When one talks about the Left in Pakistan (also when it talks about itself) one is pretty quick quite far on the left, with comrades and worker’s struggle. (To follow what the very active Leftists are currently up to, the SPN Network is a great source). That is a bit bewildering to a Central European who understands the Political Left to be more heterogenuous than just Socialist. There could be the Greens, the Liberals, and other swaths of the population who would be left leaning but has little understanding of peasant’s uprsie in the rural areas or reminescences of a Socialist state.

Farooq Sulehria provides a brief history in a global context.

Masood Ashraf Raja even has to emphasize, that he is not talking about the Communist Party when talking about the left:

When I invoke the term left, I do not mean left in the classical sense: a centralized communist party. I rather mean a loose coalition of like-minded Pakistanis with a socialistic outlook who believe in a secular public sphere and do not treat class, gender, and other identities as fixed but as fluid constructs within a national space. Most of all, the left signifies for me a strong commitment to a liberatory and redemptive politics that builds lateral solidarities—within and without the nation—against the forces of neoliberal capital.

Pervez Hoodbhoy has last year looked at the potential of the Left in Pakistan – he drifts away into a lot of repetitive stuff that has really little to do with the Left and is just what he writes about again and again, but gets to a final point:

To become relevant to the real needs of Pakistan’s peoples, Pakistan’s leftists need to reaffirm their allegiance to what truly matters. Instead of chasing demons and indulging in meaningless sloganeering, they must squarely face religious militancy as the most immediate problem. Left-wing ideals lie in the great ideals of economic justice, secularism, universalistic ideas of human rights, good governance, women’s rights, and rationality in human affairs. Washington must be firmly resisted, but only when it seeks to drag Pakistan away from these goals. It is futile to frame every debate in pro- or anti-America terms; the key point is to be pro-people.

A recent short article on where the Pakistani Left could go, which sees a lot of positive potential, was recently published by Qalandar Bux Memon and Ali Mohsin. Like the other articles it dwells a lot in the past, but gives current examples where the Left is active and achieving.

From these foundations, the Left desires to push on to economic and social transformation. It’s a difficult, perilous task. But the Pakistani Left has never been more prepared.

This rooting in the present gives this piece some more realistic outlook what the Pakistani Left could be about today (no doubt, the different organisations are very active and do achieve a lot good – it would be laudable if interantional ‘nation builders’/'failed state theorizers’ would acknowledge these aspects of the Pakistani landscape). Nevertheless I think the Left would be well advised if they would further their spectrum from staunch comrades, anti-imperialists and the working class to for example the neo-liberals in Raja’s definition. Memon and others are reaching out to bring different people together via great initiatives in locations like Cafe Bol – I guess there could be more of it, also outside of the universities’ domain.

Of course the extreme adverse side of critics also does exist – Pakistani writers who continuously blame their own country (often including themselves as it’s citizens) for it’s current situation. Ahmed Rashid often does so, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Nadeem Paracha as well. I respect their assessments and find them constructive, in case of the latter they sometimes do tend to go into the all-destructive though.

Manan Ahmed on chapatimystery showed that coming up with conspiracy theories or offended negations is not necessary to counter the US push into Pakistan. He offers a straight confutation of a NYTimes OpEd by “one of the brains behind President Obama’s Afghanistan policy”, Seth Jones.

He also links to a hottly debated post at Registan which not only bashes Jones but also Michael Semple on the article I recently referred to. It sounds a bit harsh, I would have seen Semple in less critical light but Foust may be more informed (although some commenters disagree). His bashing of Kilcullen I would agree with though.