The State of Pakistan, to me, is characterized by the conflict theories of the 'State' namely, The marxist theory and the theory of patriarchy. While the pluralists believe that the state acts as an intermediary and the functionalists believe that the sate restores balance in the society and acts in the favor of its masses, the conflict theories advocate a different perspective.
Marxists maintain that the State uses ideological and repressive state apparatus to fulfill its own interests, taking an advantage of the power vested in itself. The State is a part of the superstructure and encompasses in itself the social institutions like security and the government which it uses to serve its own concerns. Pakistani politics is dominated by feudal lords and large businessmen who happen to be not only the members of our assemblies, but also, owners of the factors of production. Our policies, such as the system of taxation and allocation of the budget benefits these people rather than the masses, thus, my question is where does Locke's view hold? The State of Pakistan has certainly failed to provide protection of life, liberty and property. Coercion has been used numerous times in the history of Pakistan to subdue unrest in the country. Rather than hearing the plight of the people, wars have been waged internally for instance in Baluchistan especially during the regime of Zulfiqar Ali bhutto when Pakistan developed increasingly fascist elements. Baluchistan has been the last one to receive Gas despite being the only producer, Baluchistan has had to fight to gain provincial autonomy, not a single member of the Baloch government was present when the Gawadar agreement was being signed and to top it off, the quality of life is miserable in that part of Pakistan to an extent that debates have spurred regarding Baluchistan being the next Bangladesh. The land of their ancestors has been assigned to members of the military and influential people of Sindh and Punjab because of lack of documents, thus, the State, in their opinion is building Punjabi hegemony.
The province continues to be neglected while power of the state continues being reinforced. The state has left us all in false consciousness by making us believe that the Balochs are rebels and by concealing the real reasons behind their dejection, when, in reality all the Balochis are doing is seeking ways to be heard and gain the protection of their rights.
Marxists maintain that the State uses ideological and repressive state apparatus to fulfill its own interests, taking an advantage of the power vested in itself. The State is a part of the superstructure and encompasses in itself the social institutions like security and the government which it uses to serve its own concerns. Pakistani politics is dominated by feudal lords and large businessmen who happen to be not only the members of our assemblies, but also, owners of the factors of production. Our policies, such as the system of taxation and allocation of the budget benefits these people rather than the masses, thus, my question is where does Locke's view hold? The State of Pakistan has certainly failed to provide protection of life, liberty and property. Coercion has been used numerous times in the history of Pakistan to subdue unrest in the country. Rather than hearing the plight of the people, wars have been waged internally for instance in Baluchistan especially during the regime of Zulfiqar Ali bhutto when Pakistan developed increasingly fascist elements. Baluchistan has been the last one to receive Gas despite being the only producer, Baluchistan has had to fight to gain provincial autonomy, not a single member of the Baloch government was present when the Gawadar agreement was being signed and to top it off, the quality of life is miserable in that part of Pakistan to an extent that debates have spurred regarding Baluchistan being the next Bangladesh. The land of their ancestors has been assigned to members of the military and influential people of Sindh and Punjab because of lack of documents, thus, the State, in their opinion is building Punjabi hegemony.
The province continues to be neglected while power of the state continues being reinforced. The state has left us all in false consciousness by making us believe that the Balochs are rebels and by concealing the real reasons behind their dejection, when, in reality all the Balochis are doing is seeking ways to be heard and gain the protection of their rights.
| “War nearly always serves as an occasion for serious expansions of state power and the destruction of legal protections” | |
3 comments:
Good quote and good post. I understand your argument that the factors of production are being monopolized by an elite class, but I don't see how that necessarily ties into your discussion of Punjabi hegemony. I do think that your discussion of the repression of Baluchistan is apt, but doesn't this have more to do with state coercion and not have anything to do with class conflict?
Punjabi hegemony is maintained because Punjabis dominate politics(elite class), business(elite class) and the army(higher positions=elite class) who ensure that Punjabi interests(ultimately the class interests) are maintained.
In balochistan, the people believe punjabi hegemony is maintained because army check posts are made ( army dominated by Punjabis), few years ago there were numerous check posts which made the balochis feel threatened, made them think their land doesn't belong to themselves. Similarly, balochs were abducted for interrogation termed as the "missing persons case. Operations against the baloch guerillas were also carried out via the help of military. However i do agree that state coercion is an important factor because it is the responsibility of the state to guarantee protection and liberty to the balochi and do not claim class conflict to be a cause of misery for the balochis.
I hope i have cleared my points.
Thanks for the clarification and I understand your points.
Post a Comment