Tuesday February 10, 2009
Notwithstanding much trumpeted confidence-building measures (CBMs) not much changed for the better between India and Pakistan during Musharraf regime. The CBMs lacked sincerity. President Zardaris statements on system, extremism, India and Kashmir had created hope for a meaningful interaction between the two countries, but the Mumbai tragedy, caused by militancy, delayed everything.
The basic reason that makes militancy a choice is to intimidate the opposition using an inexpensive but terribly effective strategy. Another reason is that paid or indoctrinated militants from other nations can be recruited to execute it. The militancy in Afghanistan began in 1979 and has been continuing ever since. The US remained attached to it throughout as sponsor and supporter, and also as opponent after 9/11/2001. But up till now only a few hundred Americans have lost their lives in Afghanistan. Compare this with the loss of Afghan and Pakistani lives and salute our strategists.
The disadvantages of militancy for its proponent come from the same reasons that make it a favourite. Militancy cannot be controlled. Cost effectiveness, indoctrination and alien recruitment carry, separately or in combinations, seeds of defiance and also create an environment in which parallel militancy is bound to emerge.
The CIA and ISI incubated militancy mostly in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal belt and partly inside Pakistan for the Jihad against the USSR. It did not end even after the unilateral withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan. It grew, despite the USs war on terror. The US could have won the war, had it not delayed the action against Taliban and other militants by almost one month after September 11, 2001, the day the militants attacked New York and Washington. The US, then, did not target the militants training camps either. Nor did it touch their shelters. No wonder the militants returned to Afghanistan within months after fleeing from the battlefield!
After the departure of the Soviets, Pakistan together with its friendly states from the Gulf took charge of the situation. The US later on supported the Jihad covertly. This is how the Taliban emerged. Alongside nurtured/controlled militancy substantial parallel militancy appeared. The warlords, the drug traffickers, the traders in arms and ammunition and extremists from different places formed their own militant organisations in the Pak-Afghan border areas. The dedicated Muslim activists, funded by the rich Pakistani and Arab individuals and organisations, also created their militant groups inside Pakistan. This is how various Jaish, Siphas, Lashkars and good Taliban emerged.
The controlled, defiant and parallel militancy devastated Afghanistan. The parallel and defiant militancy distressed China, India, UK, Russia and many Central Asian States. Even the US (attacks on trade centres and Pentagon by defiant militancy) and Pakistan (suicide attacks everywhere and destruction in FATA and Swat by parallel and defiant militancy) were not spared.
The war on terror is being fought, largely, against parallel groups. But at times they are protected by various states for situational compulsions or even as a strategy. Presently there is coordination among almost all militant organisations. The war on terror is, thus, a limited war, a war of double standards; a war that deals with its opponents as enemy and also as friend, as the situation or strategy demands. And it also creates its opposition to be treated in the same manner.
We can sadly conclude that the militancy will continue (though, a determined Pakistan can change the direction of history). Its reasons are simple. The Americans want their presence in a land corridor that can connect, strategically and economically, 2/3 of the world. The tribal Arab kingdoms, fiefdoms and cartels want to promote tribalism to counter modernisation, democracy and industrialisation, in the region. The mentors of most of the parallel militant groups want chaos for making money, and some want to implement Islamic law; the resource short Pakistan needs capital and another defence line, and its civil-military bureaucracy continuity of rule.
The indoctrination of sixty-two years in general and last thirty years in particular has brought huge miseries for Pakistanis but it has mesmerised a majority of them as well. They believe that if the Muslims of world unite, they can overpower others. They believe that the Taliban had brought peace in Afghanistan by implementing Islamic Law. They believe that if they could defeat the USSR, they can defeat any other country too.
The unity of Muslims is a delusion and overpowering others is a reactionary thought. The Soviet Union was not defeated in Afghanistan, and the Talibans peace was the peace of graveyard. The Afghan communists stayed in power for about three more years even after the withdrawal of the Soviets. True, the militants ultimately defeated them. It happened, because the communists were not getting support from outside, whereas the Americans, the rich Arab and many other nations were on the side of militants.
The irony is that our propaganda machine has been successfully keeping the nation away from the truth, and mesmerised. This is one of the three main reasons that are not allowing India and Pakistan to have meaningful interaction. Militancys international connection is the second reason. It is not just for nothing that the Anglo-Saxons, the Americans and the English, have after four decades raised Kashmir as an antagonising issue again. They want to end only the kind of militancy that can harm them. They want the land corridor, Pakistan-Afghanistan border belt, to remain turbulent or closed. They want India to compromise its independence. They want Pakistan to live as an abnormal country, as abnormal as Afghanistan has become.
The third reason is that the two countries are moving in opposite directions; India is walking on a paved track to modernisation, Pakistan is running on an open way to Talibanisation. We can safely arrive at another conclusion; meaningful interaction between India and Pakistan will be possible when harmony in their social directions is evolved. Pakistan must go through metamorphosis.
None from our past or present leadership, except Asif Ali Zardari, has spoken the truth about India-Pakistan relationship. He did it through his statement, India has never been a threat to Pakistan. He did it because he said many times that, I am not afraid of death. He is the only politician who became president by superseding the so-called system, our omnipotent ethno-religious intelligentsia and the US. The kind of stuff that has been appearing against him in the US, UK and our media before and after his election tells it all.
A determined person who is committed to the elimination of extremism and who saved Pakistan from a big disaster after December 27, 2007, the day Benazir was assassinated, and afterwards from a possible default and a probable war can change the direction of Pakistan. However, in a thorny journey to metamorphose Pakistan, the biggest resistance that has not attracted Zardaris attention so far will come from the bureaucracy, which has always been prejudiced towards politicians and has with the passing of time become dreadfully corrupt.
When Pakistan was founded the bureaucracy represented thirty percent Pakistanis only. In the presence of weak political parties, it enjoyed absolute authority. To keep its authority intact it crafted strategies that were India and strategic depth centric and for a strong centre and almost a theocratic state.
These strategies are the root of all of our basic and acquired problems reactionary alliance of bureaucracy, army, judiciary and landed and moneyed elites, dependence on outsiders, social and ethnic divides, disharmony among provinces, Objectives Resolution, disinterest in education and industrialisation, oversized administration and military, continuity of feudal and unorganised urban economy, conflicts with India, army becoming a commercial organisation, emergence of militants and mafias, rampant corruption, social injustices reaching critical limit, wayward bureaucratic state is converting fast to radicalism.
Today all political forces and lawyers movement want to solve these problems. They are in a struggle to save Pakistan. The PPP, which is ideologically pro-change and also in power, must act quickly to put Pakistan on a highway to modernisation.
The sooner the PPP changes the direction of bureaucracy, the sooner Pakistan can change direction its own and of history. President Zardari should start the journey with the resolution of judicial crisis. It will deliver first blow to bureaucracys fatal hold. An executive order by Prime Minister Gillani committing all government servants to stick to merit, time and action wise, or leave will deliver another.
Making bureaucracy responsible pro-people, work friendly and upright will reduce socio-economic injustices. It will help cover half the journey and make Pakistan a liveable place. Translating Zardaris statements on extremism, India and Kashmir, into policies will almost complete the journey.
Notwithstanding much trumpeted confidence-building measures (CBMs) not much changed for the better between India and Pakistan during Musharraf regime. The CBMs lacked sincerity. President Zardaris statements on system, extremism, India and Kashmir had created hope for a meaningful interaction between the two countries, but the Mumbai tragedy, caused by militancy, delayed everything.
The basic reason that makes militancy a choice is to intimidate the opposition using an inexpensive but terribly effective strategy. Another reason is that paid or indoctrinated militants from other nations can be recruited to execute it. The militancy in Afghanistan began in 1979 and has been continuing ever since. The US remained attached to it throughout as sponsor and supporter, and also as opponent after 9/11/2001. But up till now only a few hundred Americans have lost their lives in Afghanistan. Compare this with the loss of Afghan and Pakistani lives and salute our strategists.
The disadvantages of militancy for its proponent come from the same reasons that make it a favourite. Militancy cannot be controlled. Cost effectiveness, indoctrination and alien recruitment carry, separately or in combinations, seeds of defiance and also create an environment in which parallel militancy is bound to emerge.
The CIA and ISI incubated militancy mostly in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal belt and partly inside Pakistan for the Jihad against the USSR. It did not end even after the unilateral withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan. It grew, despite the USs war on terror. The US could have won the war, had it not delayed the action against Taliban and other militants by almost one month after September 11, 2001, the day the militants attacked New York and Washington. The US, then, did not target the militants training camps either. Nor did it touch their shelters. No wonder the militants returned to Afghanistan within months after fleeing from the battlefield!
After the departure of the Soviets, Pakistan together with its friendly states from the Gulf took charge of the situation. The US later on supported the Jihad covertly. This is how the Taliban emerged. Alongside nurtured/controlled militancy substantial parallel militancy appeared. The warlords, the drug traffickers, the traders in arms and ammunition and extremists from different places formed their own militant organisations in the Pak-Afghan border areas. The dedicated Muslim activists, funded by the rich Pakistani and Arab individuals and organisations, also created their militant groups inside Pakistan. This is how various Jaish, Siphas, Lashkars and good Taliban emerged.
The controlled, defiant and parallel militancy devastated Afghanistan. The parallel and defiant militancy distressed China, India, UK, Russia and many Central Asian States. Even the US (attacks on trade centres and Pentagon by defiant militancy) and Pakistan (suicide attacks everywhere and destruction in FATA and Swat by parallel and defiant militancy) were not spared.
The war on terror is being fought, largely, against parallel groups. But at times they are protected by various states for situational compulsions or even as a strategy. Presently there is coordination among almost all militant organisations. The war on terror is, thus, a limited war, a war of double standards; a war that deals with its opponents as enemy and also as friend, as the situation or strategy demands. And it also creates its opposition to be treated in the same manner.
We can sadly conclude that the militancy will continue (though, a determined Pakistan can change the direction of history). Its reasons are simple. The Americans want their presence in a land corridor that can connect, strategically and economically, 2/3 of the world. The tribal Arab kingdoms, fiefdoms and cartels want to promote tribalism to counter modernisation, democracy and industrialisation, in the region. The mentors of most of the parallel militant groups want chaos for making money, and some want to implement Islamic law; the resource short Pakistan needs capital and another defence line, and its civil-military bureaucracy continuity of rule.
The indoctrination of sixty-two years in general and last thirty years in particular has brought huge miseries for Pakistanis but it has mesmerised a majority of them as well. They believe that if the Muslims of world unite, they can overpower others. They believe that the Taliban had brought peace in Afghanistan by implementing Islamic Law. They believe that if they could defeat the USSR, they can defeat any other country too.
The unity of Muslims is a delusion and overpowering others is a reactionary thought. The Soviet Union was not defeated in Afghanistan, and the Talibans peace was the peace of graveyard. The Afghan communists stayed in power for about three more years even after the withdrawal of the Soviets. True, the militants ultimately defeated them. It happened, because the communists were not getting support from outside, whereas the Americans, the rich Arab and many other nations were on the side of militants.
The irony is that our propaganda machine has been successfully keeping the nation away from the truth, and mesmerised. This is one of the three main reasons that are not allowing India and Pakistan to have meaningful interaction. Militancys international connection is the second reason. It is not just for nothing that the Anglo-Saxons, the Americans and the English, have after four decades raised Kashmir as an antagonising issue again. They want to end only the kind of militancy that can harm them. They want the land corridor, Pakistan-Afghanistan border belt, to remain turbulent or closed. They want India to compromise its independence. They want Pakistan to live as an abnormal country, as abnormal as Afghanistan has become.
The third reason is that the two countries are moving in opposite directions; India is walking on a paved track to modernisation, Pakistan is running on an open way to Talibanisation. We can safely arrive at another conclusion; meaningful interaction between India and Pakistan will be possible when harmony in their social directions is evolved. Pakistan must go through metamorphosis.
None from our past or present leadership, except Asif Ali Zardari, has spoken the truth about India-Pakistan relationship. He did it through his statement, India has never been a threat to Pakistan. He did it because he said many times that, I am not afraid of death. He is the only politician who became president by superseding the so-called system, our omnipotent ethno-religious intelligentsia and the US. The kind of stuff that has been appearing against him in the US, UK and our media before and after his election tells it all.
A determined person who is committed to the elimination of extremism and who saved Pakistan from a big disaster after December 27, 2007, the day Benazir was assassinated, and afterwards from a possible default and a probable war can change the direction of Pakistan. However, in a thorny journey to metamorphose Pakistan, the biggest resistance that has not attracted Zardaris attention so far will come from the bureaucracy, which has always been prejudiced towards politicians and has with the passing of time become dreadfully corrupt.
When Pakistan was founded the bureaucracy represented thirty percent Pakistanis only. In the presence of weak political parties, it enjoyed absolute authority. To keep its authority intact it crafted strategies that were India and strategic depth centric and for a strong centre and almost a theocratic state.
These strategies are the root of all of our basic and acquired problems reactionary alliance of bureaucracy, army, judiciary and landed and moneyed elites, dependence on outsiders, social and ethnic divides, disharmony among provinces, Objectives Resolution, disinterest in education and industrialisation, oversized administration and military, continuity of feudal and unorganised urban economy, conflicts with India, army becoming a commercial organisation, emergence of militants and mafias, rampant corruption, social injustices reaching critical limit, wayward bureaucratic state is converting fast to radicalism.
Today all political forces and lawyers movement want to solve these problems. They are in a struggle to save Pakistan. The PPP, which is ideologically pro-change and also in power, must act quickly to put Pakistan on a highway to modernisation.
The sooner the PPP changes the direction of bureaucracy, the sooner Pakistan can change direction its own and of history. President Zardari should start the journey with the resolution of judicial crisis. It will deliver first blow to bureaucracys fatal hold. An executive order by Prime Minister Gillani committing all government servants to stick to merit, time and action wise, or leave will deliver another.
Making bureaucracy responsible pro-people, work friendly and upright will reduce socio-economic injustices. It will help cover half the journey and make Pakistan a liveable place. Translating Zardaris statements on extremism, India and Kashmir, into policies will almost complete the journey.
