s Pakistan viewed their support for the Taliban as a guarantee of stability in both the countries. This fateful decision was advocated by the military who believed that a strong government such as that of the Taliban could ensure peace between the warring ethnicities in Afghanistan at the time. Moreover the Pakistani government at the time had to deal with local pressure itself arising from the vast Pashtun population in Pakistan, many of whom ideologically supported the Taliban at that time [6].

          

              The decision to support the Taliban however was not simply based on the idea of supporting US interests but also keeping in view the Indian threat. Pakistan at the time considered that based on their support to the Taliban, the Taliban would in turn provide Pakistan with any support in the future to maintain peace. Although this view was controversial however Pakistan military were adamant on the idea due to the magnified threat of India[7]. The ISI contained many strong elements in support of the Taliban till a long while and this reality continued to perplex the US as well. The Central Asian Republics viewed the Taliban as a menace in the region. This was partly owed to the fact that these countries had a populace of diverse ethnicities and the Taliban government was hostile to all apart from the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. This is why Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had been supporting leaders of the Northern Alliance providing them with arms and support in their struggle against the Taliban. Perhaps Turkmenistan was the only exception who had taken a friendly stance towards the Taliban regime [8].With the Taliban government coming to power in 1996, world opinion became antagonistic towards Pakistan as well since Pakistan was one of the three states in the entire world to support and recognize the new government in Afghanistan. Moreover the internal degenerating conditions of Afghanistan lead the drug trade to flourish there and this was having consequences for the neighboring countries. One of the major problems that perplexed the Central Asian Republics was the illegal drug flow into their countries from Afghanistan [9].This was creating issues of law and order and crime even in Pakistan however the military regimes chose to ignore it and gave precedence to allying with the US. This companionship of Pakistan with the Taliban regime alienated the Central Asian Republics who felt that strong links with such a country would export similar radicalism and extremism to their lands about which they were highly apprehensive.

            

                Due to their historical communist background, the Central Asian states were disinclined towards religious extremism. These societies had been brought up on secular lines by the USSR and now even after independence they naturally held on to much of Russian influence and ideology. They did not experience any nationalist movements or struggle for liberation. In fact upon the brink of independence these countries found themselves with previous communist leaders as their head of states. Therefore the secular tilt made them apprehensive of strictly Islamic movements and slogans. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) was one such movement that was headed by Juma Namangani and consisted of Uzbek and Tajik radicals. Although their ideology was unclear however in order to gain power and create civil strife they played the religious card in Uzbekistan [10].They were opposed to President Karimov’s regime and after a bloody incident of bombings, many of their leaders and members were arrested by the government. Around the year 2000, due to the political turmoil and arrests, their leader fled to Afghanistan where he found a safe haven with the Taliban. Apart from being strictly opposed to extremist movements, the governments of these states especially in Uzbekistan, were highly averse to anything with even the slightest hint of religion attached to it. During Karimov’s regime, not only was there a complete lack of religious freedom but also every attempt was made to curb political expression and liberty [11]. On the other hand, pursuit of the Islamic ideology has been one of top priorities of every successive Pakistan government, as in most cases it has served to legitimize their rule.

            

               Pakistan viewed the inception of the Central Asian republics as being of immense economic benefit for itself. The idea was to form regional links with these states as they were regarded as a treasure of untapped mineral resources. Pakistan on the other hand was a viable option for these states as well since they were land locked and they required Pakistan’s support and cooperation. Initially what appeared as a marriage of convenience however could not end up successfully due to several in competencies. The first major step towards economic and trade related cooperation was the entrance of these six countries into the ECO (Economic Cooperation Organization) in 1992. The ECO began in 1985 by Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. It was a successor organization to the RCD (Regional Cooperation for Development). However till much of the decade, trade between ECO countries remained limited. For the Central Asian Republics trading activity with Russia always took precedence. Moreover, most of the member states are semi-industrialized economies which make them dependent on external suppliers [12]They are more or less on the same standing and majority of exports and produce accounts for raw materials and not finished goods [13]. It is also noteworthy that in case of better quality exports countries in the ECO chose to trade with major trading partners outside the region thereby rendering the function of the ECO ineffective. Also it is challenging for Pakistan and Iran to face competition coming from China and the Far East because of low cost labor available in China especially. This fact explains the trend that the only diversification experienced has been an increase in trade with China by the Central Asian Republics, exposing weaknesses in the ECO.

The ECO was speculated to provide a golden opportunity for regional trade to flourish and for ties to strengthen between Pakistan and Central Asia however apart from economic constraints, the failure of the project can also be attributed to the leadership. Implementation of economic policies requires a strong stance and focus on the part of the leadership in the region and this was strongly lacking. The decade of the 1990s saw Benazir Bhutto’s and Nawaz Sharif’s governments coming to power and their foreign policy objectives were not far sighted enough to judge the significance of building up this lucrative connection. Successive Pakistani governments remained infatuated with harboring the Islamic ideology mainly to secure their position and to avoid internal strife by religious circles. Furthermore the strong dependence on US meant that Pakistan had to play an important role in the Afghanistan fiasco which ended up putting Pakistan in the Taliban mess.

            

                 With the advent of the 21^st century Pakistan finds itself amidst new political and strategic conflicts. The global environment is starkly different from what it was when the Russian and British empires were ruling the world. Although the incentives remain more or less the same i.e. economic control leading to political hegemony however the means have changed. Today the situation is far more complex and does not involve only two competing empires rather each country is interested in pursuing its own agenda. The region of Central Asia retains its importance and some such as Ahmed Rasheed hold the view that a new great game has emerged with China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan.

          

                  Pakistan’s role in the new great game depends on how much influence it can exert. It has the options of building oil and gas pipelines such as the most famous intended project of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. However for this Pakistan requires major economic cooperation. The Trans-Afghanistan pipeline aimed to transport approximately 33 billion cubic meters of gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. It was to continue from Pakistan to India. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is monitoring the feasibility of the project[14]. The project has not been able to produce results on ground because Afghanistan continues to be the hub of violence and internal strife. Iran on the other hand is offering a more secure route to Pakistan and India from Turkmenistan, over which US expressed deep concern. The other major player in the new great game Russia remains the largest importer of Turkmenistan’s gas. Despite new avenues opening for Turkmenistan, Russia does not want to see its old patronage slipping away. Despite the fact that old pipelines are almost withering away, an agreement was signed with Russia on rebuilding them. China too is watchful and is building a pipeline to export gas from Turkmenistan[15]. The TAPI pipeline has immense prospects of boosting Pakistan’s position in the region and also in increasing stability. If the project is materialized Pakistan can secure royalty from India on the passage of gas to India via the pipeline. This will help to improve the trust deficit that exists between the two neighbors and will promote much needed peace in the region.

            

                  Another profitable alternative is the Gwadar sea port offers Pakistan a golden opportunity to develop trade links with Central Asia, China and Iran. Iran views the development of the Gwadar port as a threat for its own Chambahar port since now it may distract trade that was previously dependent on Iran’s port. Iran is therefore taking India’s help and making sure that the place of Chambahar port is not lost.  China’s interest in Gwadar port was inevitable as it became weary of US troops centered at Western Asian countries. It wanted to secure safer alternative sea routes so that it would not be completely dependent on the ones coming from the Persian Gulf.  The first three years of the development process saw rapid progress and raised expectations[16]. Land prices began to rise upwards and Gwadar began to be viewed as an upcoming port being built on international standards. This raised both local interest as well as chances of further foreign investment. However Balochistan is witnessing separatist movements and they are apprehensive of foreign influence and presence in their land. The attack on Chinese engineers in the year 2004 was a major blow to the project[17]. However if Pakistan can pacify local Baloch sentiments and make them stakeholders in the project, Pakistan economy can benefit immensely. The port has the potential to become a hub for trading activities in the region and will pull the attention of the landlocked Central Asian Republics. It can provide a major breakthrough and boost to Pakistan’s relations with these states, which have broken down due to several historical factors. Not only that, with being in control of international trade in the region, Pakistan will not only reap economic benefits but can also affirm itself on political and regional issues.  

For centuries in international affairs, countries have always been struggling and competing for economic control and political hegemony. Powerful nations have in the past exploited the rest of the world through colonization. Today world politics is dominated by controlling energy resources and thereby securing complete hegemony over the rest of the world. The case of the Central Asian Republics is a perfect example of how world powers such as USA, China and Russia are aiming to extract and exploit the treasure of resources found there. Moreover the regional powers such as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey have also become stakeholders and are making profound attempts to haul out maximum benefit. In the current global situation with regards the issues of terrorism at the forefront of US policy, Central Asian Republics can serve as useful allies. Due to their location they are connected to Pakistan and Afghanistan; the two most troubled regions at present. US wanted that it should guarantee Central Asian support in eradicating terrorists from the region and in this way it would not solely have to rely on Pakistan’s support. Previously with Pakistan experiencing internal problems of inflation, weak governments and terrorism it could not assert its interests out rightly in the great game. However with the current state of affairs, the situation has become more volatile and unpredictable. The end of Osama bin Laden can be viewed as leading to a pulling out of American troops from Afghanistan. An improved peace situation in Afghanistan is what the region has been yearning for for around two decades now and it is something that can lead to peace and more economic development in the region which will be immensely beneficial for Pakistan.


Written By: Chanel Khaliq