Author: Ayaz Amir
Publication: Dawn
Date: January 3, 2003
URL: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm
"We have defeated our enemy without
going to war." -General Pervez Musharraf Pakistan's leader has pointed
the way to the future. This is the way to fight all Indo-Pak wars: bluster
and posturing followed by a declaration of victory. War colleges on both
sides should take note of this.
Were India and Pakistan close to
war last spring or summer? I don't think so but that's beside the point.
India made a big show of being ready for war. Gen Musharraf was sufficiently
impressed by the Indian build-up to announce a crackdown on extremist parties
and declare a chocolate war on seminaries (madressahs) imparting religious
instruction.
It was that and American pressure.
The United States wanted Musharraf to address Indian concerns about 'cross-border
infiltration' which in a manner of speaking he did. Training camps being
run by some of the jihadi parties were shifted or closed. When the Godhra
incident took place followed by the Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, Pakistan
made no great noise about it. Which was all in line with the prudence and
caution Pakistan seemed to have adopted last summer.
The danger having passed, Gen Musharraf
is back to talking tough. Which I suppose makes sense because every commander
is entitled to claim victory in a 'phoney war' (the name given to the comparative
period of inaction during the Second World War between the attack on Poland
and the invasion of Norway).
Indo-Pak wars haven't been particularly
bloody. In fact, all in all, they have been tame, gentlemanly affairs with
the civilian population on both sides getting away relatively unscathed.
Compare this to the insanity of the two world wars of the last century
and something can be said in praise of subcontinental civilization.
Even so, both countries have gone
to war thrice. Four times if we count Kargil. And they are forever rattling
their sabres, now no child's play as both countries have graduated to the
status of nuclear 'powers'. Better then to fight phoney wars and claim
victory than actually to start shooting in anger. Gen Musharraf must therefore
be complimented on his latest analysis. The Indians can take a leaf out
of his book and also claim phantom victories. No better way to work towards
a more civilized relationship.
Swaggering and posturing are natural
subcontinental poses and come readily to our ruling castes. Many Indian
politicians are field marshals in civvies. Probably something to do with
our backwardness. When everyday problems are difficult to solve, the next
best thing is to froth at the mouth and brandish a fist at imaginary enemies.
Jingoism comes easily to imperial powers, which we are not, and to the
intellectually handicapped, which perhaps we are. There's no harm done
so long as this swaggering remains a theatrical pose and nothing more.
But it is serious business when
underpinned by a real commitment to arms. India has a larger economic base
but still spends too much on guns. We as a proportion of GDP spend more
than India. The subcontinent's problem is butter. Not having enough of
it. Not guns. For the vast majority of its people, life is about survival,
about the basic facts of existence: food, shelter, clothing. Even education
and health are luxuries for much of South Asia.
All the more surprising then if
we are still locked in a dialectic which sees the other side as the 'enemy'.
We have a troubled relationship with India - primarily because of an absence
of statesmanship on both sides - and a dispute with it over the status
of Kashmir. But how does this make us enemies, sworn to destroy or kill
each other?
That India is not reconciled to
the existence of Pakistan is a tenet whose day is done. Even the leading
guardians of the 'ideology of Pakistan' blush a little while mentioning
it. Similarly, the sun has set on the belief cherished once upon a time
by many Pakistanis that Pakistan could settle scores with India on the
battlefield and that one Muslim was equal to ten Hindus.
We live in altogether more realistic
times. Why then cling to some of the old rhetoric? Other countries have
disputes too. But they don't speak of each other as enemies, a word redolent
of tribal or Mafia vendettas. Maybe, a civilized relationship with India
is still far away but we could consider opting for a healthier discourse.
Which is not to say we should lower our guard, spike our guns or mothball
our Agosta submarines. Only this that it is far better to talk softly and
be tough within than talk loudly and then break down the moment our arms
are twisted. Which seems to be the custom with us.
India and Pakistan will remain rivals
for a long time to come. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it
is positively healthy provided we know what to be rivals about. We should
be competing with India in things like culture, music, films (yes, films),
science, technology and industry.
And trade. Across the world 'Made
in Pakistan' should be a more attractive label than 'Made in India'. But
if Pakistan remains famous only for its begging bowl and its terrorism-friendly
image (the curse of Ziaul Haq), what enemy can we claim to defeat by our
superior strategy? If Indian secularism is fraying at the edges and the
forces of communalism in the shape of the BJP are on the march, far from
being dismayed by this development (what reason to be dismayed?) we should
look upon it as an opportunity. We can look better in comparison.
The more India slides into a vortex
of hate and fanaticism the harder we should strive to turn Pakistan into
a temple of tolerance and democracy and the economic powerhouse of South
Asia. That's the way to win victories, by being superior in the offices
of civilization. But if to fanatics and idiots in yellow our only answer
is fanatics and idiots in green, (saffronization vs mullaization) no point
in sticking to the idea of playing St George to India's dragon.
Turning Pakistan into any temple
of light is, however, easier said than done. After watching Pakistan's
political games for close to 30 years I am convinced that rationality,
reason and democracy cannot triumph in this country as long as the army
remains committed to a hard line vis-a- vis India. It is this hard line,
buttressed by the spectre of India as the 'enemy', which justifies the
sacrifice of national resources at the altar of national security. This
is a vicious cycle, one thing feeding upon the other, and unless it is
broken Pakistan, in my estimation, will keep going downhill.
This and not abstract goodwill is
the logic of having a civilized relationship with India - one in which
Pakistan bends the knee to no one but merely forsakes the illusions and
false notions which have characterized much of its history. Such a relationship
should not mean abandoning the Kashmiris. But it should mean supporting
their cause in a manner that improves their plight, not worsen it.
Let us beware of another danger.
If by a miracle Kashmir falls into Pakistan's lap tomorrow, the forces
of militarism and fundamentalism in Pakistan will be strengthened, not
anything to do with democracy and tolerance. We have enough fundamentalists
of our own. Can we afford to take in any more?
In any event, at stake is not the
future of Kashmir but that of Pakistan. What direction do we want it to
take? Forward or back? What do we want to make of it? A forward-looking
country or a tinpot semi-dictatorship sinking under its problems?
Musharraf had the opportunity of
changing Pakistan's course and putting it firmly on the path of what I
can only call 'modernism'. But he has squandered it. The baggage of Afghanistan
the Americans helped him to jettison. So it is no thanks to him that we
got rid of the Taliban. In other respects the Pakistani state under him
remains what it was: not democracy-friendly and not at peace with its eastern
neighbour. In some respects it is even worse with the mullas now a power
in the land in a way they never were before.
