When did extremism/hyper-conservatism in Pakistan go from being the state's project to society's?

[DW44]

I was reading an article by NFP recently about whether or not Pakistan is ready for CPEC and he touched on the widely held notion that "Pakistan is a conservative society". One bit in particular caught my eye because it is something I've personally observed over the last few years but hardly ever seen discussed in the media, social media or drawing rooms.

Referring to the hyper conservatism that has now become a hallmark of Pakistani society, he said:

"What’s more, what was once a project of the state has become a project of the society. This is why now, when the state wants to alter its course in this context, it is finding it tough. Indeed, it has realised that CPEC promises positive change. But to fully benefit from such a change, society and polity needs to change as well. This is what the Pakistani state and government should now be working towards."

Now I can see many people pointing out that Paracha was referring to conservatism, not extremism so let me state at the outset that I'm not limiting the scope of this thread strictly to what he says but about the broader issue of extremism and ultra conservatism.

Most people are familiar to some extent with the history of Pakistan in the 70s and 80s, or at least versions of it that conform to their ideological tilt. They know Pakistan was a fairly tolerant, if not necessarily liberal, society that was far less conservative than it is today. They also know that Zia ul Haq was the man who precipitated that change through his legal and educational "reforms", including rewriting large parts of Pakistan's history. Some of the better informed among us would also know that it was not in fact Zia, but Bhutto who set us down this path with Zia taking Bhutto's project to it's logical conclusion.

In recent years though, it's quite clear that the Pakistani brand of hyper conservatism, that incorporates many extremist ideologies, owes its continued existence to the greater Pakistani society than it does to the Pakistani state, with everyone from Musharraf(only during his last 3-4 years), PPP and PML, taking a backseat on the issue.

We saw the massive public support for Mumtaz Qadri and the subsequent siege of parliament by Sunni Tehreek and other supporters of his, one of their demands being that the blasphemy law not be touched by the government. We have seen women's rights legislation, particularly with regards to honor killings and domestic violence, being held hostage by the clergy which draws it's power from the people, not the state.

Attacks on religious minorities, from the attack on Ahmadi mosques in Jhelum a few years ago to the most recent one in Chakwal that had no involvement of organized state sponsored extremist organizations, the torching of two Christian colonies in Lahore in 2013 and 2015, to the burning of a Christian couple by a lynch mob in Faisalabad have all been lead by members of the public, not any state agencies or terrorist organizations. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the legal community where a large network of lawyers has formed a coalition that represents anyone charged with killing a blasphemer for free, and are known to intimidate opposing council, resulting in at least one lawyer being murdered for defending a blasphemer in Multan recently(some time between 2013 and 2015, can't remember the exact year).

Political parties such as PML-N, PPP and PTI have no way of establishing control in several parts of Pakistan without entering into alliances with the likes of ASWJ who command huge vote banks, i.e. extremists/terrorists propped up by the public. One of the biggest reasons given for an operation on the lines of Zarb e Azb not being conducted in Punjab, the epicenter of sectarian terrorism in Pakistan and home to the two largest terrorist organizations operating on Pakistani soil, is that these organizations enjoy massive public support and any action against them could quickly spiral into a quasi civil war.

Which brings me to my original question. When did this passing of the torch actually happen because despite living in Pakistan, I missed it. Until the early 2000s, I remember extremist values being anywhere near as mainstream as they are now. This may not necessarily be true since I was a wee teenager back then and not very observant of or sensitive to such things but I recall a girl in my A-Level(2004-2006) class being openly atheist, something that is inconceivable today and could realistically put one in serious danger. I don't recall lynch mobs, blasphemy being part of the national discourse, or large segments of the public actively opposing the state's efforts to move away from Zia's legacy like they do now.
[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION] I understand you were in Pakistan till the early-mid 2000s and given your acute sensitivity to things of this nature, could you enlighten me as to when this transition took place. More importantly, how? Would you say that the coming of age of the millenials, especially the younger ones(born in the mid 90s or later), had something to do with it? I'm particularly interested in the views of those who have lived in Pakistan during the 90s and 2000s because this is when I think the buck was passed.

 

[R0H1T]

Probably sometime after 2001 i.e. 9/11 terrorist attacks. With Pak becoming a hub for Al Qaeda, Taliban & ISIS(?) alot of these extremist elements are becoming mainstream. That the Jihad against West, mainly the US, should continue forever & India is our "perennial enemy" mindset blending in the minds & daily lives of Pak is just the tonic that extremism needed, to thrive here. The media portrays US & India as enemy & people latch it up.

The truth is the US is against extremists, majority of them belong to one religion, but that doesn't mean there's a war between the entire Islamic world & the US or between Pak & USA. The US has also not helped Pak in the way it should've, they shouldn't have tolerated extremism seeping into Pak (via Afghan border or Wahhabism via SA) or led the killing of innocents in drone strikes.

India could also be blamed for not acting in favor of the moderate voices of Pak, China ~ they're the most selfish nation I've known.

Basically it boils down to this ~ 9/11 happened & US waged war against the perpetrators, they allowed some of the narrative to be hijacked by conservative Republicans & somehow the war on terror became war on Islam <- this is entirely on the US & their internal politics.

Pak became a transit hub for terrorists & the US in it's war on terror, had the Afghan war not happened there's a chance that the radicalization wouldn't have reached such levels. Pak was still moving towards ultra conservatizm but 9/11 & US' war on terror hastened the demise of moderate voice in Pak to such an extent that only a total 180 degree shift in thinking, bottom up or top down, will save them.

China can play a role in this, but as we've seen in Africa they don't care about the nations where they are exploiting resources, their end goal is more $ & that's just bad for this region & Pak in particular.

 

[JaDed]

Think the trend is more general than say w.r.t Pakistan, Indonesia has been going through sudden such transitions as well.
Maybe the middle class or poor person was always conservative but didn't have a voice but has it now.Plus its fashionable to wear your religion(which can lead to conservative thoughts) on your sleeve nowadays,during the later part of 20th century with remarkable advances in science atheism was getting more attention but failures in globalization and job cuts its the opposite now.

Above is just an opinion without any "data".

 

[DW44]

This is exactly the kind of uninformed conjecture I was hoping to avoid which is why I said this: "I'm particularly interested in the views of those who have lived in Pakistan during the 90s and 2000s"

Probably sometime after 2001 i.e. 9/11 terrorist attacks. With Pak becoming a hub for Al Qaeda, Taliban & ISIS(?) alot of these extremist elements are becoming mainstream. That the Jihad against West, mainly the US, should continue forever & India is our "perennial enemy" mindset blending in the minds & daily lives of Pak is just the tonic that extremism needed, to thrive here. The media portrays US & India as enemy & people latch it up.

At no point was Pakistan a hub for either Al Qaeda or ISIS. Al Qaeda presence in Pakistan has been pretty minimal, mostly limited to some high ranking members but almost no footsoldiers which form the bulk of their ranks. ISIS has an even smaller footprint, being one of the few terrorist organizations the military actively targets, even going after their own allies if they show pro ISIS leanings, the case of Malik Ishaq being a primary example of their position vis-a-vis ISIS and no terrorist organization survives here unless the army lets them.

The truth is the US is against extremists, majority of them belong to one religion, but that doesn't mean there's a war between the entire Islamic world & the US or between Pak & USA. The US has also not helped Pak in the way it should've, they shouldn't have tolerated extremism seeping into Pak (via Afghan border or Wahhabism via SA) or led the killing of innocents in drone strikes.

The US is not for or against anyone except for their national interests which is why the same extremists that they're now fighting were their blue eyed boys when the big boogey man was the godless commies. There's very little the US could have done anyway since, contrary to popular belief, they have very little influence on Pakistan's domestic or foreign policy but especially the former. Much like the US, Pakistan also lives and dies by it's national interest and where the US has tried to interfere, Pakistan has chosen sanctions over caving in to US pressure so I don't see why that wouldn't happen again. This issue exists because for 20 years on the trot, an elected dictator and an actual dictator embraced extremist ideology in return for Arab money and promoted it far and wide in the society to legitimize their policies. The US turned a blind eye towards it when this was being used to fight their war but there's very little they could have done about it spreading in Pakistani society once the ball was rolling.

India could also be blamed for not acting in favor of the moderate voices of Pak, China ~ they're the most selfish nation I've known.

India has zero soft power or influence in Pakistan and China, nor does it have the capacity to actively get involved in an issue like this so there's absolutely nothing they could have done. The most they could have done was spoken in favor of moderate voices here which would have achieved the exact opposite outcome i.e. the moderate voices being even further marginalized due to their association with India, an association that the religious right makes even today despite it being categorically untrue.

Basically it boils down to this ~ 9/11 happened & US waged war against the perpetrators, they allowed some of the narrative to be hijacked by conservative Republicans & somehow the war on terror became war on Islam <- this is entirely on the US & their internal politics.

9/11 or no 9/11, this was fait accompli by the time Zia was done because of the far ranging structural changes he instituted in our legal system, education and society as a whole. Extremism in Pakistan predates 9/11 and would have existed even if 9/11 didn't happen. The first suicide attack in Pakistan, if I'm not mistaken, was in 1986.

Pak became a transit hub for terrorists & the US in it's war on terror, had the Afghan war not happened there's a chance that the radicalization wouldn't have reached such levels. Pak was still moving towards ultra conservatizm but 9/11 & US' war on terror hastened the demise of moderate voice in Pak to such an extent that only a total 180 degree shift in thinking, bottom up or top down, will save them.

Again, how is this related to the topic? I'm talking about the spread of extremism in mainstream society, the vast majority of which has never even seen a terrorist. Besides, the terrorists were limited to a few, mostly remote and inaccessible, areas whereas the hyper conservatism I'm talking about is spread across the country.

China can play a role in this, but as we've seen in Africa they don't care about the nations where they are exploiting resources, their end goal is more $ & that's just bad for this region & Pak in particular.

Except there are no resources to exploit in Pakistan. Contrary to popular belief, Pakistan is fairly resource poor and there's nothing of value under our soil that the Chinese can exploit on a large scale a'la the copper of Congo or Iron Ore of Guinea. While the Chinese can influence the Pakistani state, they have no such influence with the public. The state, even without China's coercion, has made some(half assed) attempts to roll back the policies of Zia and Bhutto but they were thwarted mostly by the public.

 

[Black Zero]

It's not a localized phenomenon so looking for local drivers would not be much help.

This transition is happening so many places, including BD, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Tanzania etc.

and looking at the roles of USA and KSA during last 60 years would be an appropriate starting point.

 

[TOP SPINNER_01]

It's not a localized phenomenon so looking for local drivers would not be much help.

This transition is happening so many places, including BD, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Tanzania etc.

and looking at the roles of USA and KSA during last 60 years would be an appropriate starting point.

No point discussing those countries since OP can not blame their respective transition/condition on Pak Army.

 

[Mian]

No point discussing those countries since OP can not blame their respective transition/condition on Pak Army.

True some of these desi wannabe liberals are always looking for reasons to target Pak Army instead of looking at the bigger picture that this transition is happening right now in many places in the world not just limited to Pakistan so maybe there are more reasons of this massive right wing support appearing suddenly everywhere in the world. But our desi liberals think the definition of being liberal starts with bashing Pak Army.

 

[R0H1T]

This is exactly the kind of uninformed conjecture I was hoping to avoid which is why I said this: "I'm particularly interested in the views of those who have lived in Pakistan during the 90s and 2000s"

Well first of all you want an answer that fits some narrative of yours, do you?

At no point was Pakistan a hub for either Al Qaeda or ISIS. Al Qaeda presence in Pakistan has been pretty minimal, mostly limited to some high ranking members but almost no footsoldiers which form the bulk of their ranks. ISIS has an even smaller footprint, being one of the few terrorist organizations the military actively targets, even going after their own allies if they show pro ISIS leanings, the case of Malik Ishaq being a primary example of their position vis-a-vis ISIS and no terrorist organization survives here unless the army lets them.

By hub I mean a safe haven for Al Qaeda, seeing how many top ranking leaders were found here, one near an army base. Is that not a hub, in some sense? I'm not sure about ISIS, but more concerned about their ideology. Strictly speaking ISIS down not exist out of Iraq & parts of Syria they occupy, but supposedly they do claim supporters & sympathizers in large nations including India.

The US is not for or against anyone except for their national interests which is why the same extremists that they're now fighting were their blue eyed boys when the big boogey man was the godless commies. There's very little the US could have done anyway since, contrary to popular belief, they have very little influence on Pakistan's domestic or foreign policy but especially the former. Much like the US, Pakistan also lives and dies by it's national interest and where the US has tried to interfere, Pakistan has chosen sanctions over caving in to US pressure so I don't see why that wouldn't happen again. This issue exists because for 20 years on the trot, an elected dictator and an actual dictator embraced extremist ideology in return for Arab money and promoted it far and wide in the society to legitimize their policies. The US turned a blind eye towards it when this was being used to fight their war but there's very little they could have done about it spreading in Pakistani society once the ball was rolling.

The US has always been about their power & their influence, they generally do not tolerate voice of reason when it's not in their national interests. installing a dictator in Iran was something that they've done throughout their history, the Reagan presidency which supported Mujahideen was just a means to another end, destroying USSR. They could've easily done away with taking the easy the route when they attacked Afghanistan. How porous is the AfPak border, could they not have ensured that Taliban & Al Qaeda leadership don't come here in droves? Stepping on the Pak borders to take on terrorists was the easy thing to do, the right thing would've been to ensure that Pak doesn't suffer the same fate as Afghan hinterland wrt terrorist attacks & insurgency.

India has zero soft power or influence in Pakistan and China, nor does it have the capacity to actively get involved in an issue like this so there's absolutely nothing they could have done. The most they could have done was spoken in favor of moderate voices here which would have achieved the exact opposite outcome i.e. the moderate voices being even further marginalized due to their association with India, an association that the religious right makes even today despite it being categorically untrue.

India obviously has soft power but no real influence in Pak, I wasn't talking about our influence in China rather how selfish their leadership is. The 2004 Agra summit was a missed opportunity, whether it was the general elections or internal politics (in India or Pak) but Ind/Pak solving the biggest issue between them could've led to the dissolution of terrorist outfits targeting India. They're still a scourge to this day, much to our chagrin. I don't know who was responsible for the failed dialogue, but a part of the blame can be had our way seeing how the political will was missing to go the last mile.

9/11 or no 9/11, this was fait accompli by the time Zia was done because of the far ranging structural changes he instituted in our legal system, education and society as a whole. Extremism in Pakistan predates 9/11 and would have existed even if 9/11 didn't happen. The first suicide attack in Pakistan, if I'm not mistaken, was in 1986.

Like I said 9/11 hastened the demise of moderate voice & Pak society in general. Now, from my PoV, they see US as an enemy they can't defeat & India as an enemy they must overcome. The problem is they're hatred towards entities, which could not do without, is becoming self consuming & (virtually) everything they represent is seen offensive &/or coming from an enemy nation. Therefore the OTT masala movies from Bollywood, perhaps with a touch of nationalism, are banned in Pak & any other news/media outlet(?) from India as well.

Again, how is this related to the topic? I'm talking about the spread of extremism in mainstream society, the vast majority of which has never even seen a terrorist. Besides, the terrorists were limited to a few, mostly remote and inaccessible, areas whereas the hyper conservatism I'm talking about is spread across the country.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that's how I see it, or any attack on XYZ nation is an attack on Islam &/or Pak. The media outlets, though I've not followed all of them, seem to spray the US & India(?) with the same expansionist or enemy paint brush.

Except there are no resources to exploit in Pakistan. Contrary to popular belief, Pakistan is fairly resource poor and there's nothing of value under our soil that the Chinese can exploit on a large scale a'la the copper of Congo or Iron Ore of Guinea. While the Chinese can influence the Pakistani state, they have no such influence with the public. The state, even without China's coercion, has made some(half assed) attempts to roll back the policies of Zia and Bhutto but they were thwarted mostly by the public.

What about your Oil & Gas rich north & Baluchistan? You think there's nothing to exploit there, or how Pak is a vital part of Silk Road & OBOR as en exit point to the Arabian Sea?

China can influence the polity & Army, unlike the US, to make sure Pak society progresses & doesn't go the route of SA or any other Gulf nation. Will they do that, I say nope?

 

[DW44]

It's not a localized phenomenon so looking for local drivers would not be much help.

This transition is happening so many places, including BD, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Tanzania etc.

and looking at the roles of USA and KSA during last 60 years would be an appropriate starting point.

It isn't, but you saying that it's happening all over is oversimplifying things. Two places can have the same problem for different reasons. In the case of the countries you mentioned, this is a comparatively recent phenomenon and it's rise can be explained by the emergence of the narrative that there's a war of civilizations going on with Muslims on one side and the rest of the world on the other. In Pakistan, the rise of extremism predates any such notion and it's emergence can be traced back to Bhutto and Zia's policies. The role of the US and especially KSA obviously can not be overlooked, the former being big fans of the Islamic far right when they had a common enemy in the Soviets, doing a U-turn as soon as the soviets were gone while the latter's role is even greater. The Saudis, a nation of 30 odd million, has spent 13 times more money on propagating their ideology to poorer Muslim states over the last three decades than the Soviet Union, a civilizational power, did over the 70 years between 1921 and 1991 so yes, the role of the Saudis is paramount.

That said, this thread isn't about the origins of extremism and how it rose here but the exact point where the public took ownership of extremism from the state. The facts on it's origins and rise are well established and have been debated to death. I'm more interested in how and when Pakistani society internalized it and took control.

No point discussing those countries since OP can not blame their respective transition/condition on Pak Army.

Exactly. Apart from BD to a small extent, their armies can't be blamed. Ours, on the other hand, can be blamed.

True some of these desi wannabe liberals are always looking for reasons to target Pak Army instead of looking at the bigger picture that this transition is happening right now in many places in the world not just limited to Pakistan so maybe there are more reasons of this massive right wing support appearing suddenly everywhere in the world. But our desi liberals think the definition of being liberal starts with bashing Pak Army.

Yeah, because the Pakistani Army has played no role at all if the desi right wing fascists are to be believed. What the hell is a desi liberal anyway, a liberal who happens to be desi? Is that an insult now because I welcome it. I'm both of those things and while I know what you're actually implying with that term, it's so hypocritical and absurd that it doesn't warrant a response. We don't go after the army because it owes us money or because they're involved in a family feud with us nor is going after the army some sort of right of passage to be considered a liberal in Pakistan. Liberals here espouse the same values that the liberals you lot worship in the west do, the only difference is that Pakistanis/Muslims are a minority there so when the liberals there speak up against the worst excesses of the majority, they're considered heroes but when we do the same and raise questions, we become the devil incarnate and there's always the "oh we don't hate liberals, we just hate desi/faux/pseudo/fascist liberals" excuse ready for when someone points out this hypocrisy.

We do what you right wing lot consistently fail to do i.e. hold those who are in power to account. Your critique is particularly hypocritical considering how emphatically you go after the Nooras because apparently you're some patriot who will not stand for the Nooras damaging the country but this veneer of righteousness gets torn down and all principles and patriotism goes out the window the instant someone mentions the institution that has done more damage than a hundred Nooras, Bhuttos and Zardaris ever could. In any case, this thread isn't even about the army's role, it's about the people of Pakistan.

 

[DW44]

Well first of all you want an answer that fits some narrative of yours, do you?

No, if you bothered to read my OP, you'd know that what I wanted was a date and/or time frame for when a specific event happened. It's also clear that anyone who hasn't actually lived in Pakistan and witnessed the event mentioned in OP could not possibly know the answer to my question. Your entire diatribe about 9/11, terrorism and all that jazz is about a different, albeit related, issue but by now I'm used to having that one "well meaning Indian who has nothing but the best intentions for Pakistan and the answers to all our problems, if only we wouldn't keep turning down their friendly overtures. There's always that one guy who will jump into a discussion about, say, Pakistan's textile exports or film industry to give his $0.02 about terrorism, regardless of whether or not it concerns the discussion at hand.

By hub I mean a safe haven for Al Qaeda, seeing how many top ranking leaders were found here, one near an army base. Is that not a hub, in some sense? I'm not sure about ISIS, but more concerned about their ideology. Strictly speaking ISIS down not exist out of Iraq & parts of Syria they occupy, but supposedly they do claim supporters & sympathizers in large nations including India.

Yes well, that's not what a hub is. A hub, by definition, is a major base of operations, not some place where the leaders hide. ISIS' ideology also cannot establish a foothold here since the particular brand of Islam that ISIS practices is practiced by about 1% of Pakistan's population and that one percent market is already cornered by Jamat ud Dawa. Anyway, again, unrelated to the original topic of discussion which is when did the people of Pakistan take ownership of extremist ideologies from the state.

The US has always been about their power & their influence, they generally do not tolerate voice of reason when it's not in their national interests. installing a dictator in Iran was something that they've done throughout their history, the Reagan presidency which supported Mujahideen was just a means to another end, destroying USSR. They could've easily done away with taking the easy the route when they attacked Afghanistan. How porous is the AfPak border, could they not have ensured that Taliban & Al Qaeda leadership don't come here in droves? Stepping on the Pak borders to take on terrorists was the easy thing to do, the right thing would've been to ensure that Pak doesn't suffer the same fate as Afghan hinterland wrt terrorist attacks & insurgency.

Yeah, except for the part where they don't really care whether or not Pakistan suffers the same fate as Afghanistan, not to mention the not at all surprising levels of ignorance on display wrt how much influence the US really has when it comes to Pakistan's policymaking because much like the US, Pakistan also does whats in it's interests and if the US could realistically stop Pakistan from harboring AQ/Taliban leadership, they would have. Foreign policy engagement with nations of Pakistan's size are not as simple as "US big and strong, US gets what it wants", there are compromises made and unfavorable terms are often accepted for some greater benefit elsewhere.

India obviously has soft power but no real influence in Pak, I wasn't talking about our influence in China rather how selfish their leadership is. The 2004 Agra summit was a missed opportunity, whether it was the general elections or internal politics (in India or Pak) but Ind/Pak solving the biggest issue between them could've led to the dissolution of terrorist outfits targeting India. They're still a scourge to this day, much to our chagrin. I don't know who was responsible for the failed dialogue, but a part of the blame can be had our way seeing how the political will was missing to go the last mile.

Not in Pakistan they don't. The whole concept of soft power revolves around the ability to influence opinions favorably using cultural capital and a favorable reputation. India has none of that in Pakistan. Terrorist outfits targeting India have about as much to do with the topic I'm trying to discuss here as the Patriots' Super Bowl win.

Like I said 9/11 hastened the demise of moderate voice & Pak society in general. Now, from my PoV, they see US as an enemy they can't defeat & India as an enemy they must overcome. The problem is they're hatred towards entities, which could not do without, is becoming self consuming & (virtually) everything they represent is seen offensive &/or coming from an enemy nation. Therefore the OTT masala movies from Bollywood, perhaps with a touch of nationalism, are banned in Pak & any other news/media outlet(?) from India as well.

Just one small problem with that analysis. This demise had been underway long before 9/11 and by the time 9/11 came around, the moderate voices had already been pretty much silenced. This is the issue with half baked information. Just because the post 9/11 order resulted in the rise of extremism in some Muslim countries doesn't mean it did in all of them. Two countries can have the same problem for different reasons.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, that's how I see it, or any attack on XYZ nation is an attack on Islam &/or Pak. The media outlets, though I've not followed all of them, seem to spray the US & India(?) with the same expansionist or enemy paint brush.What about your Oil & Gas rich north & Baluchistan? You think there's nothing to exploit there, or how Pak is a vital part of Silk Road & OBOR as en exit point to the Arabian Sea?

Wait what, oil and gas rich Balochistan? Most of Pakistan's oil and gas reserves are of the shale variety and lie in Sindh, KPK and Punjab. Conventional oil and gas reserves are laughably small, as are those of most other minerals besides copper. Whether or not Pakistan is being taken for a ride or exploited in OBOR/CPEC is a different issue altogether and not nearly as simple as our brethren from across the border seem to think.

 

[Nostalgic]

[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION] I understand you were in Pakistan till the early-mid 2000s and given your acute sensitivity to things of this nature, could you enlighten me as to when this transition took place. More importantly, how? Would you say that the coming of age of the millenials, especially the younger ones(born in the mid 90s or later), had something to do with it? I'm particularly interested in the views of those who have lived in Pakistan during the 90s and 2000s because this is when I think the buck was passed.

This is a thought-provoking question...

We used to read this Urdu poem in primary school, and there was a verse which described how water, dripping onto a boulder, one drop at a time but consistently so for decades, finally pierces a hole in it. The hole has been in the works for decades, each tiny drop doing its part, yet we only notice it once that breakthrough takes place.

And so it was with these outfits in various degrees of marriage to the Deep State: we knew they were there, we knew some were patronized and some were tolerated, but they were somewhere on the fringe, over the horizon and beyond the pale, that shadow at the corner of the eye which you can will away if you so choose. Yet drop by drop, they punched that hole in the rock.

The passing of the baton from the Deep State to the general public had been in the works for years, but two milestones stick out in my memory, that made me aware of how this gradual shift had first reached a turning point, and then that final shear in the edifice: the fork in the road was the Taliban taking over Kabul in 1996, and the change was fully manifest in the 2002 elections.

The 1996 change across the Durand Line was important because it happened nineteen years after Zia came to power in 1977. Anyone who was nineteen or younger had no memory of what the country was like prior to the 1977 coup. This generation, Zia's Children, had grown up indoctrinated not only with the Great Jamaatia Textbook Rewrite project, but had also internalized the blase attitude to the beyond-the-pale outfits, had grown through the Deep State's various adventures across the borders glorified on state media, and had become accustomed to the proliferation of madrassahs during and following the Afghan war. Ironically, this takeover happened with the full blessings of the Establishment, but what it did was put an entity ideologically aligned to their Pakistani counterparts in power, and next door. Suddenly, Zia's Children had an actual government to look up to, and that government's reliance on ours notwithstanding, Zia's Children were forever comparing and contrasting the neighboring rulers' perceived piety, their perceived honesty, their perceived "true Islam," with the corruption and supposed decadence and depravity at home.

Between 1996 to 2002, there was the dismissal of the decade's third elected government on corruption charges following a shambolic few months, a coup against the decade's fourth elected government, and then the events of 2001, all of which served as catalysts in the great hand-off from the state to the masses.

The 2002 elections marked the first time the "mainstream" maulvis, the ones competing in elections, made a real mark electorally. Despite winning only 10% of the vote (which nevertheless was a step up from their usual 2%), they ended up as the third largest block in parliament, and they ended up ruling the erstwhile NWFP. But it was the period prior to the polls that really drove home the point for me: they were not only assuming the mantle of the anti-establishment sentiment, but people were actually taking that claim seriously. I remember that time vividly: the vibe on the streets, the way vegetable vendors and bus conductors were suddenly praising Fazl-ur-Rehman of all people, and the icing on the cake, the messiah of the middle class, Imran Khan, voting for Fazl in the Prime Ministerial run-off in the National Assembly.

A rift had appeared in the infamous barracks-mosque alliance. I realize I'm talking about the more mainstream parties, but the difference between them and the hardcore outfits was (and is) one of degree, not kind. The JI and JUI (both factions) were (and are) hand in glove with the hardcore groups, a fact that was well-known, and for people to suddenly consider them the anti-establishment entity rather than what remained of the PPP, told me the inexorable shift had taken place.

Of course, these are just the two occasions that struck the point home for me. Someone else may point to any number of other instances.

 

[Mamoon]

2002 elections.

 

[DW44]

This is a thought-provoking question...

We used to read this Urdu poem in primary school, and there was a verse which described how water, dripping onto a boulder, one drop at a time but consistently so for decades, finally pierces a hole in it. The hole has been in the works for decades, each tiny drop doing its part, yet we only notice it once that breakthrough takes place.

And so it was with these outfits in various degrees of marriage to the Deep State: we knew they were there, we knew some were patronized and some were tolerated, but they were somewhere on the fringe, over the horizon and beyond the pale, that shadow at the corner of the eye which you can will away if you so choose. Yet drop by drop, they punched that hole in the rock.

The passing of the baton from the Deep State to the general public had been in the works for years, but two milestones stick out in my memory, that made me aware of how this gradual shift had first reached a turning point, and then that final shear in the edifice: the fork in the road was the Taliban taking over Kabul in 1996, and the change was fully manifest in the 2002 elections.

The 1996 change across the Durand Line was important because it happened nineteen years after Zia came to power in 1977. Anyone who was nineteen or younger had no memory of what the country was like prior to the 1977 coup. This generation, Zia's Children, had grown up indoctrinated not only with the Great Jamaatia Textbook Rewrite project, but had also internalized the blase attitude to the beyond-the-pale outfits, had grown through the Deep State's various adventures across the borders glorified on state media, and had become accustomed to the proliferation of madrassahs during and following the Afghan war. Ironically, this takeover happened with the full blessings of the Establishment, but what it did was put an entity ideologically aligned to their Pakistani counterparts in power, and next door. Suddenly, Zia's Children had an actual government to look up to, and that government's reliance on ours notwithstanding, Zia's Children were forever comparing and contrasting the neighboring rulers' perceived piety, their perceived honesty, their perceived "true Islam," with the corruption and supposed decadence and depravity at home.

Between 1996 to 2002, there was the dismissal of the decade's third elected government on corruption charges following a shambolic few months, a coup against the decade's fourth elected government, and then the events of 2001, all of which served as catalysts in the great hand-off from the state to the masses.

The 2002 elections marked the first time the "mainstream" maulvis, the ones competing in elections, made a real mark electorally. Despite winning only 10% of the vote (which nevertheless was a step up from their usual 2%), they ended up as the third largest block in parliament, and they ended up ruling the erstwhile NWFP. But it was the period prior to the polls that really drove home the point for me: they were not only assuming the mantle of the anti-establishment sentiment, but people were actually taking that claim seriously. I remember that time vividly: the vibe on the streets, the way vegetable vendors and bus conductors were suddenly praising Fazl-ur-Rehman of all people, and the icing on the cake, the messiah of the middle class, Imran Khan, voting for Fazl in the Prime Ministerial run-off in the National Assembly.

A rift had appeared in the infamous barracks-mosque alliance. I realize I'm talking about the more mainstream parties, but the difference between them and the hardcore outfits was (and is) one of degree, not kind. The JI and JUI (both factions) were (and are) hand in glove with the hardcore groups, a fact that was well-known, and for people to suddenly consider them the anti-establishment entity rather than what remained of the PPP, told me the inexorable shift had taken place.

Of course, these are just the two occasions that struck the point home for me. Someone else may point to any number of other instances.

This explains why I missed it. I was 7 in 1996 and in 2002, I was an extremely devout Muslim(a 13 year old doesn't know right from wrong) who bought Islamist rhetoric wholesale so I actually thought all these "noorani chehras" with their flowing beards taking over in my province were a good thing and they'd finally bring about the perfectly just Islamic system of governance we had all heard so much about. In hindsight, the results of the 2002 election were a disgrace, especially for KPK who had a history of voting for secular parties(PPP, ANP and ANP's historic predecessors like NAP).

 

[Mamoon]

This explains why I missed it. I was 7 in 1996 and in 2002, I was an extremely devout Muslim(a 13 year old doesn't know right from wrong) who bought Islamist rhetoric wholesale so I actually thought all these "noorani chehras" with their flowing beards taking over in my province were a good thing and they'd finally bring about the perfectly just Islamic system of governance we had all heard so much about. In hindsight, the results of the 2002 election were a disgrace, especially for KPK who had a history of voting for secular parties(PPP, ANP and ANP's historic predecessors like NAP).

Quite a few of those noorani chehras owned paint shops in Peshawar Saddar, which was another selling point because for the first time, the aam admi got a chance. Thus, they proceeded to paint billboards (with female figures). I do miss Maulana Bijlighar though, extremely talented stand up comedian.

 

[Yossarian]

Some very enlightening posts from [MENTION=26195]DW44[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION].
Having lived virtually all of my life outside Pakistan (that is apart from the few months or so after being born in Pakistan, and the occasional visit to see relatives), I find this thread very interesting and informative. Keep it coming fellas!

 

[DW44]

Quite a few of those noorani chehras owned paint shops in Peshawar Saddar, which was another selling point because for the first time, the aam admi got a chance. Thus, they proceeded to paint billboards (with female figures). I do miss Maulana Bijlighar though, extremely talented stand up comedian.

Not sure about the paint shops since this was long before the M1 was built and trips to Peshawar were few and far between but I vaguely remember the aam admi rhetoric, something JI still uses to this day, and Bijli ghar's name was dropped a few times in my maternal grandparents' home, my grandfather being a staunch PPP/Bhutto loyalist and therefore not a fan of JI and JUI.

 

[DW44]

There are screenshots of advertisements for residential plots doing the rounds on the internet with the selling point being that they're adjacent to Mumtaz Qadri's "tomb" and a big beaming picture of the man himself to complete the sales pitch. Not sure if it's OK to post those screenshots here but it says a lot about us that proximity to Qadri's shrine is something that makes property more valuable.

 

[Jin Chacha]

To be honest I partially disagree with the initial premise. Most articles painting Pakistan as a more tolerant society before the Afghan war focus largely on superficial aspects of society. Articles by NFP especially are full of pictures showing hippies travelling across Karachi, women wearing westernized clothing and smoking or Lollywood stars drinking and dancing in the 60’s and 70’s. But was that really a sign of a more tolerant society? The objectives resolution was passed in the late 40’s, the movement against Qaidianis happened in the 70’s. Even the movies of that period have an undercurrent of strong disapproval against what they regard as an invasion of ‘western’ culture and promiscuity. Most of the more ‘liberal’ pictures are representative of urban Pakistan during that period. The people living under their feudal lords in Sindh and Punjab or under their tribal leaders in Balochistan and NWFP were as conservative as now if not more. Yes they didn’t vote for the Mullahs but not because they were averse to the Mullahs ideologies. It was because politics based on ethnic/economic issues as in Karachi or that based on caste and tribes was more important.

In fact in my opinion at least, technology and media may actually have improved the situation in the last couple of decades. If a minister now makes a statement that Karo Kari or honor killings are a part of his culture, at least there is a public outcry. In the society of fifty years ago these things were barley reported and were a matter of routine. What the Afghan war and Pakistan’s foreign policy did do, however, was to provide the necessary raw materials in the form of arms and financial resources to turn this ideological bent into something more concrete and virulent. So to answer the original question hyper conservatism was always a part of our society, to think of the society in general and not only the urban centres as less conservative than today is in my opinion not looking deep enough. It was less militarized but not necessarily more tolerant.

Having said that as someone born in the eighties, this is only my point of view and not something I actually observed so you may completely disagree with it and that is fine.

 

[sjahmed23]

You can see the trend in the late 90's / early 2000's. That is the time when mainstream figures like Junaid Jamshed, Ali Haider, Saeed Anwar, ect.. all decided to grow long beards and join tableeghi jamaat.

 

[Black Zero]

It isn't, but you saying that it's happening all over is oversimplifying things. Two places can have the same problem for different reasons. In the case of the countries you mentioned, this is a comparatively recent phenomenon and it's rise can be explained by the emergence of the narrative that there's a war of civilizations going on with Muslims on one side and the rest of the world on the other. In Pakistan, the rise of extremism predates any such notion and it's emergence can be traced back to Bhutto and Zia's policies. The role of the US and especially KSA obviously can not be overlooked, the former being big fans of the Islamic far right when they had a common enemy in the Soviets, doing a U-turn as soon as the soviets were gone while the latter's role is even greater. The Saudis, a nation of 30 odd million, has spent 13 times more money on propagating their ideology to poorer Muslim states over the last three decades than the Soviet Union, a civilizational power, did over the 70 years between 1921 and 1991 so yes, the role of the Saudis is paramount.

.

1- I stated that it's happening in "so many places" and not "all over".
2- And it's happening more than 2 places and it would be unlikely that root cause to be different.
3- Timing and other minor details would be unique understandable however these distinctions are without any differences.

 

[Truth Prevails]

I was reading an article by NFP recently about whether or not Pakistan is ready for CPEC and he touched on the widely held notion that "Pakistan is a conservative society". One bit in particular caught my eye because it is something I've personally observed over the last few years but hardly ever seen discussed in the media, social media or drawing rooms.

Referring to the hyper conservatism that has now become a hallmark of Pakistani society, he said:



Now I can see many people pointing out that Paracha was referring to conservatism, not extremism so let me state at the outset that I'm not limiting the scope of this thread strictly to what he says but about the broader issue of extremism and ultra conservatism.

Most people are familiar to some extent with the history of Pakistan in the 70s and 80s, or at least versions of it that conform to their ideological tilt. They know Pakistan was a fairly tolerant, if not necessarily liberal, society that was far less conservative than it is today. They also know that Zia ul Haq was the man who precipitated that change through his legal and educational "reforms", including rewriting large parts of Pakistan's history. Some of the better informed among us would also know that it was not in fact Zia, but Bhutto who set us down this path with Zia taking Bhutto's project to it's logical conclusion.

In recent years though, it's quite clear that the Pakistani brand of hyper conservatism, that incorporates many extremist ideologies, owes its continued existence to the greater Pakistani society than it does to the Pakistani state, with everyone from Musharraf(only during his last 3-4 years), PPP and PML, taking a backseat on the issue.

We saw the massive public support for Mumtaz Qadri and the subsequent siege of parliament by Sunni Tehreek and other supporters of his, one of their demands being that the blasphemy law not be touched by the government. We have seen women's rights legislation, particularly with regards to honor killings and domestic violence, being held hostage by the clergy which draws it's power from the people, not the state.

Attacks on religious minorities, from the attack on Ahmadi mosques in Jhelum a few years ago to the most recent one in Chakwal that had no involvement of organized state sponsored extremist organizations, the torching of two Christian colonies in Lahore in 2013 and 2015, to the burning of a Christian couple by a lynch mob in Faisalabad have all been lead by members of the public, not any state agencies or terrorist organizations. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the legal community where a large network of lawyers has formed a coalition that represents anyone charged with killing a blasphemer for free, and are known to intimidate opposing council, resulting in at least one lawyer being murdered for defending a blasphemer in Multan recently(some time between 2013 and 2015, can't remember the exact year).

Political parties such as PML-N, PPP and PTI have no way of establishing control in several parts of Pakistan without entering into alliances with the likes of ASWJ who command huge vote banks, i.e. extremists/terrorists propped up by the public. One of the biggest reasons given for an operation on the lines of Zarb e Azb not being conducted in Punjab, the epicenter of sectarian terrorism in Pakistan and home to the two largest terrorist organizations operating on Pakistani soil, is that these organizations enjoy massive public support and any action against them could quickly spiral into a quasi civil war.

Which brings me to my original question. When did this passing of the torch actually happen because despite living in Pakistan, I missed it. Until the early 2000s, I remember extremist values being anywhere near as mainstream as they are now. This may not necessarily be true since I was a wee teenager back then and not very observant of or sensitive to such things but I recall a girl in my A-Level(2004-2006) class being openly atheist, something that is inconceivable today and could realistically put one in serious danger. I don't recall lynch mobs, blasphemy being part of the national discourse, or large segments of the public actively opposing the state's efforts to move away from Zia's legacy like they do now.

[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION] I understand you were in Pakistan till the early-mid 2000s and given your acute sensitivity to things of this nature, could you enlighten me as to when this transition took place. More importantly, how? Would you say that the coming of age of the millenials, especially the younger ones(born in the mid 90s or later), had something to do with it? I'm particularly interested in the views of those who have lived in Pakistan during the 90s and 2000s because this is when I think the buck was passed.

From History Book by Najam

[UTUBE]_Yh8bLvLIf4[/UTUBE]

 

[Nostalgic]

I do miss Maulana Bijlighar though, extremely talented stand up comedian.

I vaguely remember this guy. Wasn't he the one who spewed profanity at anyone daring to oppose the Holy Fathers of the MMA? There was another one with a vivid name: Mullah Rocketi.

Speaking of MMA, the acronym was simply made for risque puns. Who said maulvis don't have a sense of humor?

 

[Nostalgic]

This explains why I missed it. I was 7 in 1996 and in 2002, I was an extremely devout Muslim(a 13 year old doesn't know right from wrong) who bought Islamist rhetoric wholesale so I actually thought all these "noorani chehras" with their flowing beards taking over in my province were a good thing and they'd finally bring about the perfectly just Islamic system of governance we had all heard so much about. In hindsight, the results of the 2002 election were a disgrace, especially for KPK who had a history of voting for secular parties(PPP, ANP and ANP's historic predecessors like NAP).

2002 was the first election I was old enough to vote in, and as fate would have it, the last election when I was still in Pakistan.

It was October, if I remember correctly, there was a nip in the air, and a palpable sense of change. I went to the school where I was to vote, and the young MMA Provincial Assembly candidate was there, strutting around in starched clothes, cellphone in hand. One could sense that he felt he actually had a chance. I got in line, and the conversations around me were all about what a wonderful young man the candidate was.

Later that night, we gathered around the TV to listen to the results, and in those days, the KP/FATA results were invariably the first ones to come in. It was MMA victory after MMA victory, and it was a while before another party got on to the giant scoreboard the PTV people had set up.

A good friend of mine worked for the New York Times, and he had interviewed Fazl months before the elections, and he told me Fazl was actually harboring ambitions of being the PM. I had laughed that off, expecting him to join in, but he didn't, and told me to talk to people on the street. I did so, and it was an eye-opener.