'Pakistan, an object of Western appreciation'

Charles Graves
Secretary General,
Interfaith International

Pakistan is becoming interesting as a major news topic in the West and yet it is hardly recognised as one of the most militarised states in the world. Yet the general impression in the West was that the Pakistan military was too implicated with the Talibans. This impression persists up to today, but it is not shared by the general public. Pakistan is considered more today as a bulwark for democracy and against terrorism than as a friend of the Talibans.

Yet the support for the Talibans and their ideology penetrates some important sectors of Pakistan society. This fact is not widely appreciated in the West. Moreover, unfortunately in the West, very few journalists and observers are criticising the basic flaw in Pakistan 'democracy' - namely that the military has an unjustifiably large role within the social, political and economic life of the country.

Of course, this is quite obvious to everyone attending the conference today. The tradition of Sindh is not military, and Sindhis suffer from Pakistani military dominance in Sindh. Unfortunately the West does not seem to be concerned about the impact of the military on the population of Pakistan. As has happened many times in the past, some Western governments, and the USA in particular, tend to favour military-oriented governments because they make strong allies. Of course, this is in absolute contradiction to the Western ideologies, namely that civilians should have the final word in democracies.

Hence a very strange phenomenon occurs, civilian governments in the West favouring military governments in South Asia in order, as they say, to 'promote democracy'. The only movement going counter to this seems to be some indigenous or international human rights groups or brave journalists presenting the real situation of many parts of the Pakistan society where large sectors of society are suffering from the influence of the military. And it is just this military which prevents the various peoples and nations in Pakistan from achieving a modicum of autonomy.

Those who have grown up as part of the military caste in Pakistan, but who have become opponents of its power and influence, such as our refugee friends in Switzerland, are hoping for a reduction of the role of the military in Pakistan. The military has extraordinary privileges, gains more and more of the land in the countryside as well as achieving control over more and more of the administrative posts in the villages and determining to an even greater extent the kind of education given in the schools, (sometimes fanatic Muslim education). We have seen this type of military control spread out all over the country as presently it is doing in Sindh and Baluchistan, not to mention Gilgit and Baltistan.

Elsewhere in Pakistan we have seen also that the military, together with the secret police (the ISI), have the means of subjecting the populations to its control through force. We saw this recently where a Baluchistan uprising was put down by force mercilessly. Video films projected recently at the U.N. Human Rights Sub-Commission in Geneva showed Pakistan army helicopters bombing Baluch leaders in their private homes with many civilian casualities.

Thus, what the West most rejects - namely military states - is flourishing in Pakistan which is considered by the West (on a diplomatic level at least) as a 'democratic' country. Western policy continues to ignore the ethnic, social and religious realities of present-day Pakistan. Some persons even consider Pakistan simply as a strong bulwark the terrorist threat.

We must continue to point out the human rights violations of the often racist military personnel and their supporters whose influence in Pakistan is all out of proportion to their ability to lead a country.

What are some practical steps to take within the given situation ? One idea which may be relevant to this conference is to militate for the separation of religion from the state in Pakistan.  'Religion' is a quite strange and volatile aspect of our experience. It can bring hope and life but also fanaticism. Why should a modern state as Pakistan have religion tied to its Constitution ? The only 'Western' state constitutionally tied to religion is Greece.

The political misuse of religion is very dangerous, and if a state is constitutionally religious, the temptation for political leaders to use religion for their own benefit is considerable. It is quite evident that the government of Pakistan uses its Muslim belonging in order to prove its qualification as spokesman for the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference). But being a spokes-country for the OIC places Pakistan as 'defender of Islam'. Is Pakistan really defending Islam when its government tries to kill leaders of Baluchistan by bombing their homes ? Is it defending Islam when it gives favour to Punjabis as over against Sindhis and other ethnic groups in sharing natural resources and wealth ?

Pakistan as a spokesman for OIC appears to be a blatant hypocricy with which we must live in all United Nations meetings where OIC is represented by Pakistan.

But perhaps the worst aspect of having religious belonging as 'constitutional' is that such a situation prevents the state from combatting fanaticism .  If the military or state officials such as the ISI (intelligence services) hold to religious fanaticism, there are no safeguards. Politicians are obliged to accept fanaticism even among members of Parliament. Yet the fanatics will defend themselves saying they are promoting an 'Islamic way of life'.

For this reason, many states, particularly in the West, have made laws forbidding politicians from using religion as a basis for their activities.  Pakistan was to be distinct from India in 1947 on the basis that it would be a state haven for Muslims, but the idea has not turned out to be helpful for protecting human rights or the dignity of the Pakistani people. Pakistan as a Muslim state is only benefitting certain groups, and in particular today some industrialists, the military and the Islamist groups.

Of course, it would very risky for us to openly militate for the separation of religion from the state in Pakistan. We would be accused of 'Western secularism' with all its flaws. But, on the other hand, the international community should ask Pakistan what it is doing with its Islam. Is it really living up to the standards of ethics in the Qur'an ? How can Pakistan presume to represent Islam in the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) before the world community ? Especially when it allows so many human rights violations in its own country ?

Thank you.