|
|
Pakistan- The Core Issue
-
The core issue of instability and violence
in South Asia is the character, activities and persistence of
the militarized Islamist-fundamentalist state in Pakistan, and
no cure for this canker can be arrived at through any strategy
of negotiations, support and financial aid to the military regime,
or by a ‘calibrated’ transition to ‘democracy’.
-
Footprints of Terror: The ‘footprint’
of every major act of international Islamist terrorism invariably
passes through Pakistan, right from 9/11 – where virtually all
the participants had trained, resided or met in, coordinated
with, or received funding from or through Pakistan – to major
acts of terrorism across South Asia and South East Asia, as
well as major networks of terror that have been discovered in
Europe.
-
The State as Suicide Bomber: Pakistan
has harvested an enormous price for its supposed ‘cooperation’
with the US, and in this it has combined deception and blackmail
– including nuclear blackmail – to secure a continuous stream
of concessions. Its conduct is little different from that of
North Korea, which has in the past chosen the pathway of nuclear
escalation to secure incremental aid from Western donors. A
pattern of sustained nuclear blackmail has consistently been
at the heart of Pakistan’s case for concessions, aid and a heightened
threshold of international tolerance for its sponsorship and
support to Islamist terrorism. To understand how this works,
it is useful to conceive of Pakistan as a state acting as a
suicide bomber, arguing that, if it does not receive the extraordinary
dispensations and indulgences that it seeks, it will, in effect
‘implode’, and in the process do extraordinary harm to others.
Part of the threat of this ‘implosion’ is also the specter of
the transfer of its nuclear arsenal and capabilities to more
intransigent and irrational elements of the Islamist far right
in Pakistan, who would not be amenable to the logic that its
present rulers – whose interests in terrorism are strategic,
and consequently, subject to considerations of strategic advantage
– are willing to heed. This is the bluff that the Musharraf
dictatorship has confronted the world with, and it has allowed
the General to dismiss an elected government; to rig elections;
to continue supporting the operation of terrorist groups from,
and the existence of their infrastructure on, Pakistani soil;
and despite all this, to secure massive financial and political
rewards, instead of the natural penalties that should have attached
to such criminality of conduct.
-
As is the case with North Korea, Pakistan’s
possession of nuclear weapons pushes the world’s ‘threshold
of tolerance’ much higher than would be the case in dealing
with a non-nuclear entity. It is not possible to deal with
a nuclearized Pakistan on the same terms as a non-nuclear
Afghanistan or Iraq. Pakistan is aware of its power, and has
not hesitated to use it to extract maximal concessions. Even
though it does not have capabilities of directly threatening
US interests, it can use patterns of ‘lateral deterrence’,
threatening to use its arsenal against other states friendly
to the US.
-
It is crucial to note in this context that,
if the Islamist terrorist groups gain access to nuclear devices,
Pakistan will almost certainly be the source. In October 2002,
after the US had discovered clinching evidence of contacts
between bin Laden and two prominent Pakistani nuclear scientists,
Pakistan had been forced to arrest these scientists – Sultan
Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majid. According to American
sources, a third Pakistani nuclear scientist had tried to
negotiate the sale of an atomic weapon design to Libya. Eventually,
however, Pakistan simply decided not to press criminal charges
against any of these scientists. At least another six Pakistani
scientists connected with the country’s nuclear programme
were in contact with Al Qaeda and bin Laden.
-
Pakistan has projected the electoral victory
of the fundamentalist and pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qaeda Muttahida
Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in the November elections as ‘proof’ that
the military is the only ‘bulwark’ against the country passing
into the hands of the extremists. The fact, however, is that
the elections were widely rigged, and this was a fact acknowledged
by the European Union observers, as well as by some of the
MMA’s constituents themselves. The MMA victory was, in fact,
substantially engineered by the Musharraf regime, as are the
various anti-US ‘mass demonstrations’ around the country.
-
Nevertheless, whenever there has been sufficient
international – and particularly US – pressure on Pakistan
to act against this lobby, Pakistan has reluctantly cooperated,
with no significant demonstrations of ‘public anger’ from
the extremist lobby. In the process, the Musharraf regime,
after taking some initial and token action against various
Islamist extremist groups in the country – including the Jaish-e-Mohammed,
the Lashkar-e-Toiba, and the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, all of
which are on the US list of international terrorist organisations
– now allows each of these to function with complete freedom,
albeit under changed names, though under the same leadership.
-
The ‘Other Face’ of Pakistan’s ‘Moderate’ Dictatorship: Pakistan has made a big case out of the fact
that some of the top line leadership of the Al Qaeda has been
arrested in the country with the ‘cooperation’ of the Pakistani
security forces and intelligence. The fact, however, is that
each such arrest only took place after the FBI and US investigators
had effectively gathered evidence to force Pakistani cooperation,
and little of this evidence has come from the Pakistani agencies.
Indeed, Pakistani agencies have consistently sought to deny
the presence of Al Qaeda elements in their country, and to mislead
US investigators to the extent possible. This deception has
been at the very highest level, and Musharraf himself, for instance,
initially insisted that he was ‘certain’ that bin Laden was
dead. When the bin Laden tapes began to surface – and most of
these, again, leave behind a trail that comes from Pakistan
– he insisted that, though bin Laden may be alive, he was certainly
not in Pakistan. He has also repeatedly stated that there are
no Al Qaeda elements in Pakistan. Pakistan’s cooperation in
the various arrests that have been made is, without any measure
of doubt, coerced.
-
It is notable that the arrests of several
senior Al Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad
and Yasir al Jaziri were not from localities in the madrassa (seminary) dominated poorer quarters, but from some of the
best quarters of Karachi and Islamabad – localities, moreover,
dominated by military officers and government servants. A
serving major was also implicated in colluding to provide
shelter to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. The fact is, significant
factions of the Pakistani Army and the Inter Services Intelligence
– with the backing of various Pakistani terrorist groups that
they were instrumental in creating and sustaining – have been
actively facilitating the relocation of the Al Qaeda from
Afghanistan to Pakistan. While incontrovertible evidence of
Musharraf’s personal complicity is not available, or, indeed,
possible, the collusion of substantial segments of serving
Army and intelligence officers is visible.
-
The idea that the Pakistan problem can be ‘solved’ by liberal ‘developmental’ financing by the international
community is a myth. Each dollar of ‘development aid’ or ‘financial
relief’ to Pakistan releases a dollar of domestic resources
for further militarization, radicalization and extremist religious
mobilization. The problem lies at the very foundation of the
Pakistani state and the ‘two nation theory’ that led to its
creation: the theory that people of different religious communities
cannot coexist. This has become the central pillar of the
edifice of the military-feudal-fundamentalist combine that
has ruled Pakistan for the last 56 years. The problem of religious
extremism and terrorism in Pakistan can only be resolved through
the ‘deconstruction’ of this Pakistani state, and by dis-empowering
this combination of forces through a fundamental ‘regime change’ that goes well beyond a change of leadership, and comprehends
a change of ideology and systems of governance. Pakistan will
have to be disarmed, denuclearised and democratised if it
is to be saved from the extremist forces that currently threaten
to consume it.
-
Kashmir – An Ideological Conflict: Pakistan
has consistently projected Kashmir as the ‘core issue’ of conflict
in South Asia. The fact, however, is that the conflict in South
Asia cannot be resolved within Kashmir, through any of the projected
solutions of communal bifurcation or partition along religious
lines. Such ‘partition’ would, in fact, validate Pakistan’s
underlying ideology of religious ‘ghettoisation’, and would
be only one stage in the process that can consistently end only
with the ‘liberation’ of all of India’s 150 million Muslim’s
from the ‘oppression’ of the unbelievers. Indeed, within the
pan-Islamist ideology, such a possible outcome would only be
a prelude to the wider jehad to bring the entire world
of ‘unbelievers’ within the fold of Islam. The fact is, the
confrontation between India and Pakistan is not about territory
– in Kashmir or elsewhere. It is an irreducible ideological
confrontation between a pluralist secular democracy, on the
one hand, and a religious fundamentalist, intolerant and exclusionary
ideology, on the other, that denies not only rights, but also
basic humanity, to those who do not submit to its belief system.
The Cold War hostility between the US and the Soviet Union provides
an analogy to this pattern of ideological confrontation: once
the ideology that sustained the Soviet Union was abandoned,
the animus between the two peoples dissolved; while the ideology
controlled the centers of Russian power, there was no possibility
of settlement between the two countries. So, indeed, is it between
India and Pakistan.
-
Any ceding of territories in Kashmir
to Pakistan, or the creation of a separate Muslim majority
state or quasi-state entity would create a vast and uninterrupted
area of potential instability and Islamist extremist mobilization
extending from West Asia through Central Asia and across
Afghanistan and Pakistan into Kashmir. A very substantial
proportion of this region, especially extending through
the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas, the Northern Areas
of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, and much of any such territories
that may be separated from the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir, comprise harsh, inhospitable and poorly policed
terrain, which would provide an ideal safe haven for Islamist
extremists and terrorists.
-
India has long been fighting the world’s
battle against Islamist extremist expansionism, and remains
a bulwark against this movement in Jammu & Kashmir.
-
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) & the
Northern Areas: Populations in the areas illegally occupied
by Pakistan have never been granted civil, political or human
rights by Pakistan, and remain economically backward and severely
deprived even by Pakistani standards. The Northern Areas, particularly,
have been separated from the rest of PoK and are not even given
limited protection under the Pakistani Constitution. The Shia
population who constitute a majority in the Northern Areas has
been subjected to repeated and genocidal campaigns of repression – at least one of which was led by General (then Brigadier)
Pervez Musharraf himself.
-
Democracy: The effort to orchestrate
a transition to democracy through a controlled military regime
is fundamentally flawed, and has, in fact, immensely weakened
democratic and secular forces in Pakistan, even as it has further
entrenched the military-jehadi-feudal combine of revanchist
forces in the country.
|
|