Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Pakistan vs New Zealand - Day 5 ... What's a juicy target?

NZ is 177/6 with a 187 run lead. Day 5 is nicely poised. New Zealand should be all out before 225, barring really good batting by Ross Taylor.

Here's some quick analysis I ran on what a target like that means ...



A target of 235 will be really interesting - there's enough time in the day for things to happen.

Good times ...

Friday, 15 August 2014

Pakistan's Diversity Miracle & Challenge


Sometimes when you return home after a long time, you begin to see things differently - you start to notice things that you didn't think were significant before.

This is a scene I captured today at Islamabad Airport, in the International Departure Lounge. It left me with a complicated mix of thoughts, feelings and emotions - simultaneously baffled and awed; proud and frightened; amused and intrigued.

We have a seriously turbaned and traditionally bearded guy; the urban Pakistani version of a yuppy/hustler wearing a cap and some sneakers on his phone; an oldish guy absorbed in his book; a youngish guy with a long (presumably Islamic) beard staring at the flight information screen; a young make-up laden girl, with her red-suitcase, being social on her phone; and a couple of "big" aunties in the background. People watching is fun - and it's really fun in a place like Islamabad Airport.

Now, these are some of the people who need to get along, understand each other, and agree on public policy. It's not going to be easy.

But it's amazing that these people do in most ways actually get along - at the very least, they do share the same airport.

But here's a question anyone who knows anything about diversity will ask - does this visual representation or superficial manifestation of diversity actually hold deeper salience? In this case it seems obvious to me that it does. Try taking this same picture in an airport in the United States or Western Europe.

Thursday, 19 September 2013

“O man, know how disgusting you've become” – Fresh lows of depravity



This week, three different parts of the world – Pakistan, East Africa and the United States – have hit the news in ways that have outraged so many including myself. Read below …

***

FEUDALS BUY THEIR WAY OUT OF MURDER IN PAKISTAN SO THAT EVERYONE CAN GET ON WITH ENJOYING RICE PUDDING AND CRICKET

What’s the price of a human life? It’s 10 she-camels, according to pre-Islamic tribal customs in the Arabian Peninsula. In other words, a murderer could compensate for a murder with 10 female milk-and-baby-camel-producing camels and be pardoned for the crime by the victim’s heirs.

Now setting the exchange rate for a human life in terms of livestock seems primitive and tribal – but some of the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula weren’t just ragtag nomads. The Quraysh, for example, were settled, sophisticated urbanites, who ran a successful and largely peaceful, trading and pilgrimage center in Mecca during this period.

The core idea is simple – an eye for an eye will make the world blind (1,400 years before Gandhi); or that it is better (magnanimous) to forgive and forget than to avenge. In some cases, the initial murder, the one that sparked it all, can come under dispute and lead to a perpetual cycle of killing, so some form of non-human tradability helps put an end to the blood-letting (think “War on Terror” and who started it first).

Whatever the real reason, Islam adopted the principal of blood money, under the term “diyat”. If the perpetrator and the victim settle on a sum, then the one who committed the crime can be pardoned. And it’s not that Islam opposes the Death Penalty. It’s just one of several alternatives paths to justice available (and I am no expert on which form of justice is preferred or recommended under Shariah Law).

In fact, I oppose the Death Penalty – but my position is driven by some abstract liberal notion governed by some mental short-cut that I sometimes cannot explain, especially when faced with a real concrete situation, where anything short of the Death Penalty seems so blatantly insufficient. One such instance is the Delhi Bus Gang Rape in India, where the perpetrators where awarded the Death Penalty just a few days ago. Another such situation arose in December of last year in Pakistan.

Shahzeb Khan was an Upper Middle-Class youth living in the city of Karachi. One December evening he was gunned down in cold blood by the scions of two powerful, land-owning, feudal families of Pakistan – Shahrukh Jatoi and Siraj Talpur. The causes were petty, but the crime scene gruesome – the murderers lodged multiple bullets into Shahzeb and his car, in the parking lot of his building, an act clearly in cold blood.

The murder sparked outrage and a successful social media campaign which signed up 200,000 supporters. Police were unable to, at first, arrest the feudals. One of them even managed to escape to Dubai, under a botched identity, with his passage through the airport facilitated by public officials. He didn’t even obtain an Immigration Exit stamp on his passport, as required under Pakistani law.

But the UAE eventually deported this feudal, and the other one was arrested after an independent media and judiciary placed immense pressure on the law enforcement agencies (some of the most corrupt and politically manipulated institutions in Pakistan).

Finally, the two murderers were brought to trial. There was all kinds of drama – what should have taken a week (under Pakistani Anti-Terrorism Law) dragged on for four months. Witnesses were intimidated. The feudal kids who are 19, claimed that they were juveniles at 17, and so had to be medically examined. The doctors issued conflicting reports.

Ultimately, the trial concluded in June of this year, and the two main culprits were awarded the Death Penalty, with their two accomplices awarded life imprisonment. For once, Pakistan had proven that no one, not even the kids of two powerful feudal families, are above the law. But our celebration was short-lived, and we recently hit new depths of despondency.

Earlier this week, news broke out that the victim’s family has settled the murder for 350 million rupees in blood money (approx. US$ 3.5 million). A good camel costs around 100,000 rupees, so the settlement happened for 3,500 camels equivalent as opposed to just 10. And it’s not even fully clear whether or not money is involved, so let’s set aside direct greed and material convenience, as considerations in this whole saga.

What is important to understand here is that the family and the witnesses who were instrumental in the prosecution of the feudals have a social obligation to uphold justice, and fight for it until and even after it has been delivered. This is easy for me to say from the sidelines, but I am not just saying it because it helps me score moral credentials without any skin in the game. This is no longer just a private matter that can simply be settled out of court. It impacts everyone when a feudal can simply gun down anyone they wish to, with the understanding that they can buy their way out of it afterwards.

I spent 40 minutes last night listening to an interview with the victim’s parents, trying to understand where they might be coming from. Because even though this is a social issue now, their loss has been the greatest and their views must be sought out and understood in a respectful manner. But I came out with much less respect for them than I had when I went in.

Their first argument is that the sentence will probably never be carried out, so they might as well settle. This is an incorrect assumption – even fatalistic. The civil society and the media are behind them, and will ensure that the sentence is delivered. Why have they jumped to such a conclusion?

Their second line of reasoning is that they are doing this, not for themselves, but for all the witnesses and supporters of the victim – more specifically they want their lives to be normalized, and do not wish to place additional burden on them. This is a combination of not wanting to owe and not wanting to make them, the witnesses and supporters, feel that they owe anything.

While this second argument is somewhat abstract, underlying it are two premises. The first one is that the feudals can continue to harass them, and make life difficult for them, unless they settle amicably – this may not be far from the truth, unfortunately in a country like Pakistan. Justice and truth is not going to come without cost here.

The second premise is that the victim’s family, and its supporters seek a “normal” material life over and above justice for Shahzeb and all of Pakistan, with the potential price of justice being the harassment from the feudals. This assumes that they value their material conveniences over and above their ideals. This again is quite possibly a false assumption and I will come back to this at the end.

Their third and final set of arguments is faith based – the first sub-argument being that God likes those who forgive. So they will score “sawaab” or brownie points for their magnanimity, which in a purely rational, self-interested, value maximizing world, is in fact the right thing for them to do. But not only does it smack of quasi-material self-interest, but conveniently ignores the longer-term social cost of not standing up against the “zalim” or aggressor.

They continued their faith based argument by postulating that God will bring these individuals to justice on The Day of Judgment, anyway, so why not be patient until then? But if all we’re doing is waiting for the Day of Judgment, then we might as well give up right here, right now, and take a back seat in everything until the real show begins.

Unfortunate as it was, the day this incident took place, the lives of those involved changed forever. Now they must stand-up, above and beyond themselves, for all of society, and help ensure that nothing like this happens ever again. The alternative is to settle so that they can enjoy a “normal” life eating rice pudding and watching cricket. I cannot force them one way or another – but they do hold the burden of the choice which will impact us all.

***

EAST AFRICAN LEADERS FAIL THEIR STATES IN BLATANT ACTS OF DEGENERACY

The two highest public office holders in a certain East African country, namely Kenya (also known as Silicon Savannah and hailed as an example of leap-frogging, and home-grown solutions to development like M-PESA), have been accused of crimes against humanity, and summoned to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. They have been accused of organizing criminal gangs and death squads to intimidate rivals following the disputed 2007 elections in Kenya, which were clearly rigged. In fact, they were so blatantly rigged, that the individuals who rigged them didn’t even bother to cover their tracks properly.

What ensued left 1,200 dead and over half a million homeless. Kenya, a regional African hub, and darling of the west, for its relative stability and supportive role in the War against Terror, jumped from 34th rank in the Failed States Index to 16th in just a year. No one had recognized or taken seriously, the tensions that were simmering underneath a seemingly calm facade.

Kofi Annan, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and former UN Secretary General, mediated a solution to the conflict, which among many things, included a new constitution for Kenya, and demanded that those responsible for the crimes be brought to justice. But even two years after the mediation succeeded in bringing back peace, Kenya failed to provide any traction towards justice for the victims, amid political wrangling, and general malaise and dysfunction across the public institutions within the country.

Kofi Annan was left with no choice but to hand the cases over to the ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo in 2009, so that proceedings against those accused could take place in The Hague under international institutions, and justice could be dispensed. He recently wrote an article on this in the New York Times:


The accused were not in power at the time that the cases were initiated, but were elected into office in the recent elections of 2013 – again these elections were mired by irregularities. It’s not even a question of voters not being able to select the right candidates (anyone with even so much as a blemish, let alone accusations of Crimes Against Humanity, ought to be rejected), but of the voting process being high jacked for the second time in a row. But this time no one spoke out too loudly for the sake of peace and stability. Everyone’s trying to ensure that the symptoms don’t aggravate, without addressing the root causes.

But even as they stepped into public office, they decided to comply with the court – in fact, they are the first serving public officials ever to comply with the court. Sudan’s President, Omar Al-Bashir, has repeatedly shown the court the finger.

But this was only to last until this week when the Kenyan Parliament decided to exit the Rome Statutes which created the International Criminal Court – in effect, it has finally decided to show the ICC the finger. Here’s an article by the spokesperson for the political party of the two accused individuals:


The arguments include words like neo-colonialism, sovereignty, race-hunting and chasing-Africa – it’s dirty old political rhetoric, and it is so clear that these individuals are absolutely devoid of any integrity. And most of this political non-sense actually does not sell, but what is frustrating is that Kenyan’s have become so apathetic, that they do not even seem to care. This could be their downfall.

So forget M-PESA or toilets which turn human waste into energy. As long as the ruling political elite remains entrenched, taking “turns to eat” (one must read the book, “It’s our Turn to Eat”, by Michela Wrong, which documents anti-corruption efforts by one whistle-blower in Kenya), with no one willing to stand-up for what is right, Kenya risks becoming a Failed State.

***

BIGOTRY LIVES LARGE IN AMERICA, BUT IT’S ALL TOO CONVENIENT TO DOWNPLAY IT OR ASSUME IT AWAY

The recently crowned Miss America is of foreign or more specifically Indian origin (oriental or Eastern Indian, not native American Indian). Nina Davuluri was crowned Miss New York, before being crowned Miss America. It’s a triumph for a country whose greatness is built upon attracting and integrating generation after generation of top quality immigrants from all over the world. And it turns out that one of these immigrants is quite pretty too.

But following this news, Twitter exploded with racist and ignorant tweets, some of which have been retweeted thousands of times. I won’t detail these out myself – you can see for yourself here:


And here:


Initially it was about being Muslim, Arab or Al-Qaeda. Then they found out her actual ethnicity, but were still racist. The 7-Eleven and Gas Station jokes started. See them here:


Then I found other Tweets on 9/11, here:


As I shared these with American friends, I heard two types of defensive responses.

1. Don’t pay attention to anything on Twitter

2. There are bigots in every country

Ultimately, America needs to recognize that it does not always live up to the ideals that it espouses and strives towards. Everything from drones to Guantanamo, to these bigots are alive and well in America. Large segments of the education system have utterly failed to create knowledge of and respect for anything outside of America. These things are inexcusable in a country with such a self-perception of greatness.

And it’s all too convenient for Caucasian upwardly mobile urban professionals to assume these issues away or downplay them. But not only does it fail to solve pressing problems, but they do not even recognize that these issues are real because they are not directly impacted by any of them – it’s ultimately individuals like myself who are sent to the side room in SFO every time we have to clear US Customs and Border Protection.

If you can, I recommend watching a new film, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist”. It’s pretty good cinema, and will help bridge these two worlds.

Monday, 14 January 2013

The power of perceptions & the media – Mexico’s drug challenge and new era of optimism



This is the third in a series of four blog posts from my recent study trip to Mexico, with the Stanford GSB. Here’re some facts and tid-bits on the trip which provide a bit of an overall flavor:

§  The people: 35 Stanford GSBers and their partners, hailing from 14 different countries –backgrounds as diverse and unique as Air Force Officers, Social Entrepreneurs, Finance Ministerial Analysts, Film Makers, Start-up Starters, Seismologists, Sports Analysts, Chemistry Teachers, Family Businessmen … and of course … bankers & consultants

§  The places: 3 different cities over 10 days, including Oaxaca, Monterrey and Mexico City – each with a very different and unique character

§  The experiences: Discussing Mexico’s challenges in meetings with business and public sector leaders; watching Mexican soap operas being filmed, including meeting the most charismatic man in the world (not to be confused with the most interesting man in the world, whom we also met); exploring ancient monuments; eating good food and drinking giant margaritas; and of course, shouting and cheering like mariachis.



The media can make or break countries like Mexico, Pakistan and India. From positive self-fulfilling prophecies to vicious cycles fueling and reinforcing negative perceptions, the media can sometimes be a tremendous help, and sometimes an inescapable curse. While it is obvious where India and Pakistan lie in those buckets, Mexico is surprisingly hard to bucket. Here’s the two sides of the spin …

Let’s start with the positives. The recent re-election of the PRI (The Institutional Revolutionary Party), the Left leaning party which has governed Mexico for much of Mexico’s modern history, has led to a series of tangible reforms which significantly change Mexico’s fundamentals and prospects (at least in my own humble opinion, and as far as I believe, in the opinion of most development experts – there are obviously some political constituents who will disagree with us, and I may of course be suffering from that “in-group bias” which they keep telling us we might be suffering from in many of our Organizational Behavior classes). The PRI has taken on the Teachers’ Unions, historically an important political constituency for them, but one which is blamed for holding hostage Mexico’s less than high quality educational system. This is clearly a huge step in the right direction, and if we believe that “Total Factor Productivity” (TFP), that old friend from Development Economics, is responsible for much of the differences in income across countries, then improving education is clearly the right step in improving Mexico’s prospects. Although it is hard to neatly account for all the components of TFP, clearly education is a big one – just intuitively, a better educated population is likely to be a more productive one.

In addition to this, the PRI has legislated to make broadband-access “a universal right” within Mexico. While this might sound symbolic, and even vacuous, it’s a very clear first step in dismantling the telecommunications monopoly of Carlos Slim Helu. With telecommunications being a key input factor in the information and service economy, having pricey telecommunications services, because of a regulated monopoly, is a huge burden on business and development. The new Government clearly understands this, and the legislation actively begins to politicize the problem, which is an important first step towards addressing it.

Then there were trends which benefit Mexico, not so much for Mexico’s own fundamental progress, but rather due to external factors. Discovery of cheap North American shale gas is a huge and highly legitimate one. Also, one trend we kept hearing about was China’s labor costs exceeding Mexico’s within the next couple of years, arguably making Mexico more competitive than China. While this argument likely under-adjusts for productivity drivers, and attributes the majority of these changes to demographics; conveniently ignores countries like Vietnam, India and Indonesia, which still have much lower labor costs than both Mexico or China; and also ignores away some of the other levers and dynamics of investment decisions at the firm level, such as “Ease of doing business”, it is clearly being cited as an important trend. We kept seeing charts where by 2016, Mexico’s exports to the US will be greater than China’s. But this is a forecast, and as the joke goes – some twenty-something year old analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) made it up; some businessmen believed it and invested on the basis of it; and the same old EIU Analyst, now in his thirties, was elevated to the status of Nostra-Damus, and prophesized the end of the world. But sarcastic jokes aside, self-fulfilling prophecies exist. Ultimately, while forecasts such as those produced by the EIU might seem useful, we ought to be wary of their real value.

But clearly there is something to be said for optimism and the role of “animal spirits” in promoting growth. As Guillermo, one of our trip leaders shared with us – through-out Mexico’s modern history, Mexico has always felt like it has underperformed. Not only did the early wars and the territorial losses impact the national psyche or self-confidence, since then Mexican’s have felt like laggards in many fields from football (some of you might call it soccer) to economic development. But now there is renewed hope and optimism in Mexico. Everyone in Mexico feels that it is finally their time to shine. There is something clearly beneficial and heart-warming in this development – one must appreciate the positive impact of self-fulfilling prophecies.


Look how cheery & optimistic our Mexican trip leaders are - they did an incredible job

Now for the old negative problem – Mexico’s drug wars. I personally believe that it is an impossible problem to solve. So long as drugs will be illicit, and there will be demand in the US, the drug problem will persist. It’s not a cancer which can be eradicated with law enforcement or brute military power. It’s a perpetual problem rooted in incentives, economics and human nature. In many ways, I see parallels with Pakistan, and the fallout of the war in terror being fought in Afghanistan and primarily by the US. Our cities have been turned into war zones, when we do not believe that we have much to do with the root causes, and believe further that the US is doing very little to address the root causes.

You might disagree with me, and there are many shades of grey. But what is most interesting about Mexico’s issue is that not a single business or public sector leader within Mexico cited the drug war as an issue at all – it was never brought up in open ended talks; we as a group didn’t ask any questions about it – perhaps we felt safe through-out our trip, and didn’t feel like it even impacted us as gringos from across the border, where all we hear about Mexico is centered around the drug wars. One leader, the Chairman of the FEMSA brewery, did bring it up, but in a different context. We took this particular meeting in a rather sterile “Business Club” – a large event and conferencing space, in a posh part of Monterrey. He was disappointed that the GSB, which has a tradition of visiting his brewery, and sampling beers fresh off the production line on these annual study trips, was unable to do so this particular year, because the GSB’s security advisors deemed that the brewery part of Monterrey was too risky to visit. In fact, it was clear from his tone and expression that he thought that the security assessment was plain ridiculous. Again, different opinions and risk tolerances are different – but this is certainly something to ponder over. Are the security assessments of two sets of individuals, both of whom are arguably experts in this area, clearly different? Or have the negative perceptions, biased by a sensationalist media, created such an intolerance for risk, that one party has to take a very different stance than the other?


 The chairman of FEMSA, along with his beer

I believe that all media perceptions, either positive or negative are ultimately rooted in some real fundamentals, but then fueled out of control. And it is also important to realize that the media just caters to what the Plebs want, which is difficult if not impossible to change. So if we are to truly create change, we have to begin to change fundamentals. But as Plebs ourselves, perhaps we also hold a responsibility to consider carefully what we choose to subscribe to in the media.

Such a nuanced and complicated conclusion is exhausting, so enough on the media … next post is on Mexico’s monopolies.

Thursday, 13 September 2012

Understanding religious extremism in Pakistan


Believe it or not, yesterday, more than a quarter century after I was brought onto this planet in a space shuttle (or so my Mom tells me) to save it (#MessiahComplex), I finally set foot in the United States for the first time. I am told that it’s a huge country – the flight path screen and the sheer amount of time it took to make it here, seemed to confirm this. But so far what I have seen between Campus Drive East and the Main Quad, is very pretty, and makes me very happy – I can’t help but grin from ear to ear when I pass by that fountain just down the road from Schwab.

Now, I have been urged by loved ones to use my time in the United States, to both obtain a richer understanding of this country (I maintain, in my somewhat signature arrogant style, that I already understand it a lot – I have watched plenty of Family Guy and American Dad), and spread much required understanding of Pakistan. Decent idea!

I start with a very interesting and important policy-ish dilemma that we face in Pakistan – if we educate and urbanize the population, which is the natural next stage of our development, where almost certainly no other path exists, other than industrialization on a massive scale (large scale education and urbanization being key ingredients), we, to a very large extent, risk fueling an Islamic Reformation Movement, the core of which is “opposed to American interests” (at least humor me by thinking in the direction of the Middle-East, and not blaming everything on more complex and local factors) and the extreme fringe of which can use modern technology to turn violent, and make their presence felt, no matter how small it actually is in terms of power, both numbers and proportions – and not to mention how morally convoluted and practically short-sighted the strategy of this group is.

The roots of this reformation movement lie in the Indian Sub-Continent of the 1800s. Sunni Muslims, which today make up roughly 70% of the Muslim population of the Indian Sub-Continent, split into two schools (literally). The Deobandis on the right side of the political ring, came out of Deoband in modern day India, and are a puritan reformist movement – think of the Great Schism in 16th Century Europe. The Barelvis, on the left, were a reaction to the Deobandis, and sought to preserve the status quo – think of the Catholic Church. Recent numbers, including votes for the Deobandi Islamist Political Parties, Islamic Banking Penetration, and just the numbers which my gut reports regularly to my brain, seem to suggest that today roughly 20% of the 70% of Sunni Muslims are Deobandi, and roughly 50% of the 70% are Barelvi. The field is divided – there is a massive rift or schism. The most fundamental question is how to view or even interpret (especially if you hold very strong faith and will not listen to secular arguments) religion, in the context of its role within the state.

Understanding the status quo and those who seek to preserve it – The Barelvis

It’s been almost 1,300 years since Islam first arrived in the Indian Sub-Continent. Today only 30% of the population is Muslim, even though Muslim rulers have controlled much of the centralized state for much of this period. What this tells me is that while people have clearly tried, spreading Islam has been difficult – the traditional religions of the Sub-Continent, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism had to be reconciled with the radical views of this new religion. What emerged from this process was a hodge-podge of beliefs, and rituals, at the core of which is a strong appreciation for secularism and pluralism – love, peace and humanity.

There are hundreds of Sufi Saints in Pakistan today. These Saints were primarily missionaries, and almost all of them claim to be descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. After they died, cults formed around them and their exploits – so they are revered, and even worshipped. Their Shrines are quite a sight, one reason being their striking resemblance to the shrines of other religions in the area – instead of idols and deities, you will have a grave covered with colorful cloths and worshippers lined up around it. Instead of Bhajjans (traditional Hindu religious songs) you will have a drum beating (dhammal) and lots of intoxicants, the primary one being Bhang or Cannabis. I urge any potential visitors to Pakistan to visit around the time of these Festivals, which celebrate the Death Anniversary of any one of these Saints. Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, in Interior Sindh, is the most popular one, although a little bit inaccessible. Bulleh Shah, in Kasur near Lahore is another very popular one, and a quite a bit more easily accessible.

Now, these Saints preached what any hippy (or good person) preaches – love, peace and humanity. Some of these Saints, for example, Bulleh Shah and Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai, earned their reputation through their poetry, which is very powerful, and forms the much of bedrock of the very rich and sophisticated spiritual and metaphysical inclinations of the populace to this day.

But the interesting twist here is that these Saints accumulated a lot of wealth, through their power and prestige, and their roles were passed down and on to their descendants. To this day, the people of Pakistan revere and visit these “modern day” Hereditary Saints or Pirs. Even my parents, who are highly educated and part of the upper middle class, have visited some of these folks – they appear just like ordinary mortals, but the services they provide can appear to be extra-ordinary to the less than skeptical eye, ranging from praying on your behalf (often for very sick or otherwise troubled persons, which there is never any shortage of), to fortune telling.

If my parents have engaged and indulged in such superstition, who can really blame a poor uneducated rural farmer? These Saints have a massive strangle-hold over the rural population, and use this power through the modern democratic process, to control the many arms of the State. Today, almost 50% of the seats in Parliament are held by these Hereditary Saints, and it is difficult to unseat them through the electoral process, because there is such a strong cult around each of them.

Traditionally, these Hereditary Saints have also held a monopoly over education, quite openly and staunchly denying it to their constituents (or effectively subjects). There are poetic verses which support this – one of the most beautiful and famous of these verses was authored by Bulleh Shah, which I (and many others) interpret to be a tongue-in-cheek reinforcement of this value system (although holding much deeper and broader meaning). The traditional method of home schooling, with a Master (or older Saint) and an under-study, lingered on in a very prestigious and exclusive fashion for a long time until the advent of the modern private school, from where many of these Hereditary Saints today graduate, in addition to completing their traditional education. This strong-hold on education, and strong culturally embedded impulse against education, particularly for the lower classes, is why improving primary enrollment in Pakistan, and making the public school system work has been such a challenge. As one expert on this topic once stated – “Illiteracy in Pakistan is not a problem that the State is facing or dealing with; it is actually the policy of the State”. Cynicism, you ask? May be to some extent, but also quite rich and telling.

With no education, there was traditionally no middle class in the rural areas. Either wage laborers, sometimes bonded (essentially slave-like) generation after generation to landlords (or essentially their slave owners) through the accumulation of massive amounts of family debt, or very large and powerful landholders, who (essentially) owned (or controlled) these subjects and were also their spiritual (and God-like) leaders as Hereditary Saints. These powerful families, who today control the state (through 50% of the seats in Parliament), in the best case display complete apathy towards performing their responsibilities as functionaries of the state, since their power is very unlikely to be challenged, and in worse cases are incompetent or worse still engage in corruption. The system holds little structural room for merit or accountability.

But, these Hereditary Saints do after-all spread the message of love, peace and humanity – and so they form the deepest rooted barrier against religious extremism in the country. Indeed, many external Actors (think in the direction of America) have been accused of perpetuating these Hereditary Saints’ hold on power – for example, by brokering the deal between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf in 2007. And so, the other large and emerging powerful group, the Deobandis, which already views the Barelvis with particular disdain, is quite frustrated with these external actors. Hard to balance local complexities in alien political systems, especially without fully understanding them – isn’t it? Doesn’t it make China’s attitude of not meddling anywhere seem like such a good idea? How can a powerful actor hold itself back though? Wouldn’t the likes of Billary Clinton be out of a job? All interesting questions, in my view.

Understanding the reformists and the momentum behind their movement – The Deobandis

When the Sub-Continent became British controlled in the 1800s, the British sought to build structures to support the modern centralized nation state, primarily to support their massive infrastructure projects such as the roads, railways, and the new modern irrigation systems opening up vast canal colonies for agriculture (where my forefathers resettled in what is today Pakistani Punjab, from their previous home in what is today Indian Punjab). They educated a new generation of high potential Indians, within which the Muslims were well represented, because of their strong legacy as previous rulers of India (even though they later persecuted them after the 1857 rebellion).

My forefathers also went through this process, which is why I am a real boy sitting in Palo Alto today, and not some Japanese Spitz canine, whose ancestors did not bother to lay a good foundation for their progeny. My Great Grand Father was the village administrator. He maintained the land records and collected taxes, a position which has been passed down through the family to the eldest son, and is today formally held by my father (even though his father’s first cousin executes this responsibility on the ground today, being the closest member of the family still living in the village). My Grand Father joined the professional civil service, and became part of a new class of educated and progressive people – also known as the (upper) “middle-class”. He also sported an Islamic beard towards the end of his life.

With education came empowerment, and people began to question, and even cringe at the (Barelvi) status quo. They turned against everything associated with it – the deity like Saint worship, the intoxication in the religious festivals, etc. In order to make this movement take ideological root, they had to turn towards a very strict and puritan version of Islam. The Wahabis in the not so distant Najd, what is part of modern day Saudi Arabia, provided ample ideas and inspiration.

The Deobandis started out small, but are today both sizable and fast growing. Urbanization and education have provided momentum to their growth, as people arriving to the cities lose touch with their traditional roots and seek new ways to find meaning, purpose and engage themselves ideologically. This group as a whole is aligned in their core beliefs – they seek a radically different political and social system, grounded and guided by Islam, which delivers the basics of justice and economic development – and in more fanciful and ambitious cases, restores the pan-Islamic caliphate, which existed only for a very few number of years after the prophet’s death (because non-religious political complexities, which these folks fail to properly acknowledge and understand, have made such a state impossible). Thus, this group could be accused of being largely “opposed to American interests” (again, please humor me by thinking in the direction of the Middle East – some of the causes are local but it’s hard to argue that there isn’t a broader external theme of justice, or lack thereof). But while these groups agree on their core beliefs, they are in fact very heterogeneous in their strategies and their road-maps to achieving their ends. This is where things become complicated.

On the nice-ish one end are the progressives – these are highly educated Deobandi Muslims, who belong solidly to the middle-class. They are represented by a small but highly organized political party called the Jamaat-e-Islami. When this party appears on television, it almost always sends a woman spokesperson, fully covered from head to toe, expect for the eyes, to represent it. This, it claims very openly and honestly, is in order to promote gender equality – in fact, their strategy is brilliant, and much of their support comes from middle-class women who feel empowered by their approach and agenda. They are a non-violent bunch, and preach engagement through mainstream democratic channels. They have a strong student arm which is particularly well organized, and recruits from the top public universities of the country. One sub-segment within these progressives is the Tableeghi Jammat, or literally the “Missionary Movement”. They go door to door, and preach a lot – in fact I remember them showing up outside my house back in 2003. They couldn’t convince me to come with them to the mosque, but they did try very hard and were very respectful in their approach.

At the end of the day, they employ reason and argument – and while they do so to preach adherence towards some very strict rules (such as covering everything except for your eyes if you’re a lady), they also believe to a large extent in individual rights and freedoms, and strongly preach non-violence. They run quite a few of the madrassas in Pakistan, commonly misunderstood and homogenously viewed as hotbeds of hatred. If you take strong (and possibly unjust) measures against them, some of them will very well start to become angry and move towards the other more extreme fringe of the spectrum – why does this surprise anyone?

Somewhere in the middle of this spectrum or perhaps not even within this spectrum, but claiming to be part of it, are the cronies – they also advocate non-violence and engagement through the political system. My strong personal sense is that these folks are a little less educated and well-off than the progressives, and are composed of the lowest rungs of the urban service class – it is literally truck driver mullah turned political leader resonating with fellow truck driver voter and mosque attendee of the same ethnicity. My somewhat strong judgment and conclusion is that they are largely using religion as a farce to extract patronage from the state. They are represented primarily by the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, more specifically the party led by Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman (abbreviated by JUI-F). JUI-F on the one hand opposes US drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas, but on the other hand has been part of every coalition government which has allowed these drone strikes to take place – both the Musharraf and the existing Zardari administrations. Fazl-ur-Rehman has been targeted by suicide bombers, which lends weight to his peaceful credentials. But Fazl-ur-Rehman, according to the Wikileaks dossiers, has also asked the American Ambassador at the time to support him in becoming Prime Minister (presumably by exerting American influence on the other power actors in the country).

In other words these cronies are opportunistic hypocrites, who have abused religious ideology and the continuity of the apathy, incompetence and corruption within the Barelvi-dominated political system, to extract a few gains here and there. The population has become highly vary of them, and the latest polls in some of their strongest areas of traditional support, such as the Pashtun Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the mega-city of Karachi, show that their popularity is now negligible.

And on the very extreme other end you have none other than, what I will call – the extremists. They form a small fringe of this overall spectrum, but their actions are such, that they get a disproportionate amount of attention. I do not understand their strategy, and neither do the progressives and the cronies, even though they do sympathize with their core ends – I just do not see a path through which they can use this strategy to achieve their ultimate goals.

Some of what they do can be explained by delusion – either the short-term incentives of paradise, virgins and the like, or some long-term can-do attitude which makes them believe that anarchy is on the pathway to power and a strong Islamic State. Socio-economic underdevelopment and injustice creates anger, a fertile environment for these delusions to take hold. But delusions are delusions – some of the most destructive ones often exist in the best of environments. We all have folks in our societies, who at least from our own perspectives are deluded – sometimes they believe in some ancient fairy tale which justifies their strong positions held in almost unquestionable place by very sophisticated modern approaches (e.g. heavy and very effective lobbying, etc.). Many others view these same positions and methods as incorrect and unjust.  It is important at least to understand where everyone is coming from, and the sad truth is that some groups are so powerless that all they can use are crude means, which have become wide spread and easy to deploy due to modern technology.

What I try to explain to everyone (particularly those in the direction of America) is that traditional 19th and 20th century power structures (largely built around strong Nation States – think International Relations) have to a large extent broken down in today’s world, with so many ideologies, so many non-state actors and so much technology which both spreads ideas fast and makes violence easy to carry out. One can no longer undertake any actions or support old positions which cannot be justified under basic and universal principles of justice, fair-play and humanity. The band within which we can exercise our traditional power, and hold our societies (nuclear armed one’s even) from becoming anarchic, has become so small, that if we do not realize this soon enough, we might all be in a lot of trouble.

The policy-ish dilemma

There is strong evidence that the lines between the progressives, cronies and extremists are sometimes crossed – even intuitively one can imagine that it requires a lot of wisdom and a very strong temperament to hold yourself back from constantly changing your personal view of what the overall strategy should be.

Given that the situation lends itself to easy crossing, the question is as follows – if you take a development pathway as a country (through industrialization and by implication education and urbanization), which will almost certainly increase the momentum behind this movement, how do you control it? Do you go down the Turkish route and try to embed within the educational system and the national ideological reinforcement process, a requirement to brainwash the population towards secularism? Will a fringe always be out of line, perhaps quite simply, just by rebelling for the sake of rebelling, and more complexly through all the crazy things in the world which cannot be solved all at once, and many of which will never be solved? And does this Turkish approach become a non-starter for most Pakistanis who at the end of the day are somewhat conservative and would have to endorse such a plan to reform themselves through the ballot box?

Or do you make an honest but ideologically religion-agnostic attempt to cook the recipe of strong economic development, and wait for the situation to play out, such as what is currently happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood (which the US seems to be very afraid of)?

Indeed much of the momentum behind this movement lies in the failure of the state and the justice system. There’s very simple day-to-day tactical justice delivered through courts; there’s more structural social justice delivered through policy and the arms of the state; and there’s even justice in the context of major international conflicts delivered through sovereign states holding strong universally principled positions. The population will obviously demand these things, as it becomes empowered both through education and the right to exercise their vote. So delivering on these basics, while making many of us uncomfortable, is almost certainly the solution to this problem.

The one political party which explicitly makes these promises, and has the will, and the political and intellectual resources to deliver on them is the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) led by Imran Khan. Unfortunately, Imran Khan makes the US as nervous as the Muslim Brotherhood does in Egypt, due to his strong position against US drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas, and his background as a born-again Deobandi-ish Muslim (even though he was a bit of a Playboy in his earlier years).

What is very interesting is that this is a very complex problem, especially in the global context and any sort of complexity will create massive confusion in Washington – everyone wants simplistic solutions like bombing a less than trivial percentage of the population out of existence, or shutting down all the madrassas which provide more than just a trivial share of the literacy in the country

It’s complex but nobody who makes an effort to understand the world wants an unstable and underdeveloped Pakistan anymore – a good argument is that it is home to 180 million people or 3% of the world’s humanity which deserves its fair share of justice, dignity and self-esteem. The argument which often resonates though (grounded in very outdated 19th and 20th century nation state politics) is that it is nuclear armed and an indirect threat to certain national interests. Whatever the argument, the need for Americans to really understand Pakistan is extremely important – I hope this post has at least been somewhat useful.