Sadiq Gill: Making Sense of Anarchy

By Richard Perry


Anarchists believe in individuality. Everyone and anyone, no matter of what gender, skin color, or race you are, you are still a person. You can believe in whatever religion you want to believe, wear what you want to wear, and live how you want to live. You're a person just like everybody else! Why should you have people tell you how to live your life? Why do "We, The People" need a bunch of rich, old men with their own agendas to tell us how to spend our money, tell us what is right, what is wrong, when to sleep, what to eat and drink? Don't most people know inherently what is right and wrong, good from bad?

Ask yourself, if there were no more laws tomorrow, would you become a murderer and thief? No? Well, no one else would either. People who murder and steal do these things regardless of laws. Let's get rid of the reasons that people do these things instead. People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. They know what's right and they know what's wrong and I'm sure they can learn from their mistakes when they are made. So, even though there are no laws and nobody officially running anarchy such as a president, dictator or King, people can control themselves. We're not sheep wondering mindlessly along fields, are we?

But the whole idea of anarchy has been around for centuries. Ancient Greek philosophy of Stoicism (a system having the same ideas of anarchy at the time of ancient Greece) was founded by Zeno of Citium said that wise men could and should evolve away from civil courts, government and rulers, acting eventually only by the universal law of reason and in accord with the universal brotherhood among human beings. The first modern western thinker to greatly develop and publish an anarchist philosophy was Englishman William Godwin, who supported the cause of an evolutionary anarchism reminiscent of Zeno's Stoicism. Benjamin Tucker, the great American individualist, got his anarchism ideas from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Josiah Warren, both of whom opposed Capitalism and The State, and both of whom embraced individualism. All three men focused on the ideas of a free and individualized economy. The most famous anarchist is Emma Goldman, whose anarchy-communism was based on the philosophy of Russian aristocrat, Prince Peter Kropotkin. His anarchist philosophy was collectivist, communist and non-violent, though he doesn't seem to have rejected violence and revolution.

Unfortunately, getting people to follow anarchism wasn't easy. Emma Goldman enforced many things against the government like stealing and woman's rights (which back in the early 1900's woman didn't have to many rights). Well, it ended her up in jail for about 4 years through 1893 and 1918. But others like William Godwin, never went to jail and had good views that inspired many people. He believed that all monarchies were "unavoidably corrupt". He felt that no one should power over another one. He believed that reason could and should rule over our lives. Between Emma, William, and many others, anarchy has come a long way.

Anarchy. The only system of government in which there are no ruler and no laws. Anarchist believe that The People can do for themselves realize what is right from wrong and resolve their own conflicts. Through centuries people like Zeno, Emma Goldman, and William Godwin have introduced this idea to many people. Now it's pretty clear why all we've been hearing about is anarchy, anarchy, anarchy.

Richard Perry is a senior specialist at Essay Writing [http://www.essaymall.com/] department of EssayMall.com. The author has many years of experience in Research Paper [http://www.essaymall.com/Research_paper.php] development.

Sadiq Gill: The cosmic magic of Ismail’s imagination

By The News on Sunday

Zohaib Kazi merges his love and curiosity about the planet, space, science, history and technology and creates a glorious world.

Ismail Ka Urdu Sheher is so much more than an ordinary book. Merging Kazi’s curiosity across various disciplines (such as science, philosophy, history and technology), the book, loaded with beautiful illustrations and gorgeous design elements, begins on planet earth and takes us across various dimensions, like a cosmic journey that is as adventurous as it is inspiring.

At the center of the story lies the individual known as Ismail Alset, an Urdu speaking scientist of immense intellect and resolve,  and a resident of Elaan, a planet carved by advancements in several fields upon who lays the responsibility to save the world from an experiment gone terribly wrong.

If you think it’s just a scientific exploration, think again. Ismail’s love and relationship with wife Mehr-un-Nisa is at the heart of this book and is perhaps one of the book’s strongest points. Jauhar, the artificial intelligent machine poses questions and conversations between the machine and Ismail are simply fascinating.
It’s a thoughtful book that takes in mind the struggles of mankind, and the need for discovery, the fear of death and the unknown, universal laws that seem unapproachable and ties them together neatly.

From Earth to Elaan

Our introduction to the story, however, begins with  an unnerved planet earth as an inevitable energy crisis lurks on the horizon due to mankind’s persistent recklessness, ignorance and lack of respect for scientific and natural laws.

Amidst the shadows lies the discovery that private consortiums run the world as they have ceased control of world resources. This “global control movement” has a leader organization known as Mandala, a front-runner initiated by the Caster family, as their manipulation “initiated wars and fueled conflicts around the world since recorded history”.

Several characters emerge in this book that are human and hence, flawed, complex as fiery and unpreditcable as man himself. You can’t pick a side.

Jalut Caster is the young and dynamic heir to the throne, and understand earth’s importance as Mandala acquires NASA among other feats. This opens the story of other unique individuals who gain importance in the story as the narrative picks up pace.

Two diametrically opposite friends, Colon and Daud enter the terrain. This subplot is one of the most curious themes in the story as the two young genius scientists who manage the impossible showcase not just scientific ideas but also ties that bind, the ties of friendships and the fragility of relationships and how easy it is to lose one’s way.

Balancing each other’s weaknesses isn’t enough though as their personal relationship deteriorates and perspective change and intertwine. Daud, for instance, loses himself to reclusion as he questions the world around him and is disgusted by things like interest rates of the banks of the world and the commercialization of the race of discovery in the name of science. His disconnection from the world past and growing rage leads him to rebellion and in the arms of underground anarchy movements. Colon, the other-half of this genius combo, meanwhile, scales heights of excellence.

As Ismail’s embarks on this journey with Mehr, you root for them and wonder at the same time about what they will or won’t find.

The story so far

Ismail Ka Urdu Sheher isn’t written in a traditional narrative. The prose, engaging and observant, feels closer because of the design value of the book which includes skies full of stars. In between the chapters, the book also has dedicated pages to some of the scientific ideas that are explored in it. You don’t necessarily have to be a science buff to understand this world.

The longing and loss of family is also explored beautifully and is one of the many layers and emotions explored in the story.

What’s impeccable in Kazi’s narrative is that the characters blend seamlessly – they are perfectly imperfect and not viewed with a binary lens. Even as Kazi’s marvelous imagination and the knock-out design elements persistently make you marvel, it is easy to note the humanity and humility that lies within the book. The stories of Jalut, Ismail, Mehr, Daud and the others interconnect as it reaches a conclusion.

Kazi conjures a world that is often a reflection of some of the most prevailing questions of our times. A world that is made worse by wars and divided by religious animosity and intolerance evokes a real-time image.
Futuristic and engaging, Ismail Ka Urdu Sheher is  thing of mystery, a fantastic achievement for its chief architect Zohaib Kazi and the many collaborators across fields who have helped in realizing a dream.

Sadiq Gill: Remembering Professor Benedict Anderson

By Dr Arif Azad

Professor Benedict Anderson of Cornell University, who has died at the age of 79 in his beloved Indonesia, is widely known for his path-breaking work on nationalism. His magnum opus, Imagined Communities, has been translated into 12 languages and remains an influential text more than 30 years after its publication.

Professor T. J. Clark remarked that great titles are especially dangerous and Imagined Communities is one of the greatest titles. In the two words of the title are embodied a cluster of ideas that are so central to our fresh new perspective on nationalism.

In expounding his theory of nationalism, Benedict Anderson becomes one of the leading theorists of modernist school of nationalism. As opposed to primordialist school of thought, modernists argued that nationalism was the product of interplay of modernist forces of capitalism, modern printing press and literature. Also, nationalism bound together is an imagined political community, contrary to the toxic and insular nationalism of today, mostly represented by far-right, and embraced by the mainstream parties to varying degrees. Anderson saw nationalism as an imaginative process rooted in inclusiveness and outreach, as pointed out by Jeet Heer of New Republic.

In lamenting the lack of significant theorist of the stature of Hobe, Marx and Webber on nationalism, Anderson himself has come to be seen as the most important theorist on nationalism. In fact, one commentator has compared Imagined Communities as the communist manifesto on nationalism. Though Anderson’s scholarly reputation rests on Imagined Communities, he has produced an impressive body of work, equal in significance, and of high intellectual and scholarly merit. His work on nationalism and anarchism in the context of Philippines, titled Under Three Flags, is of immense significance. These two titles suggest where Anderson’s prime research interest lay.

He was an Indonesiaist through and through. Besides his scholarly works on the region, Anderson also exerted himself in the cause of democracy when it was derailed by military coups in the Southeast Asia. His involvement in Indonesia began in the 1960s when he and his colleagues at Cornell University came out with the Cornell Paper.

 

It was Anderson who had more insight on Pakistani politics than me, and would invariably draw comparisons between Pakistan and Indonesia, in terms of shared history of military coups.

This famous paper exposed the military coup as a premeditated act by a group of generals rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the fear of the communist revolution. Inevitably the publication led to a long ban on Anderson’s entry into Indonesia which lasted from 1972 to 1998 when General Suharto was finally overthrown. In between, he nurtured his love for South East Asia by turning his attention to another coup-ridden Thailand, where he again dissected the culture of military coups with great precision, prophetic vision and clarity.

Benedict Anderson’s essay, Withdrawal Symptom, published in 1977, is still considered the best study of Thai politics of the 1970s. He also co-authored a collection of short stories in Thai.

Yet Indonesia remained his abiding and lasting love where he has legions of admirers and mourners. He taught himself Indonesian languages and acquired sufficient proficiency to joke and think in the language. He also adopted two sons from Indonesia.

My knowledge and interest in the work of Benedict Anderson was further amplified by my connection with him forged during a conference on Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State in Patna in 2003. Like all delegates to the conference, we hung out in proximity of Benedict Anderson, who was the star speaker at the conference. By sheer luck, he was my neighbour in the hotel where all delegates were housed. We invariably shared the breakfast and lunch table during the conference where Professor Anderson shared his vast knowledge of the South East Asian politics, nationalisms and military coups of various stripes. Anderson would ask me searching question about the Pakistan politics and the military coup in particular.

Like a true scholar, he wanted to learn as much as he could from the people of the region. I explained the current situation as much as my knowledge allowed. But it was Anderson who had more insight on Pakistani politics than me, and would invariably draw comparisons between Pakistan and Indonesia, in terms of shared history of military coups.

I found his knowledge of Pakistan as deep and as insightful as of Indonesia and South East Asia in general. I can say that I learned more about the comparative trajectories of military coups in Indonesia and Pakistan from him than the scores of books I had read before.

Yet despite his vast knowledge, he was unpretentious, warm and engaging. In the decades or more since, my own thinking on politics and nationalism is still being continually shaped by conversations I had with him during the conference and his subsequent works.

Benedict Anderson was born into an Anglo-Irish family in China in 1936. His father James Anderson was the Customs Commissioner in the service of the Chinese administration. His brother, Perry Anderson, has written movingly of the father’s stay in China and of the Anderson family. In 1941, the Anderson family moved to the US because of the impending Japanese advance on China.

Benedict Anderson grew up in California and was educated at Cambridge and Cornell. His Marxism was honed while he was a student at Cambridge during an era of anti-colonial movements and political ferment.

This brush with the historic epoch was to shape his political worldview deeply marked by Marxist and anti-colonial thinking.

The Andersons have lived a peripatetic existence. The family moved back to Ireland in 1945 for a brief period only to realise the strain of multiple belongings. However, this nomadic existence was a blessing in disguise because the peripatetic life was to instill in the Anderson sibling an international and global outlook.

Not comfortably anchored anywhere in the world, the Andersons have lived in languages, ideas, theories and global movements. The family’s legendary global-mindedness and instinctive multi-lingualism has led Jeet Heer of the New Republic to describe him as a man with no country. The Anderson clan is truly global and internationalist in outlook and intellectual sympathies, fluent in most of the European and South East Asian languages. Benedict’s younger brother, Perry Anderson, is a formidable historian in his own right. Another sister, Melanie Anderson, fluent in many languages too, is a distinguished anthropologist.

Sadiq Gill: A Plan for Anarchy VS Current System

Blog by Sadiq Gill

Guest Blog Post By Lance Winslow

We have all heard the saying that less government is better government. However there may be a point of diminishing returns as you get to absolute zero or no government at all. Those who call themselves libertarians and take it to the lowest common denominator risk being called Anarchists.

But in reality Anarchy is a plan with no plan. So if you are debating with an Anarchist or a Libertarian who has jumped off the deep end there are a couple of things you can do to bring them to their senses. Ask them this pointed question for me:

Now then show me your "Complete Plan" strategy and implementation proposal for a change over from the current system? Show me. Let's debate. If you do not have a plan then one might say you are talking out your pants and from where you are sitting your message is muffled in methane gas and human waste. Is Anarchy the making of Bio-Fuel too?

The reason I mentioned this is anarchy by its definition does not have a plan, it is an utter free-for-all and it cannot work. Is this the type of civilization or society that you wish to live in? Those who preach anarchy need to come to their senses and it makes sense for us to stick up for a system of government which is time-tested and proven. Again you should ask them:

Show me your plan. Show me the empirical data. Show me the prototype and working model. Show me this up and running and working and show me you have duplicated it. Until then, you have nothing but theory.

Whereas, I have all you see, every where you go in the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind working better than expected and better than any other form of human civilization that we can find in the written human record - as my proof.

I win. You lose and that is scientific fact, not Sci Fi Fantasy. Show me, I am originally from Missouri. Dear Anarchist - Take That!

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Sadiq Gill: The Politics of Anarchy

The word “anarchy” has its origins in ancient Greek (like so many other words). It stems from the root word arcon (archon), meaning ruler, with the prefix (an) added to mean “against” or “without.” So, literally, anarcon (anarchon) means against/without rulers. It is a wonderfully descriptive etymology, and helpful for understanding the basic principles of anarchical belief, a system defined by limited (or nonexistent) government, self rule, and lack of private property.

The First Modern Anarchists

While the principles behind the anarchist movement in some sense have their roots in the Stoic philosophies of ancient Greece, the tenants of modern anarchy perhaps first outlined by late 18th century sociologist
William Goldwin (who did not himself profess to be an anarchist at the time, but only because the term was not yet used as functionally as it is today) in his “Enquiry concerning Political Justice,” wherein he states, as a basic principle:

“Government, as it was forced upon mankind by their vices, so has it commonly been the creature of their ignorance and mistake.

Government was intended to suppress injustice, but it offers new occasions and temptations for the commission of it.

By concentrating the force of the community, it gives occasion to wild projects of calamity, to oppression, despotism, war and conquest.”

 

In the nineteenth century Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, in his book “What is Property?” and famous essay “What is Government?” also railed against the intrinsic evils of government and private property (and was also the first to actually use the word “anarchy” in its modern sense). To thinkers such as these, the ownership of any property is, in essence, theft from the community, and the very existence of government itself is the root of many, if not all, of society's problems.

 

Truth and Stereotypes

The most common misconceptions people often have toward anarchists is that of groups of rebellious kids breaking the law, wearing black, and having patches of the anarchy symbol safety pinned to their clothes (and sometimes carving them into their own body), and acting out against what they consider to be the evils of authority in general. Riots, demonstrations, school violence... all are (sometimes correctly) associated with anarchy. While much of this surely is done under the loosely defined guise of anarchy, these actions are certainly not what was originally defined by these intelligent, arguably misguided, thinkers.

In fact, one of the basic anarchic beliefs is that the world would naturally become a much better place by adopting those theories of anarchy. By Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's reckoning, should government cease to exist, replaced instead by self-rule of each individual person, the basic laws of humanity and the intrinsic goodness of humankind would take over, and humanity would begin a steady ascension toward a utopia.

Forms of Anarchy

Some anarchist theories, specifically those of Proudhon, while sounding as if verging on Marxist, are not based in communism, but are rather considered to be a form of “mutualism.” Proudhon was actually opposed to Communism, believing that there was still too much order involved; too much authoritarian control taking away the freedom of the individual. Still, the basic Socialist aspects remain: working individually, trading goods and services for other goods and other services based off whatever value is considered fair and whatever the current “going rate” may be.

In fact, when put this way, anarchy even has traces (faint as they may be) of the most basic form of capitalism (except without wealth or “greed”), though surely all similarities end here.

Anarchy is, by its nature, very hard to define. There are many other types of anarchical systems and many other anarchist leaders throughout history who have had things to say about the system. There are full-fledged Anarcho-Communists (and many subgroups therein) and there are even some Anarcho-Capitalists out there (conflicted as their beliefs may be). And then there are just those who hate being told what to do and want to cause as much damage to people and things as they possibly can, in the name of creating a system with no government, law or order. Some anarchists even kill presidents (referring, of course, to Leon Czolgosz, anarchist murderer of William McKinley).

One final note on the subject of anarchy: William Goldwyn, the modern father of anarchy, is actually the father of another famous writer: Mary Shelley, horror author extraordinaire and creator of Frankenstien. Surely, it is not difficult to find some form of anarchic message in this classic story.

References:
“Anarchist Timeline.”
Goldwin, William. “Inquiry concerning Political Justice.”
“An Anarchist FAQ.” Infoshop.org.

Sadiq Gill: Civil-military relations

A historical perspective of how the power struggle in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan transformed the social fabric in these majority-Muslim societies.

* * *

Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are not only large Muslim countries located in different continents, they also share striking similarities in their political developments during the past seven decades. An understanding of these developments might help us in drawing a broader picture of civil-military relationships and how they have transformed the social fabric in these majority-Muslim societies. One is fascinated by the almost similar ebb and flow of political struggle the three countries appear to have travelled through.

Turkey has been a bit ahead and if the lonely death and funeral of the 98-year old former general, coup-maker and self-appointed president, Kenan Evren, is any guide, Egypt and Pakistan might also sooner or later head in the same direction. In 2012, General Evren was tried for his role in the 1980 coup and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2014 by a court in Ankara. He was also demoted to the lowest rank of a private. When he died in May 2015, only his close relatives and some military personnel attended his funeral because he was treated as a criminal usurper and not as former commander of the army and the head of state. Political parties sent no representatives to the funeral and a number of people protested during the religious service in the mosque’s courtyard.

The chroniclers of fin-de-siècle politics have called Turkey the “sick man of Europe”. At the turn of the century, the Ottoman Empire was breathing its last and then the First World War hammered the proverbial last nail in its coffin. At the end of the war, despite some valiant military feats by Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) and his soldiers, the Allied forces had almost forced Turkey to its knees and were bent upon punishing it for its support to Germany during the Great War.

Gradually Kemal Atatürk emerged as the redeemer of his people and with the help of his fighters not only managed to regain some of the lost territories but also ultimately dissolved the Ottoman Empire and put the country on the road to a secular and progressive future. He knew very well that to take his society forward the country had to be extracted from the morass of backwardness.

He became the first president of modern Turkey in October 1923 and gave his country a new constitution in 1924. For the next 15 years he tried to remove the last vestiges of a medieval mindset from his people; struggled against religious dominance in society and promulgated a civil code modeled on the one used in Switzerland. He shut down all religious courts and to eliminate crimes he enforced laws borrowed from Italy. In 1934, he granted full political rights to women and replaced old Turkish script with the Latin one.

 In Turkey, the army used Greece as a permanent threat and in Egypt and Pakistan, Israel and India served the same purpose. In each country, the generals became self-appointed custodians of national interest. 

When Atatürk died in 1938, his old comrade İsmet İnönü became president who intelligently steered clear of WWII, kept his country neutral and only in the last stage joined the Allies. In 1946, he abolished the one-party rule and introduced a multi-party system in which his party won the first elections and he remained president till 1950. In the next elections the opposition party won and showed him the door. He was magnanimous in his defeat and, establishing democratic traditions, stepped down to hand over power to the Democratic Party of Adnan Mederes and Cêlal Bayar who became prime minister and president respectively.

That’s how Turkey became probably the first country in the Muslim world that witnessed a democratic transfer of power from one political party to another. The credit for this goes entirely to İsmet İnönü and not to the army that immediately started efforts to unseat the newly-elected civilian government. Similar attempts were later witnessed in both Egypt and Pakistan.

After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, for almost quarter of a century the Turkish army held sway over almost all aspects of Turkish society and, as a true reflection of the military psyche, barely tolerated any dissent. After 1950s, when the Democratic Party tried to deviate from some of the secular principles enshrined in the constitution the army resisted and finally in 1960, General Cemal Gürsel overthrew the elected civilian government and arrested both the president and the prime minister.

In Egypt, the army had already taken over in 1952 under the leadership of General Naguib who was removed by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954. He continued with one-party rule till his death in 1970. One common feature between the Turkish and the Egyptian armies during that period was their claim to be secular and opposed to religious extremism but if we look closely we find that it is the unquestioned army supremacy that engenders religious extremism.

In Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser tried to establish a modern state on more or less a similar pattern and had also emerged as a well-respected leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. While the armies in Turkey and Pakistan were ready to side with the United States in 1950s and 60s, Egypt initially kept a distance from the USA but eventually followed in the footsteps of the Turkish and Pakistani armies.

In Turkey, the army used Greece as a permanent threat and in Egypt and Pakistan, Israel and India served the same purpose. In each country, the generals became self-appointed custodians of national interest crushing the democratic aspirations of people and propagating the perception that only they were the true guarantors of security.

Just as in Turkey, 1950s in Pakistan marked an experimental period for democracy and multi-party system. In Turkey the first civilian president, Cêlal Bayar, and Prime Minister Adnan Mederes, angered the army by taking some bold steps without their consent.

In Pakistan, the army took over directly for the first time in 1958. Prior to that there were leaders such as AK Fazlul Haq, HS Suhrawardy, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Ghaus Bhukhsh Bizinjo, GM Sayed, and Mian Iftikharuddin who could have steered the country on a democratic route, had they not been targeted and humiliated by the representatives of civil and military bureaucracy e.g. Ghulam Mohammad, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan. But just as in Turkey and Egypt, in Pakistan the democratic path was abandoned altogether or realigned to suit the security establishment.

Nasser, Ayub, and Gürsel consolidated the military control in their respective countries and used the same mantra against democracy i.e. it promotes anarchy, threatens national integrity, and hampers development. In addition, it was claimed that the army brings everyone on the ‘same page’ to safeguard the country against unscrupulous elements.

In 1960, General Gürsel not only toppled a democratically elected government but also paved the way for the death sentences to both the president and the prime minister i.e. Cêlal Bayar and Adnan Mederes. Bayar was later on spared thanks to his old age and his sentence was commuted to life-imprisonment but Menderes was hanged. Nearly 20 years after this hanging, when in Pakistan the military government of General Zia was about to hang former prime minister ZA Bhutto, the then prime minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, had reportedly remarked that Turkey was still paying the price for hanging its leader and he did not want Pakistan to repeat the mistake.

The Turkish army ostensibly restored democracy in 1961 but General Gürsel got himself elected as president. In a similar fashion, the military government in Pakistan established a civilian government in 1962 but General Ayub Khan followed in the footsteps of General Gürsel and became an ‘elected’ president.

Almost the entire decade of 1960s saw Nasser, Ayub, and Gürsel entrenched in their yearning for an ordered polity. Only Nasser among them enjoyed popular support till his death in 1970; while Generals Ayub and Gürsel could not present even a semblance of popular support or harmony that they claimed to have ushered in after the supposed failure of the elected civilian rulers. In Turkey Süleyman Demirel and Bülent Ecevit, and in Pakistan Mujibur Rahman and ZA Bhutto emerged as leaders espousing popular aspirations.

In 1970-71, the three countries saw events that had far-reaching implications. Nasser died in 1970 leaving behind a legacy different from those of his contemporaries in Pakistan and Turkey. Nasser had uprooted the kingdom in Egypt with his comrade General Naguib in 1952; then removed Naguib in 1954, first becoming prime minister and then giving a one-party constitution to assume the charge of president in 1956. Though General Naguib lived till 1984, his political role had finished 30 years earlier. When Ayub and Gürsel had offered their services to the US, Nasser had adopted an anti-imperialist posture and nationalised the Suez Canal inviting the wrath of Britain, France and Israel.

Gürsel had died in 1966 leaving Turkey in a mess again. This is no more a secret that from 1966 to 1970 the CIA was behind the unrest in Turkey and masterminding terrorist attacks to blame the leftist parties. Demirel was a centre-right politician but was not an extremist, still the army was not happy with him. In March 1971, when General Yahya Khan was about to launch his military operation against the majority party in East Pakistan, the Turkish army was writing a threatening letter to Demirel accusing him of incompetence and inability to control the law and order situation. The Turkish army had openly hinted at another coup repeating the same accusations against the civilian government that “it was destroying the country” and that politician were unable to come to the ‘same page’.

Almost the same situation was in Pakistan where the army did not want to hand over power to the elected representatives of the people because the politicians were ‘traitors’ and trying to disintegrate the country, hence they could not be entrusted power to rule on their own.

Anwar Sadat took over in Egypt after the death of Nasser in 1970 and continued with one-party rule under military supremacy. He ruled for over 10 years, fought a war against Israel and ultimately signed a peace deal brokered by the US President Carter at Camp David. Religious parties were enraged, especially Ikhwanul Muslimeen that attacked and killed him during an army parade in 1981.

Sadiq Gill - “On its own, no military can deal with political problems”

Columnist and security analyst Ejaz Haider analyses the role of the military in shaping the contours of state policy and direction.

The News on Sunday (TNS): You have always held state as your unit of analysis. In Pakistan’s context, the state has been understood in terms of ‘security state’ or ‘deep state’. Howsoever one may define it, the fact remains that in today’s Pakistan, state is not the only entity that has monopoly over violence. Is it time for the state to redefine itself.
Ejaz Haider (EH): Yes, I have used, and still do, state as the unit of analysis. But I do it with the full knowledge and appreciation of the fact that state is a deeply problematic concept and it has been problematised. What is it; where can one situate it; what is its relation to society that it seeks to govern; is it about the traditional notion of power, defined as ‘power over’, or the more inclusive, though less-accepted concept of ‘power with’; is it nothing more than the people or does it acquire a life of its own; do we need to ‘bring the state back’ or push it away; is the relationship between state and society always conflictual or should it be cooperative. The list of such questions is long. It is important also to challenge the accepted epistemological notions regarding state and its role, especially because we know that it is an imagined entity.
And yet, I employ it as the basic unit of analysis precisely for the reason contained in the second part of your question — i.e., “…the fact remains that in today’s Pakistan, state is not the only entity that has monopoly over violence”. And when you follow it up with, “Is it time for the state to redefine itself”, I assume that you believe that the loss of state’s monopoly of violence is not a positive development, that such loss has not redounded to the advantage either of the state or society. At the same time, the follow-up question’s not-so-hidden assumption is whether there is any possibility for state-society relations to improve, which is a legitimate concern.
I’ll say that one, though not the only reason, the state of Pakistan has seen an erosion of its monopoly of violence is because of rising tensions between itself (state) and society. Mending that relationship is, in fact, crucial for state to reacquire what is legitimately its.
Every collection requires an organising principle. Even anarchists, were they to sit down to decide on a political course of action, would need to elect a chair. Once you do that, you create a hierarchy and hierarchies, like it or not, begin to lead to exactly the same structures that an anarchist would like to pull down. That’s the paradox. And it must be understood.
Golding did an experiment with schoolchildren. He marooned them on an island in his dystopian 1954 work, Lord of the Flies. Within days we see the emergence of power structures and the associated “evils”. So, the question is, if an organising principle is important and if it is accepted that every such principle will end up creating what it originally seeks to destroy, then does it make much sense to uproot that organising principle and create a vacuum rather than using it as the unit of analysis even as one continues to hold its power in check?
My answer is scattered in hundreds of article I have written over several years. I will critique, criticise, challenge the functioning of the principle but I find it fallacious to huff and puff and bring the house down and then have to work again to construct another one, much the same way.
TNS: Military is believed to be a major player in agenda setting. Apart from external threats, it is also guarding against internal weaknesses because the political class and the democratic system are believed to be too weak or corrupt or inept. Do you think the military has the capacity and capability to take on this huge charge and deliver too?
EH: The military is a major player in setting the agenda but it is also stretched and stressed. The irony is that what we, including the military, are passing through, is, for the most part, the doing of the military. I do realise that it is not always useful to hark back to the original sin but that said, it is important to keep things in perspective. The military has continued to weigh in on issues that should best be left to the civilian principals. Its argument for doing so is operational rather than strategic. To that extent, given the immediacy of the circumstances, one can be empathetic. Something needs to be done and the military is efficient enough to do it so let’s let it do it. The problem is that we then begin to conflate the operational and the immediate with the strategic and the normative. That is deeply flawed.
While there are institutional interests involved, there is also the factor, less talked about, of military’s frustration with civilian inefficiency. There is a kernel of truth in it but the argument is not very savvy. The politicians are a fractious lot, for sure but then that’s what politics is about. Equally, it is the politicians that are deft with aggregating conflicting and often contradictory interests. The military’s managerial efficiency runs contrary to political haggling. The two entities could not be more different. The problem is that problem-solving is not the same thing as optimising results. So, even when the military seeks to work diligently, it ‘satisfices’, like all organisations. This is why it is important for it to remain subservient to the overall directions given by the civilian governments and to act in concert with them. The military is the most potent coercive tool in state’s arsenal. It must, therefore, be used sparingly and in ways which result in optimisation. On its own, no military, however efficient, can deal with political problems.
TNS: After the APS attack in Peshawar, some extraordinary steps were announced to fight the enemy, e.g. military courts. You had argued against the military courts calling them “knee-jerk measures”. Considering that incidents of terrorism have not stopped, do you still hold on to your view?
EH: I was and remain opposed to military courts. There are many reasons for my opposition, which I have listed in my writings. But just to recap some, the issue of poor prosecution, ostensibly the reason for setting up military courts, is not about what a judge does or doesn’t do. In a trial, the judge is as good or bad as the prosecution is. If that is how it works then unless the military can also provide from among its ranks thousands of prosecutors — which it can’t — it doesn’t matter if you put someone in uniform in the judge’s chair instead of the black robes. Also, higher courts have tended to overturn verdicts by ATCs because the anti-terrorism courts tend to overlook the fine print of law. There is also the issue of deterrence. If we want to prosecute and sentence to death terrorists, then it is legitimate to ask the question of why the over hundred death-row prisoners that have been hanged to death by now have such high percentage of those who were involved in murders, even if they were sentenced by ATCs. Why have we stopped executing hardcore terrorists. Why did the Interior Ministry put out a notification that it was lifting the moratorium on death sentence overall without informing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or consulting with it. I do not believe in the absolutism of those who are opposed to the death sentence per se, though I respect their views and I think they have some very strong arguments. But equally I find it abhorrent that others should take pleasure in hanging people by the neck till they die, as if taking someone’s life is a mere trifle, which it is not.
I realise that there is a sunset clause for military courts. But I believe that too many of us conceded to the 21st Amendment too soon and too easily. The Amendment is an act now but that should not stop us from continuing to debate the issue.
TNS: Some people suggest the state is correcting its course. How satisfied are you with the National Action Plan both as a short-term counter-terrorism strategy and as course correction in the long term?
EH: The NAP, as general guidelines go, is a fair document. It lists problem areas which many of us have been identifying for a long time. There is also a sense in the government that course correction is important. The scepticism is about implementing the NAP. Some of that is justified. My own sense is that implementing mechanisms must target strategic areas which can also have spin-off benefits in areas that are not targeted directly. That is always the challenge and the opportunity.
TNS: The reaction on social media after Sabeen Mahmud’s murder and the hinting of involvement of one particular agency shows the army has a serious image problem. Is it aware of this problem and is it doing something about it?
EH: The army is aware of the problem but while we tend to focus on the problem on army’s side, we ignore, to our own peril, the problem on the side of the people. By no stretch of the imagination can anyone accuse any person or entity without proof. Yet, that’s exactly what happens when something like this occurs. I think while the army needs to look into the problem on it side, the people need to look at their knee-jerk reactions and non-sequiturs also. Unfortunately, often, these illogical reactions emanate from very educated people.
TNS: In one of your earlier interviews, you had argued that counter terrorism in urban areas is not the job of army but the police. What do you think of the Rangers and army’s attempts to bring peace to Karachi?
EH: The apex committee dealing with Karachi brings together the civil-military leadership and reps from all law enforcement agencies. That coordination is called for. That said, the most effective agency dealing with urban CT operations has to be the police. I have written a lot about this basic fact. My argument doesn’t go against Rangers or the army. Combined efforts are important. But the lead agency must be the police. As for how to make the police effective, that’s another topic.