More On Conspiracy Theories
I just want to piggyback off of NB's excellent post on conspiracy theories for a second. Many non-Pakistanis would gaze in wonderment at our dexterity in assigning blame based on outcomes. Almost always in Pakistani drawing rooms and lounges, one (evil) beneficiary of a certain action is identified and then made responsible for said action, despite absolutely no evidence for such an assertion. The lack of evidence is written off as the result of the nefarious designs of the extremely adroit conspirator ("you really think they would leave evidence?").
There are a couple of points to be made about this "logic". First, if it is taken to its logical conclusion, then we must blame (a) Iran and China for the Iraq war, (b) the U.S. for World War II, (c) Tim Duncan for the Shaq-Kobe feud, and (d) Subway for McDonald's. The fact that no evidence exists for Iran and China instigating the Iraq war, the Americans instigating World War II, Tim Duncan instigating the Shaq-Kobe feud, or Subway convincing McDonald's to use approximately 450 tons of fat in each burger only shows us how brilliant and conniving each of Iran, China, America, Tim Duncan and Subway really are.
The second point to be made is that even if you ignore the ridiculousness of the general "logic" outlined above, it still doesn't make sense in this particular case. As NB mentioned, there are no conceivable set of circumstances under which Musharraf would have benefited from BB's death. He already had what he wanted: the office of the Presidency secured, a pliant judiciary, a muzzled media, the continued support of the West in general and the U.S. in particular, and the participating of all the main parties in the general elections (the PML-N agreed to contest despite Nawaz Sharif not being allowed to run for God's sake). What else could he have possible wanted? And how might have those desires been furthered by murdering BB? To blame Musharraf for this, in my mind, is simply foolish.
Be that as it may, I am not prepared to completely eliminate the possibility of official/establishment involvement. A number of rogue elements within the ISI, in conjunction with some retired generals (ahem, Hameed Gul) and current politicians (*cough Ijaz-ul-Haq cough*) could have conceivably used some nutter to further their objectives by getting rid of BB. But - and this is crucial - the burden of evidence lies on the conspiracy theorists to show it isn't just some Baitullah Mehsud disciple carrying out orders, because that is the most obvious and natural explanation for this. I think we as a nation would do well to familiarize ourselves with the concept of Occam's razor.
All this said, I'm wondering if Pakistanis would have been so quick to blame Musharraf for BB's death if it had happened a year or two ago - before the firing of the Chief Justice (the first time), before the emergency, before the clampdown on the media, before May 12, and before the price of flour went through the roof. Clearly, it's not just about wild imaginations but popularity ratings as well. It is extremely difficult to imagine Musharraf being held culpable for this back when he enjoyed 60% approval ratings. In a perverse way, Musharraf deserves what he's getting here. If he hadn't made so many mistakes, he wouldn't be blamed for one he didn't make.
There are a couple of points to be made about this "logic". First, if it is taken to its logical conclusion, then we must blame (a) Iran and China for the Iraq war, (b) the U.S. for World War II, (c) Tim Duncan for the Shaq-Kobe feud, and (d) Subway for McDonald's. The fact that no evidence exists for Iran and China instigating the Iraq war, the Americans instigating World War II, Tim Duncan instigating the Shaq-Kobe feud, or Subway convincing McDonald's to use approximately 450 tons of fat in each burger only shows us how brilliant and conniving each of Iran, China, America, Tim Duncan and Subway really are.
The second point to be made is that even if you ignore the ridiculousness of the general "logic" outlined above, it still doesn't make sense in this particular case. As NB mentioned, there are no conceivable set of circumstances under which Musharraf would have benefited from BB's death. He already had what he wanted: the office of the Presidency secured, a pliant judiciary, a muzzled media, the continued support of the West in general and the U.S. in particular, and the participating of all the main parties in the general elections (the PML-N agreed to contest despite Nawaz Sharif not being allowed to run for God's sake). What else could he have possible wanted? And how might have those desires been furthered by murdering BB? To blame Musharraf for this, in my mind, is simply foolish.
Be that as it may, I am not prepared to completely eliminate the possibility of official/establishment involvement. A number of rogue elements within the ISI, in conjunction with some retired generals (ahem, Hameed Gul) and current politicians (*cough Ijaz-ul-Haq cough*) could have conceivably used some nutter to further their objectives by getting rid of BB. But - and this is crucial - the burden of evidence lies on the conspiracy theorists to show it isn't just some Baitullah Mehsud disciple carrying out orders, because that is the most obvious and natural explanation for this. I think we as a nation would do well to familiarize ourselves with the concept of Occam's razor.
All this said, I'm wondering if Pakistanis would have been so quick to blame Musharraf for BB's death if it had happened a year or two ago - before the firing of the Chief Justice (the first time), before the emergency, before the clampdown on the media, before May 12, and before the price of flour went through the roof. Clearly, it's not just about wild imaginations but popularity ratings as well. It is extremely difficult to imagine Musharraf being held culpable for this back when he enjoyed 60% approval ratings. In a perverse way, Musharraf deserves what he's getting here. If he hadn't made so many mistakes, he wouldn't be blamed for one he didn't make.
Labels:
Pakistan
2 comments:
I generally agree with the whole jist of the conspiracy obsessed madness pakistanis have, but i take issue with one point you make and its critical:
'He already had what he wanted: the office of the Presidency secured, a pliant judiciary, a muzzled media, the continued support of the West in general and the U.S. in particular, and the participating of all the main parties in the general elections (the PML-N agreed to contest despite Nawaz Sharif not being allowed to run for God's sake). What else could he have possible wanted?'
The whole damn point is that he would lose ALL of this if benazir came to be prime minister - she would NOT play second fiddle to him. The media, the judiciary and most importantly the West's backing would ALL be encroached on and eventually controlled by Benazir. The backing of the West is key here, and we all know how Benazir was going to be its new brown-skinned whore in the region - a position Musharaff is not keen to give up.
Every critical event in the last 25 years (and more) of pakistans history has the hand of america in it somewhere - it cannot be ignored.
However im not saying Musharaff did it - im just saying your premise for saying he didnt is flawed.
pakistan cannot and will not change until our leaders stop being whores and we abolish the feudal system in its entirety, even if we blow them all up - dont you love this 'medieval charade' we now have with bilawal in the house? gotta love pakistan's biggest 'democratic' party man....
anon953:
good points, all.
Post a Comment