Pakistan as instrument

I have been following firedoglake's coverage of the Libby trial, and sometimes they have articles on the war in general.  One comment on one of these articles has inspired me to discuss something I've noticed from time to time about American liberals and their solution to the problems they feel have been posed by the War on Terror, whose premises they frequently accept, albeit with a more coolly managerial and perhaps more human perspective than the conveniently panicked American right.

We resume our fight with those who wish us harm, but now that our fearless leader and W too have no credibility left, doing battle in Pakistan without toppling that regime may be impossible.

I had a similar feeling not long ago when I saw this user diary post on dKos which discussed Pakistan as a "strategic conundrum".  I felt the need to contribute to that thread, actually, which is strange because it wasn't a particularly well-read diary entry as dKos threads tend to go, it seems.

What is this feeling?  It is the feeling that the same attitude it taken towards Pakistan as is taken towards Iraq, perhaps worse, in fact, except in this case it is the American liberal grassroots and/or establishment that holds it: Pakistan as an instrument to be valued in terms of its utility to US foreign policy goals.  Formenting external revolution and proposing regime overthrow and national breakup are casually bandied about as though foreigners have the right to make that decision.  But Pakistan is a complex industrial society, and while its present political arrangement is deeply problematic, that form of external destabilization would be just as catastrophic as anything one might see in Iraq---perhaps worse.

It's true: I cannot but take this personally, as I have been there and know its nefarious elite class and its delicate political balance, as well as the curious exuberance of the Karachi megalometropolis and its prosperity and poverty.

But I cannot also help wonder how much it is that Pakistan suffers from the reverse effect of the fetishization of South Asian culture and religion that often happens in the West, and---perhaps I am unfairly stereotyping---among Western liberals who have fond memories of their younger days and their dabblements in Eastern spirituality.  Pakistan is cast in this drama as wise, cheerful India's grim, angry sister, even though many of the pathologies of both countries are the same pathologies.  Aspects of Western culture have seen India and Indian life as a fun, entertaining culture that makes a too-easy contrast with the threatening Other of Islam in South Asia.  In so far as Islamic spirituality reaches the west in this manner, it is a bland version of Sufism that serves as a second-order foil on the Muslim orthopraxy common to the vast majority of Muslim lifestyles and political perspectives.

(And the Indian government and media shows no qualms about exploiting this.  Here's a direct link to the Goodness Gracious Me episode segment that AradhanaD linked to---the second skit is indicative of the dynamic.)

So I fear this cultural dynamic as well as frustration with the complexity of the situation may impel otherwise well-intentioned people to support precipitous actions regarding Pakistan and its unity and stability. 

Comments

[AradhanaD]

hmmm... Not sure about the tie in with the GGM episode (it's indo-brit) - and if any thing I think they are laughing at the western fetish with "indian spirituality" when a lot of it is just really all about cashing in on capitalism ala modern 'gurus' like Deepak Chopra... yuckers. (is that what you were trying to say though?)

I think you are on to something very interesting though. Another part of that of course is the hindu-indian expat and their belief that India is truly the land of spiritualism. Ever hear Hindus (I am one of course - atheist though), go "the problem with Hindu's is that they don't have 'balls'".

This stereotype does work as a mask in that sense. A type of 'symbolic' mask created by western interests to keep hindus from 'collaborating' in the west to overcome socio-political problems (added to this is 'model-minoritie-ism') - while funding their zealousness for 'causes in the east'. I.e. "Hindus become nice over here and therefore are allies when needed because they aren't 'fundamentalists'. So the stereotype of peace-loving hindus keeps hindus in check (coupled with immigration laws that aims to allow only 'useful' indians into the country). They are nice people, civilized/ancient/cultured. Pakistan of course then becomes the country with the REAL problems and harbours the world's afghan training hotbed for 'religious indoctrination' (Islam of course is dogmatic while Hinduism is 'effeminate and spiritual' ala yoga, 8-armed gods and herbal teas). This of course is internalized by Hindus who really don't believe the US is their 'country anyways' so they go ahead and fund the VHP causes 'back home' to of course get rid of the Muslims who 'don't belong there' despite their minority status in India. Because Islam is a 'bad religion' everywhere - Hindus eat this stereotype up - (thanks to colonialism and further divisions along those lines) further their own right-wing ideologies".

And yes, I know this is overly simplistic... but thought if you were just talking about stereotypes - that might be something to add to the bag. Don't know if I'm making sense.

[Mandos]

That is indeed what I meant by the reference to GGM. The guru there is happily raking in this kind of attention and the adulation and money of the European dupes around him. I kind of see the Indian government that way. In airports, you see these TV ads for the "Incredible India" tourism marketng campaign, and it's all, like, saffron fumes and yoga in the pool in front of the Taj Mahal (!!!).

And the rest of what you say makes perfect sense, too.

[Adorable Girlfriend]

I know someone who had a guru. She's a complete quack. Quack. She makes it hard for me to not laugh everytime I read or hear the word 'guru' these days. It's funny how one can make that happen. Like how W can ruin an entire nation and do so without the blessing of most leftists in America. It's like we don't count and he laughs everytime he reads "leftist".

[AradhanaD]

Mandos, I hear you brother - they even made this tacky-ass movie called "Mystic India" -- oh, yawn - how early 19th century really...

Let's forget about the little 'homemade bomb that only blew up 65 ppl who were heading to pakistan today' it makes for bad tourism.

[AradhanaD]

Quote: That is indeed what I meant by the reference to GGM. The guru there is happily raking in this kind of attention and the adulation and money of the European dupes around him. /End

I wanted to add though, in the west, it's not that these sadhus etc just 'dupe' westerners. It's the only way these westerners 'take hinduism' seriously (the reality of course is no real threat to them - because danger happens 'over there' not here)... It's kind of a role given to hindus too, and it of course fulfills a niche. A lot of this 'mysticism' is an internalized colonial legacy. People with more money who, like the beatles etc... want to be 'duped' do so because well, they are looking for something 'other-wordly'... they kind of half-call the shots because of their power/privilege. I highly doubt they'd take a radical lesbian seperatist from india seriously either - only of course if she filled a void in the news-generation machine.

It's a double edged sword too - you hear white ppl talking about visiting this mystical india, and when they do - they comment on the poverty, the caste system, the disparaging gap between the rich and the poor - and WHY ARE THESE RICH PPL NOT HELPING THE POOR ANYWAYS (of course the majority of the rich in the US help the poor too don't they)? Etc... At the end of the day - they kind of define these stereotypes for us. The indian government's advertising in this whole bit, is of course the only way to attract the white colonial imagination (and money of course).

It's odd how Gandhi ended up playing upon this too - despite his british education. Of course we can argue that he became a 'hindu-symbol' so that the ppl took him seriously. But of course, the ppl took Nehru seriously too (Nehru of course being, the proudly 'civilized' man who was 'refined' opposite of what Gandhi became). So I wonder how much of his decision wasn't just to embody/reclaim this stereotype from the brits. Personify their imagination of the passive while not being 'passive'. We'll never know will we, I guess...