Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia and China -- and maybe more

By Sara

On EW's post, I've read the response of Mir Azaad Khan Baloch, and indicated general agreement -- but while I agree that US attention to just bin Laden or just al-Qaeda may be misplaced, and that ignoring the Pakistani Military and ISI involvement with Taliban is short sighted and all, I really doubt if this addresses the crux of the matter.  In general I see us, as Americans, more or less afraid to learn -- as non governmental folk, afraid to learn enough to do heavy duty and responsible criticism. 

My own experience began with a job -- organizing the training of Peace Corps Volunteers (PCV's) for East and West Pakistan in 1961 and at the very beginning of the Kennedy years.  As an Antioch Co-op at the Experiment in International Living , which had a contract with the pre-Peace Corps, and which was sorting through the Dear President Kennedy letters in a pre-renovation  room at the Willard so that when Congress approved the deal, it could be off and running I was part of that scene.  I knew nothing of Pakistan at the time.  But since the Experiment trained for Pakistan, I quickly learned.  The first misdirection we got was language.  The embassy wanted training in Urdu, but the project was for Bengali speaking E. Pakistan.  I had to withdraw one faculty, and find and build another.  But the lord knows misdirection on language did not come from us.  It was classic misdirection.  And this is why I appreciate Mir Azaad Khan Baloch's comments.  I do and don't agree with him -- but I certainly don't really trust much of what we think we know. 

Now as to my own approach -- yea, I am anthropological.  I read many things, but I keep coming back to a short publication by Chicago U Press titled, "Islam Observed" by Clifford Geertz.  Tiz old, 1969.  Geertz is the first social scientist to be appointed to the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.  His field work was 50's and 60's -- he is an Anthropologist.  But what "Islam Observed" does is more than most stuff I read today, it is simply comparative anthropology or comparative social organization.  His field work was first in Java, then on Sumatra, and finally in Morocco -- and out of that jumps an Islam laid on to a Hindu-Buddhist construct in the case of Java where the past really did not fade away, but was just overlaid by Islam -- to Morocco whereas in much of the Islamic World, Islam was absorbed by tribalism.  I keep re-reading Geertz's very short book -- (117 pages) and it makes me thirsty. 

In recent months I've come to looking at the "situation" as one where one must comprehend why tribalism cannot convert to either democracy or most other forms of governance.  Back to Anthro 101 for many of us -- being born into a tribal society is place, role and status by ascription -- and a structure where ownership and leadership is essentially inherited.  -- Modernism or whatever we want to call it is about merit with this and that advantage and disadvantage. 

As Geertz describes Indonesian Islam -- there are no birthright ascriptions by tribe.  It is a complex hierarchy, but the talented can move up.  In contrast, in Morocco his descriptions are of tribal members who cannot imagine moving "up" or even laterally.  Merit or skill mean nothing. 

And so to contemporary Pakistan.  To roughly describe the country I would draw a line South East to South West, what I would call cosmopolitians on the East side of the line running from Northern Territories to the coast a little west of Karachi.  East of that line the notion of Nation-State is meaningful.  Dates back to the days of the Mughal Empire.  West of the line, it is essentially tribal.  West Sind, Baluchistan, and NW Frontier Provinces are such.  The fractures in Pakistan are really along these lines.  The essential question is whether one demands an ascribed culture (a tribal structure) or whether one tolerates some sense of the modern -- something organized around competence, merit, and achievement.  Tribal and the modern really don't mix. 

Geertz suggests this is useful in comprehending the difference between Morocco and Indonesia -- useful not only in understanding social organization, but also in how Islam is "observed."  We actually have recently observed Indonesian Islamic observence -- CNN did a piece on sacrifices to both ancestors (China) and offerings (Buddhist) on the slopes of the Java Volcano.  Neither are Islamic, but both are real.  As Geertz puts it, Hindu-Buddhist (pre 1300) ideas were slopped over with later Islamic forms.  (but he said that in his essays in the late 1960's.) -- remember this is "old" anthropology.) 

India, I understand as a National State.  Since 49 India ascribed to a form of Socialism, more to maintain economic independence than for any other reason, but through the cold war it remained non-aligned.  It absorbed steel mills from the Krupp's as well as from Magnitogorsk.  (But anyone who has observed an Indian Bazaar -- or bought and sold in one -- Capitalism? -- I think it is culturally basic.)  I suspect they invented it before long before Adam Smith.  And I think comprehending this is about understanding Pakistan and India and what seperates them.

Applying the difference between tribalism and a less ascriptive society gets us part of the way -- As I read History, I cannot find many tribal societies that adopted different social or governmental forms such as democracy without essential destruction.  West of a line roughly through Islamabad south to the coast west of Karachi -- and in Iran considering the eastern areas, what we need to comprehend is this line and the difference. 

We hear that the US has been last ditch arming the warlords in Somolia, and that Karzai plans the same in Afghanistan.  Where are we as intelligent critics?  We can't expect more of congress unless we ask the specific and detailed questions on the campaign trail, and they won't do the job unless they are forced by the populus.  And we can't assume a popular understanding without information. 

Comments

[emptypockets]

I want to ask more about the cultural differences you describe, and am hoping someone will stop in and ask the right questions. (Me, I'm going to have to go look at a map first.) But as much as I want to talk more about that, I have to ask separately about your main point: that it is the duty of a citizen in a democracy to be knowledgeable at this level. It does not seem realistic to ask every American to be competent to ask "specific and detailed questions" about anthropology, for if we do we must also expect it for the economy, law, the sciences. Effectively we must each be an entire government policy machine -- it is just not possible. This is a basic tension of representative democracy -- its very purpose is for us to pick leaders who are more expert than we are, and who we thus have no sound basis for evaluating. It's not obvious to me that there is any solution to that problem.

[Cine]

You might find Sarah Chayes work interesting. She sells soap and oils with a bodyguard and alot of guns in Afghanistan.

She is supposedly CIA and hired an RPCV in Afghanistan who was assassinated for going to destroy a house.

BUT....She has the language and culture evaluated and is an RPCV from Morocco. Check yahoo news for her latest article.

[Pete]

I think that emptypockets hits the nail on the head, and I agree wholeheartedly. What is the best form of democracy is an interesting question and IMO the issue really is trying to decentralize power as much as power while still not imposing a lot of burden on everyone.

Can one learn about other people/cultures sitting thousands of miles away? It is almost impossible to get an accurate picture given that a) people/societies are changing, b) not everyone within a society thinks/feels the same, and c) whoever is reporting information will have some biases.

Take Iraq as an example. There is no one monolithic Iraq. Even within a group (for example Shia or Sunni) people have differences. And whoever is reporting from Iraq will have their own biases. Some people will have greater biases than others. It should have been a safe bet that pre war Chalabi had a huge vested interest in painting a picture that would get us into the war, yet Chalabi was then the favorite of the Bush administration and people did not question that.

There is simply too much spin from both sides of the spectrum that one cannot get an honest picture of the situation in Iraq (and there is no one picture either - it is a collection of mosaics).

The one point I agree with Sara is that our attention is too much diverted to the "issue of the day" and that we ignore a lot of other issues that we should be paying attention to.

[Mimikatz]

Very, very interesting article, Sara. The distinction between "tribal" and modern or potentially modern societies is fascinating and seems intuitively potent.

Interesting in this context to remember that Paul Wolfowitz was Amabassador to Indonesia in the Reagan Administration. By several accounts he loved the country and found it fascinating. I wonder if this experience with a meriocratic and commercial society informed his views about Islam in general and how it could develop into a modern society? I don't think he or any of the others had any real first-hand experience with any of the Arab countries. This could explain some miscalculations on Wolfowitz' part. Someone who instinctively draws connections can be a powerful thinker as long as the connections are sound, but can be way off base when they are not.

I've never been to Pakistan or to any Arab country, but I have been to India, Nepal, China, Malaysia and parts of Indonesia. There is definitely a long-ingrained culture of small shopkeepers and businessmen (even capitalism) in all those societies that survived communism and socialism. The Arabs were great traders historically, but tribalism certainly seems to have survived well into the present day in those societies, as well as in western Pakistan and Afghanistan.

What about Iran? Persian and imperial from way, way back?

[Meteor Blades]

It does not seem realistic to ask every American to be competent to ask "specific and detailed questions" about anthropology, for if we do we must also expect it for the economy, law, the sciences. Effectively we must each be an entire government policy machine -- it is just not possible.

I could not agree more, ep.

I've read widely and fairly deeply about Indonesia - particularly Bali, but other islands of the archipelago as well - anthropology, archaelogy, politics, economics. I've spent considerable time on the ground (although with a rudimentary understanding of the language), and I have not come close to truly understanding what makes life tick there, whether among Muslims or Hindus. I've seen the good and less good effects of tribalism, island-wide down to village customs.

I come away with no better options for U.S. policy than a slightly altered version of Star Trek's Prime Directive.

[emptypockets]

oh, right. like kirk ever followed that.

[Sara]

Iran is yes, a very old civilization long ruled by a central government and a Monarchy -- but the eastern parts of Iran are essentially tribal, linked with parallel tribes in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. SE Iran, for instance is Baluchi. Herat in Western Afghanistan is much influenced by Iranian "cousins." What makes Iran somewhat unique is that the central government structure does allow persons born into a tribal identity to opt out and into the more cosmopolitian society.

Geertz's idea of the line NE to SW in Pakistan roughly corresponds with the borders of first the centrally administered Mughal Empire -- which provided relatively good Government for about 300 years, and should be understood to include many small princely states dependent on the Mughal center. Many of the institutions and practices of the Mughals were adopted by the British in the first half of the 19th century, -- which if you then add it up suggests nearly 500 years of centrally administered governance that made major investments in things people valued -- irrigation systems, roads, rules for commerce, courts to adjudicate conflicts and the like. And while the Mughal Empire was Muslim -- it was also pluralistic. The ruled majority were Hindu, and the Sikh culture and religion emerged in its midst. At least some of this culture informed Pakistan at its creation, but it is weaker now as the strength and indeed writ of central government is challenged.