archive: Why is Pakistan a failed state?
Why is Pakistan a failed state?
P M Kamath
The Observer
July 2, 1999
Title: Why is Pakistan a failed state?
Author: P M Kamath
Publication: The Observer
Date: July 2, 1999
A single obsession of acquiring Kashmir has made Pakistan - an Islamic
state - a treacherous, anarchic and failed state at least in its
relations with India. What justifies this? Its record of treachery
in its relations with India alone is enough to earn Pakistan the
description.
Sharif found a matching dreamer in the Indian PM, Vajpayee, who said
in Lahore: 'As we break bread together, a new century and a new
millennium knocks (sic) on our door. On one side there is pride and
on the other regret - regret because even after 50 years, we have not
liberated ourselves from the curse of poverty and unemployment.'
However, since treachery is deep-rooted in the psyche of the Pakistani
ruling establishment. Pakistan planned back-stabbing right at the
very moment Sharif was talking of peace. Only some of the recent
specimens of treacherous behaviour of Pakistan can be discussed here.
First, Sharif invited the Indian PM to visit Lahore. Vajpayee went by
bus on February 19. According to press reports, minutes before the
arrival of Vajpayee at Wagah, Sharif walked up to the zero line, bowed
down to touch the Indian soil and asked Border Security Force jawans:
'I have opened my door. You may also open your gates.'
At the same time, his regular army jawans were secretly breaking all
norms of international behaviour to breach the line of control (LoC)
in Kargil to capture more territory in Jammu & Kashmir. When their
army regulars with a sprinkling of Afghan mujahideens were caught on
May 6 marching through forcibly opened gates, Nawaz Sharif hailed them
as 'freedom fighters' when he said: 'The people fighting against the
Indian army in the valley are neither militants nor infiltrators but
freedom fighters.'
Secondly, Jaswant Singh was preparing the ground for at least a
discussion on turning LoC into an international border when he said:
'After fifty years, I feet the time for map-making in the region is
over.' It was also in tune with Indira Gandhi-Zulfiqar Bhutto
understanding wherein they had agreed to eventually turn LoC into the
international border. Thus, Jaswant Singh's statement can be
interpreted as almost stating 'let us turn status quo on the borders
into permanent international boundary.'
But Pakistan was preparing to alter LoC In Kargil sector and trying to
produce new maps, despite the fact that the top army brass of two
sides had In 1972 determined the LoC by signing the maps! The
Pakistanis cannot even make the argument that these demarcations wore
made by an imperial power unilaterally as China has been stating of
the Macmohan line.
This is not, however, the first time that Pakistanis were cheating.
In 1947, it sent regular soldiers as tribals; in 1965 too Pakistan
sent its soldiers as 'freedom fighters' to arouse local unrest against
India, but failed. However, its repetition even in 1999 after
acquiring the status of a nuclear power has shocked many. Why?
Vajpayee had gone to the extent of visiting Minar-e-Pakistan built on
the spot where Pakistan resolution was adopted. This should have been
particularly reassuring to Pakistan.
Another attribute of the Pakistani state is its anarchic character.
This is demonstrated in a variety of ways. But two instances are
sufficient to make the point.
In a sheer anarchic mode, Pakistani army spokesman Brigadier Rashid
Qureshi told The Los Angeles Times: 'if we me the Indians, we see
them. If they am us, they shoot us,' as though there is no clearly
demarcated LoC which was not c by the Pakistanis.
Second, their attitude to human rights, particularly in relation to
adversaries, is appalling. The manner in which Pakistani soldiers
shot deed Sqdn Leader Ajay Ahuja within Indian territory, after he had
boded out from his M-17 helicopter, is in total contravention of ail
international conventions aimed at making war more humane. This makes
the point very clear.
Much more inhuman is the manner in which six captured soldiers were
physically tortured and later killed by the Pakistani army. The
bodies which were returned by Pakistan did not even have some of their
vital parts. This contrasts with India handing over 95,000 Pakistani
POWs after the Bangladesh war of 1971. Now, anarchic behaviour may be
attributed to the fact that the army in Pakistan deter-mines core
issues of national security, often without any involvement of
political leadership.
The editor of Friday Times (Lahore), Najam Sethi, suffered physical
and mental torture for over three weeks for saying in New Delhi that
Pakistan is a failed state. He was arrested by the Pakistani
government's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). From the ruling
elite's viewpoint, how could Sethi say it, in New Delhi at that?
Pakistani high commissioner in India, Asraf Jehangir Qazi, said in his
report to his government: 'My own view is that Najam Sethi's attempt
to pose a heroic liberal fighting against corruption and tyranny by
portraying his country as irrational, contradictory, corrupt, unstable
and dangerous entity and that too In India of all pieces is an act of
contempt against Pakistan amounting to most contemptible treachery.'
However, Najam Sethi had described Pakistan as a failed state in
economic terms. And therein lies the cost of the present military
operations to Pakistan as well as to India. In the aftermath of
economic sanctions imposed by the US, Pakistan was about to fail in
its International payments obligations. But the IMF monetary package
helped Pakistan to overcome the difficulties. But will Uncle Sam help
Pakistan once again to avoid the title of a failed state?
Back
Top
|
