A word was flagged in our comments last night. I think it deserves its own post.
Kabir called RNJ’s use “kleptocracy” offensive, when used to describe Pakistan. I understand the instinct. Words carry weight. But here’s my problem: in the High Signal era of Brown Pundits, we don’t retire words because they sting. We interrogate them.
So let’s interrogate this one.
I. What Does the Military Actually Own?
Not metaphorically. Literally. The Fauji Foundation operates across fertiliser, cement, food, banking, and energy. Revenues exceeding $1.5 billion annually. The Army Welfare Trust adds real estate, insurance, agriculture. Neither answers to civilian audit. Neither tables accounts in Parliament. DHA schemes, Defence Housing Authority, operate in every major Pakistani city. Land acquired below market rate. Sold at market rate. The differential isn’t commerce. It’s transfer. Ayesha Siddiqa documented this in Military Inc. back in 2007, estimating military business interests at $20 billion. That figure is now considered conservative. The military controls an estimated 12% of all state land. In a country where land is wealth, that number is not incidental.
II. But Is That Kleptocracy?
Here’s where it gets interesting; and where I’ll concede something to Kabir. A pure military economy is not automatically kleptocracy. It can be institutional capture: a security apparatus that has colonised the commanding heights of the economy for reasons of self-preservation rather than pure personal enrichment. That’s arguably worse in structural terms, but it’s a different thing.
Kleptocracy, strictly defined, is rule by thieves; where political power exists primarily to enrich those who hold it. Enter the Sharifs. Enter the Zardaris. Nawaz Sharif’s family owns the Avenfield apartments in Park Lane, London. Maryam Nawaz was convicted, later acquitted on procedural grounds, of owning properties through offshore trusts. Asif Ali Zardari earned the nickname “Mr. Ten Percent” before he’d even become President. These aren’t rumours. They’re documented, litigated, and in some cases, convicted matters of public record.
When the civilian elite extracts, and the military elite extracts, and neither is accountable to Parliament, courts, or the press; what word are we looking for, if not kleptocracy?
III. Pakistan vs India: Oligarchy vs Kleptocracy
India has its own rot. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Adani. Electoral bonds. Crony capitalism dressed in nationalist bunting. The proximity between certain industrialists and the current government is uncomfortable, and worth saying clearly. But, and this matters, Indian oligarchs are legible. They appear in stock exchange filings. They face parliamentary scrutiny, occasionally. They can be, and sometimes are, prosecuted. The system is compromised, but it is not invisible. Pakistani military wealth is structurally invisible by design. It exists outside civilian legal architecture. That is the distinction between oligarchy and kleptocracy: oligarchs accumulate within the system. Kleptocrats are the system.
IV. The Word Problem
Kabir is not wrong that language matters. He is wrong that “offensive” is a counter-argument. Calling a label offensive without engaging its factual basis is a rhetorical move, not an intellectual one. And it’s a move I’ve seen too often on this blog; particularly, I’ll say it plainly, from voices who are quick to demand interrogation of the other side but slow to apply the same standard closer to home. Brown Pundits is not a space for free speech in the lazy sense. It is a space for intelligent free speech. Every word here should earn its place; or be cut. “Kleptocracy” has earned its place. If it’s wrong, show me the audit. Show me the Parliamentary oversight. Show me the filed accounts.
Until then, the word stands.
The question was never whether the word is polite. The question is whether it is true.
I have no problem with Ayesha Siddiqa ‘s work. She is a serious scholar. Incidentally, she was the Pakistan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center just as my mother was.
RNJ’s use of “kleptocracy” is part of a larger pattern of using language to trigger Pakistanis. “Nazis”, “Genocide” etc. He clearly has an anti-Pakistan agenda. Which is fine but let’s recognize it for what it is.
I can also use harsh language about India. In many cases, that language is intellectually justifiable. But that language would be pretty clearly edited out so I’m not inclined to waste my time.
On the point about Mian Sahab and Maryam Bibi’s “convictions”. The same courts that convicted them have convicted Imran Khan. So if we are going to take Mian Sahab’s conviction as a settled issue, we should also take IK’s conviction as a settled issue. IK stole from the state Treasury (Toshakhana). He’s also been convicted (along with his wife) in a 190 million pound graft case. Pretending that IK is not corrupt while somehow the Sharifs are is not intellectually honest.
The cases against Mian Sahab and Maryam Bibi were examples of political victimization. Chief Justice Saqib Nisar was working at the behest of the “establishment”. He was clearly anti PML-N.
Kleptocracy matlab kleptocracy.
RNJ bhai ne bol diya, matlab hai.
Stop trolling.
Of course, you will support the other person with the anti-Pakistan agenda. That tracks.
I can also express harsh and provocative judgements on India.
Admin Note: Unnecessary
you are allowed to so long as it is not abusive etc.. we can then discuss it.
for instance I won’t allow the word genocide for 1971 as it is not “settled fact.”
the point about these posts is to establish precedent so for instance unless the genocide post is rebutted..
this is how we go to High Signal
for instance I’ve written a few times on the state of Indian Muslims so also that can’t be rehashed (by BB) unless the points are addressed in my post.
I think you have far less tolerance for “anti-India” posts than you do for “anti-Pakistan” ones.
You have called me “anti-India” multiple times and I’ve had to push back and say that I am only anti BJP.
So I’m not inclined to spend time describing my issues with anti-minority behavior from the Modi regime only to find that my comments have been heavily edited.
let’s keep high signal please.
that is a very good point; we need to do an interrogative post on Imran Khan.
if Pakistani courts are good enough to deem on corruption then why not the same standard for IK
The Pakistani courts have proved themselves repeatedly to be pliable tools in service of the actual powers that control Pakistan.
Its an open secret that retired Pakistani military chiefs are millionaires – I forget which particular COAS was caught with a bunch of “Papa John’s” Pizza franchises. But its notable that unlike a Sharif or a Zardari or even an Imran, none of these have ever faced conviction from the Pakistani courts.
I think there’s a big ol’ giant mess when it comes to the corruption convictions of all Pakistani politicians. Not because any of them are wholly innocent, but because the prosecution and persecution of political leaders accused of corruption is independent of said corruption itself – It is only when they come into conflict with PakMil is that they end up facing the pointy end of the Pakistani “legal system” – whatever you may consider its reliability and efficacy to be. Sharif was ousted because of ‘Dawnleaks’ where he dared bring up the fact that Pakistani perpetrators of 26/11 were deliberately not being punished. Similarly Imran is widely seen as only becoming PM because he had the ISI’s political wing helping him construct the necessary King’s Party alliance. Its only when PakMil decided that he needed to go, that his ‘corruption’ was suddenly discovered.
And therein lies the problem for Pakistan. It is not that somehow the Pakistani military is solely responsible for the ills that the country faces. Undoubtedly there have been corrupt civilian politicans in the past, but its the sheer unparalleled lack of accountability that the Pakistani Military has endowed itself with – makes it orders of magnitude more corrupt.
On India – I think its totally kosher to criticize and discuss corruption or any other ills that are present in the Indian state – government or otherwise. Just that, make it substantive, or as @XTM said – make it intelligent Because hurling propaganda talking points is just a waste of everybody’s time.
I would applaud a fact-based critique of the Modi administration’s abuse of power, or coddling with Oligarchs, for example. But I’d want to see the discussion of the former, couched in accurate context – Not cherry-picked weaponized rhetoric, but an honest discussion of what its doing relative to other administrations and parties. Because governmental overreach in India (and elsewhere) has sadly been standard operating procedure for decades.
I wanted to add – I do not continue to harp on Pakistan’s ‘kleptocracy’ problem as some sort of cudgel to “insult” Pakistan, or even Kabir for that matter.
I bring it up, because I strongly believe it to be a primary factor leading to an eminently unnecessary and unsustainable hostility cycle between India and Pakistan.
It is because the Pakistani Military is able to sustain its kleptocratic dominance over its nation-state, only if hostility with India is sustained. The incentives for the elites that make the decisions in Pakistan are not aligned with the best outcomes for Pakistani citizens – and certainly not those from an Indian perspective.
This is why it is relevant to bring up and discuss the disproportionate, arguably illegal and immoral domination that the Pakistani military continues to exert over that nation-state.
The future of the entire subcontinent is impacted by this. And frankly, none of this is ‘breaking news’. Its not just Ayesha Siddiqa, many a Pakistani has pointed this out. None of them are “anti-Pakistan”.
I think it is extremely hypocritical of you to say that discussion of India has not be “propaganda taking points”.
Your discussion of Pakistan over the last nine months or so has been almost entirely “propaganda”.
You clearly hate Pak Fauj. Which–for an Indian– is I suppose understandable.
However, Pak Fauj is not the root of all evil. This is an extremely reductive view.
Thanks for elaborating on the obvious. And I’m not being glib. I truly appreciate it. The whole weaponizing hostility fixation on this simple term was getting really tiresome.
Don’t pretend that you have not been hostile to me. It goes both ways.
Your anti-Pakistan agenda has been amply demonstrated on this blog. It is obvious to anyone who is truly neutral.