Pakistan Is Pakistan the Most

Pakistan Is Pakistan the Most Dangerous Country in the World Pakistan presents a complex set of problems for political analysts, because it is difficult to understand whom, among the various factions vying for power in the country, will actually prove successful in that regard. Sharif Shuja (2007), writing for Contemporary Review, discusses Pakistan's complexities.

Shuja reminds analysts and historians that the country was born on the idea that in order to preserve their Islamist traditions and beliefs, and the Muslim community struggled to separate itself from the greater part of Hindu India in order to preserve their religion (p. 209). Shuja identifies that which has caused Pakistan to be analytically unpredictable, writing, "Some believe in an ideal that Pakistan is supposed to have to live up to, but many Pakistanis seem disappointed (p.

209)." It is this internal disappointment that has manifested itself in violence and unrest, and which has become susceptible to outside forces in order to find fulfillment of their hope and expectations. These outside forces are not necessarily Islamic, although fundamentalist Islamists are part of the current struggle for power in Pakistan (p. 209). Shuja writes, "While Islam is a major force in Pakistan and many Pakistanis are considered devout followers, adherence to the faith has not prevented the development of considerable strife between the various nationalities which comprise Pakistan (p.

209)." Pakistanis are suspicious of the military government of General Musharraf, whose initial promise to the people of Pakistan was that he would rule for just three years; and seven years later Musharraf remains in power, although there have been attempts on his life (Schmidle, Nicohlas, 2007, p. 54), and the recent reemergence of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as a challenge to Musharraf's continued rule over Pakistan ended with her assassination (Masood, Salman, 2007, p. NA).

Each of these issues is but one in a set of many complex issues, all of which right now mean that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world. This brief study will attempt to breakdown these complexities in an effort to better understand them, and to attempt to predict the future for Pakistan. The Tribal Warfare Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947, there has been civil war, especially in and around the area of the former Indian province of Punjab (Shafqat, Saeed, 1997, p. 102).

The civil war has continued since the creation of Pakistan, often times spreading to other areas and provinces. One of the most revealing and controversial books existing today, and one which openly discusses the civil and tribal warfare in Pakistan, is a self-published work by Anwar Shaikh (1989), a Pakistani born in 1928. This is an excerpt from Shaikh's book describing, in part, what helps to shed light upon the civil warfare that goes on in Pakistan. A regret to say that 1947 was the darkest period of my life.

We were told that murdering the non-Muslims, seducing their wives, burning their properties, was an act of Jihad, that is Holy War. And Jihad is the most sacred duty of a Muslim because it guarantees him a safe passage to paradise where no fewer than 72 houris, that is the most beautiful virgins, and pearl-like boys wait for him.

Such a reward is a great temptation! It was during the first week of August, 1947, when l was an accounts clerk in the railway office in Lahore that I saw a train pull in from the East Punjab. That was full of mutilated bodies of Muslims, men, women, and children. It had a terrific, horrendous effect on me. When I went home I prayed to the Lord asking Him not to forget my share of houris & boys. Now this is true.

I actually prayed and then I took up a club, and a long knife and I went out in search of non-Muslims. Those days were remembered for the curfew orders and everybody seemed terrified of everybody else. I found two men, Sikhs, father and son, the father was perhaps not more than 50, perhaps younger, and his young son. I killed both of them. Next day I did not go to work, I felt nauseated but I wanted to kill some more non-Muslims.

I encountered another Sikh at Darabi Road & I killed him too. Often memories of those terrible days haunt my mind, I feel ashamed, and many a times have I shed tears of remorse. If it had not been for my fanaticism, engendered by the Islamic traditions those people might have been alive even today. And I might not have felt the guilt which I still do (Shaikh, Anwar, 1989, p.

NA)." Shaikh's feelings of remorse are not in keeping with Islamic jihad, and, today, for his writings, Shaikh is, like Salman Rushdie, a person whose life is at risk for talking openly about Pakistan's civil wars between Muslims and non-Muslims. Yet he felt so strongly about what was happening in a partitioned Pakistan that he was compelled to write about it. Shaikh's descriptions, from a personal biography perspective, are consistent with the perspective of social and political analysts, like Sayeed Shafqat (1997) and others.

The following table helps put into perspective the various tribes and people in the provinces where civil war and violence has existed since even before the creation of Pakistan, but is nonetheless rooted in the religious and political differences of the people there. Pakistan (Percentage of Population) East Pakistan West Pakistan Pakistan League Bengali Punjabi Pushtu Sindhi Urdu English Baluchi Source: Rounaq Jehan, Pakistan: Failure in National Integration (New York: Columbia University Press). (Shafqat, 1997, p.

23) Because of the cultural and social complexities of these regions, during British rule of India, the British largely ruled these areas "indirectly." This means that they really left the civilians to their own devices, interfered very little in the civil violence in the area (Shafqat, 1997, p. 23). To the extent that the British exerted their authority in the area, it was a heavy and "brutal" force of power (p. 23). Given these considerations, the British were reluctant to disrupt the existing social order, which resulted in the formation of an Indirect rule.

Indirect rule primarily meant rule through advice, persuasion and occasional but brutal use of force. The Indian Civil Services (ICS) or the Indian Political Service (IPS) performed the advisory functions. John Lawrence's model of patronage of loyal feudals in Punjab, the Sandeman or Sardari system for promotion of the Sardars (tribal chiefs) in NWFP and Baluchistan were variations of indirect rule. Tribal Riwaj (custom) was not disrupted, and, if need be, force was provided to uphold the authority of the chief.

Between 1850 and 1937 tribal resistance was checked by the British rule by force and by promotion of loyal tribal chiefs. Consequently, West Pakistan was exposed to participatory politics very late.Punjab was the only province that acquired some political experience under British rule. Even so, its political leadership was dominated by Hindu, Sikh and Muslim landlords and their nuclear unionist party (p. 23)." The most persistent problems in Pakistan arise out of the civil conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In that respect, Pakistan is little different than other Muslim countries that practice non-Muslim cleansing, and, as we see in Darfur today, the cleansing then progresses to a level of Islamic purity, or which sect and what is the hereditary connection to the sect. In this way, as Anwar Shaikh (1989) concluded, it becomes about power, about who will control, and those seeking to control are brutally violent in moving towards their objective of complete control. Military Rule Today, Pakistan is under the control of a military leader, General Pervez Musharraf.

When Musharraf took control of the country seven years ago, he pledged that he would remain in office just three years, after which time general elections would be held returning control over the designation for leadership to the people of Pakistan (Schmidle, 2007, p. 54). Exemplifying the turmoil of civil war, and competition of outside forces for control of Pakistan, Nicohlas Schmidle says: Musharraf admits that when he took power in 1999 following a bloodless coup d'etat, Pakistan "stood at the brink.