Abid Ullah Jan is an independent author and journalist.

After Fascism
Muslims and the Struggle for Self-determination

ABID ULLAH JAN

We have yet to understand the limits of our naivety from the joy and festivity of celebrating independence days of Pakistan. Immersed in happiness, rulers in the gay capital exaggerate and regurgitate their successes stories as usual. Some out-of-power political leaders, however, equate such occasions with celebrating slavery under an oppressive government. In reality, starry lights on lifeless buildings smile at the inner darkness of their inhabitants in occupied Pakistan.

No one really knows for how long we would celebrate such independence days without cutting ourselves from the environment of negligence and noisy political fairs for honestly reassessing the state of our independence. Who are we and what is our status? Questions like these have started haunting every Pakistani who believes that we freed ourselves from British rule in 1947, but still wake up to the news such as: “FBI arrested Dr. Amir Aziz in Lahore,” “FBI agents and troops are directing Pak-military in conducting operations against Al-Qaeda in tribal areas,” “all arrested suspects handed over to US,” "US, diplomat, Bruce Nelson, has been constantly witnessing the proceedings of Nawaz Sharif's case," etc. etc.

The present rulers of Pakistan have inherited weak spine to the extent that while previous administrations nervously buckled under pressure, Musharraf’s regime appears to relish the job or serving his masters. It does so with a lot of enthusiasm, even with a measure of pride. Previous governments handed over a few individuals demanded by Washington. Musharraf’s regime, before and after the sham elections, has no hesitation spreading a dragnet and offering whatsoever falls under it, on a plate to our new colonial masters in Washington. It has restored to high-handed tactics that have no place in the history of independent nations or sovereign states.

We are now back to the dreaded midnight knock. The visits by occupation forces are not secret or stealthy. US agents can descent on their target any time of the day with utter contempt for rights of the citizens, or vague suspicions and allegations based on a role in some imaginary activity or misconstrued interpretation of a professional act. Arrest of Dr. Amir Aziz in Lahore is one example of such incidents. There have been the cases of Dr. Bashir udd Din Mahmood, Dr. Abdul Raoof, and others.

Pakistani government has started acting as arrogant policeman, worse still as proxy policeman serving dubious designs of the US and its Allies. Measures that are palpably illegal and an affront to the self-respect of citizens of Pakistan are no more than a clear surrender of sovereignty.

Beside physical occupation, a full scale cultural domination is already underway as a measure to neutralise our Islamic identity and eliminate any chances of resistance by future generations to the consolidated occupation. This is the kind of imperialism to which our public surrenders as much as the government does. A study titled "Freedom in the World 2001-2002" by the US based Freedom House ranked Pakistan among the 48 countries labelled as "Not Free." Are we “not free” because analysts, such as those sitting on Washington Times editorial board, consider “Islamic Fundamentalism” the main hurdle to human freedom?2 Or Pakistan is “partly free” and Iran is “totalitarian” because we do not have mayors like Norm Rice of Seattle to march in city’s gay-parade and none of the men or women, who expose their private parts during the parade, should be arrested for indecent exposure.

In fact, we are not free because we do not have an independent foreign or internal policy. We are not free because our government cannot make any decision without first obtaining a nod from Washington. But we are considered “not free” because our government does not have the power to allow the basic requirements for facilitating cultural imperialism, such as allowing alternative life styles, like homosexuality and premarital sex.

Under the banner of different wars, our government is doing all the best to hand over its citizens without any legal ground and consolidate physical occupation. But it is labelled “not free” because it could not establish schools to proselytise our children by requiring them to read books that say “religion is social conditioning,” “homosexuality is a matter of ‘preferences’ and ‘sado-masochism’ may be very acceptable for some peop1e.” It has, however, taken a step in this direction by first eliminating Jihad related Qur’anic verses from school curriculum and making Islamic studies optional than a compulsory subject.

Would surrendering sovereignty and accepting such standards of life help us win the label of a “free nation”? We must not get deceived with the certificates of “freedom” issued by the fake champions of the mock human rights. Even animals, having no moral values, do not act in such demeaning ways, absolutely against nature, as we are forced to accept under the banner of human rights and freedom at a time when our actual freedoms to govern ourselves and defend our sovereignty and independence are curtailed. This amount to dictating: “Pakistanis must not govern their lives with an interpretation of religion that is not approved by Washington, just as Islamabad must not govern Pakistan with a national or international policy which is not approved by Washington.”

Under the acceptable-to-Washington free Pakistan, our government would be free to arrange and pay for a 14-year daughter to have an abortion, and conspire to keep it secret from her parents. The parents would not praise their government for this kind of freedom if they are following true interpretation of Islam. By that standard, the cultural domination is incomplete. What the American analysts call “a battle for hearts and minds of masses” is also incomplete. Yet our government is enslaved. We are occupied and our independence curtailed in other ways, which many of us may not even realise.

An axiom says, “when a people believe they are oppressed they are oppressed.” Of course we, whom they call “repressed” and “partly free”, are not free to be animals. We, in fact, are free to be human. But we are not free to act as a free nation. The question is: Are we independent in real sense?

Is Pakistan a sovereign state?

As there are growing signs that the United States-led “war on terrorism” is broadening into Pakistan and military operations are being carried out by the US and other coalition forces on Pakistani territory, with or without the consent of the Pakistani authorities, interesting questions are being raised about Pakistan's sovereignty. Earlier, Pakistan's grant of four military bases to the US and the increasing influence of the US over national policy-making in Islamabad had raised growing Occupied Pakistan concerns among Pakistanis. These developments have led to a dilemma regarding a clash between Pakistan's national security policies and sovereignty.

This development has a little longer history and is self-generated. Since the end of the Cold War, the Pakistani ruling classes in search of personal survival have been inadvertently undermining the sovereignty of the state itself. The basic principles for which the covert war against Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was fully supported by the Pakistani state have been sacrificed one by one in the name of achieving the objectives of national security.

The US started considering the Cold War structures, both at the ideological and material level, as a threat to its interests as well as to the survival of Pakistan. Even before September 11, many Pakistani analysts expressed concern over these ominous developments. The current ruling regime had also sensed the trajectory of these developments. The military establishment had for some time been divided over turning Pakistan into a secular state, closing religious institutions in the name of curbing sectarian violence and banning various religious parties and groups.

And yet, many analysts were taken by surprise when General Pervez Musharraf abandoned the Taliban as the US put him on notice after the September 11. He had been trying for some time to distance himself from the Taliban and curb the powers of some of the Islamic groups at home. That divorce was not possible without force. His earlier attempts at secularising the state and prolonging his rule were an indication that he needed a pretext. September 11 provided him that pretext, support and legitimacy to carry out with force what his internal reforms were supposed to have done — i.e., to turn Pakistan into a secular state without any external sovereignty at all.

To find out if we are independent in real sense, we need to have a look at the 55 years of our existence and compare the situation our forefathers faced under British occupation with the reality we are facing under American occupation today -- particularly after its consummation since
September 11, 2001.

Putting facts in historical perspective may help those who still disagree to consider Pakistan an occupied state. The following discourse would also make clear that establishing military bases in Pakistan and conducting operations without even informing the government are not the only ways to interference in internal affairs, there are many hidden forces and plans at work, which actually consolidate occupation of Pakistan.

Content

Introduction

Fifty-five Years Ago

A Simple Question

Reasons for British Leaving India

British Tactics for Consolidating Occupation
a. Sectarianism
b. Regional and linguistic Feudal system
c. British education

Supporting factors: Differences among religious leaders
One Point of View

Second Point of View

Effects of the Difference in Opinion

Our Forefather’s Response to British Tactics

Targeting Curriculum of Maddaris

Targets Under American Occupation

Target: Madrassa, Jihad or Our Identity?

US Forces in Pakistan

Pak Army vs. Pakistan

Consolidating Occupation

Conclusion: A half-dead Nation Fully Occupied

Solution