 |
| Dr. Ayesha Siddaqa |
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Interview Part One
(November 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) "This is a place where freaks get together to say and discuss anything under the sun, the moon and the stars. The faint-hearted or who suffer from high temper and anxiety may not join. Other categories not encouraged are those whose sense of political correctness doesn't usually allow them to be at peace with themselves. At a time when authoritarian regimes have found national and international partners and have learnt to control the mind, let's use this technology to stay connected and alive," Dr. Ayesha Siddaqa pointed this out a few months ago.
Ayesha is one of best military analysts in Pakistan who have diversified into other areas as well such as sociology of power politics, Islam and society and civil-military relations in South Asia.
"I am a gypsy writer and a social scientist," she said. She did her Ph.D. in War Studies from king's College, University of London. She also author of few books including (a) Pakistan's Arms Procurement and Military Build-up, 1979-99 In Search of a Policy, and (b) Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy.
In an exclusive interview with the the Sri Lanka Guardian, Dr. Siddaqa talks on current political and military trends in Pakistan as well as in Sri Lanka.
QUESTION: Please let us know your observation on present situation in Pakistan?
ANSWER: Like other states, especially in South Asia, Pakistan's present and future is defined by its past. The character of powerful stakeholders, their competing interests and relationship with each other have an impact on the state of the state. The country is a post-colonial state ruled by a predatory elite and constantly struggling to find a stable political path. This means that Pakistan at present is and will remain a weak democracy. The military no longer directly controls the state but that does not mean that it is powerless. The army decides all strategic matters pertaining to defense, national security, foreign policy, etc. The military just sits at the backseat, controlling the affairs of the state. Given the incompetence of the politicians and lack of vision, this situation is not likely to change. Another issue where we will not see a change either is Pakistan's relations with India which will remain hostile for the foreseeable future. The nature of the civil-military conflict and myopia of the ruling elite is creating continued instability in the country. We are in a whirlpool from where we seem unable to emerge.
Q. Now that the LTTE has been defeated militarily, the Tigers no longer exist according to the Sri Lankan Government, and the general who led the country to its historic victory has now been arrested by the very government he used to work for after he ran as an opposition candidate in recent presidential election, what do you think of the post-War situation in Sri Lanka?
A. On the surface, not allowing General Fonseka to contest elections looks like a good idea. But the decision is more about the political and personal greed of the political masters and the present regime. It was equally responsible for the human rights atrocities. Is the current leadership able to bring peace and reconciliation between the different communities? I don’t think so. Pakistan and Sri Lanka are similar. Both have a predatory ruling elite. This means a leadership which thinks mainly in terms of short term goals rather than long term objectives. Winning a military conflict is a short term goal but integrating a community to make a wholesome well-connected society is a long term goal that the Sri Lankan leadership is unable to achieve.
Personally, I have seen Sri Lanka change. The first time I visited Sri Lanka was in the summer of 1977, the year ethnic trouble started. But it was still relatively peaceful. Beaches were pristine and the level of education and communication of ordinary people was impressive. Even the beggars used to read English newspapers. Later, I re-visited Sri Lanka in 1996 and have been going there every year until my last visit, which was a longer stay, in 2006. The difference between the Sri Lanka of 1977 and 2006 is phenomenal. People find it harder to communicate in English and are becoming increasingly parochial. Changing the language from English to Sinhalese was a myopic decision and represents the predatory mindset of the ruling elite. This basically means that the leadership has limited capacity to repair the wounds which they have struck themselves.
Winning the conflict primarily means winning hearts and minds in Tamil dominated areas and giving the ethnic minority and other political groups a sense of ownership. I don't think that the present leadership has the capacity to bridge the divide within the society.
Q. When the military is used to circumvent the rule of law in a nation, how, from a practical perspective does this affect the basic freedoms of the citizens?
A. Of course, using the military internally is harmful from a human rights perspective. However, there are times when a state has to use oppression. We have to be carefully in understanding and analyzing the impact of the use of military by the state. A military, anywhere in the world, is the highest form of oppression that must be avoided. In South Asia there is a tendency to use military as a policy tool to solve internal conflicts. But this always exacerbates conflicts. Sri Lanka's problem is complex because here the politicians have opted to use the military as a tool of violence to solve political issues. Politicians often forget that allowing the military to use violence will eventually empower it and will be detrimental to the state and its political system.
Q. Do you think the current political situation in Sri Lanka is a sustainable one?
A. I haven't visited Sri Lanka after 2006 but what one sees through the media, winning the battle is less than half a victory. There must be a plan for socio-political appeasement. The Sinhala majority should show patience and tolerance in offering the Tamil minority greater political space. Without such voluntary concessions and effort at truth and reconciliation, things will not takeoff.
Q. It’s obvious that the Government of Pakistan provided a great deal of help to Sri Lanka during the War and some reports go so far as to claim that a small number of Pakistani Air Force pilots participated in air raids against the Tamil Tigers. How do you see Sri Lanka/Pakistan military relations, and do these claims of Pakistani and Sri Lankan military personnel fighting alongside each other have merit?
A. Pakistan helped the Sri Lankan state for three reasons. First, increasing Pakistan's ability to participate in South Asian politics and posing itself as a counter-balance to India. Second: increasing its nuisance value in the region. Third: fighting Tamil militant forces which are considered a product of Indian intelligence agencies. A very minor objective may also be marketing and selling its locally produced weapons. I would say a better role would have been to put diplomatic pressure on the Tamils as well as the Sinhalese state in Colombo to negotiate peace. Sadly, while the Sri Lankan government has good ties with Islamabad, the same cannot be said about the majority of Tamil people who will always consider Pakistan as the culprit.
To be continued.....
 "This is a place w...){kind=link}
Post a Comment