E2.B | Dr. Syed Azeem on nationalist, feminist and working class politics in Pakistan
Translation:
Arsalan S: Hello everyone, I am Arsalan and you are listening to Jamhoor Radio.
In this second part of our interview with Syed Azeem, we are going to talk about some more topics, which include the national question, environment and feminism.
Azeem, in part 1 we spoke about the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM). In your opinion, what is the role of these nationalist movements in revolutionary politics in Pakistan?
Syed Azeem: This is a very complicated question, and there are 6-7 factors that I would like to point out here. Firstly, behind this entire movement are the same issues that are behind imperialism and Taliban, we have to situate this fight within the larger ideological conflict. Because we did not resolve that ideological contradiction, drone attacks kept taking place, military attacks kept happening. By the way, the military operation that resulted in the PTM...these Leftists were supporting that same military operation. The same leftists who joined Manzoor Pashteen’s stage later.. this is an interesting thing...that these people were with (supporting) the “War on Terror”. So it's obvious, if you enable the Americans and the military for such operations, they are not going to hand over the power to you after the operation. You will be further disempowered. So, this is the ideology behind it. This is clearly present from Afghanistan to Pakistan, that the military wants to maintain its old hegemony. The religious groups and Taliban are on one side, later Ghani, Pashtun and the national question align with them, this further becomes aligned with the American agenda. Truly speaking, I also see this in a bigger perspective.
However, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) has its own peculiarity as well. Obviously there was unrest amongst the people, people were not looking at this ideologically. What they saw was how the Pashtuns were being brutally oppressed during this operation. And as a result of this entire operation, even a regular Pashtun is stopped on the streets of Lahore for checking. He is considered a terrorist. We were pointing out all these things. At that time, it was the Left that was calling them terrorists. Our “progressives” would even go to the extent that they would see every Pathan, as Taliban. We would say that this is a class issue, a result of imperialism, there are other factors at play here. We have written on these things.
It’s within this context that Manzoor Pashteen and the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) come to the forefront. Then comes the second issue, that without resolving that fundamental contradiction, does this movement really think that it can get rid of the Taliban, and Pakistan's military and the religious parties? Or do America or Ashraf Ghani...do they really want to liberate them (the pashtuns)? They are mistaken. You will notice that they are taken aback when they [the US] begin negotiating with the Taliban. All these things are important. So I believe that we need to be looking at this in the larger (global) context as well.
The next thing I’m going to discuss is even more complicated. I believe that the concept of a nation state itself has been challenged at a foundational level, across the world. We are not the same nations as defined by western concepts. Or as per Stalin’s book, we do not qualify as nations in those terms. The fight for national liberation nowadays is not fought in the classical sense, with national bourgeois etc. I think the concept of nation building and nationhood has changed. So this is another flaw that i see here. That you cannot build a nation on the basis of a language or region, in that classical sense...it has become difficult. Most of the struggles that are taking place in a region or district, are being fought around issues of environment, resources and alike. I think Pashtun and Baloch nationalist movements are still stuck in the Stalin era (1940-50s) national liberation struggles, where the concept of nation building was embedded in colonialism. They haven’t rethought those concepts, and are used in larger geo-politics as well as by local elites. It has become quite clear. I have said this at several places, that those countries whose nature is semi-colonial, it has become quite clear after Fanon and Mao that national liberation in these countries is intertwined with their struggle for (people’s) democracy. This is a very important point. This means that in these counties that are semi-colonial in nature, national liberation movements must fight for their (people’s) democracy against their own elite, who support imperialism.
So when you see the Pashtun question in this context, you are amazed. Who is fighting, against whom and why? There is no question. At most, you find that they are fighting against the Pakistani military. So then do you separate the Pakistani military from imperialism?
Secondly, If you say that the Taliban or religious parties do not have grass roots support, that is also inaccurate. They do have grass roots mass support. What is your agenda to address this? So the goal of this entire point is, in my opinion, to raise the question of whom the national liberation is for, and through whom? The countries where (people’s) national liberation gets tied to their struggle for (people’s) democracy, the responsibility (for the struggle) falls on the shoulders of workers and peasants. So in my opinion, Manzoor Pashteen or PTM have to find out where their workers and peasants are? They can be found in Karachi and Lahore as well. Who wants to fight, who they want to fight, and why do they want to fight them? With whom is the principal contradiction? Who should be organized to fight against whom? I feel like maybe these questions haven't even been asked within the PTM. And as far as our left is concerned, that has the ability to ask these questions, I have always felt - that because they are dwarfed within left politics themselves, they always use the stage provided by these nationalist movements to gain more prominence. This is how I feel. If the left- particularly the Lahore Left - were serious about offering any support to the nationalist movements, then they would have worked within the Pashtun bastis (settlements), against the oppression they face at factories. When the police destroy their carts, why dont they come forward during these moments? Only when Manzoor Pashteen comes to the forefront, why is it only then that they are reminded of the Pashtun question.
So this is very important to see, who wants to work and fight for whom? So this is my analysis. The question is genuine, its roots are there. Without resolving that, without resolving the question of imperialism - neither the Pashtuns will be liberated, nor Pakistan, nor the Baloch. I am very clear on this matter. We used to talk about American imperialism, now there is another, when you include Chinese imperialism. In fact in the case of Pakistan we also have what you call sub-imperialism, in the form of Saudi and UAE.
AS: Okay Azeem, in the last two years along with nationalist movements, we also saw movements such as Aurat March. What role do you see feminist movements playing in the Pakistani left?
SA: Look, I can only give careful responses to this. I believe, from what we can see, within our women particularly in Pakistan, there is a huge consciousness present. Often I feel that, in Pakistan there is a stronger feminist consiousness present than the consciousness of Left parties. There are also global reasons for this, local reasons as well as reasons that arise from Left’s retreat. I can say this with clarity that, the feminist movement in Pakistan has many contradictions within it. These contradictions are quite interesting, when these movements began in the 1980s a lot of women [in them] were affiliated with socialist movements, which we call the Women Action Forum (WAF). And when I look at their history, we see that at some point they got trapped in liberal feminism, and more NGO-tic liberal feminism.
But as a whole in the past decade, and in this decade I feel that gradually socialist ideas have become popular in feminist movements. So it looks like NGO-tic and liberal feminism has eclipsed, it has begun to fade, and socialist feminists are now trying to come together gradually. I give great credit to Women Democratic Front for it, and before that Feminist Collective also, and I feel like there is an effort to give socialist colour to Pakistan’s feminism. An antichrist colour, which is beautiful. And along with gender, there is an effort to bring in LGBTQ+ politics as well. So this is very promising, and quite great. But somewhere I feel that the roots of socialist feminism have been unable to take hold yet. So when you see these smaller factions and contradictions, they are a result of this effort. But I feel that in Pakistan, the future of socialist feminism is very bright, and perhaps they would lead the entire socialist movement in Pakistan. I can see that happening. I’m very optimistic.
AS: Ok Azeem, where do you see Pakistan headed in terms of industrial development? Because nowadays as we see, Pakistan’s economy has become a speculative economy which works on betting, and people often refer to it as a ‘casino economy’. The political elite has transformed it into a purely import based economy, and along with the military established, Pakistan has been made a security state that rents itself out to one global power or another. What are the prospects of “true” industrial development in Pakistan, and what should be the Left’s position on this?
SA: Firstly, I can clearly see that Pakistan's economy is extremely dependent. If industrialization happens, it would be (and is) extremely painful and expensive, especially the environmental and human cost of it. Industrialization is not even taking place. It is happening haphazardly through various factions of global capital, like the World Bank gives its own dictations, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) gives its own dictations. You will be surprised that there is a huge share of Saudi and UAE capital. So in this regard, there is nothing that belongs to us. So this kind of industrialization is extremely fragile, it has huge human and environmental costs. And very often it takes extremely dangerous shapes like war - ethinic wars, actual active wars. So I feel that countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, that leadership which can negotiate with investors are absent. These are extremely corrupt ruling elites. So this is what I'm concerned about. Otherwise if the power was with slightly more patriotic or pro people establishments, then one could imagine that industrialization can happen, and it can have a slightly better outlook. Here my first concern is that industrialization won't happen, rather there would be deindustrialization. And the industrialization that does happen, it would be extremely dependent and fragile, and its human and environmental cost would be too much.
AS: And what are your thoughts on the agricultural sector?
SA: Agriculture in Pakistan, I believe is in decline to a very big extent. Small cultivators don't have any power. Thirdly, with climate change you can see the production of Kapas (cotton) has declined by 30%. Even if you are able to have agricultural produce, it has to be exported in order to buy oil. If I give you figures, you would be surprised that whatever foreign investment you’re bringing, you’re giving back much more in the form of debt (re-payment). I’ll give you a simple example, the amount of money that CPEC was supposed to bring in 15 years- 60 billion dollars. When you divide it for every year - it comes out to be 4 billion dollars annually. You are currently returning 3 billion dollars annually, in the form of debt repayment. So whatever you were getting through CPEC, you are returning it back as much. Do you know in one year, we have returned 9 billion dollars to the IMF, when we were taking 12 billion dollars. When you look at the statistics, it's very concerning, how is this country even functioning? So, basically we are running on debt. Our Maltay (oranges), Kapas (cotton), are being sold for nothing. So I believe that we are in a very difficult shape.
AS: Worldwide anti capitalist movements against the climate crisis have picked up in the last couple of years. What should the strategy be for Pakistan’s left in this regard?
SA: One way is to respond to a crisis. The other is to respond to a crisis, while having an organization that can actually carry out the response. In our case we are moving from one crisis to another. There will definitely be large movements across the world, these movements are happening right now and they will continue to raise consciousness. But once again for Pakistan I feel, we have to continuously go back to point zero- that until we are not present amongst the workers and peasants...I feel we are unable to achieve anything substantial without that. I’ll give you an example here. There is a ban on plastic bags, everyone understands that plastic bags are ruining the environment. It’s interesting that the consciousness is very much present. You will be surprised that within one day, the state decided to stop the use of plastic bags. They actually stopped distributing plastic bags. But exactly one month later, plastic bags were being used again. What I mean to say is that the state was able to get a judgment from the court on this, and also able to pass a corresponding legislation. You cannot separate consciousness from an organization. Consciousness cannot be produced out of thin air, nor can it be sustained. So especially after the plastic bag example, I have understood that if the organization wasn’t present to help implement it...we confront the same problem within labour as well...that you can get the best labour legislation passed, but how do you force the factories to implement those, that is the work of the organization. When we aren’t even present amongst the working class, then we can’t improve the environment or work within feminism. Feminism will also spread its consciousness and go, and will take other forms. We can't control everything. But I realize this often, that being within the foundational working class, all movements become sustainable and durable. To bring a revolution, and even to sustain these movements, I don't see any other alternative. When trying to realise these movements, it’s a must to develop a relationship with the working class. You have to present amongst the working class.
AS: Ok Azeem, in relation to CPEC, there are plans to build 37 Special Economic Zones across Pakistan. These are advertised as symbols of progress in Pakistan. What are Special Economic Zones, and what are your thoughts on this development?
SA: The idea behind special economic zones was first developed in late 1980s and during 1990s, first in Mexico and then in China. And then China further spread the idea in other places. Firstly, it has had very mixed results. Secondly, this fashion has mostly faded at the fundamental level. But once again, like most things Pakistan copies these trends much later. So, I don't see much enthusiasm for them. What are special economic zones fundamentally? An avenue to exploit cheap labour. It's an excuse to not give taxes. Some industries are created as a result, and people are able to sell their labour, which creates employment for the local population. Beyond this Special Economic Zones have no other function. So the working class get hit in two ways - first you can’t create a union within them and there are no labour laws. The levels of exploitation are ruthless. Secondly, these are tax havens, as a result of which you can neither find funds for health, nor education, because you can't collect taxes. Even though special economic zones are primarily created for foreign investment and export, the local industry also suffers, and they [foreign industries] start serving the local market as well. At one point they used to be called ‘export processing zones’ but then later came to be developed as ‘special economic zones’. At present they are quite out of fashion, but especially with regard to China - they have no enthusiasm towards these special economic zones. They want you [Pakistan] to develop your special economic zones, where they will invest. But they are not developing these special economic zones themselves, this work has been long pending. The special economic zones that has been developed in Faisalabad, was long present, they have only rebranded it now. The actual special economic zones that had to be made under CPEC, China is not showing any enthusiasm for those. For example the Rashkai special economic zone, we have been hearing of its inauguration for so long now, but it's not happening. Clearly, there is no interest from the industry or China. And these don’t produce any outstanding results either.
Fade out.
AS: This was the second part of our interview with Syed Azeem.
Do not forget to subscribe to our podcast. You can also become our patron. The link for this is on our website jamhoor.org.
Take care, and thank you.
For Part 1 of this interview and other Jamhoor Radio episodes, visit jamhoor.org/radio