While practicesassociated with masculinity were an integral part of young men’s mobilization,there were other fundamental aspects of their identities which must be takeninto account. As Cockburn (2012) contends, intersectionality means that itmakes little sense to assess the structures of gender in isolation. In thecontext of Karachi, ethnicity and socio economic background were also importantfactors which figured into the complex causes of violence. The conflict in Karachican be identified as ethnic, spawning from the tensions within Pakistan afterIndependence. According to the constructivist standpoint of authors such asDemmers (2012), ethnic identities can be socially constructed and are subjectto configuration under the influence of political or social factors.
At thetime of the Karachi conflict, the region was inhabited by various collectivesof individuals including Muslim Mohajirs who spoke Urdu, the Sindhi Hindus andthe Punjabi Hindus. Differences in religion and language became the keydefining features which reified ethnic divisions among the inhabitants of thecity and created tensions. Shaikh (2009) suggests that in the decades leadingup to the Karachi conflict, the city was faced with ethnic fragmentation whichled to the rise of religious nationalism and the subsequent popularity of MQM.MQM was primarily an ethno-nationalist party, which represented the interestsof the Mohajirs who felt that they had been marginalized and unjustlydiscriminated against on the basis of their ethnic identity. Khan’s(2010) ethnography illustrates that for many young Mohajir men who chose tobecome involved in the violence, their frustration over perceivedmarginalization along ethnic lines was a strong motivating factor. The Karachi conflictcan thus be explored in terms of the grievance debate which originally soughtto explain the origins of civil war, but has since been extended and applied toother forms of conflict. First generation grievance based arguments,particularly Relative Deprivation Theory suggest that members of an ethniccollective who feel relatively disadvantaged in comparison to other groups insociety may be motivated to initiate violent conflict (Gurr, 2000). Alavi (1990) supports the theory that thearmed violence perpetrated by Mohajir youth was deeply rooted in thefrustrations they felt as a class of people whose aspirations of higheremployment quotas and access to better jobs were severely hindered by theirethnic identity.
In the interviews conducted, poverty featured in every accountof mobilization. Many young men spoke about employers showing a preference forPunjabis and recounted poor living conditions as a result of their limitedaccess to employment and wealth (Khan, 2010). Faisal, one of the young ex-mercenaries related his feeling thatMohajirs were treated as “third-class citizens, defenceless, without rights”(Khan, 2010:231).
At the time, MQM’s leader, Atlaf Hussain presented a rhetoricwhich resonated with the experiences of extreme poverty, unemployment andethnic discrimination which the Mohajirs experienced. Consequently, Hussain’spromises of equality and improved conditions drew many young men into his partyand the subsequent violence. This is supported by the accounts of ex-mercenariessuch as Arshad who recounted that “Altaf Hussain spoke about my experienceexactly. MQM was all about equal rights for Mohajirs. That’s why I joined”(Khan, 2010:231). The statements of the young men reflect their grievances overthe marginalization they suffered and a desire to have these grievancesaddressed as a motivating factor for becoming aligned with the violentorganization.
They had longed to overcome the obstacles imposed upon thembecause of their ethnic identity and becoming involved with MQM appeared tooffer this opportunity. Moreover, the mere fact that the specific targets ofMQM’s violence were both Sindhi and Punjabi citizens and government officialsalike (Khan, 2010), points to the role which ethnic identity rather thanstrictly masculine identity played within the conflict. Consequently, it can beargued that peacetime masculine practices were not the sole factor which led tothe mobilization of young men, as grievances which manifested along ethniclines also played a significant role. Gurr(2000) suggests that there is often an inextricable fusion between thedeterminants of war, as the root causes do not work in isolation. Consequently,it remains necessary to consider other factors, particularly the historical andpolitical context which frames the background of conflict. According to the constructivist view, ethnicviolence results from wider societal and political circumstances which impact asociety, such as colonialism and economic crises (Demmers, 2012).
Gayer (2007) notes that leading up to theconflict, Karachi was a city at breaking point due to the proximal effects ofeconomic hardship and demographic changes after the Soviet-Afghan war of 1977to 1988. After the Soviet- Afghan war, Pakistan saw a significant influx ofAfghan refugees and faced economic fluctuations which in turn worsened theconditions for those who were already among the poorest and most marginalized(Cheema, 1988). Moreover, in exploring the marginalization which the Mohajirs experiencedin Karachi, it is important to explore how it originally spawned. In 1947British India was partitioned under colonial rule, resulting in the creation ofthe two separate states- India and Pakistan. Following this partitioning, alarge number of Urduspeaking Muslims migrated from India to occupy the newlyformed state of Pakistan. The partition movement initially led to large scaleviolence between ethnic and religious groups and displaced millions of people,leading to a refugee crisis in both states (Khan, 2013). For the Muslim, Urdu-speaking people who hadmigrated to Karachi, they would continuously be seen as lower than the Punjabiswho had always inhabited the territory and considered themselves the rightfuloccupants. This ideology could be seen in interviews with Mohajirs who relatedthat Punjabis with lower qualifications gained access to jobs which they couldonly gain through significant bribes that their families were unable to afford(Khan, 2010).
These social, political and historical processes which Pakistanunderwent therefore played a large role in exacerbating ethnic fissures withinKarachi and compounded the perceived grievances of the Mohajirs. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledgethat grievances are subjective (Theuerkauff, 2010) and can often remain latent,becoming relevant and leading to conflict only when they interact with otherfactors (Gurr, 2000). In the case of the Mohajirs in Pakistan, their grievanceshad existed for decades but only culminated in rampant armed violence when MQM managedto solidify its position of power within Karachi. As Demmers (2012) further notes,ethnic violence often remains contingent upon the actions of the politicalelite who seek to gain or maintain power by manipulating the masses. Using the conceptof instrumentalism, Demmers (2012) explains that those in political power inciteconflict by using supposed ethnic divisions to veil their true intentions. However, Instrumentalism has often beencriticized as failing to provide an explanation as to why citizens followleaders in quests which appear only to benefit the elite (Fearon and Laitin,2000). Thus it is important to examine how exactly Hussain was able to mobilizeyoung men to become political mercenaries. Contrary to what the Mohajirs hadinitially been led to believe, “MQM’s leadership was more concerned withachieving power, not improving conditions for Mohajirs” (Khan, 2010: 240).
Yet the hundreds of young men who MQM hadmanaged to mobilize were not initially aware of this, as for many of them, theyfirmly believed in the leaders’ commitment to fighting for their equality andrights. MQM’s public appeal among Karachi’s Mohajirs can be evidenced by itspopularity within the polls, recording landslide electoral victories in 1988,1990, 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2006 (Khan, 2010). Hussain successfully utilized apolitical narrative which emphasized the suffering of the Mohajirs dating backto partitioning and their arrival in Karachi as migrants (Khattak, 2002). This processinvolved the construction of an image within media and political platforms of aMohajir community which was politically and culturally oppressed under thebrutal rule of the Punjabi state (Khan, 2010). Authors including Horowitz(1985) and Gurr and Harff (1994) propose that the interests of an ethnic selfin relation to others is often one of the most significant factors which canlead to mobilization. Hussain’s success at mobilizing young men can beattributed to his effective manipulation of the very real grievances which theMohajirs felt in their everyday lives. By playing on the wider circumstancescreated by historical processes such as colonial partitioning, Hussain managedto ascribe a distinctly ethnic dimension to the suffering of the Mohajirs,thereby exacerbating existing tensions.
It can be argued that MQM hadeffectively “instrumentalised the chaos and instability” (Khan, 2010: 227) tomaintain political power and subsequently continue a reign which was marked byarmed violence. Examination of the wider political and historical context thusprovides important insight into the factors which interacted with masculinepractices to lead to the mobilization of young Mohajir mercenaries. Toconclude, while the analysis of masculinity and masculine practices provides acritical lens through which mobilization and practices of armed violence can beunderstood, it is not enough to observe these practices in isolation. Masculineidentities are intersected by other important markers of identity such asethnicity and socio-economic background. Moreover, the origins of armedviolence is often rooted within the wider political and historical context of asociety.
Thus, in assessing the roots of armed violence, it remains importantto acknowledge how these other identities and wider factors interact withmasculine identities.
