Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Who elso but the Army?

The current political scenario in Pakistan seems to be a football amongst a few feudal-politicians and military. Interestingly, the same people who are opposed to the military are in favor of privately owned militia, because in their opinion, the government has left them no choice but to do so. A typical case of taking up responsibility on you, which has been self-assigned, but since it is not justified; it needs to be pinned on somebody so it becomes defensible.

The people to take most advantage from this situation are the extreme right as well as left. The left are so far left now, that they have taken a u-turn, and are as dogmatic as the right, and to top it all off, both have become so fanatic, that they cannot differentiate between what is right, and what is good any more. Perhaps these tantrums for some are not alarming, but looking at the current situation, and how the generation that moved on to puberty after Zia’s regime ended, has extremism tendencies, I would beg to differ.

The people who, without having any economic pressures, or tensions, take up arms in the name of Jihad or any such declaration, within or outside the state is controversial. More so because in the current trends, a Religious person can easily be labeled as a terrorist but a person with ideals adhering to Socialism will not/cannot be labeled as such.

The question here is, if militarizing or promoting such ideas is wrong for the religious, what makes it right for the Nationalist or Marxists-Leninist to do so. Both are taking up arms, to not just defend their opinion, but also to implement it without any consensus. Where does the difference lie? The only perceptible difference seems to be, that for one party the cause is divine, and for the other it is worldly.

I think I would end this dabble, with the following lines I came up with while surfing online:

Between 1969 and 1973, instability ruled Afghan politics. The parliament was lethargic and deadlocked. Public dissatisfaction over the unstable government prompted growing political polarization as both the left and the right began to attract more members. Still personally popular, the king, Mohammad Zahir Shah (reigned 1933-73), nevertheless came under increasing criticism for not supporting his own prime ministers.

1 comment: