"Musharraf's Regime Was The Worst" The News Pakistan

When the state follows a destructive policy, such thinking emerges. Musharraf messed up with both foreign and domestic policies, besides reigniting the Baloch problem and patronising the MQM. In fact, I think Musharraf's regime was the worst in Pakistan's history, because it has again revived the fears of Pakistan's disintegration. If you look at Pakistan's history from a political scientist's perspective, then the consequences of military regimes are evident with mathematical accuracy. The Ayub regime led to the genesis of Bangladesh; the Yahya regime presided over the disintegration of Pakistan; the Zia regime encouraged all kinds of negative trends; and the Musharraf regime revived the fears of the country's disintegration. If this country has to survive, it could be only through continuous democracy.

Earlier, Dr Amin did his Master's in International Relations from Quaid-e-Azam University (QAU), Islamabad, and Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. In 1979, he joined QAU as a Lecturer in the Department of International Relations. He has also taught as Visiting Faculty at Watson Institute of International Studies, Brown University, Providence, and Boston College, Boston, in the United States, as well as many other national and international universities and research institutes.

From 1996 to 2000, Dr Amin held Iqbal's Chair at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. He has many research publications and articles to his credit, most of which are on Afghanistan, nationalism and internationalism, and Kashmir. He is also considered as an expert on Pakistan's foreign policy. Currently, he is working as Chairperson of the Department of International Relations, QAU. The News on Sunday interviewed him recently. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: As an expert on ethno-nationalism, do you think secessionist movements still exist in Pakistan?

Tahir Amin: Secessionist and ethnic sentiments have always existed in Pakistan, especially in Sindh and Balochistan. Moreover, in Sindh there has been the mohajir phenomenon. Meanwhile, Baloch nationalists once again became active during the Pervez Musharraf era. In the NWFP, there used to be a strong Pukhtoonistan movement, but currently it is inactive.

TNS: What has been the raison d'etre of ethno-nationalist movements in Pakistan?

TA: One of the central arguments of my research is that primarily state policy determines the course of ethno-nationalist movements. If it aims at redressing the grievances of smaller ethnic groups, then these movements become dormant. However, if the state uses force against these ethnic groups, then they begin to rise. In fact, Pakistan presents a unique case study of the rise and fall of ethno-nationalist movements. In the post-1971 era, there was a widespread feeling that Pakistan was going to disintegrate; there would be Azad Balochistan, Sindhudesh and Pukhtoonistan. Even many leading academics and policymakers shared this view, but this did not happen. I tried to solve this riddle in my doctoral work. My argument was that these ethno-nationalist movements rise and fall in response to a number of factors. State policy is the most significant among the domestic factors, though there are international and local factors too. Still, the fundamental determining factor is state policy.

TNS: Do you mean to say state policy has been the underlying reason behind ethno-nationalist movements in Pakistan?

TA: Yes. After the 1971 debacle, for two years the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto government followed the correct policy of empowering ethno-nationalist groups in Balochistan and the NWFP. As a result, interestingly, the assemblies of the two provinces presented resolutions that Urdu should be the official language instead of Pushto and Balochi. This is something very significant. In fact, whenever the Centre has shared power with ethno-nationalist groups, they have agreed to forego their identity for the sake of national integration. We should have learnt this lesson after the separation of the country's eastern part. Pakistan broke primarily because we did not grant Bengalis their due rights. Their representative Awami League had won the 1971 elections and it should have been allowed to form the government, while the PPP should have been in the opposition. Had the election results been accepted, Pakistan would have never broken. The rest are all conspiracy theories. The oft-repeated explanation that India was responsible for the separation of East Pakistan is nonsense. External enemies and always plotting against you, but it is the state's failure to recognise genuine political forces that leads to disaster.

TNS: Then why are there apprehensions that Pakistan would fall apart?

TA: When the state follows a destructive policy, such thinking emerges. Musharraf messed up with both foreign and domestic policies, besides reigniting the Baloch problem and patronising the MQM. In fact, I think Musharraf's regime was the worst in Pakistan's history, because it has again revived the fears of Pakistan's disintegration. If you look at Pakistan's history from a political scientist's perspective, then the consequences of military regimes are evident with mathematical accuracy. The Ayub regime led to the genesis of Bangladesh; the Yahya regime presided over the disintegration of Pakistan; the Zia regime encouraged all kinds of negative trends; and the Musharraf regime revived the fears of the country's disintegration. If this country has to survive, it could be only through continuous democracy. The fears today are genuine, because if you look at FATA the writ of the state is being briskly eroded because of the rise of the Taliban. The state is responsible for mismanaging things. In Balochistan, I genuinely believe it is due less to Indian machinations and other factors and more to the highly myopic policies of Musharraf like the killing of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti. I have personally met Bugti and can tell you that he was a person with whom Pakistan could deal. All tribal chiefs, no matter what they say, are blackmailers par excellence; they have a price tag. It was the task of the state to keep sharing power with them until there was a long-term solution to the Balochistan problem. Instead, the state aggravated the problem. In short, Pakistan's contemporary challenges have to be seen in the perspective of polices followed during Musharraf's regime.

TNS: How would you explain the MQM?

TA: Musharraf patronised the MQM while it was on the decline as a natural consequence of its fascist orientation. The organisation was created by the Zia regime, and it thrives on the support extended by the alienated middle class of Karachi and some other big cities in Sindh.

TNS: The ANP has been recently accused by certain quarters (in particular, the JUI-F and Jamaat-e-Islami) of getting close to the US and conspiring to break up Pakistan. Do you see any truth in these allegations?

TA: I think these allegations are not right. As long as a democratic setup is in place in the NWFP, there is little fear. We may be making mistakes, but if democracy continues, then there is no fear. If the current government does not perform, it would be replaced by another democratic government. However, the most important thing is the continuation of the democratic setup, which is key to the survival of the state. Often, people with different ideological leanings contest whether Pakistan should be a liberal, a Marxist or an Islamic state, and then start tracing the country's history from their perspective only. However, we should realise that a shared vision of Pakistan is possible. If there were no Pakistan, then where would the adherents of these ideologies go? We have to look at the shared values that exist among various traditions. Even an Islamist would agree that there should be a democratic and pluralistic political system. If there is continuity of democratic experience, then there is hope that we may be able to establish a viable state in Pakistan.

TNS: Do you agree that extremists and terrorists have brought the country on the verge of collapse?

TA: There is no doubt that they have emerged as a serious threat, mainly due to the wrong foreign policy pursued by successive regimes and governments. There has to be a line between the interests of external powers and our own. If you allow US drones to violate your sovereignty day in and day out, this represents a failure of the foreign policy. Unfortunately, Zardari's regime has also been following the same policy. Though it is a democratically elected setup, it is collaborating with the US. We have very serious challenges to the national integrity that need radical responses. After 1971, irrespective of whether we like him or not, Bhutto made some radical changes; for example, he restructured the political system by framing the 1973 Constitution. There is a need to take such radical steps now, because Pakistan is facing many threats and challenges. There is a need to talk to the US in clear terms. The government should act in the interest of its people and not other powers.

(The author is a journalist and research scholar.

Email: razapkhan@yahoo.com)