Pakistan’s elite class has given new meaning to the word “establishment”. Check out Wikipedia encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_%28Pakistan%29

AGENCIES, MLITARY GENERALS, ARMY BLESSED POLITICIANS three of the five.

Establishment is a mindset and it is front for shadow power. Establisgment is combination of all military elites, higher beaucracy, backdoor politiicans, feudal lords and most impotant establishment is group of people who do not beleive in open debate. They want to take important decision about stake of the country behind close curtain.

I think a group of all of them.

only agencies and genralls

Establishment is basically a “mindset”. A mindset to

cling to power
deprive people of their rights
to belive that they “establishment” know the best
oppose any change in status quo

It comprises of SOME members of

Bureaucracy,
top military brass,
politicains and
landlords

e.g I’ll Farooq Leghari is also a part of “establishment”

I believe there is no such thing as an “establishment” in Pakistan in the sense that it exists in other entrenched nations (The British Establishment, the Anglo-American establishment)

You see, establishment, aside from being a mindset, is a coalition of behind-the-scenes actors that give stability to the nation or country or empire (a common entity and set of values to be protected) so that the concept can endure.

In Pakistan, what we have is a ‘focus of privilege’ like a show-biz search light and as long as you are under that spot-light you are in the “in group” but once you are used up.. you are just another used tissue paper.

Look at the “ex servicemen society”, if these people comprised of “the real mccoy”, no sitting president could call them useless POS! The establishment, by definition, is stronger than a single institution.

But the converse is not necessarily true. Something that is stronger than an existent overt institution is not necessarily (or by default as it were) “the Establishment’ in the *cough* established *cough* sense of the word.

An establishment, when it is strong, stops institutions from crossing certain lines. Because it’s own survival is attached to a set of rules such that the playground in which the Establishment exercises it’s hegemony is not destroyed by some of the participants.

In Pakistan, we don’t have an establishment, we have a loosely tied network of individuals which use the coercive powers of the state at the behest of external establishements - especially British

You see, you need an identity and a set of values for an establishment to protect (as it nibbles away at the sweet wealth secreted by the worker bees) ..

An establishment ‘gels’ around an identity. Identity is something dynamic, but it provides the substrate upon which the establishment spreads its roots and provides the anchor for a society and a set of unwritten rules that the various actors more or less agree to.

We don’t have any of that because we haven’t even agreed upon an identity yet. And the military-bureaucratic complex in Pakistan has proved to be a bunch of sissies and given NO reisitance to foreign strategic meddling in the indentity formation process which was key after the creation of the state.

So, we don’t have an establishment, we have a loosely tied group of vultures all bound together by petty self-interest who do not have interests in Pakistan and whose “retirement” plans include lives in lavish villas in europe and in the americas as rewards for loyalty to the interests of the foreign estabilshments.

The politicians, who owe their STATURE to establishment, sould be considered as establisment. Because they provide a legal cover to the wrong-doings of establishment thru parliament, by abusing their power to modify the LAW.

@Tab’an Khamosh

Well thought writing. After reading your comments I am still struggling with the word “Establishment” and that why media has given this euphemistic name to an oligarchy. It is (inversely) like the freedom fighters in Iraq are called as insurgency (against an occupying U.S. military and a puppet government). We should think of other Urdu and English words for this group of culprits which should reflect their behavior.

Establishment:
A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the. It is a dynamic, changing and adjusting with the time without compromising 0n the core issues.

Pakistan’s establishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_(Pakistan)

The Establishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

Anti-establishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-establishment

In Pakistan’s context in addition to Stephen Cohen’s above mentioned description, the adherence to the seperate muslim identity and its sequel, the ‘two nation theory’ and ‘Nazariya e Pakistan’ has been considered a must by the establishment. India, Islam and Urdu were the instruments of creating and sustaining a fragile nation-state. Centuries old Indus-identity was repressed. America, Army and Allah were the three contants to fall back upon while the Awam was ignored.


Interesting links. I think there is a
fourth factor as well. There are two kinds of foreigners involved in the
death and dismemberment of pakistan.
AAA M


Establishment is not something indigenous to Pakistan. Establishment in PK = Lobby in US, its not very uncommon for governments to be effected by rich and powerful.

No need to romanticize the term, its more of a common-sensical thing.

@wahmed: Things are not as simple and black & white. The beast called “establishment” as it exists in various societies has been covered in quite some detail and it is more than an innocent lobbyists’ club.

We need to define and name things and concepts properly so we can deal with them. My opinion is that the so called “establishment” is not really an “Establishment” and that is the main problem with Pakistan.

My definition for the entity previously known as “Pakistani Establishment” is “Suicidal Military Bureaucratic Kleptocracy” (SMBK). There is a marked difference between SMBK and an Establishment.

Pakistani SMBK is a parasitic aggregation of individuals and families who will flee Pakistan as soon as there is a problem. An Establishment, OTOH, by its very nature, if it exists that is, has it’s life and death tied to the nation or the country that it is “Established In”.

Key difference. And equating that with a “lobby” is just insulting everyone’s intelligence .. so maybe it was more in jest that it was mentioned.. who knows.

@Tab’an Khamosh: Thanks for reading my Huble opinion, You really think Lobbies in US would stick when downfall of US starts, huh! Did they when Germany started to fall during WW?

I was just watching news, the biggest factor in current demise of $ is that many big concerns inside US have started to dump US currency as soon as it was started to fall.

So my friend, be assured Establishment & Lobbies are very same, they are all about money & power which actually leads to more money.

That’s exactly what I mean by romanticizing which is No.1 pass time of Pakistanis, “Suicidal Military Bureaucratic Kleptocracy” instead of fancy words why don’t we just call them “Smart Morden Day Thieves”. It actually is black and white; they are group of very smart people who have the wit, money and power to alter any weak government of their respective countries.

The simpler/practical you make the issue, the easier it is to fight it. Obviously no one is trying to insult your intelligent, it’s very clear anyways.

@wahmed: whatever rings your bell bro.

I think User Rafi’s definition as following “Establishment is a mindset and it is front for shadow power. Establisgment is combination of all military elites, higher beaucracy, backdoor politiicans, feudal lords and most impotant establishment is group of people who do not beleive in open debate. They want to take important decision about stake of the country behind close curtain.” and Stephen Cohen’s opinion describing Pakistani establishment as

” a “moderate oligarchy” with “an informal political system that [ties] together the senior ranks of the military, the civil service, key members of the judiciary, and other elites.” Membership in this oligarchy, Cohen contends, requires adherence to a common set of beliefs: that India must be countered at every turn; that nuclear weapons have endowed Pakistan with security and status; that the fight for Kashmir is unfinished business from the time of partition; that large-scale social reforms such as land redistribution are unacceptable; that the uneducated and illiterate masses deserve only contempt; that vociferous Muslim nationalism is desirable but true Islamism is not; and that Washington is to be despised but fully taken advantage of. Underlying these “core principles,” one might add, is a willingness to serve power at any cost.”

The above 2 kinda come close to describing this abstract concept. IN short, military takeovers and civilian governments both are just violent shakedown not much different than Presidents breaking the elected bodies because of arbitrary digression.
Thus there exists a perverse symbiosis of this Kleptocrats whoseem to benefit most from the status quo. Imran Khan, the religious cadre (in whatever conceptual capacity this term may be used) do not form part of the inner circle of this establishment and the new born Pakistan media (PTV ofcourse being an obvious exception) and civil society groups are also outsiders. Industrialists and Bankers such as the powerful banking families of Habibs, Sharifs and Saighuls etc.. are somewhat of intermediates with powerful interlinkings with the embedded feudal-military elites. I say the last one based more on instinct though.

The loud averse antagonism amongst these various factions betrays the dynamic equilibrium that exists within its substratum. Hence the oft heard term in Pakistani political folklore: lotas, personality cults, family oreinted dynasties such as those of the the Bhuttos

Now all these things arn’t in themselves bad. they become an abomination when there is no check on them, there is nothing to challenge their control, and when corruption, nepotism and other such ills become so embedded that an honest broker is not only viewed with contempt, but often eliminated.