E1.B | Ismat Shahjahan on religious extremism, climate change, rainbow movements, and the PTM
Translation:
Arsalan S: Hello everyone, I am Arsalan, and you are listening to Jamhoor Radio.
In this second part of our interview with Ismat Shahjahan, we are going to talk about religious extremism, the environment, as well as the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast.
You talked about law and order in the previous part of this interview. You mentioned that people belonging to your area have joined the Taliban in large numbers. What is your position on the Taliban and religious extremism? Do you consider this a principle contradiction?
Ismat Shahjahan: See, the problem of law and order is not linked only to Talibanization, as if only the Taliban have created problems in cities. Pakistan’s state institutions have broken down. Pakistani police were told to pick up men, kill them, this operation, that operation, civilian matters were left behind. The other point is that Pakistan’s courts are tied up in these issues - make one [government] fall, help another come up, the army says kick those out, keep these ones, the case is this or that, these constitutional and legal battles keep coming up. So fundamentally, the state’s institutions have experienced a breakdown. Pakistan has repeatedly gone through military coups, civilian institutions have kept getting weaker and weaker, and especially now in Pakistan we have a hybrid coup.
AS: Okay, yes.
IS: You see that Parliament can’t pass any legislation; right wing forces have established themselves in Parliament as well. So we don’t have a usual policy environment for industrialization, peace, and democracy in Pakistan. The assemblies are merely rubber stamps. If there’s a bill relating to women’s issues they send it off to the Council of Islamic Ideology, and the PTI is completely its [the military establishment’s] rubber stamp. So in this situation, nearly all of Pakistan’s institutions have been suspended.
See Pakistan’s whole system of development, all the budget is devoted to debt servicing or the military, there is no money here for development, roads, schools, and education.
So back to what I was saying about law and order, the Taliban have no existence of their own, they are merely proxies. They are proxies of the Pakistani establishment, financed by Saudi Arabia, as well as America, and now whoever else Pakistan can sell to. Pakistan recruited people for ISIS in Syria, even retired military officials have gone. So whether it’s Taliban or ISIS, sometimes they send them [militants] to join ISIS, sometimes Taliban. In fact we don’t even believe that they are two different entities, that the Taliban have an independent existence.
I still think that if the Pakistani state changes its policy, it will be over. In a few months, if you cut off their financing and confiscate their guns. They are nothing on their own, all their arms have been supplied by them [Pakistani establishment], they have their places and camps in different areas, which they [the Pakistani establishment] has maintained. They [Pakistani establishment] brought in Kashmir jihadis and used them to train others. As you know, the Americans have said that even if one of your men goes over, you are under surveillance... [threatening to take action].
AS: Okay, yes
IS: You can’t enter Kashmir anymore.
So they [the establishment] have kept men, and they aren’t two different groups, this is all connected. Even today they talk about bad Taliban and good Taliban, all their fighting is internal. They have this pattern. They [the establishment] make death squads, use them, within three years those squads rebel against the establishment, they realize that there is no jihad, nothing, we were just being used. It becomes a battle over benefits and money, between factions; like this Sajna group, or some other group, they start fighting between themselves. Then they [the establishment] brought in foreigners, Uzbeks and Tajiks, who squabble with the local Punjabis, then they kill each other and get into conflicts, then they make new [groups]. Then, within three years, the new ones also -
AS: Then they turn on the establishment?
IS: Then they turn. They turn against the establishment, and they fight among themselves as well, because after all they are mercenaries. They fight over who gets more money, resources, commanding positions, cars, who controls which area. So we don’t think they are separate or that the Taliban are a big problem on their own. The real problem is state policy. And over the Pakistani state, as I said, the establishment has a hegemony, they have authority over everything. If they [the establishment] decide that Pakistan’s foreign policy will change and that this will be finished, then all this would end.
AS: OK Ismat, you talked [in Part 1] about how the Awami Workers Party has molded Left politics in Pakistan to speak to the issues of today, and has brought other important issues to the central agenda along with the question of class.
We saw that in the last few years, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement [PTM] has spread across the country. However this movement has gone through ups and downs. What is your position on the PTM, and do you think they should form a political party?
IS: I believe there has been a big change in Pakistan. Pakistan’s traditional parties have failed to take a stand on the issues-- I am speaking of populist mainstream parties including nationalist parties-- so all the populist mainstream parties have failed to take a stand on the issues that matter to people’s lives. As a result, the masses have found new ways and made movements, such as the PTM, the missing persons movements, the student’s movement, and the women’s movement. These [traditional] parties did not raise these issues earlier; otherwise establishing PTM would not have been necessary. Now look at PTM’s structure. I call these “rainbow movements”, a new phenomenon in Pakistan. By rainbow movements I mean qaus-e-qazah (lit: an arch of colors) like PTM. And they have a single pattern, all of them, whether it is the Women Democratic Front or the student movement or youth organizing. There has been an uprising of youth in Pakistan. In the last 3-4 years, towards the last years of the decade, this uprising has its own characteristics. They flow from the same political forces, but represent an uprising against traditional, pro-establishment or pro-status-quo forces within the parties.
For example, how is PTM a rainbow? PTM contains forces from the center-right to the center-left, and here and there you will find some green [religious] as well. But the majority is between center-right to center-left. It does not have right-wing forces, this current youth uprising - and they are all primarily youth, including in the women’s movement. Young women are the majority in the WDF. This includes socialists, feminists, nationalists, independent constituencies / sects that were sitting on the fence waiting for a formation. But for instance in KPK, the PKMAP (Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party) did not take a stand so people came here [to the PTM], so they [PKMAP] had to follow. People from ANP came and joined - they are still in their respective political parties, but against the wishes of their party, the ANP worker is staying here.
In the beginning ANP had to come as well, and they [PKMAP] had to come as well, because it became such a force that they could not detach themselves from it. But then the ANP detached itself. We had never seen a nationalist, a Pashtun nationalist movement with a feminist element. This is a new development.
AS: Absolutely, absolutely, yes.
IS: This is a new development. So I believe there is a trend of these new rainbow movements. But in these rainbow movements - for example the recent student movement. In this, apart from the Jamat-i-Islami, you could find nationalist, liberal, secular forces all aligned, including unions. For example the Baloch Student Action Committee, Baloch Students Organization (BSO), BSO Azaad, BSO Pajjar, People Students Federation, Pukhtoon Students Federation. So these were all included in this. So I call this new trend the rainbow movement.
But there is a problem - that these movements don’t aim to demolish the structure and replace the system. PTM does not have an agenda to transform the entire system. For example, it is not as if it speaks about land reform, the abolishment of capitalism. At most, it may speak about national issues- so it certainly focuses on the structure of national oppression. And I believe that it is essentially nationalist in nature - PTM. It is woven around the rights of Pashtuns. So these movements cannot bring about a revolution, this much is clear.
But then it begs the question: today, in the 21st century, in the age of imperialism, if they can shove imperialist forces, this would be a revolutionary change. If in Pakistan, these struggles can lead to civilian supremacy… but they can’t do it alone, given Pakistan’s national structure, until they link their struggles to [the struggle against] imperialism. Nationalism becomes a reactionary force if it does not see the link between structures of oppression and imperialism. Because then it descends into narrow nationalism, looking at other ethnic groups, and loses sight of the state and the world order behind it. So if the PTM can join with Pakistan’s other subjugated groups and progressive movements and establish a national movement, then there is a possibility. But in its current shape, where only PTM will fight, how can PTM fight for Sindhis and the Baloch? it won’t be able to fight. Even if we work with other ethnic movements.
So that’s why it is difficult or impossible to bring about fundamental change in Pakistan without making a larger movement. So PTM can fight alone- in fact many times when we negotiated on behalf of PTM, I myself said to the Muslim League (PML-N) that once Shahbaz Sharif had said that the final showdown of PTM will be in front of the military establishment. And I told him to forget it. When you want to fight for the military establishment, you thrust weapons into the hands of Pashtuns, and when you want to fight against it, now again you are asking Pashtuns to fight. I said no, you should fight your own battles, and this battle [against the military establishment] must be fought together. On our own we cannot gain what we want. In the PTM, people gathered around the call of inquilab zindabad [long live the revolution], against state oppression and war, and it took on the form of protecting national rights. Originally it was the MTM, the Mehsud Tahaffuz Movement, it only became the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement later. [Ed. note: Mehsud is a prominent Pashtun tribe living on the Pak-Afghan border; the PTM was sparked by the extrajudicial killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, a member of the tribe, in Karachi.]
I am not in favor of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement becoming a political party. I am not in favor of dissolving the movement to make a political party. There should be a party, if it needs to be made, but..
AS: ..but outside the PTM.
IS: Yes, alongside the PTM. Just like other parties are sitting alongside the PTM, this new party should sit alongside as well. Even if all the functionaries of the PTM are members of this new party. A resistance movement is sharp, it can cut deep, because it is free of class interests. As soon as you enter parliamentary politics, class interests begin to bubble up: who will win the election, who will be nominated, and so on. A movement should not be fractured- not at the cost of PTM. So in my view, the success of PTM lies in a larger movement and in hitting the structure of oppression. PTM doesn’t have an organizational structure, it doesn’t have a manifesto written down, it doesn’t have a constitution, and these are things that the PTM will need to do. In the modern era we can learn from Black Lives Matters’ experience, they have a minimal structure. You should have a structure, but a minimal structure, so that the organization does not get stuck in bureaucracy and that its speed does not get impeded by the bureaucracy…
AS: And so the movement should carry on.
IS: And so the movement should carry on. So I personally, within PTM, this is my point of view. Generally to conclude, PTM has already achieved its objectives. PTM has broken the narrative of war and the system of fear of state oppression. PTM has successfully challenged the warmongering, violent politics, which no one could do, and now everyone does. Now openly - even the Muslim League’s representative openly yells “Ye jo dehshatgardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai” [Behind this terrorism is the military uniform].
By the way, I wrote this line in 2007.
AS: [Laughs] Oh, wow.
It was born in 2007, it’s longer -
ye jo dehshatgardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai,
ye jo mulla gardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai,
ye jo talib gardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai,
ye jo afra tafri hai, is ke peechay wardi hai
[Behind this terrorism is the uniform,
Behind this clergy is the uniform,
Behind this Taliban is the uniform,
Behind this chaos is the uniform]
There’s more to it, but I wrote this in 2007 during Musharraf’s reign, when he declared a state of emergency. I still recall it was declared on the 13th of November [Ed note: it was the 3rd of November], right, so I wrote it on the 7th of November. We first called out this slogan in Islamabad, and afterwards we kept on calling it. There were others as well, but this one spread, people adopted it, and now it has reached India, people in Delhi are chanting ye jo dehshatgardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai, because the police are beating them.
I think if the PTM lets go of this slogan, which is the one demand from the army- that you should let go of this slogan. This slogan should not be discarded, the movement should not be dissolved, and if they make a party, that is their democratic right.
AS: Ok Ismat, in the past few years the question of environment has been raised as an existential question across the world. And we know that countries like Pakistan are disproportionately affected by the climate crisis. So how do you think the Pakistani Left has taken up this question?
IS: We understand that around the world, in the pursuit of profit making, there has been a rampant growth in industrialization, and all industries are oil based. There have been wars around oil, and these wars have further destroyed the global environment. Capitalist industrialization has also destroyed the environment extensively, and we see that major capitalist countries do not comply with any environmental policies or declarations. Even recently America has not signed any declaration, even Obama didn’t as well. So we believe that these are all issues of capitalism, and profit making lies at the heart of the problem here, to somehow maximize profits. All of these issues that we face are a result of capitalism. The ‘Development’ model followed all across the world-- the capitalist development model-- we are fighting against that. Or the capitalist model of industrialization, these problems are a result of the capitalist mode of production. For example the brick kilns in Pakistan emit so much pollution, so we believe that a planned economy is the solution. We can look at many current labour-intensive models, if profiteering is at the centre of these models, then the results will be stark. By analysing these issues, we believe that the logics of financial capitalism have raised these problems across the world. They are responsible, and only when they change their production systems can they hope for a global change.
Secondly, they are the ones responsible for damaging the ozone layer and increasing global warming, and then they direct the ‘Third World’ to grow more trees. They have forced many regions to remain at prehistoric/wilderness stages, people living there are forced into living under tribal conditions. They introduced a new model here- “green development”. A few years ago, Development departments in Pakistan were converted into Planning, Environment and Development (PED) departments, just to plant more trees. As a result, many farmers here, like the Gujjar caste in Pakhtunkhwa, lost their user rights in the forests. Their lands were taken away from them. They were barred from using the forests. Although we had a rotation system in place, where they would graze their cattle there and collect wood. Then they introduced another development model- fuel efficient stoves,. You use a particular kind of wood and can use it only in a particular way. So you create a big problem, and then you want us to clear your shit!
So the third world had been disproportionately burdened with the responsibility of producing more oxygen to compensate for damage done elsewhere. We [the West] won’t control our carbon emissions, we will continue with our profiteering practices, we won't change our systems, but you do all this environmental work for us. This is our analysis, and then they made nuclear bombs. Due to the Afghan war, cancer is widespread in Pakistan. If you open all the data for cancer hospitals in Pakistan, most patients are Pashtuns and Afghans because they have used nuclear material in their warfare. In Afghanistan, a lot of weapons used were nuclear. The rice irrigated with the water from the Kurram river is all blue. There are so many bombs buried under this land, the war is of such a great magnitude. And then the money that is spent on all this ammunition can be used to educate crores of children. The environmental issue is of great concern, and the air is unbreathable in so many cities of Pakistan because the air pollution levels are so high. Other issues of health and hygiene are also very worrying. Environmental concerns have emerged as the biggest challenge in the world right now, and from a Pakistani Leftist perspective we believe that this is an international concern. Internationalism is the solution to this issue, where all left powers across the global should form a united coalition and push back the logics of capitalism.
AS: Ok Ismat, last question. We saw some very incredible mass movements emerge in the last few years. But we see that today’s successful mass movements are emerging outside the direct leadership of the left political parties in Pakistan. How have these parties informed the organized left parties? Does this represent a failure of the imagination of these parties given that these movements are emerging from outside the party?
IS: Look, the Aurat Azadi [Women’s Liberation] March, Student March, Climate March are all backed by the Left. These have been shaped by us. But it's a fact that social movements grow organically, you can't artificially create them. We on the Left understand that movements are self-motivated and issue based. They don’t target the whole system in its entirety, they pick up one issue and focus on it. As a leftist party, we can give it a certain form. So even though they were self-led, we have always backed these movements, and done a lot of the work.
Secondly, there are many issues outside the party’s fold. For example, liberals distance themselves from left parties, but still want to work on those issues. There are liberals participating in the Aurat Azadi March, even though capitalism thrives on liberal feminism. So, despite the fact that we do not support liberal feminism, we believe that within the system there are numerous issues guaranteed under the constitution, we also have to fight for those rights. What democracies across the world have accepted, have not been accepted by Pakistan, even as they have been accepted by the Pakistani constitution. Of course, in bourgeois democracy most things remain on paper. However, numerous rights have been achieved by people through intense struggle. We are working with them [liberals] in these rainbow movements. This cannot structurally happen within the party folds, it's impossible. They are organic, people come from different pockets and get together [spontaneously] to build a movement, and we are one part of it. For us it's important to continue our engagement with them to define the narrative in progressive terms. This will be our engagement and we will continue supporting these causes.
For instance, the Aurat Azadi March took place in about 9 cities, out of which it was led by WDF (Women Democratic Front) in 7 cities. There was the Aurat Azadi March and Aurat March. In my opinion, the Aurat Azadi march in smaller cities is a huge achievement, because women coming out from rural areas is a big deal. Women from cities come out anyway, they have the freedom. A March took place in Moro, in Hyderabad about 7000-8000 women attended the March. We collaborated with resistance groups like Women's Action Forum. There was an Aurat Azadi March in Quetta for the first time, where the word Azadi was massively contested even amongst the Left. Aurat’s Azadi [a woman’s liberation] is considered misguided, it is dismissed easily. Feminism is called a western agenda. So I think Quetta’s first Aurat Azadi March, Maradan’s Aurat Mazdoor Jalsa [Women Workers March], other marches in Faisalabad, Larkana- these are massive developments in my opinion. Women joined the March themselves, when they saw others. Some women on bikes were so happy to join. Every woman came to the front with their placards- speaking of their pain and anger. So, tactically speaking political parties should not try and mould social movements too much, as it might result in its collapse. They should be, and are, organic in order to to survive. So political parties can engage in parliamentary democracy, take out rallies, that’s a different matter. Mass movements and issue-based alliances are organic. You can only mould them to a certain extent. Beyond that, if you try and force things on them they might break, because people from different tendencies often come together only for the sake of one issue. We are sitting behind these movements, doing most of the organizing. We are present in these marches.
AS: In the case of PTM…
IS: That is also organic and spontaneous…
AS: Yes it's spontaneous, and there are many social conditions in response to which PTM is growing…
IS: Yes, they are formed spontaneously, and even in the formatory stages we participate. Even later, to give it a progressive outlook, we struggle internally. We continue to push internally, while being a part of it, to define the agenda. And that is the right way, tactically and strategically, that is the right way to do it.
Fade out.
AS: This was the second part of our interview with Ismat Shahjahan. In our next episode we will speak to yet another personality from the Pakistani left. Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast. You can also support us by becoming our patron. You can find the link for this on our website at jamhoor.org. Thank you!
For Part 1 of this interview and other Jamhoor Radio episodes, visit jamhoor.org/radio