Product Description
An active member of the U. S. Foreign Service until 2001, William B. Milam possesses an exhaustive knowledge of the history and culture of Bangladesh and Pakistan. His insightful study expresses a profound empathy for both countries and, with the death of Benazir Bhutto and the decline of Pervez Musharraf, could not be a timelier contribution to current debates concerning the stability of the region.
Since 1971, Pakistan has evolved into a praetorian state plagued by army interventions and corrupt civilian governments. Nevertheless, the tunnel-vision of General Musharraf triggered a political implosion in 2007, and widespread dismay over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has led Pakistanis to vote overwhelmingly for unfettered civilian rule and the diminishment of religious parties. In contrast, the Bangladesh Army seems intent on returning control to civilians, having remained averse to power for the past seventeen years. Furthermore, Bangladeshi society isn’t nearly as Islamicized as Pakistan’s, though jihadi groups stand ready to exploit the government’s weaknesses.
Milam takes a hard look at the political and religious realities of both countries, especially the al-Qaeda-linked jihadi networks that threaten to permanently turn Pakistan into an ideological state. He also considers Islam’s undeniable influence on the culture of both societies, and, in turn, the influence of these cultures on the tone and expression of Islam. Milam includes an examination of the fear and hostility Pakistan has exhibited toward India, which has resulted in three wars and at least one mini-war.
Buy This book from Amazon Now! Shipping in Pakistan & Round the world available Click Bangladesh and Pakistan: Flirting with Failure in South Asia to buy now.
This short, schizophrenic book can’t decide whether it is a history, political analysis, or social analysis, of Pakistan and Bangladesh since the 1971 civil war, written by William Milam, former US Ambassador to both nations in the 1990s. It is not a worthless book, but it does have serious and disappointing flaws that make it worse than it should have been. I recommend it, if at all, to readers with a background in South Asian history and policy.
In 1947, “Unified Pakistan” was created by the secession of the predominately Muslim areas of newly-independent India. The nation lasted until 1971, when “East Pakistan broke off to form the modern nation of Bangladesh. William Milam compares and contrasts the two nations’ subsequent histories, from 1971 until mid-2008, with special emphasis on the viability of democracy as contrasted with failed military rule. He also includes a chapter on social/cultural issues, such as education, health, women’s rights, and the threat of Islamism.
I find the subject matter here interesting (primarily the Pakistan material). But the presentation should have been much better. As a US Ambassador, Milam undoubtedly has a wealth of experience, personal contacts, and insight which should have featured more prominently. We get some of this; for example, pp. 228-29, n. 1 contains speculation about the reasons for Nawaz Sharif’s political moves. Why such material is relegated to a footnote, and so sparse in the context of the rest of the book, I have no idea.
So the book is not a memoir, but it does not fare much better as a history. Because it discusses two nations on separate (albeit parallel) paths, the chronology jumps around a lot, especially towards the end. The narrative begins abruptly in 1971, with very little explanation of Unified Pakistan to set the scene, which can make the book incomprehensible for a beginner. For example, the first we hear of the Awami League is on page 2, with just the unexplained initials “AL”. On page 15 we get the full name, but no explanation of who the AL is or what they represent. The author assumes the reader is familiar with Field Marshall Ayub Khan, who is mentioned repeatedly. Milam’s acknowledged sources are few and far between — sometimes with pages of text but no footnotes. He discusses the Lal Masjid incident, but never gives the date.
The book is somewhat stronger as a social or political analysis. Seen in this light, book’s weaknesses as a history are perhaps excusable as merely setting the stage for the analytical work. But there is no serious social discussion until chapter 9 (the longest chapter in the book, but still only one chapter). Milam frequently fails to define his terms (such as “structural deficiencies,” p. 199, or “social development,” p. 201). The word “purdah” is first used on p. 206, but not defined until p. 237. Proper analysis is impossible without first defining the terms of the debate.
With some rigorous editing, there is no reason this book could not have been much better. It is riddled with spelling errors, especially towards the end. Milam asserts in the middle of the book that Musharraf is still the President of Pakistan, but states toward the end that he stepped down in 2008. The book certainly has value — both as an introduction to the region, and for Milam’s occasional insights.
Rating: 2 / 5