What's new

Maverick Pakistan: Army leading it to oblivion


WISDOM & VALOUR - THE GENERAL'S VIEWS
Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain

The Pakistan Army continues to baffle. Known to be the power behind Pakistan's foreign and security related policies its hold is also for the purpose of perpetuating its control over Pakistan's polity and in fact almost every facet of existence of the nation.

From 1977 onwards, when General Zia ul Haq overthrew Zulfiqar Bhutto, the control of the Army has been all pervading, even as democracy prevails. It is the Pakistan Army's concept of existence that has led the government to follow the policy of proxy war against India; 'war by a thousand cuts' has been the Army's way of carrying out retribution for the loss it suffered in 1971. The opening of India's economy in 1991 almost coincided with Pakistan's launch of proxy war in J&K and beyond. Yet it was the Pakistan Army's single handed obsession which prevented Pakistan from joining in the larger game of economic cooperation and development which may have permitted it to also make strides in development as India did. A quarter of a century down the line the Pakistan Army appears to have learnt no lessons, kept its vice like grip over national policies, disallowed the natural process of cooperation to achieve economic goals and continued to play spoiler as far as relations with India are concerned. The baffling part is that it is now extending its maverick behavior beyond the realm of India, Pakistan relations. The Saudi-Iran standoff is not something from where Pakistan will appear with any cheer. In fact, more likely, it will emerge with much egg on its face.

It is surprising that General Raheel Sharif, Pakistan's strongman gave such unequivocal support to Saudi Arabia during his meeting with visiting Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman on January 12, 2016. Salman is obviously visiting Pakistan in the wake of its worsening relationship with Iran after the execution of the Saudi Shia cleric, Sheikh Nimr el Nimr a fortnight ago. It would be recalled that the minority Saudi Shia community in the oil rich eastern part of Saudi Arabia is increasingly restive after the execution and there has also been emotional outbursts in Tehran. The Grand Ayatollah Al Khamenei has even expressed his desire for retribution for the execution of Nimr el Nimr. Diplomatic relations between the two countries have also been broken off. The Saudi Defence Minister's visit is an attempt to test Pakistan's resolve to come to its assistance after the experience of the war in Yemen in which Pakistan refused to provide ground troops citing its own internal security problems. A visit by the Saudi Foreign Minister preceded Salman reinforcing the above assessment. It is reported that General Raheel Sharif while responding to the visitor stated that "…. any threat to Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity would evoke a strong response from Pakistan."



Going as far as that is fine because Saudi Arabia has indirectly bankrolled much of Pakistan's defence capability and in fact even its nuclear program in return for two things; first the cooperation to allow growth of Saudi Salafi ideology within Pakistan; and second secure an assurance of Pakistani support in the event of a major threat to its security. In the eighties through to part of the mid-nineties, Pakistan placed an infantry brigade at the disposal of the royal family for its own protection. However, at the launch of the war in Yemen in 2015 Pakistan refused to become a part of the 35 country coalition led by the Saudis leading to some tensions.

In the wake of the above background it is indeed surprising that General Raheel Sharif has chosen to use strong words in support of the Saudis including a statement which purportedly states that Pakistan would "wipe Iran off the map" ostensibly if it threatened Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons. Can Pakistan afford to make such a strong statement and if so is it at the behest of external powers or its own convictions. Pakistan has a 15 percent Shia minority which has been at the receiving end of much violence from Pakistan's Sunni radical groups, the Lashkar e Jhangvi being the leading one. Gen Sharif, in fact, was at the forefront of action against these groups and others creating mayhem in Pakistan's port city, Karachi and much of Punjab leading to the killing of the LeJ leader.

The Shia communities anywhere in the world have a natural affinity towards Iran, being persecuted minority in most Sunni dominated states. The Shias are known for their propensity towards self-sacrifice taking great motivation from the iconic battle of Karbala. If driven against the wall in Pakistan they could add another serious dimension to the already exasperating internal security situation. Iran may not have been a compulsive Pakistan supporter but it surely has never opposed Pakistan on the politico-strategic front except in the situation against the Taliban where it supported the nine party Alliance in Afghanistan. It has a border with Pakistan all along the restive Baluchistan province with some common spillover of the ethnic population. In conflicts with India it is known to have sided with Pakistan although not passionately. Gen Raheel has to realize that Iran has great potential to create problems for Pakistan both in Baluchistan and on the sectarian front. Pakistan should well understand its vulnerability given the fact that without any such intent on the part of Iran, it (Pakistan) is already in the throes of a strangulating internal security situation. On the other flank exists India which too has held back and never exploited Pakistan's fault lines amidst many demands that it should pay back Pakistan for all the mischief that the latter has sponsored in India's J&K and elsewhere in the country.

Pakistan's military leadership, both serving and veteran, has a serious problem with motor mouths. At the drop of a hat Parvez Musharaf reminds India about nuclear weapons as if a nuclear asymmetry exists in the subcontinent. Their latest charade is the supposed newly acquired capability of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) which they mention often, dropping the term at will to send home some kind of a message to India's leadership. Iran is not exactly bereft of nuclear weapon capability. In the world of international military posturing latent and undercover nuclear capability must be taken for granted. India did that right through the eighties and most of the nineties in relation to Pakistan. To be flanked by a declared nuclear weapon state on one side and a potentially nuclear capable undercover nuclear state on the other isn't exactly a good idea if you have bad relations with both. I would have given General Raheel Sharif much more competence than he has displayed through his indiscrete statement. He belies his strategic background of having been a member of the Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) program which always lays emphasis on security, stability and prosperity as its doctrine.

Perhaps it was a mis-reportage in which case it will be denied soon. Be it as it may, the salvo has been fired and it won't do much to keep Pakistan out of the growing Iran-Saudi standoff, a situation in which it had the potential of playing a far more positive role. Probably, its a long aspired dream of being the flag bearer of the Islamic world would have received an impetus if it was seen to be neutral. That was expected after the very bold stance taken during the Saudi led alliance's launch of war in Yemen against Houthis who are purportedly supported by Iran. In a stroke General Sharif has lost that advantage and got Pakistan unnecessarily involved in an emerging situation in which it cannot come out the winner.

Is this combined US-Saudi pressure which is manifesting? Unlikely, because the US itself is drawing towards rapprochement with Iran, after the Nuclear Deal. It is also seen to be distancing itself from Saudi Arabia and keeping a neutral stance. The Russians who are seen to be getting closer to Pakistan aren't going to be too happy with threats to its ally, Iran. The Russia-Iran equation appears to be playing its role in stabilizing the Middle East in as much as the control over Daesh is concerned.

This is Pakistan's peculiar problem; running foreign policy both from Islamabad and Rawalpindi. It has its fallout on the other flank too where the peace process with India would have acquired maturing proportions but for Rawalpindi's hesitation to allow it to run the course. The Pakistan Army, perceived as villain of the peace, needs a course correction in the ham handed way it is running the affairs of the state. It can only take Pakistan down the path to the oblivion that awaits it. The more its leadership talks of its nuclear weapons as weapons of war fighting the more will it misread the opportunities that wait, on both flanks

Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain's Blog : Maverick Pakistan: Army leading it to oblivion

This guy is certified idiot - No idea how he became Lt.Gen.
 
.
and what are your views on the article @Zarvan ?

Spot on! Pakistan has got itself stuck between a rock and a hard place in its pursuit of its long aspired dream of being the flag bearer of the Islamic world by trying to broker 'peace' between the Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. The gulf is too wide to bridge and the twain shall never meet.

This guy fell off his chair and reality. But then again, his piece was written in Jan 13, days before the IAEA agreed Iran is doing it's part of the Nuclear Deal.

But how does that impact you from a foreign policy stand point when you yourself have 15% Shia population who covertly pursue Iran nationalism, Russia which is finding a new partner with Pakistan also a very close ally of Iran, and a neighbour who never actually did any harm to Pakistan's interests, something that the author seems to stress upon?

India has more Muslims in it's population, you should make sure they are loyal to the State.

In short pakistan is caught between rock & the sea.

Pakistan has positioned itself so that both nations know a proxy war will not be tolerated in Pakistan.

The Pakistani mentality is that after a fire in the neighboring houses, it takes pride in being around the people(great powers) dousing it. And then being foolish enough to think that this is called 'being important'.

US-China relations were ignited by Pakistan. Being in a position to help nations pursue peace is good.
 
.
The only thing this article shows is the total lack of knowledge and strategic thinking especially as it pertains to the Middle East in the Indian general staff plus the extremely poor English language skills for a Shia Indian general who takes pride in going to Christian missionary schools. Total lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty, an Indian Uncle Tom. Enough said.
 
.
Yeah, pakistan will broker peace between iran and saudi arabia :lol::lol:.
Middle east will continue to bleed till one side emerges the winner.
 
.
US-China relations were ignited by Pakistan. Being in a position to help nations pursue peace is good.
Yes, but this is not a case of rapprochement. Its a case of bringing great powers together to stabilize Afghanistan and trying to bring them together for middle east.

A large majority of Pakistanis think that this is some sort of an eminent position. That of helping the fire fighters after helping fuel the fire.

India on the other hand would hate to have a neighbour like Afghanistan in the first place. We would prevent a neighbour from becoming Afghanistan in the first place.

A similar example - Myanmar -we defied international sanctions. billions of dollars are being poured in by India and India got Myanmar rapprochement with US and other powers - for a single goal - we want a developing Myanmar to develop North East India. If Myanmar burns, our North East and Bangladesh will burn right along with it.
 
.
India has more Muslims in it's population, you should make sure they are loyal to the State.

I am sure you didn't read what I wanted to highlight.

1. Where is the question here ? Didn't get your point.
2. I think the answer to this i have already given in the post you quoted. There is no real chance of Iran Vs Saudi direct confrontation. It will be through proxy wars, which we are already seeing. In foreseeable future, Saudi territorial integrity is gonna be threatened by either Houtis or ISIS. And Houtis don't seem to be a real danger so far, yeah if ISIS reaches their border then may be they are a danger which threatens Saudi territorial integrity. In that case, chances are there that we are gonna have to send forces to help protect Saudi interests. Thus i don't think there is any need to bring in Russia or Pak Shia population to this discussion.

I was talking in terms of foreign policy stand point. However I can see what you wrote, you are merely saying that Pakistan's position is not clear until there is no territorial threat to Saudi Arabia.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom