Pakistan is a country where Lenin’s famous phrase “socialism or barbarism” rings absolutely true. The present situation in Pakistan is characterized by fundamental instability. From this instability flow social and class conflicts, which could move Pakistan to the top of the world political agenda in the coming years. Marie Frederiksen in Denmark takes a look at the history of a country torn apart by divisions.
Pakistan is a country where Lenin’s famous phrase “socialism or barbarism” rings absolutely true. The present situation in Pakistan is characterized by fundamental instability. From this instability flow social and class conflicts, which could move Pakistan to the top of the world political agenda in the coming years.
At the same time an analysis of the situation in Pakistan touches on more or less all the conceivable theoretical aspects of Marxism; the national question, war, dictatorship, the state, combined and uneven development, the permanent revolution, the women’s question, imperialism, religion, the traditional mass organizations etc.
To understand theory one must know and understand concrete examples. Marxist theory is in reality nothing more than the accumulated experiences of the working class – and Pakistan is a good example of how this theory is grounded in reality, and how it is important to understand concrete situations and show a way forward. Marxist theory is not an abstract invention, but offers concrete explanations and is ultimately a guide to action.
In the past, the region that is today divided into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was one big “country” called India. One of the first civilizations on earth arose in the area of the fertile Indus valley, located near the border between India and Pakistan. The civilization that was built there was highly advanced. They had air-conditioning, running water and fountains in their palaces that were so complicated that even today we do not understand how they worked. It is important to remember, of course, that all of his was done without the use of electricity. This is where the contradiction that exists today becomes so blatant, where it is possible to see what capitalism has been able to create. Compared to this ancient civilization, capitalism has created a continent of crushing backwardness, a continent where clean water and electricity are in short supply.
A British colony
In order to understand the present situation in Pakistan, it is necessary to know a little bit about the history of the sub-continent.
The first British ship arrived at the Indian coast in August 1600 looking for cheap pepper. Eventually, the British East India Company was given a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth I. This Royal Charter gave the newly created British East India Company a monopoly on all trade in the East Indies. This agreement was the basis of the development of Britain’s mighty colonial rule over the sub-continent.
The native Indians resisted British colonization from the beginning. However, the first major resistance against British colonial rule was the Indian War of Independence in 1857. The Indians were defeated in this war, which led to the consolidation of British rule.
The British reacted by using the top layers of the Indian population to maintain their rule. The British army for example contained many native Indians. The British ruling elite used the “good old” strategy of divide and rule, along with brutal repression to maintain control of the colony.
The British educated Indian elite formed the Congress Party in 1885. Congress is a bourgeois party that fought a bourgeois liberation struggle. Some of the party’s better known members include Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though the party fought against British rule, this did not prevent Congress from cooperating with the British on several occasions, such as when they united against the threat of “Bolshevism”.
Gandhi and his tactics of “non-violence” symbolize much of the liberation movement today. But a closer look at this tactic shows that it simply did not work and that it was hypocritical. In effect the tactic meant that Indian workers allowed themselves to be slaughtered in the struggle for liberation, while Gandhi and the other leaders were left to make deals with the British. The tactic of “non-violence” was hypocritical because it did not include non-violence towards the revolutionaries – apparently it was okay to use violence against them. The tactic of “non-violence” was a way to water down and divert the revolutionary anger of the Indian people. In the end it was not the threat of “non-violence” that forced the British to leave India, but rather the threat of a genuine revolutionary upheaval.
The British and local rulers were both afraid that the national liberation struggle would develop into a revolutionary uprising. A division along class lines was developing within the national liberation movement. The movement was developing to a point were the bourgeois leadership was afraid that it could no longer control it. The decisive turning point came with the Russian Revolution in 1917. Indian soldiers in Europe during the First World War were influenced by the Revolution and brought their experiences back to India.
In 1946 a revolutionary situation developed in India against British rule. In February of that year there was a revolutionary revolt of the sailors of the British Indian Navy (see The 1946 rebellion of the sailors of the British Indian Navy). This movement of Indian sailors frightened the British and forced them to finally leave India out of fear of a genuine socialist revolution.
Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs fought side by side in 1946 on the barricades and in the streets, united under the red flag. But the revolutionary movement lacked a leadership that could lead the way to victory. Instead of leading the revolution to victory the leadership of the Communist Party of India (CPI) betrayed the movement – under the influence of the Soviet Union. The CPI was formed in 1925, and brought together different left-wing forces from all across India. The Party was politically and ideologically confused, with strong nationalistic overtones. The Party was against working in the national liberation movement. In the period 1919-1922 and 1926-27 the CPI led huge mass uprisings, which gave the Party a mass base. With the development and influence of Stalinism the Party degenerated, but remained a mass Party. The Communist Party of India betrayed the masses during the Second World War. When the Hitler-Stalin pact was broken the Communist Parties were suddenly supposed to support the Allies. In India this meant that the Communist Party supported the British, against whom they had just been fighting, and against whom the masses were struggling for independence! The CPI lost a lot of credibility by supporting the hated British colonial rulers.
The British rulers wanted on the one hand to avoid revolution, and on the other anarchy. They wanted to sustain the colonial system from which they profited greatly. Therefore they suggested the partition of India, because they could not maintain control of the entire region and their profits were at stake.
In the end both the Congress Party and The Muslim League agreed to the idea of the partition of the Indian subcontinent in order to avoid a socialist revolution. The subcontinent was soon divided into India, East Pakistan (what is today Bangladesh) and West Pakistan.
Both the Congress Party and the Muslim League represented different sections of the ruling elite. The leader of the Muslim League (a party that represented the Muslim elite) was Jinnah, who did not really want to create a Muslim state in India, but who wanted to get his share of power. The partition of India turned out to be the best way to achieve this.
The British left India on August 15, 1947. The day before, on August 14, 1947 the founding of the State of Pakistan was declared.
The partition of India led to an absolute bloodbath. Thousands of years of peaceful co-existence between people of different religions was smashed within a few days. This was particularly the case in the border region between India and Pakistan (Punjab). People from different religions killed, tortured and terrorized each other, and women were raped. People, both young and old, were killed in the streets. Trains that crossed the newly formed border were attacked. Many people had to pick up and move. These were mainly illiterate peasants, who did not care about the Congress party or the Muslim league. Millions of people were killed – as Lal Khan writes in Partition: Can it be undone? “Half as many Indians would lose their lives in that slaughter as Americans had in four years of combat in the Second World War”.
The partition of India was one of the most counter-revolutionary and bloody events in recent history.
Pakistan – A Bourgeois State?
The leader of the Muslim League, Jinnah, wanted to create a powerful capitalist state in Pakistan. There were, however, internal conflicts within the elite from the very beginning. Jinnah’s successor, Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951, not more than four years after the founding of Pakistan.
Today Pakistan is a religious state, where many of the hierarchies established by the British remain in place. Pakistan is incredibly divided linguistically and culturally, the result of which is that English is still the official language, even though many Pakistanis do not speak or read the language.
The Pakistani bourgeoisie was so weak that it could not develop a constitution within its first decade. It was only after 23 years of existence, in 1970, that regular elections were held. This shows that the Pakistani bourgeoisie, like the bourgeoisie in the rest of the ex-colonial countries, is completely unable to play a progressive role and lead society forward. They cannot even fulfill the historical, national democratic tasks of the bourgeoisie. In the short 60-year history of Pakistan there have been 4 successful military coups.
The first military coup came in 1958 (11 years after the formation of Pakistan). It was led by Ayub Khan who remained in power until 1969, when a revolutionary wave swept him aside.
In 1968-69 the Pakistani proletariat entered the arena of history, taking their destiny into their own hands by going down the road of revolution.
The revolution put power into the hands of the Pakistani masses. It was an amazing revolutionary wave that lasted 138 days. The revolutionary wave was sparked by a small incident; the killing of a student protestor. The reason for the revolution was more profound: Pakistan was able to develop somewhat in the period after Partition thanks to the post-war boom in the West (1948-73). However, rather than solve the contradictions in Pakistani society, this development served to deepen them. This contradiction between the development of industry and along with it the proletariat, and the lack of parallel social development led to the revolutionary explosion of 1968-69.
Without a revolutionary leadership the movement was divided along national lines. This led to a civil war and the formation of Bangladesh in 1971. After the humiliating defeat suffered by the Pakistani army in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) a revolutionary situation once again developed. The regime was forced to offer some reforms in order to divert the revolution down safe channels. However, the movement succeeded in overthrowing the dictator Khan, who handed power over to the army.
The first elected government in Pakistan was a byproduct of the revolution. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led this government under the leadership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (the former Foreign Minister under Khan). The PPP was formed just before the revolutionary wave of 1968-69 on a very radical program. Bhutto developed a radical socialist program in response to the pressure of the masses. His government carried out widespread nationalizations, but at the same time carried out a counter-revolution in democratic form, where the capitalist system was upheld with all its flaws and faults. This eventually led to an economic crisis. In 1977 another military coup was carried out by Zia-Ul-Haq. Bhutto was imprisoned and executed in 1979. While in prison awaiting his execution Bhutto wrote that his biggest mistake was to think that a middle road between the classes was possible – explaining that he had not understood that one of the classes must prevail. In If I am Assassinated, Bhutto wrote:
“I am suffering this ordeal partly because I sought an honourable and equitable via media of conflicting interests in order to harmonise our disjointed structure. It seems that the lesson of this coup d’etat is that via media, a modus vivendi, a compromise is a utopian dream. The coup d’etat demonstrates that the class struggle is irreconcilable and that it must result in the victory of one class over another. Obviously, whatever the temporary setbacks, the struggle can lead to the victory of one class.”
The brutal Zia dictatorship was used by the US as a bulwark of reaction in the whole region. The dictatorship was prolonged because of economic growth. However, Zia became obsessed with power and went too far even for the US. In 1988 he was killed in a plane crash organized by the CIA.
Towards the end of the Zia dictatorship a movement began to develop, which culminated in Benazir Bhutto’s (daughter of the former president Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and leader of the PPP) return to Pakistan in 1986. She managed to derail the revolutionary movement by offering certain reforms.
The return of Benazir Bhutto was followed by a few years of “democracy” – without the army ever completely letting go of its grip on power. There were seven governments during this period, none of which were able to complete their term in office. Military rule was once again installed in Pakistan under General Musharraf on October 12, 1999.
Musharraf’s coup was actually a counter-coup against the previous president Nawaz Sharif, who because of an intense crisis in the regime tried to usurp more power. Discontent was rising in the army after a military defeat in Kashmir, which ended in a humiliating retreat for Pakistan under pressure from the US. Sharif tried to get rid of Musharraf, which nearly resulted in a civil war. In the end this never materialized as Musarraf took power. General Musharraf is currently the “president” of Pakistan, and we will return to him later on.
Barbarism
That brings us to the present time. Pakistan is a rich country, rich in history, culture and natural resources. However, the country’s population lives in misery, and capitalism has not been able to create any progress whatsoever for its citizens.
The situation for the Pakistani masses is absolutely horrible. While the elite live in luxury and palaces, the vast majority of the population lives in poverty.
Pakistan’s economy is in ruins. The growth rate of the economy was 6.5% in the 1980s and fell to approximately 4.1% in the second half of the 1990s. By 2000 it had fallen to about 3%. The growth rate has recovered somewhat, and is now around 6.4% – the highest it has been in ten years, but it has had no effect on social development. Unemployment doubled in the 1990s and poverty is growing. 42% of the population officially live below the poverty line, but according to Economic Survey Pakistan almost the entire population lives in poverty. In the 11 years of “democracy” a further 22% of the population fell below the poverty line. The health sector is in rapid decline, and the majority of the population must resort to the private health sector, and most are forced to seek help from quacks.
Only 22% of the population has access to clean drinking water, and 15% to toilet facilities. Less than 50% reach the first level of education, and less than 1.5% of students reach university. Meanwhile, the government continues to privatize schools. This means that education and health become a luxury, while half the population struggles for a minimal existence. According to the WHO the health and sanitary facilities in India were better in 1857 than in the 1980s.
The sale of human organs to rich westerners has appeared in the western media and reveals the level of barbarism in Pakistan. Rich westerners that need an organ can go to Pakistan and buy a new kidney, where people in desperation sell the only thing they own – their own body parts. The extent of social degeneration can be seen in the rise of phenomena like black magic and witch doctors. While the country descends into misery and barbarism, enormous resources are spent on the military and the war in Afghanistan. The situation for the Pakistani masses is getting worse, as in many other developing countries.
The situation of women
The women’s question is an important part of a socialist program, especially in a country like Pakistan. However it also serves to complicate the question. We also witness the oppression of women in countries like Denmark, but in a more subtle way. In Pakistan the oppression of women is much more clear – it is harder and much more obvious. Zia-Ul-Haq introduced the Hudood-ordinance (religious laws) during his dictatorship. Even Benazir Bhutto was unable to abolish these laws when she was president, because they are an inseparable part of the current society.
Women are considered the property of men, either in the care of their father or husband. Pakistani women cannot just leave the house without the permission of their husband or father, let alone live for themselves. For women in Pakistan it seems like a utopia to be able to live in your own apartment as many women do in the West, and to make decisions for yourself.
In Pakistan a female is raped every three hours – but this is only the tip of the iceberg. A woman that has been raped and takes it to court faces the risk of ending up in jail herself, where 43% of them are raped again. To prove a rape a woman must have four male witnesses. Women cannot testify in their own rape cases.
“Honour” plays a big part in family life in Pakistan. Many women are killed in the name of family honour. Along with murder, many women face vicious violent attacks. However, this murder and abuse in the name of honour comes down to a question of land, bread and water – only the poorest women are subjugated to these honour killings. Here you can see the complete social degeneration in a country that is officially religious and has a strict moral code; there is to be no alcohol, no premarital sex etc. Behavior has nothing to do with the official moral values, but on the contrary it has everything to do with the social conditions of existence. It is always the case that a social degeneration leads to a moral degeneration.
Like in the West there are many different suggestions for solutions to this question in Pakistan – and there are as many women’s liberationists as solutions. As in the West, there is a clear class division on this question. There are plenty of NGO’s that have fought against the oppression of women. The main problem is that they believe the solution can be found within the boundaries of this system. The entire history of Pakistan shows that this is not possible. Despite the presidency of Benazir Bhutto, a woman, oppression still exists. Today there are many women in the Pakistani parliament, some of which are members of the fundamentalist parties that want to uphold the oppression. The right to vote for women, the right to abortion etc., are important struggles. However, they do not solve the fundamental problems in anyway or deal with the root of the oppression of women. The only way the oppression of women can be got rid of is socialism, which will abolish the oppression of both men and women through a common struggle of male and female workers against the prejudices and the problems of everyday life.
Kashmir – The Curse
When the British rulers left India they did not just leave a divided India, but also an opening for eternal conflict: Kashmir. A battle for this area of the subcontinent has been ongoing for the last 60 years through many ups and downs. Many thousands of people have been killed.
Muslims make up the majority of Kashmir’s population. In 1972 Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Bhutto signed an agreement that divided Kashmir, giving almost 2/3 of the area to India. A line of control was set up as a temporary border, but since then no changes have been made.
Kashmir has been an eternal source of conflict. In some periods the conflict is stepped up, in other periods there are peace negotiations, like at the present time. Kashmir has not only claimed a lot of human lives but is also an eternal curse on both the Kashmiri, Pakistani and Indian people. The conflict has been used both by the British ruling elite and today by the Pakistani and Indian ruling elites as a part of a “divide and rule” strategy.
Since Partition there have been three wars between India and Pakistan and the central issue in all these conflicts was Kashmir. The masses of Kashmir have been exploited and oppressed by both India and Pakistan. Kashmir is in danger because the conflict is convenient for most parties involved. It is both convenient for the fundamentalist fanatics that have found a way out of poverty, i.e. through the arms trade. They are also supported by the CIA and now the ISI (the Pakistani Intelligence service). It is also convenient for the ruling class in both Pakistan and India. If discontent grows and gets out of hand at home, a simple stepping-up of the conflict is a convenient diversion. The threat of war and “defense of the nation” have at all times been used as a measure to stop internal discontent and oppress the workers’ movement.
Kashmir is one of the reasons that the Pakistani state exists – without Kashmir the generals would not be able to justify the fact that the military consumes more than 1/3 of the national budget!
The conflict in Kashmir is developing into a real threat for the ruling elites all across the subcontinent. This conflict could shatter both societies, and also destroy the interests of the ruling elites. Approximately two years ago they were beating the war drums. The smallest accident could have ignited the flames of war. At the moment the warmongering has quieted down, and now they make use of a cricket match between the two countries to demonstrate their so-called “friendship”.
Certain sections of the Indian elite want to destroy Pakistan completely without any regard to the catastrophic consequences. The existence of Pakistan is threatened by such a war. Both countries have enormous military forces (India has the biggest), and both countries possess nuclear weapons that could kill thousands, if not millions of people. A conventional war could very well develop into a nuclear war, where hundred of thousands of people would die. The imperialists are desperate to avoid this, but they created the situation themselves.
Despite the fact that the oppression of women and the conflict in Kashmir seem to be of a completely different fabric, the root of the problem, and the solution, are the same. Both problems have their roots in capitalism and both are used by the ruling elites to divide the workers and the unity of the oppressed masses.
Since Partition there have been different models offered as a solution to the conflict in Kashmir by all sorts of people:
- That the status quo is maintained, and the current line of division is recognized as an international border. The people of Kashmir cannot accept this solution.
- That India launches a full-attack and takes over Kashmir – however this would cause a conflict all along the Pakistan-India border and could destroy both nations.
- To divide Kashmir into three parts; one part with a Muslim majority (to Pakistan), another part with a Hindu majority (to India) and an autonomous region. But this model is completely reactionary like the others – a good example of what this can lead to is ex-Yugoslavia with never ending ethnic conflicts as a consequence.
As Marxists we support the right to self-determination. But this does not mean that in all cases we support the setting up of independent nations. Kashmir is too poor a country to make an independent Kashmir progressive. An independent Kashmir would be completely dominated by Pakistan and India as long as capitalism exists.
The only solution for Kashmir is a Socialist Federation of Pakistan, India and Kashmir – only in this way can economic progress and peace in the area be secured. The ruling elites in both Pakistan and India can afford neither war nor peace, and therefore the unstable situation will last as long as there are capitalism and oppression on the continent.
Perspectives
The present regime in Pakistan is extremely weak. The state is divided. This means on the one hand that President Musharraf is very weak but on the other hand it means more severe oppression, so that he can maintain his rule.
In April 2002 Musharraf called parliamentary elections in order to give his regime the veneer of democracy. There was not much doubt that Musharraf would win the elections, and so he did. The election was deeply flawed, and a large part of the opposition was bought both before and after the elections. In the latest period there have been three assassination attempts on Musharraf, all of which came from within the regime itself. This shows that the regime is extremely divided and that it can easily come to an open split between the various factions.
The ISI (the Pakistani Intelligence service) was founded and trained by the CIA. But the ISI has now turned against US imperialism. The CIA controlled Pakistan in the 1950, 1960s and the 1970s through their involvement in the war in Afghanistan. However, in 1980s after the Afghan war the army became more Islamic.
The war in Afghanistan has played no small part in creating this divide in the regime. Some parts of the regime, those behind Musharraf, obey the dictates of American imperialism in an attempt to stay good friends with them, while other parts of the regime, including the ISI, support the fundamentalists in Afghanistan.
About one year ago the US demanded that the Pakistani army go to the region bordering Afghanistan – the “North Western Frontier region”, a region more or less controlled by different tribal leaders. Neither the British during their colonial rule nor the Pakistani army have been able to control the area completely. The present attack has not been successful for the Pakistani army, rather it has led to many killed soldiers and a further division in the Pakistani regime.
Musharraf has maintained a close alliance with the US, and carries through all the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank. It is here that one can plainly see the hypocrisy of the US on “democracy” – when it suits them they also make alliances with dictators. Musharraf is under pressure from all sides, from both Islamic fundamentalism and imperialism. His regime is extremely fragile and will fall at some point. What the outcome will be depends on many factors, the first of which is the balance of power between the classes, as well as that between the fundamentalists and the marionettes of imperialism.
The only way out
One possible result of the instability in Pakistan could be the emergence of a new military dictatorship; one that would be even harsher than Musharraf’s. The divisions in the state could lead to a civil war, with catastrophic consequences. But it is also certain that under the surface of Pakistani society a discontent is simmering among the masses, a discontent that at some point must explode. The western media claim that religious fundamentalism is gaining ground. But this is not the whole truth. It is true that the fundamentalists have been able to gain some support because of their anti-imperialist slogans. But this support is very unstable. Where they have won power their support has declined when they reveal their true policies. The primary reason why the fundamentalists have been able to gain some support has been because of the lack of a real alternative on the left. The temporary support for fundamentalism does not mean that Pakistani society has taken a profound turn to the right, but that Pakistani society has entered a period of deep political instability. An example of this was the Indian elections in May 2004 where the Communist parties received massive support, despite the fact that the Indian Communist parties have completely degenerated, and long since abandoned revolutionary policies for reformism.
It is entirely possible that the Musharraf regime will fall and that imperialism will once again try to use the PPP to maintain a bourgeois regime that can be controlled. Benazir Bhutto, still the leader of PPP, lives in exile in Britain. She was brought back to Pakistan in 1986 to act as a safety valve for imperialism and divert the revolution. This can happen again. The PPP is not static, fixed and absolute. As in all political parties and movements there are political currents. It is possible that Bhutto will make compromises with Musharraf, something which in the end could lead to a split in the PPP. The PPP led the revolutionary wave of 1968-1969. It is entirely possible that the leadership of a new revolutionary wave could arise out of the ranks of the PPP. Pakistan is presented as a country ruled by Islam. However, Pakistan has a strong working class with proud traditions. Religious fundamentalism will only grow and gain influence if the working class is beaten and there is no alternative.
The validity of Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution can be clearly seen in this region of the world; the national bourgeoisie and imperialism have not been able to solve any of the problems of the masses. They have not been able to achieve the fundamental tasks of the national democratic revolution – there is no “functioning bourgeois democracy”, there has been no real improvement in the living conditions of the masses, etc. Far from solving the problems of Pakistan, the bourgeoisie and its imperialist allies have instead created more problems.
The only way forward is a socialist revolution. In some respects Pakistan can be compared with Russia in 1917; the size of Pakistan’s population today is similar to that of Russia 90 years ago, and Pakistan is today, as Russia was then, one of the most reactionary regimes on the planet etc. As in Russia then the bourgeois tasks of the coming revolution can only be solved through a socialist revolution – a revolution where the working class takes control of production and democratically plans the economy.
As in Russia, the law of uneven and combined development operates in Pakistan. A graphic example of this law can be seen if one takes the trip from Lahore to Islamabad. As you drive down one of the best and most modern of motorways in the world, you can also see the slave factories on the side of the road, where the workers are held in servitude for life. This uneven, yet combined development creates a situation of social explosion, and this will again put this region of the world at the forefront of human development.
However, it is also clear that as in Russia, a backward country such as Pakistan cannot develop socialism alone and in isolation – no country can. The example of the Soviet Union has completely exposed and smashed the theory of “socialism in one country”. An isolated workers’ state in Pakistan, while representing an enormous step forward for the masses and the working class, would face enormous difficulties, which would make a healthy development of the revolution impossible. A socialist revolution in Pakistan would have an enormous impact on the entire Indian subcontinent. The first task of the Pakistani workers would be to spread the revolution to India and the rest of Asia, as a step on the way to world socialism.
Despite the limited means of communication in 1917 the Russian revolution found a huge echo amongst workers all over the world, and had a decisive impact on world history. A successful socialist revolution today, anywhere in the world, would have an even greater effect. It is the duty of socialists all over the world to follow the development of revolutionary movements and actively fight to guarantee the success of the revolution – not just in Pakistan but all over the world.