Miscellaneous

Published November 19, 2004

COLIN Powell departs leading to muted expressions of sorrow in parts of Pakistan’s military establishment. For, remember, it was Powell who helped wrench the military government from the dark jihadi ages to the shining paths of “enlightened moderation”. His famous telephone call, soon after the toppling of the Twin Towers, made this possible.

Indeed, Powell would speak of this telephone call and the “strategic” shift it helped bring about in Pakistani policy as if this was one of his biggest achievements as US secretary of state. Army House will miss him as indeed it will miss the departure of that other military hero, an ex-Navy Seal no less, Richard Armitage, who was given to playing the role of “strategic” facilitator — sorry, no escaping this adjective where military affairs are concerned — and fire fighter between India and Pakistan.

Rather sobering to note that the present peace efforts between the two countries owe less to their collective wisdom than to American ‘facilitation’, Armitage perhaps the busiest facilitator of them all. You bet he’ll miss Delhi and Islamabad because of the importance he enjoyed in both capitals. On the rare occasions when India and Pakistan grope their way towards a semblance of common sense, outsiders (preferably American) have to help them along the way.

And India wants to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Wonder what Armitage’s thoughts would be on this subject.

President General Pervez Musharraf (who made himself president by easing out Rafiq Tarar from the presidency a few days before setting out for India) was greatly taken by Jaswant Singh during the Agra summit. Even after the summit was torpedoed, thanks largely to the sideline efforts of L. K. Advani and colleagues, Musharraf continued to speak of the Indian foreign minister as Jaswant Singh ‘sahib’ out of respect.

In the light of this it is perhaps instructive to get an insight into Jaswant Singh’s real opinion of Pakistan. Strobe Talbott, Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, in his recent book, ‘Engaging India’, quotes him thus: “...Pakistan had never really been a cohesive nation or a viable state and never would be; it was ‘an artificial construct, structured out of hate, a stepchild of Uttar Pradesh’....the ‘avatar’ of all that was intolerant, aggressive, and terrorizing about radical Islam.” Pretty strong stuff by any reckoning, and Jaswant was supposed to be a moderate in the BJP’s galaxy of hardline warriors.

Another priceless observation that Talbott quotes: “India, by contrast, was the avatar of all that was benign, inclusive, and tolerant in Hinduism — and Hindutva...” an opinion the Muslim population of Indian Gujarat, where over 2,000 Muslims were massacred two years ago, might not wholly share.

Even if one looks for it, there isn’t much hate-India talk in Pakistan these days. Not even in the pages of the certified patriotic press, whose staple once-upon-a-time used to be India-bashing. But to read views like those of Jaswant Singh’s really sets you thinking about what responsible Indians, in their heart of hearts, think of Pakistan. Before India and Pakistan can start looking at each other differently, they have to get rid of these mythologies, and the reading of history based upon them, which far from promoting anything good, only sustain ancient hatreds and stereotypes.

Former Prime Minister Vajpayee, much admired in certain Pakistani circles, could be an unsettling person too, at times waxing eloquent about peace, at other times finding it hard not to display the colours of an unreconstructed Hindu chauvinist. (Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is from Chakwal which, I suppose, should make a difference.)

Pakistan has come a long way on its march to maturity, the absurdities and self-inflicted injuries of military rule notwithstanding. As opposed to the straitjacketed conformism of earlier years, discourse in Pakistan is quite unfettered, often touching areas that would have been dangerous to enter or cross not long ago. In this new situation no holy cows remain, not even the army or the ISI, and no sacrosanct subjects, not even the country’s Kashmir policy.

By contrast, discussion in India about fundamental issues of foreign policy is relatively hidebound and restricted, seldom arriving at positions not sanctioned by the establishment.

It is not rare these days to come across Pakistani writers who say ‘forget Kashmir’. There are others of course whose views are radically different. But at least some kind of a debate is on. Is something similar visible in India? How many Indian writers are there who would be talking of human rights violations in Kashmir? Or who would question the wisdom of India’s Kashmir policy? After all, a policy resulting in so much killing and destruction can’t be all right? But how many voices in India which go beyond the mantra of “cross-border terrorism”? The element of self-criticism in Pakistan is much greater and more noticeable than in India.

Pakistan-bashers invoking the spectre of an unstable country cite criticism pouring forth from Pakistani lips or pens in support of their thesis. In other words, Pakistani glasnost cited as proof of Pakistani instability which, come to think of it, is strange because one would have thought that glasnost was a sign of strength not weakness.

A thin line, it is true, separates self-criticism from self-loathing, something to which large sections of the Pakistani chattering classes are addicted. But looked at in context, this tendency is a reaction to just one thing: military rule and other manifestations of authoritarianism. Thinking or newspaper-reading Pakistanis, who for the most part are passionately interested in politics, feel strongly that their country deserves better than repeated lapses into military rule, that Pakistan has everything required to be as good or bad a democracy as any other country.

When this deeply-cherished desire is thwarted by successive figures in uniform, strutting baton in hand across the national stage, proclaiming their mission to save the country from ruin, collapse and near meltdown, it is only natural for Pakistanis to feel revolted at all this posturing and charlatanry. Outsiders may call this belittling your own country. But Pakistanis probably feel differently, dimly aware that the very morbidity of their corrosive anger masks a desperate desire for their country to do better.

Pakistanis are not anti-American, not by a long shot. They just don’t want their country to be seen as an appendage or lackey of the United States. While not entertaining any exaggerated idea of their country’s importance, they want it to conduct itself with dignity on the international stage. Is this asking for too much?

Pakistanis are not anti-Musharraf. They are just anti-military rule and anti-the-self-serving humbug which invariably accompanies military rule. And while they may not think very highly of the performance or achievement of leaders such as Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif, they have lost patience with the Musharraf order’s attempts to use the shortcomings of these leaders as excuses to subvert democracy on a permanent basis.

In any event, what’s the alternative to these leaders crafted in the last five years? Another saga in political ineptitude written by the latest in a long line of king’s parties, the Q League? The Q League would sink the world’s strongest fleet. If it is doing its bit to sink national morale, it shouldn’t be surprising.

Consider also the double standards enforced on players whose hands and motives are less than clean. If the gratuitous assault on Pakistani nationhood launched in Delhi by the MQM’s Altaf Hussein had come from anyone else — Wali Khan, Akbar Bugti, Attaullah Mengal, etc — the mills of official propaganda, purveying the official truth, would have worked overtime, creating a mighty din, and spreading the sounds of outraged patriotism across the land. But since the statesman launching this assault stands in the very forefront of military supporters, not a squeak or whimper of even half-hearted protest has come from any official quarter, the entire machinery of government reduced to the silence of the lambs.

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.