On Dec. 18, 2010, during a live interview at the Islamabad Press Club, the late Director-General of Pakistan's intelligence services Hamid Gul casually affirmed that “no one becomes the Chief of Army Staff in Pakistan without the U.S.' approval.”
Ever since, every now and then, those words come back to haunt the political and military dispensation in Pakistan. Granted, this accusation is not new. It was always understood by uninhibited political analysts that Pakistan's formidable military rules the roost and to varying levels is in a tug-of-war with the United States hegemony. Of course, the level of influence, or give and take, vis-à-vis the U.S. has always been open for debate. It depends on who is leading the military establishment and how willing the powers are to antagonize their own people to oblige their purported benefactors in pursuit of their interests.
After the removal of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan from power by a dubious vote of no-confidence, this old debate has resurfaced. As such, many are asking “who controls Pakistan?” After all, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu allegedly demanded the removal of Khan.
Since then, the country has been in a dizzying decline – skyrocketing energy prices, economic collapse, an unprecedented level of popular revolt and the worst flooding the country has seen in the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, the circus plays to its own choir while the country plunges into crisis.
Pakistan's current government has charged Khan as a terrorist. What makes this particularly outrageous is that the allegation of terrorism against Pakistan's most popular political leader is led by an illegitimate government, many of whom face serious allegations of financial impropriety and are out on bail. But Khan is not backing down.
American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, in his World-System Theory, describes global order as the unequal distribution of power between the core – mainly the "West," the semi-periphery countries and the periphery countries of the global south.
The reach of the “core” is able to influence the internal political structures of the periphery through locally kept leaders – be they in the political, economic, military, or judicial spheres. This leads to the untiring tussle in every post-colonial society between those who wish to facilitate the emergence of representative governance and those against it. On the one side, there are those who are the facilitators of the empire or the proprietors of the core. They excuse their betrayal with such gobbledygook as “enlightened moderation.” Then, they enrich themselves while lamenting punitive austerity measures on their populace since “beggars cannot be choosers.”
On the other side, there are those who aim to seize the instruments of state power away from those beholden to market fundamentalism or global hegemony. They seek genuine freedom. This unforgiving rivalry is real and goes to the crux of the conflict over state power. It is brutal and further compounded by people of varying interests/motivations vying for their own space. Many do not want to get involved or have lost hope for change. That is, until now.
After being unceremoniously and arguably unlawfully removed from office, Khan has politicized his entire country. Yet, his will, commitment and perseverance have energized people like never before; he has made clear who stands on what side of the political spectrum and his pushback has overwhelmed the deep state.
This privileged class loathes their compatriots and rules only to institutionalize cronyism, inequality and corruption. This rationalization is required in order to purposively obstruct social development, stifle creativity and mock the ethical values and moral moorings of their own people.
A further psychological aspect of these unrepresentative elites and their political cronies is that they embody some of the worst Islamophobic tendencies. It is more insidious since it occurs inside Muslim majority polities and is done by those who ostensibly claim to be Muslims. Despite that, Khan is deftly maneuvering and has swept by-elections in Pakistan's Punjab province by taking 15 out of 20 constituencies and won another by-election in Karachi. This is a remarkable feat and underlines that one can own all the institutions they want, but it is people that matter. If anything, Imran Khan's victory against the deep state, foreign interference and corrupt political parties is stunning.
Concerning Kashmir, there will be no meaningful commitment until a semblance of political stability returns to Pakistan and legitimate representatives wrest power away from those with questionable integrity. Even worse, there are open discussions from the government of Pakistan opening trade links and working on the infamous "Musharraf" (country's former military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf) formula which is essentially maintaining the status quo and accepting the current cease-fire line as a porous border.
It must be recalled that the deep state in India refused this bargain, as well as Kashmiris. Hence, most Kashmiris inside Indian-occupied Kashmir and those working in the diaspora communities recognize that only a free, independent Pakistan will genuinely support its liberation movement. At the same time, the Kashmiri diaspora must develop a sophisticated approach to its global resistance while recognizing Pakistan's internal challenges and redlines without ceding control of the resistance to those who may bargain away their future, as those puppet Rajas (kings) in Pakistan have forsaken their own.
Throughout the broader post-Arab Spring, the Middle East, of which Pakistan is part and parcel, the counter-revolutionary forces operate in conjunction with the deep state and global hegemony. That internal deep state, whether in the form of political parties, judiciary, police or military, undermines the emergence of representative democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Institutions are compromised, parliamentarians are bought, and courts are open at midnight to hear cases and enforce their will over parliamentary supremacy to protect the deep state elites' ill-gotten wealth and dubious fiefdoms.
One could reasonably argue that the deep state looks upon emerging democratic forces that challenge the status quo with both amusement and disdain. It will never willfully forgo the reins of power. However, it will do one better: Make space for emerging political forces to enter the political arena, then slowly undermine them.
In fact, the carrot of giving power is slowly weaponized to strip away at their aura, heighten instability, and spread fake news of "nothing being done." This character assassination is subtle and meant to slowly undermine the emerging recalcitrant political order to make it a spent force. That is happening in emerging grassroots movements in the Middle East and is attempting to be done to Khan. So far, though, it has not worked.
There are many among the Pakistani people who support Khan and his team, and this is a promising development for both Pakistanis and Kashmiris.
