Pakistan has been prey to strong ethnic and sectarian divides since its inception. The politics of ethnic nationalism has been used to disguise the exploitative class structure and this paper explores the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in this regard. The politics of ethnicity has scarred national integration and solidarity. As politics has mainly remained the domain of the elite, the slogan of ethnicity has been raised time and again to perpetuate the existing political structure and class inequality. The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is no different. The Pashtuns are a historic race who takes pride in its bravery, hospitality and heroism. This strong cultural tradition and affiliation only to one’s own ethnicity and tribe should have faded over the years somewhat with the influence of modernity. However, this was not the case. This strong allegiance continued and the role of the tribal Sardars and the ruling class is crucial in this. It is always essential for the ruling class to maintain the status quo, since that is what perpetuates and strengthens their control. In order to achieve this goal they use the slogan of ethnicity to distract people from the real economic and social disparities that confront them. This is precisely what the nationalist leaders of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have done in the name of the Pashtun nationalist struggle.

           

                   According to Lenin on Marxist ideas about nationalism:

“Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language … Therein is the economic foundation of national movements.” (Lenin).

            

                  Marxist point of view believes nationalism to be a capitalist construct created by the bourgeoisie in order to detract the masses from the real issue of class exploitation that they are facing. For Marx the proletariat are a community in their own who are not subject to national boundaries but it is imperative for them to recognize their class exploitation as a whole. In much of the third world “nationalism” was used to mobilize the masses against colonial rule. In the case of Pakistan as well, the ruling dominant party was the Muslim League which consisted mainly of the landed class. However the concept of a separate state for the Muslims without Hindu subjugation and with equal economic and social opportunity seemed very attractive for the masses that ended up supporting the Muslim League. However once the new state was formed the ruling elites entered the spheres of state and nation building and the idea of equal economic opportunity proved to be an elusive dream for the vast majority of Pakistanis. In essence the elite bourgeoisie not only directly affect the lives of the masses through means of the market forces and means of production which they control but also indirectly affect the way the masses perceive their own reality. This is identified by Marx as “false consciousness”. Through the disguise of ideology the ruling class in reality serves its own vested interest and manipulates the lower classes into believing that their progress lies in uniting under the flag of ethnic nationalism.

Read Full Article...»

The guarantee of equal economic opportunity and an end to exploitation has long attracted the masses of underdeveloped countries - victims of poverty, inequality and despair. Pakistan’s case is no different. The wave of communism began when USSR adopted the Marxist-Leninist model and this lead to the creation of a new sphere of influence. Socialism began to be viewed by many countries as a respite from the unjust and exploitative capitalist system created by the West and the sway of modernity. It was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan who raised the slogan of socialism and founded the Pakistan Peoples Party in 1968 (PPP). In his words:

          

            “Socialism is of direct interest to Pakistan, an underdeveloped country, marked by internal and external exploitation” (Grover, 237).

The party’s manifesto, that won them 81 seats in Parliament in the 1970 general elections, stated “Islam is our faith, democracy is our policy, socialism is our economy. All power to the People!” Clearly the beginnings of Pakistan Peoples Party had socialist and communist leanings (Chaudhry, 128). For them equality and justice could only be upheld if there was economic egalitarianism which was not possible if the capitalist system, in its existing form, continued. However, the 2008 manifesto which has brought PPP to power today, claims that “ social democracy is our economy” (PPP). It also mentions that the party will try to blend economic liberalism with state responsibility. Even if we consider the actual political situation today, we find no traces of the policies that PPP initiated under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. It is pertinent that even later governments of the PPP in the 1990s became allied to the United States and its capitalist policies to win support and to come to power. This paper will attempt to examine why socialism failed to achieve its intended goals in Pakistan causing an ideological shift of the PPP from being overtly in favor of socialism, to an acceptance of the capitalist system and ultimately joining the US block.

Read Full Article...»

Few had imagined that Rudyard Kipling’s picaresque novel “Kim” would be remembered as such an apt satire on the political affairs of the region. The old great game has ended and today the politics of the post colonial world is quite distinct from the past. Independent states have now come about to establish their self-rule and sovereignty. Nevertheless, an end to colonialism must not be equated to an end to imperialism as well. The aim to establish control and maximize domination continues to direct international affairs till today. Newly independent states as well as superpowers continue to aspire to establish hegemony but the players and the means of the great game have changed. The old Great Game emerged when the Russian and British empires struggled for dominance in the region. Today the economic resources of the central Asia have raised its importance in the region with China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan all aiming to establish relations such that their countries can benefit from the Central Asian oil and gas. Pakistan specifically due to a host of factors has lost a chance of doing so mainly due to US influence on its foreign policy and the situation in Afghanistan. This paper will examine what were the exact circumstances that prevented this relationship from flourishing. Moreover, future prospects for Pakistan will also be analyzed as regards its position of being one of the major contenders in the region.  

         

                Afghanistan has been the bone of contention for centuries and continues to be so today. Its strategic location and importance has caused several powers to attempt to establish control over it. The nineteenth century saw the Russian and British empires competing for supremacy and control throughout the world. This led them to colonize various lands and cultures. Both powers attempted to establish control over the most prized lands and Afghanistan due to its prime location was significant. The British suspected that after establishing control in most of Central Asia, the Russians would move towards Afghanistan since it would help them gain access to a sea route through the Indian sub continent. This was alarming for the British as the Indian sub continent was considered the “jewel in the crown” for the British Empire. The situation reached somewhat of a halt in 1907 when the Anglo-Russian agreement was signed and both powers agreed to contain their advances and define their spheres of influence[1] . However in foreign policy, interests end up taking precedence disregarding historical relations and similarly the situation changed between Russia and Britain. With new powers such as Germany and USA coming to the forefront, world politics took a different turn. The two empires lost their strength and later in World War II ended up becoming allies. With the new political situation, the old great game drifted into the past as the empires involved lost their glory.

Read Full Article...»