Clash of security paradigms
Shahid Alam reflects on the state of a state
"…THE leading contributor to insecurity is the injustice inherent in the idea of development. As a leading development economist, Gerald Meier puts it, the idea of development was developed 'by colonial economics out of political expediency'." These words fairly sum up the contents of Pakistan: Haunting Shadows of Human Security, a profound study of an enigmatic country, thoughtfully and logically edited by Jennifer Bennett. The book is an output of a three-year regional collaborative project on Human Security in South Asia, conducted by the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIIS). From a number of standpoints, including, crucially, the lines we began with, several of its findings are relevant to the experience of Bangladesh. The volume is made up of seven chapters written by assorted authors: chronologically, they are, "Introduction" by Jennifer Bennett, "Governance, Democracy and Human Security: Lurking Echoes" by Jennifer Bennett and Maha Jahangir, "Education Reform in Pakistan: Challenges and Prospects" by Pervez Hoodbhoy, "Women, Violence and Rights: The Case of Pakistan" by Jennifer Bennett and Saima Jasam, "Dilemmas of Water and Human Security" by Abrar Kazi, "Pakistan's Food Security: Unnecessary Risks and Potential Prospects" by Najma Sadeque, and "Poverty: The Irony of Development" by Jennifer Bennett and Maha Jahangir. The profoundest is the opening piece, which discusses the meaning of security from two distinct perspectives, and outlines the crux of the arguments presented in the remaining chapters. Bennett astutely spells out the distinction between the two outlooks: "Traditional security is primarily militaristic and state-centric in nature. It emphasizes the importance of territorial integrity, political independence, survivability, and hence, the capability of a state to protect its own citizens. Such security requires the unity and loyalty of the population within the state; even repression has been considered justified if there are threats, real or imagined, to territorial integrity. Human security, on the other hand, is a concept designed to redirect security debates from an exclusively national and military focus toward the daily conditions differently-situated people face in maintaining everyday life and as such, to render them secure…. It embraces two underlying paradigms: firstly, the protection of individuals is a strategic concern for national, as well as, international security; second, security conditions for people's development are not bound to traditional matters of national defence and law and order, rather they encompass all political, economic and social issues enabling a life free from risk and fear." The concept of human security is a relatively recent phenomenon, evolving in the 1970s, and should be an integral part of a nation's security concern, but, as Bennett acknowledges, it runs into formidable roadblocks, and, depressingly, "the dramatic changes provoked by the events of 11 September 2001, on the international scene are likely to undermine the promotion of the human security agenda putting more emphasis back on traditional security matters." Depressing? Absolutely. Reality? Emphatically. Bennett provides the reason why: "In short, the current security paradigms operate or function within the realm of power politics and place the international community's insecurity at the helm of affairs." For the foreseeable future, the rest of the world's human security will only be determined to the extent that the global powers approve of it in their own national interests, while the weaker nations will continue to emphasize human security primarily because they will not be in a position to sway global power politics in ways they might want to. Pakistan is a potent nuclear-armed, military-influenced state, even when civilian governments are in power, and its human security issues usually take a back seat to traditional security concerns. This is an enigmatic country, which almost invites the pursuit of militaristic security due to its geopolitical importance, when the two viewpoints of the concept should not be mutually exclusive in operation for the comprehensive development of the country. "Given the legacy of its colonial past," Bennett observes, "Pakistan has remained fraught with nationalistic, ideological, ethnic and religious daunting since its birth." She highlights the problems that it faces in simultaneously carrying that baggage and paying inordinate attention to military security: "Pakistan's political, economic and social structures provide an outstanding example of a country entrapped in a situation marred by global structural adjustment programmes and liberalization of economics benefiting the rich and adding to the widening disparity between the rich and the poor. The spread of such influence exhibits weak internal political situation of a country which allows unlimited interference of powerful nations, especially the United States, that intervene, determine and design its state politics. Given Pakistan's security policies, which are militaristic in nature, the major chunk of its GNP is expended on upholding its military infrastructure and on paying off debts to the IMF/WB." In the process, its agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors have suffered, and widespread inequity has led to "social strife and rampant violence leading to crime, provincial disharmony, terrorism, trafficking, violence of all kinds, militarism and systematic repression and violation of human rights." Not a pretty picture, and, one may note, several of these dysfunctional elements also plague Bangladesh, and for much the same reasons. For Pakistan, the picture it presents is of a singular blend of rising economic growth and rising poverty. Bennett and Jahangir identify four principal forces that have shaped the state of politics and governance in Pakistan, which, in turn, have generated a situation that makes good governance a trying exercise at the best of times: dictatorship, the military, fundamentalist and ethnic forces and confrontational forces. Probably the most pernicious single factor that has bedeviled Pakistan has been the rise of fundamentalist forces in the country, and former President General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq the person to have given them the impetus to take the country back to medieval times. The extent of his efforts may be seen in their terrible dimension in these lines: "Zia-ul-Haq injected the state with Islamic ideology and introduced several laws and reforms to mould Pakistani society in the light of Islamic principles…. Islamic conceptions and rules of war were incorporated into the teachings at the Pakistan Military academy, where young cadets were indoctrinated with the idea that they were soldiers of Islam. Zia wanted to create a more devout and puritanical army…. Islamisation process had its calibrated use among the ranks of the army." This process had far-reaching influence on empowering the fundamentalist forces to preach, and force, their diktat of a medieval way of life on the rest of the Pakistanis. Pervez Hoodbhoy relates how the formation and government (of Pervez Musharraf) approval of the Agha Khan University Examination Board provoked street demonstrations, with the Jamaat-e-Islami accusing it of possessing a secret agenda to "secularise Pakistan and uproot it from its moral foundations." Hoodbhoy delivers a stringent stricture on Pakistan's education system: "…education is not perceived as vital or central need of Pakistani society." He is understandably crestfallen at the proliferation of, and patronage given to, madrassa education. His thoughts on the subject are worth remembering: "For madrassa education the notion of human progress carries no meaning. Knowledge is considered a set of unchallengeable, immutable, truths…. Questioning of precepts and assumptions is not welcomed; the teaching style is authoritarian, punishment common, and problem-solving minimal. This demand for intellectual docility and unquestioning obedience has particularly destructive consequences for science education." No sane modern person can quibble against his simple prescription to rid Pakistan of this archaic system of education: "It is time to start living in the present rather than inflicting upon students medieval concepts of knowledge, values, and behaviour." The same puritanical Islamisation of laws instituted in full by Zia-ul-Haq, has led to multifarious oppression of women, a topic that Bennett and Jasam deal adequately and in depth. The issue of water as a function of human security is similarly handled competently by Abrar Kazi. The author relates an interesting account in this context, citing Sundeep Waslekar. In 1990, then Brigadier Pervez Musharraf, while training at the Royal College of Defense Studies in London, submitted a dissertation where he suggested that the issue of Indus waters had the "germs of future conflict". For the first time, the idea was propagated that a link existed between water and wars between India and Pakistan over Kashmir (all the five vital tributaries of the Indus river system --- Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej --- originate in Kashmir). A glaring error in the book makes Hubert H. Humphrey President of the United States. Of course, we know that he was Vice President when Lyndon B. Johnson was President. This slip-up aside, important topics on human security are knowledgeably covered in Pakistan: Haunting Shadows of Human Security. The book has relevance to the topic of security issues beyond Pakistan's borders.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments