National Masochism
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
It is clear that how the state
handled Mukhtaran Mai's travel abroad did exactly
the kind of damage that it wished to avoid. In any
event, harassing or exploiting a brave and suffering
woman like Mukhtaran Mai is simply unacceptable.
However, the whole issue, as it has evolved, has
also once again reflected the questionable role
of foreign-funded NGOs. President Musharraf has
been spot on with his comment on their agendas.
Unlike in India, where there are strict laws circumscribing
the work of such NGOs, in Pakistan there seems to
be a laissez-faire approach towards these organizations.
The NGOs never make their funding public knowledge,
nor are we informed about the agendas that come
with the funding. Only recently, the International
Crisis Group's (ICG) findings on madrassahs was
challenged by a World Bank funded study entitled
Religious School Enrolment in Pakistan: A Look at
the Data. It is pertinent to note that the ICG was
ordered out of India once it started working on
Kashmir. Indonesia has also expelled the ICG.
Our national psyche seems to have a strong masochistic
streak which allows us to tolerate abuse after abuse
heaped upon us. The NGO community has run riot in
Pakistan with donor funding in abundant supply if
the "right" stance is taken. Interestingly,
an Indian woman lawyer recently told me how human
rights NGOs in Pakistan never invite Muslim women
lawyers from India because they feel they will discuss
the problems they face as Muslim women in India,
which would not fit into the agenda of the human
rights advocates in Pakistan. I wonder how many
people in Pakistan are aware that India curtails
the working of human rights organizations, especially
in relation to human rights abuses in Occupied Kashmir.
NGOs in Pakistan and the US who are so interested
in pushing forward the women and children rights
agendas should perhaps also invite the child victims
in the Michael Jackson case where the celebrity
was let off by the US judicial system, despite strong
evidence of his guilt. How could a US court allow
a paedophile to roam free? Surely we in Pakistan
would like to know the views of the victims of this
crime as eagerly as the US public wants to know
the views of a rape survivor from Pakistan. This
is not to say that rape does not occur in the US
or that rapists do not go free in that country,
but our NGOs and their foreign supporters would
have us believe that rape only takes place in Pakistan.
Our masochism is not limited only to women's issues.
We continue to allow academically dishonest researchers
to access data and institutes in this country. In
earlier columns, I cited the case of Peter Lavoy,
Director Center for Contemporary Conflict at the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, USA, who
refused to accept a chapter for a book on the Kargil
conflict by a Pakistani academic that he himself
had tasked, because it did not fit into his plan
of things. Despite his own political agendas, Lavoy
was back in Pakistan last week on a new project
and again gaining access to data sources. One has
no problem with divergent viewpoints, but academic
dishonesty is not acceptable. Why we in Pakistan
should entertain such academics is mystifying, except
in the context of a masochistic desire to be abused
once again.
And with reference to Kargil, an English language
daily reported that Hussain Haqqani's new book on
Pakistan includes a reference to the now-discredited
Bruce Reidel claim that Pakistan had readied its
nuclear warheads during Kargil. Given that Mr Haqqani
was present in Monterey when General V.P. Malik,
India's Chief of Army Staff at the time of Kargil,
categorically rejected Reidel's claim as an outright
falsehood, why would he now revert to this falsehood,
unless it serves to add to the vilification of Pakistan
in the US? Clearly, Pakistanis also seem to be unable
to distinguish between attacking a government and
attacking the state.
Given the easy pickings amongst our civil society
that foreign donors find, it is not surprising to
see even supposedly serious think tanks abroad having
value-laden agendas. Take the case of Chatham House,
England which runs a series of discussions/seminars
on Pakistan organized by a so-called Pakistan Study
Group. The very title reveals the intent: "Unraveling
Pakistan: Threats to Stability". Clearly there
is already a conclusion here; it is unfortunate
that a respected institution like Chatham House
has become prey to the political agendas of certain
groups of academics in England -- some of whom are
Pakistani. These assertions could be made in individual
presentations, but to have such a value-laden topic
for the meeting itself certainly does no credit
to the organizers' credibility.
One clearly emerging pattern in these developments
is a national masochistic trait, which has also
allowed us to be exploited by India under the cover
of the new feel good atmospherics. For anyone who
was confused by Mr Advani's praise for the Quaid
as a secular leader, recent developments should
help in explaining what Advani was up to. To witness
an overnight change in political diehards like Advani
is hardly rational. But what he did achieve was
to spark a full-fledged debate on the Quaid, including
unfortunately within Pakistan -- which at the very
least seeks to undermine his standing as a larger-than-life
hero and leader. Perhaps we should also begin a
debate on Gandhi to examine whether he was covertly
a Hindu fundamentalist or truly secular and how
important were his teachings on abstinence.
The Indians are also trying to play semantic games
to try and outwit us on issues like Siachin. On
the surface it would seem to be difficult to fault
Manmohan Singh's call to convert Siachin into a
"peace mountain". But if one examines
his suggestion it really implies Pakistan giving
up its rightful claims to sovereignty over Siachin
and a legitimization of the Indian incursions into
this region. This is similar to the proposals India
recently floated on the Baglihar Dam to avoid being
found guilty of transgressing the Indus Waters Treaty.
If we were to accept the Indian game plan, our sovereignty
would be on a slippery slope towards a truncated
state of Pakistan. That is why we need to make it
clear to the Indians that when Pakistani leaders
talk of autonomy for Kashmir, they are naturally
referring to Article 257 of the Constitution which
states, "When the people of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship
between Pakistan and the State shall be determined
in accordance with the wishes of the people of that
State."
After all, there have to be limits to our collective
streak of masochism.
(The writer is Director General of the Institute
of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Courtesy The News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
