Mohammad Asghar Khan. My Political Struggle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 595 pp. $27.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-19-547620-0. Reviewed by Umair A. Muhajir Published on H-Asia (January, 2010) Commissioned by Sumit Guha (The University of Texas at Austin) One of the grave problems confronting Eng‐ its citizens--thereby privileging and perpetuating lish-language political discourse in Pakistan is the the essentially bureaucratic model of the nation- almost universal indifference of the country’s in‐ state inherited from the British Raj. This problem telligentsia and English-speaking elites to the is hardly unique to Pakistan, but the country’s question of ideology in “normal” politics. That is, particular historical experience means that the leaving aside the meta-narratives of the pre-inde‐ stakes might be higher for it. Simply put, a preoc‐ pendence Pakistan movement (for a separate cupation with “efficiency” and “honesty” can all homeland for India’s Muslims), and the current too easily become a preference for the orderliness national debate on Islamic extremism and the fu‐ and authoritativeness of military rule, as opposed ture direction of Pakistan, in both of which in‐ to the unglamorous horse-trading, venality, and stances ideological issues have been front-and- sheer messiness of “normal” politics. This attitude center (not coincidentally, both are seen as calling was clearly visible in the response to Pakistan’s into question the very idea of Pakistan in one most recent military coup, when far too many in sense or another), the country’s political discourse the country’s urban intelligentsia signed on to is largely conducted as if ideology had no role to Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 deposition of Prime Min‐ play in everyday politics; indeed, as if it did not ister Nawaz Sharif’s spectacularly corrupt civilian even exist for the most part. government. Nor can anyone say with confidence The objection is more than merely academic. that Musharraf’s 2008 exit has settled once and An indifference to ideology means that political for all the question of military involvement in discourse in Pakistan remains mired in techno‐ Pakistan’s politics. As long as the intellectual hori‐ cratic questions of efficiency, “development,” and zon remains an essentially bureaucratic one, the “corruption”--rather than those of (e.g.) social jus‐ likelihood of support for a military intervention tice, fairness, and the relationship of the state to H-Net Reviews by the very social groups who have benefited searches in vain for any indication, much less ex‐ from the status quo cannot be ruled out. planation, of Khan’s ideology, or that of his party. The above goes a long way toward accounting The format of My Political Struggle com‐ for what is wrong with Air-Marshal (retd.) Mo‐ pounds the problem. According to Khan, the hammad Asghar Khan’s My Political Struggle-- book’s chronicle of “the picture as I saw it over and toward explaining why what is right about three decades”--i.e., 1972-2001--is “based on Khan does not begin to address the problem. And Tehrik-i-Istiqlal’s record of events (19 December there is much that is “right” about Khan (b. 1921), 1971-12 January 1975), and a diary that I kept of the one-time head of Pakistan’s air force for eight events thereafter” (p. ix). “[R]ather than repro‐ years, beginning in 1957. Subsequent to his 1965 duce the diary in full,” Khan “thought it would be retirement, Khan was appointed to lead Pakistan’s more appropriate to give a general overview of airline by the country’s frst military dictator, events as I saw them and reproduce only those Ayub Khan, and resigned in 1968 to plunge into entries that are likely to interest the reader.” But active politics, frst against continued military Khan provides no insight into what Tehrik-i-Is‐ rule, and then, more famously, against the civilian tiqlal’s “record of events” consists of, who wrote government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan Peo‐ it, what “based on” precisely means, and what ple’s Party (PPP), that assumed power after the se‐ sort of political material has been left out of the cession of East Pakistan as Bangladesh in 1971. Al‐ personal diaries reproduced here. Turning to the though Khan’s own political party, the Tehrik-i-Is‐ record and diaries as published, one fnds oneself tiqlal, has never enjoyed electoral success, includ‐ drowning in minutiae: no fewer than 491 of the ing after the restoration of Pakistani democracy in book’s over 550 pages consist of these entries, 1988, Khan is remembered fondly by many as an most of them simply accounts of trips undertaken honest politician, a decent man at odds with the by Khan in the course of his work, records that endemic venality surrounding him. Indeed, his meetings with various political fgures took place decency is even held up as explaining his lack of (the content of these meetings is usually indicated success. Not least by Khan himself, who responds only in the most general terms), or recitations of to charges of political failure by noting that “[t]o the iniquities of this or that government against succeed in being elected by dubious means or to Khan or the Tehrik-e-Istiqlal. The reader gets bend the law ... is considered the hallmark of a hardly any favor of Khan’s “political struggle” to successful politician. Those who do not do so are mobilize support for the Tehrik-i-Istiqlal, and the considered ... ‘failures in politics.'”[1] Khan’s per‐ result is a book that falls between two stools, lack‐ sonal goodness is of course beside the point. But ing the insight and sweep of a book on politics, as quotes like the one above, while admittedly well as the illusion of intimacy afforded by an au‐ poignant, illustrate that Khan is squarely within tobiography. the “bureaucratist” tradition of Pakistani political Moreover, despite the plethora of diary en‐ discourse this review started out by critiquing, a tries, important events are inexplicably glossed tradition within which there can be no greater over. For instance, a June 1977 diary entry sug‐ virtue than fnancial probity and orderly, efficient gests Khan might have been administered poison governance. If this sounds unfair to Khan, his at Bhutto’s behest (p. 102)--but the subject never books (My Political Struggle is a follow-up to crops up again. And one searches in vain for any 2005’s We’ve Learnt Nothing From History) don’t explanation as to why the Tehrik-i-Istiqlal allied help much. The combined length of these two with the PPP after 1990 (after Benazir Bhutto’s books runs to over eight hundred pages, yet one PPP-government was dismissed by the country’s 2 H-Net Reviews president, effectively on the say-so of the military, realities, much less recognize the status quo ele‐ as prelude to a Nawaz Sharif victory in elections ments the ideology encodes. widely seen as rigged). Khan contents himself Furthermore, Khan (and not only Khan; to the with an August 1990 diary entry that elevates extent we are speaking of a failure here, it is that blandness to an art form: “Discussed the forth‐ of an entire class) is unable to see that this world‐ coming elections [with Benazir Bhutto] and view leads to practical difficulties, by raising the agreed on an alliance for the elections and ‘there‐ stakes to unfortunate effect. A worldview that after’” (p. 402)--this barely two pages (and eigh‐ sees political disagreement as borne of the contest teen days) after a diary entry noting that Khan between good and bad people, not contending ide‐ had “[a]greed to enter into an alliance with one of ologies, is one that elevates ordinary politics to the two major political forces, the PPP and the IJI the level of metaphysical conflict, rendering com‐ [headed by Nawaz Sharif] or other opposition promise all but impossible. Thus, although Khan parties” (pp. 400-401). gets credit for being one of the few prominent In the absence of any serious ideological en‐ West Pakistani voices in 1970 to argue that the po‐ gagement with the politics of Pakistan (as opposed litical crisis enveloping the country had a simple to with mere events), My Political Struggle leaves solution--the Awami League, representing the in‐ the reader with such generalities as Khan’s oppo‐ terests of the more populous East Pakistan, and sition to military rule, and his proposal for how having secured an absolute majority in the Pak‐ power might be decentralized from the central istan legislature despite failing to win any seats in government to the individual provinces. These West Pakistan, should have been asked to form are eminently sensible ideas, but in the absence of the government--his explanation for why this was a coherent program, they skirt banality, and are not done centers on the imbecility and iniquity of reducible to little more than exhortations to good Pakistan’s military ruler, Yahya Khan, and even governance. Ultimately, and likely unwittingly, more so, on Bhutto’s ambition. On Khan’s view, Khan appears to share the worldview of a cultural Bhutto--whose neo-socialist PPP had won an over‐ and bureaucratic elite that has historically set far whelming majority of seats in West Pakistan in greater store by the appearance of decisive action, the 1970 elections, but had fewer than half the than by the appearance of democracy; by the slo‐ seats nationwide--wanted a political “solution” gans of honesty and wiping the slate clean, than that would ensure his primacy, even at the cost of by those of social justice and redistribution.