Chasing the Mirage of Security Through Guns in Neo-liberal Pakistan: Implications for Human Security

Mohammad Azaharuddin Ansari¹, Mohammad Shahid²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, K. N. Government P. G. College, Gyanpur,

Bhadohi (U.P.) (Enrolled as Research Scholar in Department of Political Science, University of Allahabad)

²Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj (U.P.)

*Corresponding Author E-mail:

ABSTRACT:

Security is a hot as well as engaging topic in both academia and policy making domains. However, there is little consensus regarding its meaning and contour. It is different things to different people. Security has traditionally been defined and perceived in purely military terms and accordingly has been equated with to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state from both internal threat and external aggression. This interpretation of security has been dominant in international relations during entire span of the Cold War. Nevertheless, last decade of the 20^th century saw a sea change in meaning of security. The concept of security was broadened to include non-conventional threats therefore a entirely new concept of security emerged that is known as human security. Traditional national security was regarded ineffective and inadequate to deal with non-conventional threats. Pakistan, on the contrary still perceived security in conventional terms. Perceiving security in purely military terms could not achieve desired outcome rather it has negatively affected security of Pakistan. This paper contends that Pakistan’s tryst with neo-liberal economic policies has added fuel to the fire. Pakistan’s adoption of neo-liberal economic policies and obsession with military security have made Pakistan more insecure than it was 70 years ago. This paper seek to explain how Pakistan’s obsession with military security to achieve security becomes a mirage and chasing this mirage of security has adversely affected security environment in Pakistan.

KEYWORDS: Neo-liberal economic policies, human security, development, military security.

INTRODUCTION:

In the last phase of the 1980s Pakistan began to liberalize its economy like most third world countries, and implemented Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) prescribed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. This is the reason why this period, in the history of political economy of Pakistan, is dubbed as “the period of neo-liberalism”. Under the pressure of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, every successive government of Pakistan, irrespective of ideological conviction, have implemented enthusiastically neo-liberal economic policies to make Pakistan’s economy stable and viable. As we know that neo-liberal economic policies call for several measures i.e. trade liberalization, privatization, deregulation, cut in welfare expenditure and so on. These prescriptions of neo-liberalism are very controversial due to producing entirely adverse consequences. Particularly, it is often condemned for worsening the condition of the poor.

What does it mean by above mentioned policy prescriptions for a society like of Pakistan is evident. Let us take privatization first. After the coming of Benazir Bhutto to throne in 1988, every government of Pakistan has been embarked on massive privatization drive. In a country like Pakistan, this policy of privatization has several ramifications for human security. Due to following the mirage of national security, socio-economic issues in Pakistan remained unresolved and, in this condition, neo-liberal economic policies are proved detrimental to human security and survival. For Pakistan, privatization means making deprived people more deprived, nothing more than this. Since market forces are profit driven, they are not driven by social welfare. Basic needs of a common man like food, housing, health, education etc. are handed over to the market. Market delivers these products and services to those who have money to buy it. Thus, due to massive poverty and underdevelopment deprived men are left to die or to be more deprived.

Apart from this, privatization is notorious for one more thing that is often ignored. Any claim that privatization is required to make economic condition of a country healthy is disputable. It is marred by several controversies surrounding it. What makes privatization a political issue is worthy to deconstruct. In an age in which the corporate is ruling the world, privatization is often seen as an important tool in the hands of political elite to make their “corporate bosses” happy. In modern democracy, what Colin Crouch has said “post-democracy” there is a vicious nexus composed of the corporate, the political elite and the bureaucracy or the military. Each stakeholder of this nexus works for mutual benefit. They do what are mutually beneficial. The corporate provides huge fund needed for political campaigning, in turn political elite pay their debt in several ways. The Pakistani state is historically unable to ensure its presence with its welfare schemes and this condition, as we will see, has continuously been deteriorated due to Pakistan’s obsession with narrowly defined national security. Now in this context, it would be interesting to see that what these neo-liberal economic policies have added to that plight of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Tryst with Neo-liberalism

The decade of 1990s witnessed a sea change in international arena. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, an era came to an end. The dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) and the end of the Cold War was applauded as “the triumph of capitalism and liberal democracy”. The End of History thesis declared the demise of Communism and marked that point of history as the final destination humanity had been searching for millennia. The end of the Cold War spurred the process of globalization. It is important here to note that it is wrong to say that the process of globalization started with the end of the bi-polar international system. In reality, globalization is an old phenomenon and what is new is its intensity and extent. At that time, most of the third world economies were suffering from several challenges i.e. inadequate foreign reserve, wide trade deficit, debt, rocketing inflation, unemployment etc. All these evils were credited, by neoliberal thinkers, to the planned economy adopted by these countries. In that time of crisis, neo-liberalism, an advance stage of free market capitalism, was introduced as panacea of all these evils. In this connection, these economies resorted, willingly or unwillingly, to free market based economy.

Pakistan too was not exception to that trend. Following the credo of neo-liberal philosophy, Pakistan also decided to liberalize its door and to follow the harsh conditions laid down by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Since then every successive government, have been implementing neo-liberal economic policies. In Pakistan, a dedicated organisation named the Privatization Commission was established in 1993 and a full-fledged Privatization ministry was established in 2017 to implement government’s privatization agenda.¹ All these steps have been taken and implemented in the name of stability and economic reforms. But far from meeting its presumed ends, neo-liberal economic policies have been proved detrimental not just to its economy but also to human security and development. Pakistan is trapped in a seemingly unending vicious cycle of underdevelopment. Since the 1980s Pakistan frequently knocked the door of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for bailout.

As we have discussed earlier that Pakistan started its journey with meagre infrastructure therefore necessity of a developmental or welfare state was a need of the hour. Unfortunately soon after the birth of Pakistan, military took over its leadership. Under the military rule, particularly under General Ayub Khan (second president of Pakistan) rule (1958-1969) Pakistan subscribed laissez-faire policies and began massive privatisation drive. General Ayub Khan Government privatised state-owned industries and liberalised Pakistan economy. That privatisation and liberalisation brought flux of foreign investment that made the country one of the fastest growing economy of the South Asia. Often the tenure of Ayub khan is cited as the era of most exponential growth experienced by the country. However, it is worth to mention here it was the same period when economic inequality was at its peak. This could be validated by the fact that according to an estimate, in 1968 some 22 richest families controlled 66% of the country’s industrial resources and owned 87% share in the country’s banking and insurance industry.²

After the short span of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s socialist government, the first democratically elected government of Pakistan, country saw its second military coup d'état. The military under the leadership of General Zia-ul Haq (1977-1988), again came to the throne and it was the last phase of the 1980s when Pakistan boarded on massive privatisation programmes. However, officially Pakistan adopted neo-liberal economic policies in 1988 by the Benazir Government. It was the first spell of Nawaz Sharif Government (1990-1993) which is credited with launching a massive privatization drive. During the 1980s and 1990s Pakistan began to negotiate with the international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank for financial aid. Several measures like liberalisation, privatisation, financial austerity, reducing fiscal deficit, tax and labour law reforms were prescribe by the IMF and the World Bank as the precondition for financial loans and aids. All these policy measures were executed under the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). It is important to note here that these policy measures prescribed by the IMF and the World Bank made Pakistan a neo-liberal state. Becoming a neo-liberal state has several ramifications for Pakistan. What is our consideration is how a neo-liberal state affects its own security as well as its people security.

Pakistan’s Obsession with Security

Noted political philosopher Thomas Hobbes is quoted to have said that “Fear and I were born twins” Thomas Hobbes said it because he was born into a very uneasy environment i.e. civil war, anarchy and fear of external aggression. That environmental factors into which Hobbes was born left lifelong impact on his entire academic work and personality. The same can be said about Pakistan. From the very birth, Pakistan found itself surrounded by numerous existential threats. Birth of Pakistan coincided with a limited war with India (1948) over Kashmir dispute, strained relationship with another neighbour country, namely Afghanistan on Pakhtuns’ question, issues related to ethnic conflict and nation building and last but not the least, the Cold War. These were the environmental factors that collectively determined the future of Pakistan. These issues were perceived by the Pakistan elite as threat to newly born country. We can say that these issues made Pakistan to be obsessed with security and survival concern. Therefore, it is not without any reason that Pakistan, from its very birth, opted guns over butter to start its journey. The concern of national security got top-most priority and early power elite decided, accordingly, to invest huge amount of resources to build a robust defence. In contrast, the parent country, India decided to overcome developmental issues and todays different trajectories of both countries can be substantiated by it.

How Pakistan Defines Security

Ever since the country’s birth, Pakistan has been suffering from identity crisis. Identity is a mental construct and essentially a referential concept. It means identity is constructed in reference to any other identity (ies). Pakistan’s identity crisis can be elaborated best with the help of the Two Nation theory. Demand for Pakistan as a separate homeland for South Asian Muslims, was made on the basis of the Two Nation theory. The seed of Pakistan’s existential crisis can be found in the very Two Nation theory. The Muslim League, vanguard of Pakistan movement, claimed that Hindus and Muslims are inherently two distinct nations because they belong to distinct traditions, cultural values, belief system and of course most importantly religions. This separateness was said to be irreconcilable and due to this reason these two nations cannot live together peacefully and without subordination-hegemony. The Muslim league claimed that the interest of the Muslims would be secured only in an independent land, the land of the pure. Thus, the Two Nation theory is like bedrock on which entire edifice of Pakistan was tried to erect. Islam was decided to use as cohesive force and as such the identity was tried to construct in the framework of Islamic Pakistan versus Hindu India. What is pertinent to mention here regarding Pakistan’s existential crisis is that the Two Nation theory by default, needs a hostile India. That is the reason why Pakistani ruling elite decided, as noted historian Mubarak Ali says that “to assert the permanence of the Two Nation theory in which case Pakistan was likely to permanently need India as am essential reference for its nationhood, and a raison d’être for its existence”³ Interestingly, the Two Nation theory led the separation of East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh).

A limited war with India barely two months after partition, Pakhtuns issue, Afghanistan’s irredentist claims, and demand for equality, shared prosperity and greater autonomy in East Pakistan (which later translated into campaign for secession) convinced early Pakistani rulers that “Pakistan survival was vitally linked with the establishment of a well-trained, well occupied and well-led army.”⁴ This conviction of early Pakistani rulers can also be substantiated by a national radio broadcast aired on 8 October 1948 by then Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in which he proclaimed, “The defence of the state is our foremost consideration. It dominates all other government activities. We will not grudge any amount on the defence of our country”.⁵ Again his successor, Muhammad Ali Bogra (Prime Minister 1953-1955) declared in August 1953 that “He would much rather starve country than allow any weakening of its defence.”⁶ What is a permanent feature of Pakistan’s national security policy is its being exclusively India-centric. Pakistan has been defining itself in contrast to a country which is far larger than it in terms of military strength, population, resources, economic status, and so on. Such venture gave Pakistani ruling elite a sense of insecurity. This insecurity complex further fanned by India’s right wing chauvinistic rhetoric at times. To counter the perceived threat from India, Pakistan has been striving for parity with India and chose armament. Military’s central role in Pakistan domestic politics as well as in relation to security policy is logical consequence of this policy.

Apart from being India-centric, Pakistan defines its security in terms of military capabilities vis-à-vis India. Macro security referent objects i.e. territorial Integrity and sovereignty are at the centre of the Pakistan’s national security policy. In other words, security and defence become synonymous to each other. Nowhere, human being and his/her wellness find place in security policy. In that sense, exactly, Pakistan has been described as a perfect example of the garrison state. The macro security referent objects like territorial Integrity and sovereignty provide huge amount of nation’s resources as well as power to the Pakistan army. This very fact paves the way for the army to claim and use unquestionable and unrestricted power in the name of national security. Putting exclusively macro security referent object into security consideration proves very costly for people of Pakistan. In this paradigm, nation or national security is considered to be paramount that must be protected at any cost, even by tweaking democratic institutions and rule of law.⁷ People’s security as an independent priority is not accepted rather it is axiomatically subsumed in narrowly defined national security. However, in reality, this is not the case. We have numerous studies and historical experiences which show that there is no direct relationship between narrowly defined national security (military security) on the one hand, and human security on the other. The inter-state wars, particularly after the end of the Cold War, have been declining. On the contrary, during the same period intra-state conflicts and cases of civil strife are increasing in alarming ways.

How Security Becomes a Mirage for Pakistan

We have seen that how Pakistan defines its security in purely military terms and strives to achieve it. Ever since Pakistan came into being, she has been pursuing security through investing huge resources lopsidedly in defence. Developmental issues were either ignored or little attention was paid. Pakistan has been committing mistake in seeking stability and peace through military might. There is no doubt that Pakistan has a robust military mechanism but peace and stability are still a pipedream for Pakistan. It is a paradox that the more Pakistan strengthens its army the more insecure it becomes. In this sense, security becomes a mirage for Pakistan that is pursued by it but without any fruit. Today’s Pakistan is as much as insecure as it was 70 years ago. The million dollar question is why this is so. We have seen in above sections that from the very beginning Pakistan has been very determined regarding most important policy aim that is nothing but to protect Pakistan from internal threats and external aggressions. Despite of being militarily strong and being secure from conventional security threat, Pakistan is very susceptible and vulnerable at non-conventional threats’ front. Pakistan has been historically committing mistake in viewing every issue from the military’s perspective. A renowned Pakistani economist, Kaiser Bengali has aptly said that “Pakistan is a national security state where national security, not development, is the main objective of the state. ‘National’ is being increasingly defined narrowly from the perspective of the military. What the military thinks is national security is national security, and to the military, the military is national.”⁸

Due to circumstantial causes Pakistan preferred guns over butter that resulted in unaddressed developmental issues which are still haunting Pakistan. Developmental issues were paid relatively less attention in both policy making domain and in political discourse. Underdevelopment and unfinished task of nation building are now threatening Pakistan in unprecedented way. Issues like demand for greater democracy, freedom, and autonomy have been mistakenly perceived as threat to security of Pakistan and have been dealt accordingly with military solution. This is nothing but a natural consequence of seeing every issue that causes discomfort to power establishment from the military point of view. The East Bengal conundrum which was purely a political problem that could be easily resolved through political and democratic means is a perfect example. Nevertheless, Pakistan did not learn anything from that tragic blunder. In reality, firstly, issues like demand for greater autonomy, share in development, rights, and democracy are not security threat and secondly, all these issues are fundamentally political in nature. And political problems demand political solutions.

How Neo-liberalism Poses Threat to Human Security

Sometimes what is considered to be a remedy or panacea becomes Frankenstein itself. The same is true to neo-liberal economic policies. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR was applauded as triumph of capitalism over communism. By the end of 1980s and particularly after the fall of the USSR, there was a surge in third world countries that began to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Pakistan also adopted these neo-liberal economic policies to overcome underdevelopment challenges. However, far from meeting the desired expectations, these economic policies proved to be a catastrophe for the “land of the pure”. It bought contrary and uncountable consequences to door. How this happened would be discussed in coming lines.

Pakistan began its journey with meagre infrastructure i.e. factories, highways, transportation, electrification etc.. On the other hand what was to be known as Pakistan was also home of world’s most poor and underdevelopment. The ground reality required a state that could pull its people out of the quagmire of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, homelessness etc. In other words, after coming into being Pakistan needed a developmental state, a state that can reach to its people with social welfare scheme and vast web of affirmative actions. At the time of birth of Pakistan, there were so many existential threats to newly born country. Thus there was a dilemma before the Pakistan elite, the dilemma of making choice between butter and guns. The power elite of Pakistan, by preferring guns over butter, decided to make Pakistan a garrison state. One more important factor that determined the early trajectory as well as future prospect of Pakistan was demise of the father of nation, Muhammad Ali Jinnah immediately after birth of Pakistan. It created a vacuum like situation in political leadership of Pakistan. Loss of the supreme leader of a new-born country fanned political opportunism in the vanguard of the Pakistan movement, the Muslim League.

Early demise of the influential leaders of Pakistan like Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan (first Prime Minister of Pakistan that was assassinated in October 1951) led to strife and disintegration not only in the Muslim League but also in entire political spectrum of Pakistan. Absence of consensus in political leadership can be clearly seen in excessive delay in the making and delivering the constitution for newly born country. After the disappearance of prominent political figures from political horizon, most of the Muslim League figures were unknown to the people residing in area what constituted Pakistan. The political leaders had no grassroots support and public appeal. Thus, there was a huge disconnect between people and political leadership which ultimately hampered the process of nation and state building. Vacuum in political leadership paved the way for naked opportunism and struggle for power. Such condition encouraged the military as well as bureaucracy to blame political leadership for the plight of Pakistan. This was a golden opportunity for military establishment and bureaucracy to usurp and consolidate power into their hands and present themselves as the true saviour or guardian of “the land of the pure”. Due to opportunism and inefficiency in political leaders, military and bureaucracy forged a nexus which gave a decisive direction to Pakistan. That nexus raised question over the intention of political leadership and political leaders were held accountable for making a newly born country weak and vulnerable. Legitimacy of democratic institutions and political leadership began to erode.

As we have mentioned above that historically Pakistan has been witnessing massive poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, social exclusion, inequality, miserable health infrastructure etc. All these evils halted the process of nation building as well as state building. Despite of having these issues, Pakistan’s tryst with neo-liberal economic policies proved as adding fuel to the fire. Neo-liberal economic policies demand retreat of state from public sphere and call for non-intervention on the part of the state in the functioning of market. It means, market, not the state is entrusted to deliver all those public services that are supposed to be delivered by the state in a welfare state system. Retreat of state from public sphere and privatisation of public services affected penetrative and extractive capacity of the Pakistani state. Ineffective penetration of the state into every corner of the country has gravely affected the legitimacy of the state. The claim by the Pakistani state of having monopoly over the use of violence is heavily contested. Apart from this, liberalisation, privatisation and inability of the state to deliver basic needs to its people have created a vacuum like situation. Such vacuum paved the ways for mushrooming and flourishing several non-state actors which are now challenging the state authority.

In a country like Pakistan, neo-liberal economic policies prepare fertile land to fundamentalism, extremism and violence and these evils, in turn threaten human security. Several public services like education, health, shelter, food, rehabilitation etc. are delivered to most vulnerable people of Pakistan by so many extremist outfits. Such extremist outfits, due to their philanthropic/charity services enjoy comfortable public legitimacy in Pakistan. In societies such as Pakistan, where philanthropy is part of religious obligations, extremist organizations engage in charity and welfare work, collecting hefty amounts and ‘blackwashing’ such money for recruitment, propaganda and terrorist operations.⁹ What I am trying to say that if violent extremist outfits in Pakistan enjoy public support and legitimacy it is all because of inability of the state to deliver those basic public services to its citizens which are supposed to be delivered by a welfare state. Beneficiaries of the services delivered by extremist groups naturally have sympathy with such organisations. This is the very these extremist groups that pose severe threat to human security in Pakistan. In the last analysis we can say that neo-liberal economic policies have given birth so many factors that are themselves a threat to state security as well as human security in Pakistan.

CONCLUSION:

In 21^st century there are several non-conventional threats to human security like poverty, inequality, unemployment, human rights abuse, terrorism, pandemics, environmental degradation, global warming etc. which are threatening not only security of a particular country but also of entire humanity. In such scenario, wherein non-conventional threats to human security have become more predominant, obsession with military security would be surely disastrous. Endeavour to achieve security with solely through augmenting military capabilities is necessarily made security a mirage that can never be achieved. Despite having a robust military power, Pakistan is as much insecure as it was 70 years ago and this is due to relying lopsidedly on guns over butter. Neo-liberal economic policies added fuel to the fire. Directly or indirectly these policies have prepared a fertile land for the emergence and flourishing of so many extremist and violent outfits. And we know that these outfits are the most immediate and biggest threat to human security in Pakistan. In the final analysis, we can say that human security requires a state which may deliver basic needs to its people through a vast web of affirmative actions and social welfare policies. Policy of relying solely on guns for security is destined to fail.

REFERENCES

1. Moazzem Hossain, Rajat Kathuria, Iyanatul Islam. South Asian Economic Development. Second ed. (New York: Routledge) 2010, 95.

2. Dilawar Hussain, ‘People who own greatest amount of wealth’ Dawn, December 9, 2007. https://www.dawn.com/news/279413/people-who-own-greatest-amount-of-wealth#:~:text=On%20April%2021%2C%201968%2C%20Dr,country%27s%20banking%20and%20insurance%20industry.

3. Mubarak Ali, Pakistan in Search of Identity (Islamabad: Dost Publications, 2009), 8.

4. Mohammad Ayub Khan, Friends, Not Masters: A Political Autobiography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967). 21.

5. Paul M. McGarr, The Cold War in South Asia: Britain, the United States and the Indian Subcontinent, 1945-1965 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 21.

6. Hasan Askari Rizvi, Military, State and Society in Pakistan (Great Britain: Macmilan Press LTD, 2000), 62.

7. ‘34 Baloch civilians abducted by Pakistan security forces in 10 days’ The Print, February 12, 2022. https://theprint.in/world/34-baloch-civilians-abducted-by-pakistan-security-forces-in-10-days/828910/

8. Syed Farooq Hasnat, Global Security Watch – Pakistan (Oxford, England: Praeger, 2011), 54.

9. Mohammad Ali Babakhel, ‘Funding terrorism’ Dawn, December 30, 2015. https://www.dawn.com/news/1229473

Received on 14.09.2022 Modified on 07.10.2022

Int. J. Ad. Social Sciences. 2022; 10(3):125-130.