Pakistan in Media

WASHINGTON: The US and India on Wednesday welcomed the indictment of seven men by an anti-terror court in Rawalpindi in connection with the Mumbai attacks, but said a lot more needed to be done to curb such attacks. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he welcomed Pakistani steps to rein in extremists, but called for more action, while the US said the indictment was an “important step”. Pakistan has pledged it would do what is necessary to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice,” a State Department official said. “...but a lot more needs to be done to make sure these types of attacks don’t emanate anywhere from Pakistani soil,” the official added. afp

The News International, Pakistan, Tuesday, July 07, 2009
RAWALPINDI: Zardari said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that operations would in the future target the figures who were the military’s “strategic assets”.“I don’t think anybody in the establishment supports them any more,” he said. “I think everybody has become wiser than this,” he added.

“Military operations are all across the board against any insurgent, whether in Karachi, Lahore or whether he is in any part of Pakistan,” said Zardari. “My problem is terror. I have focused myself on terror. The PPP has focused itself against the extremist mindset. Terror is a regional problem, it cuts across borders. “I would love to be remembered for creating a Pakistan where militancy — I know it can’t totally be diminished — is defeated.”
More

Dawn, Pakistan

Friday, 12 Jun, 2009
AN amendment to the Pakistan aid bill moved in the US Congress requires, among other things, that Islamabad implement economic, legal and social reforms that would discourage “violent Islamic extremism”. Pakistani citizens must demand the same from their government. The fight against extremism in any form concerns Pakistan most deeply and directly, for as events in the country’s north-western areas illustrate, extremism and the militancy it sponsors represent a potent threat to the writ of the state. Firstly, of course, the militants must be effectively neutralised. The army operation should be taken to its logical conclusion and all areas be brought under the control of the government, while the millions of people affected must be rehabilitated. Reconstruction efforts need be initiated, in which regard the involvement of local people may well prove invaluable. Not only would they have an idea of where the money is best spent but such involvement would help return to them a sense of ownership.

Read More

Dawn, Pakistan
By Huma Yusuf
Sunday, 07 Jun, 2009

TO manage the war against the Taliban in the long run, the Pakistan Army and the government have to keep up a careful balancing act: military offensives and political manouevring, development and resource allocation, monitoring and intervention must go hand in hand.

But a recent development threatens to throw things off balance. The Pakistan Counter-insurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF) announced last month could over-militarise the solution to the problem of entrenched militancy. The PCCF, approved by the Obama administration in May, is a $400m annual allowance to provide the Pakistan military with training and equipment for counter-insurgency missions. The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee added an additional $700m for the PCCF in its Pakistan aid package as well. Under the PCCF, the US Central Command can work directly with the Pakistan Army to bolster its counter-terrorism capabilities.

Read More

Daily Times, Pakistan
ANALYSIS: Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Sunday, June 07, 2009

Pakistan has lost over a generation to Islamic orthodoxy and militancy. By now this generation has reached middle-level positions in the government, security services and private sector.

The Swat operation has effectively countered arguments that the civilian government and the military lacked the will and capability to check the Taliban’s assault on the Pakistani state and society. Security forces seem to have dislodged the Taliban from most of the Swat valley and the major thrust of the operation is expected to be over before the end of June. Although some military presence will have to be maintained in the area for the coming six months to a year for the civil administration to take control of the situation and the displaced people to return their homes safely.

The success in Swat will give greater confidence to security personnel and discourage new recruits from joining the Taliban. In the past, people joined various militant groups, especially the Taliban, because of organisational support and the promise of power and territory.

Read More

Daily Times, Pakistan
Saturday, June 06, 2009

* Over 70 injured as suicide bomber rips through worshippers in Hayagai Sharqai village of Upper Dir during Friday prayers
* Toll likely to rise as several people trapped under debris of severely damaged mosque

LOWER DIR: At least 40 people were killed and another 70 injured on Friday when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a mosque in Hayagai Sharqai village in Upper Dir district, sources said.

Read More

Aljazeera
Friday, June 05, 2009

The Pakistani military has arrested the deputy and spokesman to Sufi Muhammad, the cleric who brokered a now defunct peace deal in Pakistan's Swat valley.

The aids were arrested during a raid in the town of Amandara in Malakand district on Thursday.

Read More

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 5, 2009

SWABI, Pakistan, June 4 -- Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, declared Thursday that the tide had "decisively turned" in the military's battle against Taliban extremists in the Swat Valley, but displaced Pakistanis in a sprawling tent city here said it was still unsafe for them to return home.

Read More

Daily Times, Pakistan
Friday, June 05, 2009
COMMENT: Shaukat Qadir

It is time for the usually silent but irrelevant majority to stand up collectively to be counted and become relevant, if only to ensure that the political leadership does not waver again.

It was unusual to hear public statements by three out of the four 4-star generals in Pakistan within a span of 24 hours on April 25 and 26, 2009. The address by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff was to the biannual passing out parade at the military academy; a public event routinely covered by the media and, therefore, perhaps not so significant.

However, the same day, the army chief, after a meeting with his senior commanders, issued a statement to “dispel doubts being expressed about Pakistan’s future by certain quarters”, and assert that a country of 170 million people with a vibrant democracy, which is fully backed by the armed forces, is in no danger of falling apart and that ‘the operational pause’ — a military term for taking a breather in the midst of an ongoing operation, usually for logistic reasons, though sometimes due to other compulsions (in Swat) — was intended to give reconciliatory forces a chance and should not be construed as a concession to militants. Gen Kayani added that the Pakistan Army was fully capable of dealing with the Taliban threat.

On April 26, the air chief, addressing airmen in Islamabad, stated that the Pakistan Air Force stood behind the army to provide support to it whenever required.

There are two facts that need to be fully comprehended to understand the significance of the last two statements.

First, that the current hierarchy of the armed forces, especially the Army, is determined to adhere to the principle of civilian supremacy and ensure that democracy is given every opportunity to flourish; thus the italicisation of ‘fully backed’ in the army chief’s statement above. This is a fact that many abroad, and even most Pakistanis, find difficult to comprehend, which is not surprising given our history.

Second, the comments made by the army and the air chiefs were made in-house and not covered by the media. In these instances, the Inter-Services Public Relations department issues a statement that contains only the portion approved by the concerned chief, intended for public consumption.

In the wake of the takeover of Swat by the Taliban, the army was under considerable criticism for permitting this to happen. The chief’s statement was, obviously, intended to explain that the decision to use force rested with the political government. It is my opinion that, coupled with the air chief’s statement, it was also intended to be a public announcement that the armed forces were cognisant of the growing threat from the Taliban and had made every effort to convince the political leadership of it.

Under the current circumstances, that is the farthest the military can go, to tell the political leadership that it is erring in its Taliban appeasement policy, and that there can be no successful ‘peace deal’ with these people.

Everybody is aware that the Pakistani Taliban are far from a monolithic structure. The Mehsud Taliban have their own leader, as do the Wazirs and the Mohmands. Fazlullah reigns in Swat. None are prepared to accept the supremacy of another. Taliban apologists cite this to support the idea of making peace deals with individual warlords to wean them away from Al Qaeda and their support base in Afghanistan, and weaken them through their disunity. Others are concerned about the possibility of their joining forces and the dimensions of the threat from a unified Taliban, were that to happen.

The truth is that these factions of the Taliban will never be united, but that does not diminish the threat they pose. It is my view that there is no ‘future threat’; the threat is already here.

To understand this, it is necessary to understand Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has never consisted of more than two thousand hardcore individuals, which was in the post-9/11 scenario when it was organising resistance to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Usually, as at present, it has less than one thousand. It relies on ‘outsourcing’ its teachings; there are never more than a couple of dozen Al Qaeda ‘advisors’ in a region to plan operations and train operatives. That is the number that is to be found in each of the troubled areas of Pakistan.

Once this is considered, it becomes obvious that the various Pakistani chapters of the Taliban do not need to unite to multiply their threat to the country, the region, and indeed the world. While they are not a monolithic structure in Pakistan, they are a monolithic structure under Al Qaeda. Their threat is multiplying by the day, and in their apparent disunity lies a greater danger: they are like multiple pincers of one army, with separate objectives and, while one may be forced to retreat, the other accelerates.

There is a horrifying, deadly method to their madness: they are creating chaos. The theory of chaos propounded some decades ago states, in effect, that, ‘when faced with a series of events that should have a connection but no apparent connection can be found, stop looking for connections; link them through their effects’.

Once we do that, it becomes obvious that the threat could not be more real and unless the political leadership stops playing the Ostrich, the threat will only keep growing to uncontrollable proportions. It is still not too late, but it soon will be.

Finally, it appears the political government has decided that enough is enough. The prime minister has promised that the recently started military operations will run their course throughout the NWFP and eliminate this threat once and for all. Time will tell but, perhaps, it is time for the usually silent but irrelevant majority to stand up collectively to be counted and become relevant, if only to ensure that the political leadership does not waver again.

This article is a modified version of one originally written for the daily National. The author is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)

Source

Dawn, Pakistan
Thursday, 04 Jun, 2009

THE release of Hafiz Saeed raises many questions about the sincerity and efficacy of the state in quashing jihadi networks that operate on its soil. It may have been a full bench of the Lahore High Court that ordered Saeed’s release, but the fact is the court was left with little option given the prosecution’s reliance on weak grounds for the extension of the preventive detention of Saeed while he possibly awaits trial on charges related to the Mumbai attacks last November. At the heart of the issue here is really the question of whether Pakistan’s legal framework is adequate for dealing with men such as Saeed who are the ideological leaders and figureheads of groups which may be engaged in terrorist activities either abroad or on Pakistani soil. Do we have the laws that can put such people out of business while acknowledging the difficulty of tracing any particular crime to a group’s top leadership? It appears not. Clearly, this is a matter for parliament to debate and to draw up a set of a laws as Pakistan presses ahead in its counter-insurgency activities in the northwest and Fata. The issue is bigger than just Hafiz Saeed and the Mumbai attacks — it extends to militant leaders like Maulana Fazlullah and Baitullah Mehsud, too. Imagine a scenario in which Fazlullah or Mehsud are captured by the state and are held for trial: is it beyond the realm of possibility that they too may be set free on technicalities because the laws of the land are inadequate to deal with such leaders?

Read More

The News International, Pakistan
Thursday, June 04, 2009

The militants have made it quite obvious the war that is being fought in Malakand and elsewhere must be extended to Waziristan. Indeed, the daring kidnapping of dozens of pupils of the Razmak Cadet College may even have been an attempt to force the military to open up a new front, before it had finished off the battle in Swat, thus hoping to stretch it to the maximum, and by doing so trip it up. There is still confusion over how many students and staff members were kidnapped. Numbers range from around 100 to over 500. But it is now clear not all have been recovered. Accounts from law enforcers say 71 out of 122 victims have been retrieved; the ISPR says 80 were recovered and 15 are still missing; some of those who have returned home after their ordeal say the number is higher. But somewhere in the lawless realms of South Waziristan, a number of terrified boys and possibly their teachers are in the hands of the Taliban. Some reports even suggest they may have been taken to Baitullah Mehsud himself. Certainly, that wily veteran of battle seems to be preparing for a new – and we hope final – confrontation.

Read More

Daily News, Pakistan
opinion : Brian Cloughley

Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told

The American General David Petraeus said last week that “anti-US sentiment has been increasing in Pakistan”, and that if more of the appalling photographs of torture of US-held prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan were released by the Pentagon to be seen by the world, then loathing would become even more intense.

He is right about the level of anti-American feeling, and acknowledged that “63 percent of Pakistanis still oppose cooperating with US counter-terror operations”. It is doubtful, however, that release of another batch of pictures showing American soldiers subjecting people to the most hideous indignities would raise that percentage by much.

But nobody can blame anyone in Pakistan for objecting strongly to the fact that American “counter-terror operations” involve illegal attacks on the sovereign territory of Pakistan that have killed so many women and children.

Read more

Daily Times, Pakistan
Thursday, June 04, 2009

DUBAI: Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden said US President Barack Obama had planted the seeds of “revenge and hatred” towards the US in the Muslim world and warned Americans to prepare for the consequences. The remarks were aired on Wednesday by Al Jazeera TV. reuters

Source

Published: June 2, 2009

ATLANTA, June 2 (UPI) -- A Georgia Tech student on trial on terror conspiracy charges led a group of young men planning to go to a camp in Pakistan, an FBI agent testified Tuesday.

Syed Haris Ahmed, 24, faces as much as 15 years in federal prison if he is convicted, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. James Allen, a special agent with the FBI, told jurors information gathered from his computer and others showed he coordinated plans to travel to Pakistan for training in jihad, or holy war

Read More

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT – 21 hours ago

KABUL (AP) — The United States, grappling with how to counter the spread of Taliban militants on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, is turning to Saudi Arabia for help. But so far the kingdom seems wary of diving into the thorny conflict.

Pakistan will be on the agenda when President Barack Obama meets with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on Wednesday, according to Mark Lippert, deputy national security adviser.

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, has already asked the Saudis for help in staving off the spread of militants in Pakistan and encouraging Pakistani officials to work together in countering the terrorist threat.

"Saudi Arabia clearly has a lot of influence throughout the entire region, and a long-standing and close relationship with Pakistan," Gates said after a visit to the kingdom last month.

Many experts say the Sunni Arab powerhouse could be crucial in mediating some form of reconciliation with the Islamic extremists wreaking havoc in both countries. Saudi Arabia could also help cut off large sums of money that flow to militants from wealthy Saudi donors and Islamic charities.

Read more

Dawn, Pakistan
By Dr Tariq Hassan
Tuesday, 02 Jun, 2009

MEMBERS of the United Nations are categorically required by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.

Yet, the United States, a founding member of the UN, has in its relations with Pakistan used both with impunity.

The missile attacks by the drones in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not only continuing as a sad legacy of the Bush era, they seem to be increasing under the current Obama administration. Being of the same vintage as the writer — from Harvard Law School — and a product of international law professors like Louis B. Sohn who was a great proponent of the UN, one had expected President Obama to have more respect for international law and institutions. This expectation, though grounded in the youthful idealism instilled by Professor Sohn, was witnessed in President Obama’s early pronouncements on the closure of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Having earned tremendous respect among international lawyers for his principled stand on Guantanamo Bay, President Obama seems to be faltering on the issue of US drone attacks in Pakistan. Besides their manifest illegality, the drone attacks are unjust since they cause civilian casualties. Even though the drone attacks are intended to kill suspected militants, the US acknowledges the fact that they cause ‘collateral damage’.

Thousands of people have fled their homes in the tribal areas to escape the indiscriminate and unwarranted attacks and have become refugees in their own country. The number of these internally displaced persons is increasing by the day and the situation is fast becoming unmanageable and doing little to gain the support of the people for the so-called war on terror.

The US does not have any legal right to launch missile attacks on Pakistan through drones or otherwise. Under international law, it is only entitled to self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter which preserves “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. This limited use of force under Article 51 is an exception to the general prohibition prescribed by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

The language of Article 51 does not allow pre-emptive attacks. As a matter of established practice, acts of self-defence are legitimate only if they meet certain preconditions. Accordingly, the use of force in self-defence is permitted only (i) in case of necessity, where there is an attack and the use of force is necessary to repel it and is defensive in nature; and (ii) to the extent that the defensive use of force is proportionate to the attack and not punitive in nature. Although some states assert the right of pre-emptive self-defence in order to avert attacks, where there is threat of imminent attack there is generally no consensus among international scholars.

The US drone attacks fail on all counts. They are not carried out to repel an attack and instead constitute preemptive strikes which not only use disproportionate but also deceptive force against suspected militants and innocent civilians.

It is important to bear in mind that the UN Security Council, while recognising and reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the UN Charter in Resolutions 1368 and 1373 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the US, did not authorise the use of force in any way. Even later, UNSC resolutions such as Resolution 1540, made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (which provides for enforcement action), to combat terrorism did not provide for the use of force. Therefore, the use of force in Pakistan by the US is not consistent with its obligations under the UN Charter.

The US has sought to legitimise its interventions in Pakistan by other means. For example, former President Bush authorised the military cross-border use of force from Afghanistan into Pakistan by means of domestic legislation. Sanctioning the concept of hot pursuit across international boundaries through domestic legislation is of no legal consequence. Sanctioned killing across borders not only negates due process it precludes accountability as well. In any event, domestic measures do not limit or override international obligations in any way and adversely affect international relations instead.

There is mounting criticism at all levels in Pakistan against the US drone attacks. However, the US continues unabashedly to carry out targeted killings of suspected terrorists through drone attacks in Pakistan. Needless to say this drastic measure used as a counter-terrorism strategy is not consistent with either conventional or customary international law. The use of force against non-state actors, particularly targeted killing, is not only proscribed by the general principles of international human rights law but also by specific rules of international criminal law and the laws of war.

No one has or can be granted a licence to kill under international law. Extra-judicial killings, outside the realm of war, at the international level remain a crime and are included in international criminal activities like genocide. Moreover, unwarranted killings even during war constitute war crimes (e.g. wilful killing; killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer any means of defence, has surrendered; killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to a hostile nation or army; and killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary).

Nothing can be more treacherous than killing and wounding through the stealth action of drones. The drone attacks are, therefore, a clear violation of established international norms and practices. In any case, whether legal or not, the drone attacks are not helping

Washington’s counter-terrorism efforts.

Under the circumstances, President Obama should take the moral high ground and review his administration’s policy of such targeting inside Pakistan. Even if it is not willing to reassess its legal position, Washington must re-evaluate it in the light of public policy given the moral hazard created by the immense human suffering produced by the attacks.

The writer, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

tariq@post.harvard.edu.

Source

Dawn, Pakistan
Tuesday, 02 Jun, 2009

AS more villages, towns and cities in Malakand division are cleared and held by the security forces, the NWFP and federal governments are gearing up for IDPs to return to their homes in some areas and begin to piece together their lives. Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said that 90 per cent of Buner has now been cleared of militants and told the IDPs from the area that it is safe to return home. Crucially, NWFP Information Minister Iftikhar Hussain announced on Sunday, “The leave of NWFP government’s employees except teachers in Buner district has been cancelled and they have been directed to report for duty [from June 1].” Additionally, staff handling the local electricity, telephone and gas networks and officers of the town municipal authorities have also been asked to return to duty. What this means then is that the local administration in Buner, as has already been promised in Mingora, Swat, is to be reactivated quickly and the area made habitable for the local population once again. If the plan is carried out as efficiently as possible, it will undoubtedly be a tremendous boost to the beleaguered people of Buner — and would offer hope to the IDPs from other areas that the state will help them resettle in their homes in due time.

Perhaps most critical to the resettlement phase is the revival of the local police forces. A primary target of the militants, the police have been decimated and demoralised. Yet, security at the local level can best be ensured by a police force with sufficient numbers and resources. From this point of view, it is welcome to see that the police force in Buner has returned to conduct joint operations with the army. Given the knowledge that a local police officer would have of neighbourhoods and the local population, the police are a vital cog in the house-to-house searches that are necessary to flush out the remaining militants trying to hide among the population. And from the perspective of sending a positive signal to a frightened population that normality is being restored, the sight of local police officers patrolling neighbourhoods is infinitely more reassuring than soldiers armed to the teeth and brought in from outside areas.

Elsewhere, it is reassuring to see the federal government has not taken its eye off the ball and is trying to keep its focus on the operation in Malakand division. President Zardari chaired a meeting of top political, administrative and security officials on Monday, indicating that the government at least understands the need for the various arms of the state to stay informed about each others’ actions. We have said it before and we’ll say it again: a counter-insurgency can only be successful if the full force of the state — political, administrative and military — is brought to bear against the militants.

Source

Daily Times, Pakistan
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
insight: Ejaz Haider

If a state is faced with an existential threat, and knowing as we do that we cannot find an army of our choice but have to make do with the one we have, would it serve us better to help recreate the myth or highlight the ugly truths?

Nasir Abbas Mirza has written an incisive article in these pages and raised many points. (“Taking care of myths”, Daily Times, June 1) Without challenging his arguments, because I agree with him for the most part, let me consider his broad thrust since he mentioned an article written by me.

Mirza opened his article thus: “In military matters, myths and perceptions are more important than reality. This may be in conflict with our ideals of truth-seeking and truth-telling, but this order must not be disturbed at any cost. Otherwise the results can be, and have been, regretful.”

Without going into the issue of “truth-seeking and truth-telling” because that is tangential to this discussion and offers its own complexities, let me say that myth-making is not just a phenomenon that preserves religion and the profession of soldiering. It is the essence of collective life. Without myths, states and societies can neither be built nor sustained.

Mirza knows this. Hence his contention that “this order [myths and perceptions] must not be disturbed at any cost. Otherwise the results can be, and have been, regretful”. He then goes on to find fault with the military as an institution that has failed to nurture these myths, allowing instead “ugly truth” and “reality” to creep in.

There is a litany of charges beyond this point and I agree with all. For instance, he is dead right in arguing that “The military [in Pakistan] has never encouraged institution building” which is why “Today, the island of excellence needs support of other institutions that are not there”.

I would go a step further and say that the military itself, as an institution, has shown remarkable deterioration and I state this in support of Mirza’s contention that “It is foolhardy to be smug about the fact that the military can remain an island of excellence in a sea of morass”.

Yet, here’s the problem. If a state is faced with an existential threat, and knowing as we do that we cannot find an army of our choice but have to make do with the one we have, would it serve us better to help recreate the myth or highlight the ugly truths that have now become a staple of our drawing room chatter?

When I wrote the article in support of what Ayeda Naqvi had written (“Where is our yellow ribbon?”, Daily Times, May 5), I had to choose between using the institutional framework to put down the army and focussing on the man who goes down fighting to save others. I chose the latter because while it makes eminent academic sense to do the army — or any other institution — to death, it does not serve much purpose as part of addressing a threat.

In my article, I did not dismiss the institutional failures of the military. In fact, I made clear that the military (I would rather say the army) has much to answer for. It would require a book to deal with the issue and because this is exactly the issue I was researching in 2002-3 as a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, I can safely say that there is much embarrassment in its details for the army.

Therefore, within the framework he has used, Mirza is spot on. Why should the people stand up for the army when the institution has not allowed itself to remain a “misfit in our world”, a brilliant observation incidentally.

If the institution is to be challenged, as it should be, I will be the first to hold accountable the army for the deaths of and injuries to officers and men cleaning up Swat for us because the policies that have created the current monster gestated in the womb of the GHQ.

From that perspective, need I say that the soldier is getting the worst of his own institution — and he is paying for it with his blood? My mention of The Charge of the Light Brigade had a reason. As I wrote, “That charge is a good reference to make the point. It should not have been made. Whoever planned it screwed it up. That must be debated and criticised. But equally, the men who went in and carried it out must be honoured.” Let me add, more so, because they knew “Someone had blunder’d”.

Fighting also involves the myth of the just cause. Who is to decide what cause is just? But is that the question to which any man can provide an honest answer when facing the barrel of a gun? Even so, Mirza’s arguments, in the long term, we can only dismiss at our own peril. And they go beyond the institution of the army to the nature of the state itself.

Frantz Fanon talked about the state as “merely the corporeal incarnation of the national spirit” in what Pheng Cheah describes as Fanon’s “biogenetic schema for understanding the relationship of the nation-people to the state”: hence the reference to a “mechanism awaiting animation”.

There is of course much literature on the post-colonial state. From the lines I have quoted above, it should be clear that most of it is so dense and abstruse that one begins to understand the complexity of the issue at hand by the very fact that it cannot be rendered into any known language.

But leaving that aside, on the simpler side, Benedict Anderson did us all much good by arguing that a nation is an imagined community “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”.

This is only sustainable through myths and the process of myth-making and selective rendering of history is nothing if not that. Intellectuals don’t like it, as they shouldn’t. But the paradox is that if they were asked to construct something in place of nations and nation-states, they couldn’t come up with anything. Indeed, for the most part, many have ended up creating, or helped create, the worst states.

Small wonder that the post-colonial peoples get down to the task of building nation-states and remain stuck instead with “the anticlimactic betrayal of the promise of freedom in decolonisation, in which, as a result of its consummated marriage to the postcolonial state, the nation-people becomes subordinated to particularistic state imperatives”.

In English this means the dream gone sour; instead of the people forming a state organic in nature and representing them and their interests, they now have a monster that forces them into obeying it for reasons that increasingly begin to seem external to the interests of the very people who are supposed to be represented by the state.

That is where the problem lies. It is not so much the issue of the Pakistan Army having a country but the identity of the state itself and what and whose interests it represents. Of course one can pull in theorists of state and make the issue even more complex by trying to define the state itself and figuring out where it is situated in relation to society. One can even invoke Foucault and go into an eternal cycle of despair. But the fact is that it is to avoid these very doubts that myths are created. They are meant to keep things simple and infuse some certainty, arguably artificial, into individual and collective life.

Heck! Even families have myths. In this fight, we need the myth of the soldier.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

Source